THE ROLE OF INTEGRATED WATERSHED MANAGEMENT IN IMPROVING

RURAL LIVELIHOOD IN KACHA KEBELE

KONTA ZONE, SOUTH-WEST ETHIOPIA PEOPLE REGIONAL STATE

By:
MATHEWOS CHAKISA
ID No: NRM/SUM/026/11

A RESEARCH PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
BACHELOR OF SCIENCE DEGREE IN NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

ADVISOR: Dr. G/Silassie W. (PhD)

DECEMBER, 2022
WOLAIT SODO, ETHIOPIA
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................. i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .............................................................................................................
iii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ......................................................................................
iv
LIST OF TABLES .........................................................................................................................
iv
ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................................... v
1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Background of the Study ...................................................................................................... 1
1.2. Statement of the Problem ..................................................................................................... 2
1.3. Objectives............................................................................................................................. 3
1.3.1. General objective ........................................................................................................... 3
1.3.2. Specific objectives ......................................................................................................... 3
1.4. Research Questions .............................................................................................................. 3
1.5. Significance of the Study ..................................................................................................... 3
1.6. Scope of the Study................................................................................................................ 4
1.7. Limitation of the Study ........................................................................................................ 4
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................... 5
2.1. Concepts of Integrated Watershed Management ................................................................. 5
2.2. Watershed Management Practice in Ethiopia ...................................................................... 5
2.3. Community Participation in Watershed Management ......................................................... 6
2.4. Watershed Management Externalities and Their Valuation ................................................ 8
2.5. Significance’s of watershed on Rural Livelihood ................................................................ 8
2.6. Impact of Integrated Watershed Management Intervention................................................. 9
2.7. Sustainable Integrated Watershed Management ................................................................ 10
2.8. Role of Watershed Management Rural Poverty Reduction ............................................... 11
3. MATERIALS AND METHODS.............................................................................................. 13
3.1. Description of the Study Area ............................................................................................ 13
3.1.1. Topography.................................................................................................................. 13
3.1.2. Soil type ....................................................................................................................... 13

i
3.1.3. Water bodies ................................................................................................................ 14
3.1.4. Livestock production ................................................................................................... 14
3.2.1. Sample size and Sampling Techniques ....................................................................... 14
3.2.2 Methods of Data Collection.......................................................................................... 14
3.2. 3. Methods of Data Analysis .............................................................................................. 15
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 26

ii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

CENRDO Community of Environment and Natural Resource Development Office

DENR Department of environmental and natural resource
GTC German Technical Cooperation
GTC-IFSP German Technical Cooperation-Integrated Food Security program
HH Household
ICIMOD International centre for Integrated Mountain Development
ISF Integrated Social Forestry
IWSM Integrated Watershed Management
LGU Local Government Unit
MOA Ministry of Agriculture
MOARD Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development
MTPDP Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan
RA Republic Act
SSA Sub-Saharan Africa
UNDP United Nation Development Program
WFP World Food Program
WCED World Commission of Environmental Development
WSM Watershed Management

iv
1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background of the Study

Watershed also called basin or catchment area is defined as an area in which all water flowing in
to it goes to a common out let. People and livestock are the integral of watershed and their
activities affect the productive status of watershed. A watershed is not simply the hydrological
unit also social, political and economic security and provides life support service to rural
people (Wani et al., 2008). Watershed made of natural resources in basin specially water,
soil and vegetative factor. At social, economic levels of watershed including peoples,
there farming system, livestock and Interaction with land resources cropping strategy soil and
economic activity and cultural aspect, catchment is often used system basin and watershed
(Tantigegn, 2008). Integrated landscape management approaches are now considered as
innovative options for Sustaining ecosystems while improving human welfare. More
specifically, watershed management (WSM) has become an increasingly important issue in
many mountainous countries. WSM encompasses the holistic approach to managing watershed
resources that integrates forestry, agriculture, pasture and water management, which can be
broadened to rural development with a Strong link to the livelihoods of the local people
(Pudasaini, 2003). Sustainable development and increased food production in agriculture based
developing countries requires availability of sufficient water and fertile land. Water
especially affect a greatly the property of people and their development potential and health. The
availability of this vital resource is not guaranteed for large section on the world
population. Over 40percent of extra food required to meet the growing food demands by
2025 will have to come from Intensified rain fed farming in sub-Saharan African region. In
contrast almost quarter of sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) population lives in water stressed area
(UNDP, 2006).Ethiopia is relatively well endowed with water resource having an estimated
annual surface run Off close 122 billion cubic meters. However these water resources are
unevenly distributed both spatially and temporally. Between 80-90percent of the country
surfaces water resource are found Within four major river basins Abay (Blue-Nile), Tekeze, Baro
–A kobo and omo–Gibe only 10-20 percent of the country surface water resource access to the
population (MOARD, 2008). The integrated watershed approach benefits the farmers
(households) through improved soil health, better drainage, to reduce soil erosion and the

