EIA report Lalibela1

i

Environmental Impact Assessment Report

For Small-Scale Irrigation Schemes In

Lalibela Food Security Project

Lalibela District, North Wollo Zone,

Amhara National Regional State, Ethiopia

July 2014 Addis Ababa

By Misigana Hidata

Natural Resource Mangment Officer for LWF Goro Project

ii

I. Table of contents I. Table of contents .................................................................................................................................. ii

II. Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................................... iii

III. List of Tables and Figures ................................................................................................................. iv

V. Executive Summery ............................................................................................................................... v

1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... - 1 -

1.1. Objectives of the Study ............................................................................................................. - 2 -

1.2. Project Screening ...................................................................................................................... - 2 -

2. Literature Review .............................................................................................................................. - 3 -

2.1. Policy, Legal and Administrative Framework .......................................................................... - 4 -

3. Methodology and Approaches .......................................................................................................... - 5 -

3.1. Description of the Study Area ................................................................................................... - 5 -

3.2. Baseline Information on Bio-Physical and Socio-Economic Situation ...................................... - 7 -

3.3. Study Design .............................................................................................................................. - 8 -

3.3.1. Sampling Technique .......................................................................................................... - 8 -

3.3.2. Tools for Data Collection ................................................................................................... - 8 -

3.3.3. Data Analysis ..................................................................................................................... - 8 -

4. Result and Discussions ...................................................................................................................... - 9 -

4.1. Environmental Impact Statement ........................................................................................... - 10 -

4.2. Significant Environmental Impacts ......................................................................................... - 11 -

4.3. Environmental Impact Matrix ................................................................................................. - 12 -

4.4. Identified Mitigation Measures .............................................................................................. - 13 -

5. Environmental Management Plan .................................................................................................. - 14 -

6. Environmental Auditing .................................................................................................................. - 15 -

7. Nature of public participation ......................................................................................................... - 17 -

8. Summary and Recommendations ................................................................................................... - 17 -

9. References ...................................................................................................................................... - 19 -

10. Appendix ..................................................................................................................................... - 20 -

iii

II. Acronyms and Abbreviations

• CA: Command Area

• Df: Degree of freedom

• EIA: Environmental Impact Assessment

• LWF/DWS: Lutheran World Federation, Department for World Service

• P: Probability value

• PA: Peasant Association

• SNNP: Southern Nation National People

iv

III. List of Tables and Figures

Table 1 Household and Population Size of the Operation areas ................................................. - 6 -

Table 2 Base line status of Biophysical Environment ................................................................ - 7 -

Table 3 Chi-Square and Probability of Significance .................................................................. - 9 -

Table 4 Significant Environmental Impacts, the Impact Profile ............................................... - 11 -

Table 5 Environmental Impact Matrix ...................................................................................... - 12 -

Table 6 Impact Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................ - 13 -

Table 7 Environmental Management Plan Schedule ................................................................ - 14 -

Table 8 Chi-Square Distribution ............................................................................................... - 20 -

v

V. Executive Summery

This Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) study was set out to investigate the environmental

impact of two small-scale irrigation schemes in Shumsha and Medagie kebeles of Lalibela

Woreda, North Wollo zone Amhara region of Ethiopia. The irrigation schemes are proposed to

serve 130 households for Shumsha and 94 households for Midagie kebele in the command area

of 60 and 21.2 hectares of land respectively.

The EIA study was carried out by team of experts composed of LWF technical staffs and

government experts, together with target communities and Development Agents at field level.

The approaches applied during field data collection consisted of site observation and

measurement, household interviewing and focus group discussions. By the assessment, the

identified major impacts of irrigation development on environmental aspect are verified for their

significance by statistical methods.

The result of the assessment reveals that ground water quality, soil salinity problems, soil

stability, water use conflict, aquatic habitats, and biodiversity aquatic ecosystem and vegetation

covers have significant negative environmental impact, while efficient utilization of domestic

labors, creation of income opportunities, promotion of women economic empowerment, ensuring

household food security and improving nutrition are the major positive impacts of irrigation

development in Shumsha and Medagie kebeles. The Environmental Impact Matrix analysis also

indicates there was no non reversible impact identified and all negative impacts can be mitigated

by proper irrigation water and environmental management activities.

Finally, the study recommends that proper use of irrigation water, promoting organic farming,

catchment treatment and water scheduling, maintaining permissible flow in natural water way

and clear demarcation of command area and construction of appropriate drainage facilities as a

mitigation measures for every significant environmental impact to happen as result of irrigation

development in the target areas. Further, the study indicates the monitoring mechanisms and

indicators to be mentored at every stage of the project activities.

- 1 -

1. Introduction

Environmental Impact Assessment is an instrument to forecast and consider both positive and

negative environmental and social consequences of a proposed development project. It is a tool

by which possible benefits of a project is analyzed and considered by full involvement of all

project stakeholders, in this case includes LWF, government line offices and local communities.

It is also by which significant impacts of the project is analyzed and mitigation measures

proposed; so that harmful and the potential harmful impacts of the project will be mitigated or

avoided.

The Lutheran World Federation Department for World Service (LWF/DWS) is an international

humanitarian and development organization that is currently addressing development issues in

various parts of Ethiopia has designed a three years Food Security Project to be implemented in

three kebeles of Lalibela Woreda, North wollo Zone in Amahara National Regional State. The

planned interventions through this project aim to address key challenges of the target community

and ultimately achieve food security among the target communities in Lalibela Woreda. Among

the key proposed activities include construction of two small scale irrigation schemes at

Shumsha and Medagie kebeles. The irrigation scheme at Shumsha kebele is proposed to irrigate

60 hectares of land and expected to benefit approximately 130 households in irrigated crop

production in the command area, whereas the proposed scheme in the Medagie is capable to

irrigate 21.2 hectares of land and benefits more than 94 households in the command area.

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is an integral part of the project assessment process in

order to learn what potential impact the irrigation construction will have on the environment

including the bio-diversity of the area and also to suggest the mitigation measures. Considering

this, EIA study was conducted in two small-scale irrigation schemes in July 2014. The

assessment was carried out by a team of experts composed of 4 LWF technical staffs (one

environmental officer, one agriculturalist, one surveyor and one irrigation engineer) and two

government/district experts, one from District Office of Environmental Protection and Land

Administration (DOEPLA) and the other from Office of Agriculture and Rural Development

(DOARD), together with target beneficiaries and Development Agents at field level.

- 2 -

Finally, the study team produce this EIA report consists of the following main sections; begins

with executive summery that briefly elaborates information about the assessment and highlight

the main findings and recommendations; it then presents the introduction, which focuses mainly

on the objectives and nature of the assessment; and provides review of different literatures on

EIA standards and pre-findings relevant to the major theme of the assessment; and then it

describes methodologies not to over rush scientific producers; it then presents results and

discussions of Environmental management plan to mitigate the negative environmental impacts

and lastly provides summary and recommendations upon serious environmental issues that

requires a especial attention by the project proponents.

1.1. Objectives of the Study

• To insure sustainable management of natural resources by the project target communities

• To protect and enhance quality of all forms of life,

• To assess the project’s environmental positive and negative impacts and provide

mitigation measures for the negative impacts,

• To promote local communities and insure public participation,

1.2. Project Screening

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is the requirement of the country’s environmental

policy, which acknowledges that private and public sector development programs and projects

recognize any environmental impacts early in the planning phase and incorporate their

containment into the development design. Hence, importance of EIA for irrigation project is not

questionable. Accordingly, the LWF/DWS has conducted the EIA for two small-scale irrigation

schemes in Lalibela district as one part of the project assessment process. According to the

Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Environmental Protection Authority (2000); irrigation

projects has been screened for its impacts on downstream users, soil chemical properties, water

quality, change in river morphology, sedimentation, social conflict, vegetation cover and human

health

- 3 -

2. Literature Review

EIA is a management tool for planners and decision makers and complements other project

studies on mitigation of biophysical and socio economic environmental impacts.

Environmental assessment is now accepted as an essential part of development planning and

management. It should become as familiar and important as economic analysis in project

evaluation. EIA provides a unique opportunity to demonstrate ways in which the

environment will be improved as part of the development process. It also predicts the

conflicts and constraints between the proposed projects and its environment. It provides an

opportunity for mitigation measures to be incorporated to minimize problems. It enables

monitoring methods to be established to assess future impacts and provide data on which

managers can take informed decisions to avoid environmental damage (FAO, 1995). Hence, the

LWF/DWS-ET has made this environmental impact assessment to maximize positive impacts

of the irrigation projects in two target kebeles of Lalibela woreda by implementing sustainable

environmental management plan.

Initially EIA was seen by some project promoters as a constraint to development. But this

view has been gradually disappearing. It is now well understood that environment and

development are complementary and interdependent and EIA is a technique for ensuring

that the two are mutually reinforcing. A study carried out by the Environmental

Protection Agencies showed that there were significant changes to projects during the EIA

process, marked improvements in environmental protection measures and net financial benefits,

(Wathern, 1988). So that, Irrigation projects without considering environmental issues costs

much in terms water use conflicts among communities of upper and lower stream, land

degradation by salinity and erosion, soil nutrient depletion if inappropriately regulated by

certain type of vegetables, loss of water quality because of water fragmentation, waterborne

diseases and other social issues.

Environmental assessment is appropriate for both site specific projects and wider programs or

plans covering projects activities over a wide geographic area (Tiffen, 1989). In this document

the term "project" is used for irrigation projects in site specific areas of two kebeles. As this

- 4 -

document is specifically prepared to address irrigation related issues like its drainage,

water use and other environmental issues; it is to be used to carry out environmental

impact management activities with regard to biophysical and socioeconomic issues of both

short and long-term.

Usually the primary costs of irrigation projects are mostly much higher than predicted. This is

because of from the outset, not all the environmental mitigation costs are adequately incurred

together with unforeseen costs. The initial investments will be lost if the complementary

expenditures are not made. This explains why many irrigation projects are constructed at

excessive costs and remained with social conflicts by compromising minimum permissible

water flow in the natural waterways, Debebe. (2010).

This can be a good lesson to LWF/DWS and other organizations to carefully consider financial

and water use economy while constructing the irrigation schemes to enable communities use

the water resources efficiently to improve their livelihood without compromising the minimum

permissible amount of water in the natural water course and determine appropriate command

area that can be managed by the amount of water. Unless and otherwise, water use conflicts

among the water users will cost higher because of an ambitious irrigation design.

2.1. Policy, Legal and Administrative Framework

According to Environmental Proclamation Number, (181/2011); “Environmental Impact

assessment is to be a process which indicates the impact assessment starting from the plan up to

completion during the preparation of development proposals, selecting places, operating,

revising and terminating. Hence, LWF/DWS-ET has made this EIA to address the major

environmental negative impacts of the proposed irrigation projects in close consultation and

collaboration with government line offices and target communities.