1
subsequent siltation rate of reservoirs thereby maximizing the benefits of irrigation and
hydropower projects. The other would be an overall increase in land productivity, which
would yield higher agricultural outputs and thus enhance food security and alleviate poverty
and more efficient use of rain water with possibility of excesses water being stored in suitable
structures used during security periods. With voluntary Farmers participation is possible.
Integrated watershed management also protects the downstream Farm land and human
habitations from floods, reduces siltation of expensive irrigation structures, and protects natural
resource. In this study area the integrated watershed management practices started in 2003 E.C
and at beginning time the study area community practical skills are very low, but gradually the
attitudes of community’s now well grown andcurrently the integrated watershed management
now economically benefits for Farmers by increasing soil fertility, productivity and sustainable
income source in the study area.

1.2. Statement of the Problem

This study was initiated by the affects of that the constraints of the climate change, population
growth, Environmental degradation and lack of harmonized intervention have also been affecting
both the Water and land resources adversely. In spite of this priority as the source of
economy in the Community agricultural production is low; this leads to poverty and famine to
the study area. In the reasons for this can be the potential productivity of land becomes
under, which have low Yield. There are different factors, which limits its productivity. Among
the factors depending on the topography, the soil erosion and lower fertility affect the soil
productivity. Generally, the Study area faces to high erosion which due to suitable land to
degradation, inadequate soil and Water conservation measures and farmer attitude towards
watershed development. Therefore, before the integrated watershed management program
developed, there were gully erosion, runoff, unstable slopes /landslides, flooding, deficient
water supplies, sedimentation in Downstream and mostly the area included by land
degradation. This problem was leads the area to low fertility, damaged the field by
sedimentation, reduced the soil moisture, reduced biodiversity and polluted air and water in
the study area. In generally in the study area there was a lack of information about integrated
watershed management and present study was stand to fill the gap of information on study area
community’s.

2
1.3. Objectives

1.3.1. General objective

The main objective of the study will be to assess the role of integrated watershed management
in improving rural livelihood in the study area.

1.3.2. Specific objectives

 To identify the existing types of watershed management practices in the site.
 To assess the benefits that farmers get from the watershed activities to enhance livelihood
conditions in the area.
 To identify the level of farmer participation and perceptions on watershed management
activities in the study area

1.4. Research Questions

1. What types of integrated watershed management activities exist in the area?
2. Did integrated watershed management have a practical benefit for household to improve
the livelihood in the site?
3. What are the community participation levels on the integrated watershed management
Activities in the study area?

1.5. Significance of the Study

The study will focus on the role of IWSM in Gicha watershed. The concept of this study will
be to identify the income levels and living standards of the local community and
overcome the obstacles and constraints that the farmer will face in the construction of
IWSM practices. In addition, it will help to expect the assist of perceptions of farmers
in increasing agricultural production, improve good climate condition, land rehabilitation
and income generation to improving the livelihood of the households. After present research
finding to give further information for the study area community’s how to manage and use
their farm land before degrading by implementing the integrated watershed management.

3
1.6. Scope of the Study
The study will be confined to assess the role of integrated watershed management in improving
rural livelihood in Gicha watershed which is found in Konta Zone, Kacha Kebele South West
Ethiopia region in the year 2022.