Increasingly, at the national level, environmental policies are being introduced, perhaps

including a National Environmental Action Plan or National Plan for Sustainable

Development. Such policies are often supported by legislation. Government policies in

- 5 -

areas such as water, land distribution and food production, especially if supported by

legislation, are likely to be highly significant for irrigation and drainage projects. Hence, this

EIA outline the policy environment relevant to the study. Results are also easily understood

and interpreted in the light of prevailing policies.

According FAO, (2000/53); Policies and regulations are sometimes conflicting and may

contribute to degradation. Assessments could be within the scope of EIA to highlight

such conflicts and detail their consequences in relation to the irrigation and drainage

proposal under study. An example of conflicting policies would be an agricultural policy to

promote agrochemicals to increase production and an environmental policy to limit the

availability of persistent chemicals. A totally laissez-faire policy will result in unsustainable

development, for example through uncontrolled pollution and distortions in wealth. This

creates problems which future generations have to resolve. On the other hand, excessive

government control of market forces may also have negative environmental impacts.

For example, free irrigation water leads to the inefficient use of this scarce and expensive

resource, inequities between head and tail users and water logging and salinity problems.

Hence, this EIA report addressed all significant concerns and their mitigations to the project

proponents in line with sustainable environmental management direction.

3. Methodology and Approaches

Like any empirical studies, this EIA approach has followed standard procedures to find

important environmental impacts and recommend mitigation measures for impacts that could

happen during implementation of the irrigation activities. Hence, this section focuses on

description of the study area, base line environmental information and the study design.

3.1. Description of the Study Area

Lalibal/Lasta Woreda is one of the districts in North Wallo Zone, Amhara National Regional

State of Ethiopia. It is found at 675 km northeast from Addis Ababa. It is bordered on the east by

Gidana district, on the west by Bugna district, on the north by Wag Hemra Zone and on the south

- 6 -

by Meket district. The intervention areas namely Midaghe and Shumshaha kebeles are located

within 6 km and 34 km distances from the Lalibela town respectively. The area altitude ranges

between 2,200-1,850 m.a.s.l and average temperature varies between 20 and 350c. Rainfall varies

from 950 to 1,400 mm per year. Agro-ecologically the project kebeles are categorized under

Kolla (dry tropical climate), with annual rainfall and spatial distribution not sustaining plant

growth and maintain to maturity.

Based on the 2007 national census conducted by the Central Statistical Agency of Ethiopia

(CSA), Lalibela woreda has a total population of 117,777, of whom 58,451 are men and 59,326

women; 17,367 or 14.75% are urban inhabitants. The majority of the inhabitants

practiced Ethiopian Orthodox Christianity, with 97.65% reporting that as their religion, while

2.32% of the population said they were Muslim. The number of population and households

living in the targeted two kebeles is shown in the table below.

Table 1 Household and Population Size of the Operation areas No Name of

Kebeles Household size Population size

Male Female Total Male Female Total 1. Medagie 1,245 486 1,731 2,641 2,789 5,430 2. Shumshaha 764 253 1,017 2,129 2,275 4,404

Total 2,009 739 2,748 4,770 5,064 9,834

Livelihood of communities of the two target Kebeles is based on subsistence crop production

predominantly carried out under rain-fed conditions. There is an average of three livestock, six

goats and one donkey per household. Opportunities for off-farm income are very limited and most

people thus rely to a large extent on agriculture for their subsistence. The major crops grown in

Medagie are teff and wheat. Teff is the most preferred crop, while sorghum and wheat ranks the

second major crops grown in Shumsha and Medagie areas respectively. Farmers usually grow

teff, wheat, barley, beans and sorghum in Shumsha areas.

The rate of land degradation is also high in the areas mainly due to limited natural resource

conservation activities practiced. However, the recent efforts by the government of community

mass mobilization in natural resource soil and water conservation activities carried out on

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Statistical_Agency_(Ethiopia)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Orthodox_Christianity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Ethiopia

- 7 -

hillsides and other degraded lands seems to bring some positive changes in raising awareness of

the target communities of Medagie and Shumsha kebeles. In this regard, farmers usually used to

practice farm terracing, soil and stone bunds in farmlands located on steep/slope terrain areas to

combat soil and water erosion problems. Some farming communities in Midagie kebele also

observed using Eucalyptus plantation for its economic importance despite of its ecological costs

by scavenging soil nutrients and water resources.

3.2. Baseline Information on Bio-Physical and Socio-Economic Situation

This part is very important to know initial environmental status of the operation area in order to

know the prevailing environmental changes as a result of the project interventions and audit

against the base line while taking mitigation measures. The following table is to show baseline

information in terms of biophysical and socioeconomic environmental variables. Variables were

rated as low, medium, high ways qualitative rating through physical observation and public

discussions.

Table 2: Base-line status of Biophysical Environment

No Environmental Variables Name of the Irrigation Projects and their some

Biophysical and Socioeconomic status. Shumsha Irrigation Site Medagie Irrigation Site

A Biophysical Variables

1. Soil Fertility Medium Medium 2. Soil Stability Low Low 3. Soil Erosion Medium Medium 4. Soil productivity Low Medium 5. Silt accumulation Low Low 6. Water logging problems Low Low 7. Vegetation cover change Low Low 8. Wild life Low Low

B Socio Economic Variables 1. Resource use complain Low Medium 2. Human Health Good Good 3. Income generation status from

irrigation resources Not at all Poor

- 8 -

3.3. Study Design

The study was designed as empirical descriptive type that provides comprehensive information

about environmental situations and public concerns with respect to the possible biophysical and

socio economic environmental variables because of the project interventions. Data was collected

from sample population for both biophysical and socio economic variables and analyzed

statistically for their significant environmental impacts so that mitigation measures are

recommended for the possible negative environmental impacts of the project.

3.3.1. Sampling Technique

Sample households were taken from direct beneficiaries of the proposed irrigation schemes using

non probability sampling of purposive type. The study area, that is, the irrigation sites has a total

household population of 130 for Shumsha and 94 for Midagie irrigation sites. Accordingly, a

total of twenty sample households were selected randomly proportional to size from each

irrigation sites.

3.3.2. Tools for Data Collection

In this assessment, both primary and secondary data were collected. The required primary data

for the assessment was collected from 20 sample respondents through household interviewing,

focus group discussions, and site observation and direct measurements of some physical

environmental variables like river flow rate, train or slope, altitude and temperature. Relevant

secondary data was also collected from government line offices. Further, telephone

conversations were used with different officials to triangulate data from secondary sources for

some consistency barriers.

3.3.3. Data Analysis

Statistical analysis was used to measure significance of negative impacts by the proposed

irrigation projects on biophysical and socio economic environmental variables. From sample

- 9 -

statistics, an inference was made by statistical inferential model we called Chi-square using

SPSS software. In this method, every environmental variable were analyzed and rated for any

possible negative impact that they could receive from the irrigation project activities.

4. Result and Discussions

From the formula of Chi-Square; 2; where, X2 is Chi-Square, Of is Observed

frequency; Ef is Expected frequency with respect to degree of freedom (df) of variables; there

calculated X2 value and probability of getting the value is taken from Chi-Square table (Table 3).

The following table shows significance of environmental impact from the irrigation projects on

proposed biophysical and socio-economic components based on P values. Note that, Ho or null

hypothesis stated that “there is significant negative impact from irrigation projects on biophysical

and socio economic environmental components”. If probability (P) values are less or equals to

0.05 at the specified degree of freedom (df), the null hypothesis is to be refused and the impact is

insignificant. If P value is greater than 0.05; the null hypothesis is to be accepted and mitigations

measures are recommended. The following table is to show significance of impact of the

proposed irrigation projects on biophysical and socio economic environmental elements.

Table 3: Chi-Square and Probability of Significance

No. Environmental

Variables proposed to be affected

For SHUMSA IRRIGATION SCHEME

FOR MIDAGE IRRIGATION

SCHEME

df X2 P Value

Significance Status

X2 df P Value

Significance Status

1. Climate 3 8.333 <0.05 Insignificant 8.333 3 0.05 Insignificant 2. Air Quality 2 6.667 <0.05 Insignificant 6.667 2 <0.05 Insignificant 3. Ground water

quality 1 1.000 >0.05 Significant 1.000 1 >0.05 Significant

4. Surface water quantity

1 5.444 <0.05 Insignificant 5.444 1 <0.05 Insignificant

5. Surface water quality


6. Soil salinity 2 2.000 >0.05 Significant 2.000 2 >0.05 Significant 7. Soil stability 2 1.444 >0.05 Significant 1.444 2 >0.05 Significant 8. Train 1 5.444 <0.05 Insignificant 5.444 1 <0.05 Insignificant

- 10 -

9. Water use conflict 1 1.000 >0.05 Significant 1.667 2 >0.05 Significant 10 Vegetation cover 1 5.444 <0.05 Insignificant 4.667 3 >0.05 Significant 11 Wetland 1 5.444 <0.05 Insignificant 5.444 1 <0.05 Insignificant 12 Aquatic habitats 2 1.667 >0.05 Significant 1.667 2 >0.05 Significant 13 Fish stock 2 6.000 <0.05 Insignificant 6.000 2 <0.05 Insignificant 14 Terrestrial habitats 1 5.444 <0.05 Insignificant 5.444 1 <0.05 Insignificant 15 Wild life aquatic 1 5.778 <0.05 Insignificant 4.778 1 <0.05 Insignificant 16 Wildlife Terrestrial 1 5.444 <0.05 Insignificant 5.444 1 <0.05 Insignificant 17 Forest resource 1 5.444 <0.05 Insignificant 5.555 1 <0.05 Insignificant 18 Biodiversity 1 2.778 >0.05 Significant 2.555 1 >0.05 Significant 19 Ecosystem function

aquatic 1 2.778 >0.05 Significant 2.444 1 >0.05 Significant

20 Ecosystem function terrestrial


21 Rear species 1 5.000 <.05 Insignificant 6.000 1 <0.05 Insignificant 22 Protected area 1 5.444 <0.05 Insignificant 5.000 1 <0.05 Insignificant 23 Human health 1 5.778 <0.05 Insignificant 5.777 1 <0.05 Insignificant 24 Socio-Economic 1 3.778 <0.05 Insignificant 3.454 1 <0.05 Insignificant 25 Cultural Heritage 1 5.444 <0.05 Insignificant 5.444 1 <0.05 Insignificant

The data in table 3 above shows the identified environmental components for which negative

impacts from the proposed irrigation projects are significant. These are ground water quality, soil

salinity, soil stability, water use conflict, aquatic habitat, bio diversity and aquatic ecosystem

functions for irrigation projects and impact on vegetation cover is also significant for Midage

irrigation scheme.