4
2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Concepts of Integrated Watershed Management

A watershed is defined, as the surface area bordered by rise the elevation of land, where water is
gathered and drained in to a water body such as water course or lake. The concept is also used, to
refer a river basin, catchment area or drainage basin. In our country there was no sustainable
agriculture because of high runoff, overgrazing, deforestation, land degradation and etc (Taffa,
2002). Due to this reason watershed management in Ethiopia started in the 1980`s to bring the
sustainable agriculture. Watershed management is a landscape-based strategy that aims to
implement natural resource management systems for improving livelihoods and promoting
beneficial conservation, sustainable use, and management of natural resources. Integrated
watershed management (IWM) has been promoted in many countries as a suitable strategy
for improving productivity and sustainable intensification of agriculture (Shiferaw et’al.,
2008). Integrated watershed management involves protecting and rehabilitating watersheds
in a way that increases production, generating both short-term and long-term benefits for people
living in the watershed area; it also ensures that downstream communities are not adversely
affected by land-use practices in the watersheds. Watershed management fits squarely with
sustainable development principles, combining gains in the environmental (conservation of
natural resources), economic (gains from sustainable agriculture, forestry, healthy
ecosystems and related products) and social spheres (strengthened social capital, reduced
migration, enhanced nutritional status, increases in women’s income and reductions in
their workloads). This approach to sustainable intensification does not involve trade-offs
between increased production and provision of ecosystem services (Shiferaw et’al., 2008).

2.2. Watershed Management Practice in Ethiopia

The Ethiopian government has for a long time recognized the serious implications of continuing
soil erosion to mitigate environmental degradation and as a result large national programs were
implemented in the 1970s and 1980s. However the efforts of these initiatives were seen to be
inadequate in managing the rapid rate of demographic growth within the country,
widespread and increasing land degradation, and high risks of low rainfall and drought.
Since 1980, the government has supported rural land rehabilitation, these aimed to implement
natural resource conservation and development programs in Ethiopia through watershed

5
development (MOARD, 2005). Watershed projects in Ethiopia were very few in number. The
institutional strengthening project was implemented by FAO, and was principally aimed at
capacity building of Ministry of Natural Resource’s technicians and experts and development
agents in the highland regions of the country. The projects used the sub watershed as the
planning unit and sought the views of local technicians and members of the farming community
to prepare of land use and capability plans for soil and water conservation. This approach was
tested at the pilot stage through FAO technical assistance under MOA during 1988-
1991(MOARD, 2005). This was the first step in the evolution of the participatory
planning approach to watershed development. By late 1990, watershed development was
considered the focal point for rural development and poverty alleviation. Several NGOs
and bilateral organizations adopted watershed development in the last decade in their
perspectives intervention areas with collaboration of government partners. For instance the
land rehabilitation project, with WFP Food-for-Work assistance aimed at addressing the
problems of food insecurity through the construction of soil conservation structures,
community forestry, and rural infrastructure works. The project focused on selected food deficit
watersheds in the country where the incidence of chronic food insecurity is most severe. GTC-
Integrated Food Security Program South Gondar, with Integrated Watershed Management
Approach assistance aimed at improving the nutritional food insecure households in south
Gondar through natural resource management by biological and physical soil conservation
measures, crops and rural infrastructure works (GTC-IFSP, 2002).

2.3. Community Participation in Watershed Management

Environmental deterioration can best be reversed through involving local people directly with the
state, transforming the common experience of conflict into cooperation (Jeffery and Vira, 2001,
cited in: Dube and Swak, 2002). Governments and NGOs have recognized that protection
of watersheds cannot be achieved without the willing participation of local people (Pretty
and Ward, 2001). Therefore for successful and sustainable watershed management, people’s
participation is essential. This is one of the lessons learned from the failures of centrally planned
watershed development projects through which local people have been either forced to construct
terracing, bonding, rehabilitating gullies and other technical measures that external experts
believed would cure watershed degradation (IDB, 1995; Kerr et al., 1996; Rhoades, 1998). In
most of the centrally planned projects, like Ethiopia, soil and water conservation programs are