4.1. Environmental Impact Statement

The study assessed possible environmental impacts of the two irrigation schemes at Shumsha

and Midage kebeles of Lalibala district. The result of the study from Chi-square analysis showed

that environmental components that could be negatively affected by the irrigation projects are

soil physical and chemical properties and water use regime of communities especially with upper

stream users and even among the same schemes within the river ecosystem. However, all

negative impacts found significant can be mitigated and avoidable if provided that proper

environmental management plan could be implemented proactively.

Results of the study also identified environmentally positive impacts of the irrigation projects.

From focus group discussion of both irrigation projects, the irrigation has significant contribution

of income creation, efficient utilization of domestic labors, ensuring household food security and

- 11 -

improving nutrition and promotion of women economic empowerment. Irrigation is generally

considered as an effective way of increasing agricultural production (more land under crops,

more crops per hectare per year, more crop production per hectare per season). As production

increases, per capita income increases; and thus the socio-economic condition and livelihood

improve. Thus the access to irrigation or development of irrigation facility has a positive impact

and profound role to play on poverty reduction.

4.2. Significant Environmental Impacts

The data reveals in Table 3 above shows the identified environmental variables that are

negatively affected by the two irrigation projects. The following table is to show significant

environmental impacts and the impact profile.

Table 4: Significant Environmental Impacts, and the Impact Profile

No. Significant Environmental Impacts Impact Profile

1. Ground water quality • Increase in water turbidity • Raising in saline water table • Addition of toxic chemicals

2. Soil salinity • Raise in saline water table • Change in soil physics and release of salt from soil micro pores

during inappropriate time of irrigation • There also threat of silt deposit form upper catchment to irrigation

water and irrigable field as there is no vegetation cover and trapping mechanisms on the catchments

3. Soil stability • During construction of irrigation infrastructures and flood irrigation, as the soil is fragile and young it could easily liable to disturbance

4. Water use conflict • This is a serious issue if proper command area is not demarcated from possible minimum canal flow during design. It is difficult to shorten command area after once included. It causes social conflict, economic loss.

5. Aquatic habitat • Aquatic habitat will be damaged if minimum permissible flow is not maintained in natural water flow.

• Addition of agro chemicals could damage aquatic habitats 6. Bio-Diversity • Addition of agro-chemicals could affect biodiversity 7. Aquatic ecosystem function • Addition of agro-chemicals could affect aquatic ecosystem function 8. Vegetation cover • Construction of irrigation infrastructures will affect the vegetation

cover especially for Medagie irrigation. Besides, the farm area is partially covered with Eucalyptus trees as they are using as cash crop.

- 12 -

4.3. Environmental Impact Matrix

Ideally, all development activities costs environment. However, it is important to get the lower

opportunity costs by mitigating significant environmental impacts indicated in Table 3 above.

The following table is to show status of significant environmental impacts by environmental

impact matrix.

Table 5 Environmental Impact Matrix Description of Codes: A: Significant Environmental Effect that can be Mitigated B: Potential Significant Negative Environmental Effect unknown C: Significant Public Concern D: Significant Negative Environmental Effect that Cannot be Mitigated E: No Significant Negative Environmental Effect F: Positive Environmental Impact

Project Undertakings

Environmental Components Negatively Affected by the Irrigation Projects

Gro

und

wat

er q

ualit

y

Soil

Salin

ity

Soil

Stab

ility

Wat

er u

se

Aqu

atic

H

abita

t

Bio

D

iver

sity

Clim

ate

Aqu

atic

Ec

osys

tem

Fu

nctio

n

Hum

an

Hea

lth

Veg

etat

ion

Cov

er

HH

Eco

no

Construction of headwork

E E A C A E E A E E E

Construction of Canals

A E A E E E E E E A D

Irrigation Agronomy

A A E C A A E A A A D

Post Harvest E F F E E E E F E F

Interactive effects

A E A C A E E A E A D

Cumulative effects A: Significant Environmental Effect that Can be Mitigated

- 13 -

4.4. Identified Mitigation Measures

The study also identified mitigation measures for identified potential environmental negative

impacts of the irrigation projects. The following table is to show the mitigation measures per

every significant impact.

Table 6 Impact Mitigation Measures

No. Impacts Identified Mitigation Measures

1. Ground water quality

• Practice of organic farming • Use of appropriate furrow length to irrigate vegetables • Adjusting time of irrigation

2. Soil salinity • Adjust time of irrigation • Appropriate drainage lines at every edge of farm field • Silt clear up from canals and treatment of upper catchment

3. Soil stability • Construction of retain wall during irrigation infrastructure construction especially for sensitive and slid-able soil

• Avoid flood irrigation • Allow appropriate amount of water per territory canal outlet

based on furrow length and slop 4. Water use conflict • Predetermination of command area based on crop annual water

requirement and available water without compromising natural waterway. CA=

• Water scheduling and determination crop type during critical

water shortage • Treatment of upper catchments to increase side recharge to river

5. Aquatic Habitat • Use of organic farming 6. Bio Diversity • Use of organic farming 7. Aquatic Ecosystem

Function • Use of Organic farming • Catchment treatment to encourage drawdown

8. Vegetation Cover • To substitute another plantation site out of irrigation • To substitute multipurpose ecologically friendly trees than

eucalyptus trees

- 14 -

5. Environmental Management Plan

The identified significant and negative impacts of irrigation development on environmental

aspect are ground water quality, soil salinity, soil stability, water use conflicts, aquatic habitats,

biodiversity, aquatic ecosystem function and vegetation cover. The following table is to show

adverse impacts with respect to the project stages and proposed mitigation measures and

implementation schedules.

Table 7: Environmental Management Plan Schedule

Project Stage

Project Activities

Adverse Impacts Proposed Mitigation Institutional

Responsibility Implementation

Schedule

Construction stage

Head work & canal construction

Water quantity in river will be at risk

Allow minimum permissible amount of water in river

Follow up and monitoring for proper implementation

At the start of construction

Soil stability disturbed

Retaining walls of side embankments and catchment treatment



Aquatic Ecosystem Function affected

Allow minimum permissible amount of water in river and catchment treatment



Some vegetation plantation will be removed

Support Substitution of plantation sites out of irrigation area



Operation stage

Irrigation Agronomy

Ground water quality

Organic farming and proper irrigation water management


During operation

Soil salinity Irrigation water management and catchments treatment


During Operation

Aquatic Habitats could be damaged

Organic farming and catchment treatment


During Operation

Effect on bio diversity

Organic Farming and water use efficiency


During Operation

The EIA study also assessed capacity of the district office of Environmental Protection and Land Administration. The office has vested the responsibility of implementing and regulating environmental activities by government. To accomplish regulation and implementation of environmental activities, the office has shortage of motor cycle to monitor and follow up field activity implementation, skill gap of geo spatial technologies and lack of computers for data management by database system.

- 15 -

6. Environmental Auditing Environmental auditing is a detailed environmental monitoring plan for proper implementation of the recommended mitigation measures for identified negative environmental impacts. There are parameters to be monitored and the monitoring report should be submitted to respective offices. Hence, all activities stated as the impact mitigation measures are to be audited using against plans.

Environmental mitigation measures will be taken throughout the project lifetime to avoid or minimize the destruction to environment. These are proper use of irrigation water, promoting organic farming, catchment treatment and water scheduling, maintaining permissible flow in natural water way and clear demarcation of command area and construction of appropriate drainage facilities. Besides, various soil and water conservation structures will be constructed and biological measures such as tree planting will be undertaken to treat the irrigation catchment areas and other degraded lands. Furthermore, the target community will be educated to utilize, preserve and manage their scarce resources effectively. Total amount of budget estimated for the implementation of these natural resource management activities over a three years period is 1,897,375 Birr. The following table is to show implementation schedule and budget used as parameters for auditing.

S.N. Activity Description Unit Quantity Unit Price (ETB)

Total Budget Year I Year II Year III

ETB (Birr)

EUR (Euro)

CAD (Canadian

Dollar)

Physical Target

Budget (CAD)

Physical Target

Budget (CAD)

Physical Target

Budget (CAD)

1 Treat the irrigation watershed with physical and biological measures

1.1 Physical conservation measures

- Soil bund construction Km 45 11,250 506,250 19,471 28,125 13 8,125 32 20,000 - Stone bund construction Km 30 3,750 112,500 4,327 6,250 9 1,875 21 4,375 - Cutoff drain construction Km 20 3,500 70,000 2,692 3,889 6 1,167 14 2,722 - Check dam construction Km 10 10,000 100,000 3,846 5,556 10 5,556 - Micro basin excavation No. 24,000 7 168,000 6,462 9,333 9,600 3,733 14,400 5,600 - Construction of farm terrace Km 45 2,500 112,500 4,327 6,250 13 1,806 32 4,444 - Road construction/maintenance Km 15 10,000 150,000 5,769 8,333 11 6,111 2 1,111 2 1,111

- 16 -

1.2 Biological Measures - Establish/strengthen project tree

nursery sites (labor & materials) # of nursery

2 22,500 45,000 1,731 2,500 1 1,250 1 1,250

- Support/rehabilitate government nursery sites (materials)

# of nursery

2 10,500 21,000 808 1,167 2 1,167

- Purchase seeds for conservation Kg 100 120 12,000 462 667 50 333 50 333

- Produce conservation tree seedlings

# of seedlings

450,000 0.30 135,000 5,192 7,500 135,000 2,250 180,000 3,000 135,000 2,250

- Plantation of conservation seedlings

# of seedlings

436,500 0.15 65,475 2,518 3,638 130,950 1,091 174,600 1,455 130,950 1,091

2 Introduce target farmers to improved natural resources conservation practices

- Per-diem participants (600person x 3days x 65Birr)

# of trainees

770 195 150,150 5,775 8,342 250 2,708 270 2,925 250 2,708

- Stationary (writing pad and pen) # of trainees

770 30 23,100 888 1,283 250 417 270 450 250 417

- Refresher (tea/coffee, soft drink for 3days x 20Birr)

# of trainees

770 60 46,200 1,777 2,567 250 833 270 900 250 833

3 Promote controlled grazing system and area closure

Ha 60 2,000 120,000 4,615 6,667 42 4,667 18 2,000

3.1 Provision of tools - Spade hoe No. 150 90 13,500 519 750 90 450 60 300 - Crow bar No. 80 120 9,600 369 533 48 320 32 213 - Pick axe No. 200 80 16,000 615 889 120 533 80 356 - Sledge hummer No. 80 125 10,000 385 556 48 333 32 222 - Line level No. 30 25 750 29 42 18 25 12 17 - Measuring tape (30-50meter roll) No. 30 120 3,600 138 200 18 120 12 80 - Measuring tape (pocket size) No. 30 25 750 29 42 18 25 12 17 - Nylon rope Roll 40 150 6,000 231 333 24 200 16 133 Total – NRM Activities 1,897,375 72,976 105,410 27,966 60,095 17,348

Exchange Rate (as at June 2014): 1 CAD 18 ETB : 1 EUR 26 ETB

- 17 -

7. Nature of public participation

Prior to any project planning, all stakeholders including potential beneficiaries should be

consulted and involved. They have to be involved in the identification of problems, planning of

activities, implementation, monitoring and evaluation. This is important for developing sense of

ownership, on the part of the community, and ensures sustainability. Accordingly, the project

involved the target communities and government line offices during the assessment of this

environmental impact study and continues throughout the implementation process.

8. Summary and Recommendations

This Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was conducted in two small scale irrigation

projects at Shumsha and Medagie kebeles of Lalibela Woreda, North Wollo Zone Amhara

National Regional State of Ethiopia. The irrigation scheme at Shumsha kebele is proposed to

irrigate 60 hectares of land and expected to benefit approximately 130 households in irrigated

crop production in the command area, whereas the proposed scheme in the Medagie is capable to

irrigate 21.2 hectares of land and benefits more than 94 households in the command area.

The EIA study was carried out by team of experts composed of LWF technical staffs and

government/district experts together with local communities and field level Development

Agents. The approaches applied during field data collection consisted of site observation and

measurement, household interviewing and focus group discussions. The discussion involved all

segments of the community including women, men, leaders, youth, elders and influential

members as well as development agents. By the assessment, the major impacts of irrigation

development on environmental aspect are verified for their significance by statistical methods.

The result of the study reveals that ground water quality, soil salinity problems, soil stability,

water use conflict, aquatic habitats, and biodiversity aquatic ecosystem and vegetation covers

have significant and negative impacts of irrigation development on social and environmental

aspect. Environmental Impact Matrix was done to indicate importance of impacts that can affect

- 18 -

environmental components. The matrix analysis shows there was no non reversible impact

identified and all impacts identified are impacts that can be mitigated. The study further shows

that efficient utilization of domestic labors, creation of income opportunities, promotion of

women economic empowerment, ensuring household food security and improving nutrition are

the major positive impacts of irrigation development in the targeted intervention kebeles.

Finally, the study recommends that proper use of irrigation water, promoting organic farming,

catchment treatment and water scheduling, maintaining permissible flow in natural water way

and clear demarcation of command area and construction of appropriate drainage facilities as a

mitigation measures for every significant environmental impact to happen. The study result also

indicated monitoring mechanisms and indicators to be mentored at every stage of the project

activities.

- 19 -

9. References

1. Amhara Regional State Environmental Proclamation. (181/2011), Bahirdar

2. Debebe. (2010), Irrigation use and challenges, Addis Ababa

3. Ethiopia Federal Environmental Authority. (2000), Addis Ababa

4. FAO. (2000/53), Environmental Impact Assessment of Irrigation and Drainage Projects,

London.

5. Tiffen. (1989), EIA for Program Planning, UK

6. Watern. (1998), Cost of EIA Preparation, USA

- 20 -

10. Appendix

Table 8 Chi-Square Distribution

d.f. .995 .99 .975 .95 .9 .1 .05 .025 .01 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 2.71 3.84 5.02 6.63 2 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.21 4.61 5.99 7.38 9.21 3 0.07 0.11 0.22 0.35 0.58 6.25 7.81 9.35 11.34 4 0.21 0.30 0.48 0.71 1.06 7.78 9.49 11.14 13.28 5 0.41 0.55 0.83 1.15 1.61 9.24 11.07 12.83 15.09 6 0.68 0.87 1.24 1.64 2.20 10.64 12.59 14.45 16.81 7 0.99 1.24 1.69 2.17 2.83 12.02 14.07 16.01 18.48 8 1.34 1.65 2.18 2.73 3.49 13.36 15.51 17.53 20.09 9 1.73 2.09 2.70 3.33 4.17 14.68 16.92 19.02 21.67

10 2.16 2.56 3.25 3.94 4.87 15.99 18.31 20.48 23.21 11 2.60 3.05 3.82 4.57 5.58 17.28 19.68 21.92 24.72 12 3.07 3.57 4.40 5.23 6.30 18.55 21.03 23.34 26.22 13 3.57 4.11 5.01 5.89 7.04 19.81 22.36 24.74 27.69 14 4.07 4.66 5.63 6.57 7.79 21.06 23.68 26.12 29.14 15 4.60 5.23 6.26 7.26 8.55 22.31 25.00 27.49 30.58 16 5.14 5.81 6.91 7.96 9.31 23.54 26.30 28.85 32.00 17 5.70 6.41 7.56 8.67 10.09 24.77 27.59 30.19 33.41 18 6.26 7.01 8.23 9.39 10.86 25.99 28.87 31.53 34.81 19 6.84 7.63 8.91 10.12 11.65 27.20 30.14 32.85 36.19 20 7.43 8.26 9.59 10.85 12.44 28.41 31.41 34.17 37.57 22 8.64 9.54 10.98 12.34 14.04 30.81 33.92 36.78 40.29 24 9.89 10.86 12.40 13.85 15.66 33.20 36.42 39.36 42.98 26 11.16 12.20 13.84 15.38 17.29 35.56 38.89 41.92 45.64 28 12.46 13.56 15.31 16.93 18.94 37.92 41.34 44.46 48.28 30 13.79 14.95 16.79 18.49 20.60 40.26 43.77 46.98 50.89 32 15.13 16.36 18.29 20.07 22.27 42.58 46.19 49.48 53.49 34 16.50 17.79 19.81 21.66 23.95 44.90 48.60 51.97 56.06 38 19.29 20.69 22.88 24.88 27.34 49.51 53.38 56.90 61.16 42 22.14 23.65 26.00 28.14 30.77 54.09 58.12 61.78 66.21 46 25.04 26.66 29.16 31.44 34.22 58.64 62.83 66.62 71.20 50 27.99 29.71 32.36 34.76 37.69 63.17 67.50 71.42 76.15 55 31.73 33.57 36.40 38.96 42.06 68.80 73.31 77.38 82.29 60 35.53 37.48 40.48 43.19 46.46 74.40 79.08 83.30 88.38 65 39.38 41.44 44.60 47.45 50.88 79.97 84.82 89.18 94.42 70 43.28 45.44 48.76 51.74 55.33 85.53 90.53 95.02 100.43 75 47.21 49.48 52.94 56.05 59.79 91.06 96.22 100.84 106.39 80 51.17 53.54 57.15 60.39 64.28 96.58 101.88 106.63 112.33 85 55.17 57.63 61.39 64.75 68.78 102.08 107.52 112.39 118.24 90 59.20 61.75 65.65 69.13 73.29 107.57 113.15 118.14 124.12 95 63.25 65.90 69.92 73.52 77.82 113.04 118.75 123.86 129.97

100 67.33 70.06 74.22 77.93 82.36 118.50 124.34 129.56 135.81

- 21 -

Environmental Impact Assessment Format for Irrigation Projects

I. House Hold Interview

A. General 1. Project Name_______________________________________________________________ 2. Project Tittle________________________________________________________________ 3. Project Year_________________________________________________________________ 4. Name of the River____________________________________________________________ 5. Project Location_____________________________________________________________

5.1. Region_____________________________ 5.2. Zone_______________________________ 5.3. PA_________________________________ 5.4. Coordinate N________________________

E_________________________

B. Household Status 1. Respondent’s ID and Family Size Sex Age Family Size ID Number

M F T 2. Land Use Status in Hectare Cultivable None Cultivable Forest Land Marginal Irrigable Non Irrigable Pasture Total 3. Socio Economic Indications 3.1. Number of Livestock? ______________________________________________________________ 3.2. Type of Grazing you are using? _______________________________________________________ 3.3. For how many months in a year you are using open grazing? _______________________________ 3.4. What are your most income sources? _________________________________________________ 3.5. Percent of your income covered from the irrigation site? __________________________________ 3.6. Percent of communal land you are using for grazing? _____________________________________ 3.7. Type of crop residue you are using for feed? ____________________________________________ 3.8. Have you been faced feed shortage in the past three years? 1. Yes 2. No 3.9. How many % of your land is within the command area? 3.10. If size of land within the command area is greater than 0.5 hectare, would you manage it? 3.11. If No for question number 3.10; how would you mange irrigation water use issues? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 3.12. Have you ever been faced water shortage in the last three years? 1. Yes 2. No 3.13. If yes for question number 3.12; in what months? List the months. ______________________________________________________________________________

Temperature Min ______Max_________ Altitude __________________________ Annual Rain Fall____________________ Major soil type_____________________ Land Capability_____________________ Land Suitably_______________________

Som

e ph

ysic

al d

ata

of th

e irr

igat

ion

site

Name of Enumerator_______________________Tel.__________________signiture______

- 22 -

3.11. What are the minimum and maximum distances in km to get water resources with respect to Difference seasons? ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 3.12. What are the coping strategies used during the shortage? ___________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 3.13. Is your source of water for consumption the same as the water intended for irrigation? 1. Yes 2. No 3.14. Are there alternative water sources than what was proposed for irrigation? 1. Yes 2. No 3.15. Is your family members infected with water born diseases for the last six months? 1. Yes 2. No 3.16. What is the most important water born diseases at your locality? ______________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ 3.17. Do you know where malaria reproduces? 1. Yes 2. No 3.18. Do you have latrine? 1. Yes 2. No 3.19. What are the most sources of Environmental pollutions around you? 1. Open defecation 2. Night dumping, 3. Chemical spoilage

4. Natural Resources Management 4.1. Have you ever been participated on conservation activities for the last six months? 1. Yes 2. No 4.2. What is the most conservation activities carried out? 1. Biological conservation, 2. Physical conservation 3. Both 4.3. What are your concerns about the irrigation site for its impacts on your usual natural resources management activities? _______________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 4.4. What are the most natural resources you are getting from the proposed irrigation site? 1. Fire wood, 2. Pasture, 3. Construction wooden materials, 4. All 4.5. Do you allow your land resources for irrigation infrastructures? 1. Yes 2. No 4.6. If no, for Question number 4.5; how would you react?________________________________ 4.7. Is you or any of your relatives displaced because of the irrigation infrastructures? 1. Yes, 2. No 4.8. Do you need the irrigation scheme? 1. Yes 2. No 4.9. How the irrigation site will benefit you? ___________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ 4.10. Is the opportunity cost of irrigation greater? 1. Yes, 2. No 4.11. If yes for Question number 4.10, State it. _________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________

6. Technical Observation by Subject Matter Specialist 6.1. Vegetation feature of the irrigation site _____________________________________ 6.2. Topographic feature of the site, ____________________________________________ 6.3. Permissible river flow, ___________________________________________________ 6.4. Appropriate command area that can suite amount of water, _____________________

5.1. Storm on importance of the irrigation site as well as public concerns with regard to Social, Economic, and Cultural issues.

Statement of the Consensus, ____________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________

EIA report Lalibela1

Documents