6
promoted with standard technical solutions such as terracing, contour bonding etc. on the
assumption that soil conservation measures are universally applicable and local farmers
are unaware of soil erosion and ignorant of its causes and consequences (MOARD, 2005).
However, these measures, which were often forced on the people, may cause more erosion than
their own indigenous practices, either because the new conservation works are not maintained or
are technically less well adapted than existing practices (Kerr et’al., 1996).The large majority of
watershed development projects are based on rigid and conventional approaches
considering only physical planning without attention to socio-economic or ecological conditions,
for instance in Ethiopia in the 1980s the large Burkina Dam in South Wollo was
constructed without considering ecological conditions of the area resulted in filling with
silt and coarse material (MOARD, 2005). Managing a watershed involves not only individual
plots, but also common property resources like forests, springs, gullies, roads and footpaths, and
vegetation along streams and rivers. The needs and priorities for different users are different in
each watershed. By seeking information from farmers about their constraints and priorities,
their potential for new technologies, appropriate policies and technology can be designed for
each watershed. Therefore participatory watershed management involves all actors to jointly
discuss their interests, prioritize their needs, evaluate potential alternatives and implement,
monitor and evaluate the project out comes (Azene and Gathriu, 2006). User participation
is vital for the success of watershed development projects. A participatory approach implies
a major role for the community and involves partnerships with other interested groups, from
bottom to top, and with policy makers. But the key concern is to identify approaches that can
attain an efficient, effective and accountable line between the community, the local bodies, the
state and the central bodies (Carney and Farrington, 1998). According to Johnson (2001),
participation implies that stakeholders work together to set criteria for sustainable
management, identify priorities, constraints, evaluate possible solutions, recommend
technologies and policies and monitor and evaluate impacts. The essence of participation is often
unclear and clarification is required regarding who is participating, how and in what.
Despite Woodhull’s expression (Johnson, 2001), ‘making invisible visible’, participatory
watershed management is not a neutral concept, but it is a complex system, which involves
political issues concerning who has decision-making power and who has access to resources.
Participatory approaches were there for adopt order to ensure community ownership. Under this

7
vision watershed management program incentive bring the resource to encourage the local
population to organize around the improved management of watershed resource (Kerr, 2002).
Participation is also seen a good way resolving the challenge of the sometime hazards overlay on
human active tie naturally defined watershed. With participatory approach, the humane managed
space can in most cases be reconciled with the hydrological unit as the planning area. Ideally all
stockholders should be involved in the participatory process. Stack holder are this international
organization and the privet sector Although the approaches is relatively recent and natural
resource management programs are slow maturing and can only be fully evaluating in the long –
term, there is some empirical evidence that participatory approaches produce better out
came with the important layout that poor and land less may suffer unless proper provision is mad
for them (Kerr, 2002).

2.4. Watershed Management Externalities and Their Valuation

One of the main attribute of watershed management is the potential to improve the management
of externalities resulting from land and water interaction. An externalities can be defined as the
effect of one purity action that impute a cost or benefit on other part without the cost or benefit in
accounted for in the market (World Bank, 2001), Because externalities, operate outside of
markets, there is often no incentive for parties to account for the externalities they generate. In
watershed, the classic for examples of negative externalities is sedimentation of canal and dame
that may a result from accelerated erosion caused on dawn stream user and on the
national budget without the upstream imposer of the sea coast being causes account (World
Bank, 2001). Watershed management project are generally expected not only to deliver local
onsite benefit at the micro water shed level, but also to provide a means of correcting these dawn
stream negative externality within the large water. They may also provide positive
externality in the form of beneficial economical service downstream, such as maintenance
of existing hydrological services and reductions of sedimentations, since beauty or event global
environmental services such as increased biodiversity and carbon sequence (World Bank, 2001).

2.5. Significance’s of watershed on Rural Livelihood

Water is one of the basic needs in human life require immediate attention such as efficient
resource use allocation. The fact that water is a common good; it offers people the opportunity to
use and exploit it till it leads to the tragedy of the Commons (e.g. water resources). Likewise,

8
because raw water is not currently priced; it leads to inefficient allocation and to wasteful
practices (Dargantes, 2008). Today, many of the natural resources are not properly managed and
in doing so, both development institutions and stakeholders should participate in the
management of the resource for sustainable development. Following the definition of World
Commission on environment and Development (WCED) 1987 as cited by Barbier (2003)
sustainable development is the development that meets the present needs without compromising
the future generation, sustainable development is constrained with the degradation of watershed
functions, because of the intricate relationship of economic, ecology as well as social
dimensions. Degradation on the one hand as defined by food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO) is the consequence of using land today without investing in tomorrow (FAO, 1993). In
response to this, the Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan (MTPDP) adapted the
Integrated water resource the local government code of 1991 (RA 7160) stipulated that the LGU
must create CENRO to establish, maintain, preserve and protect communal forest,
watershed, tree parks, mangroves, greenbelts and similar projects. In response to this, many
programs and projects from government and non-government organizations were highly
appraised. One of which was the regular reforestation project found in Mt. Igmatindog and Mt.
Poras with 38% or 2,057.47 hectares. Gabions were also constructed in Brgy. Cabladanfor about
126 w.m, fancies, witling hedgerows about 120 square meter and 23 square met Luna
whilst a proposed 100 hectares is to be reforested in Barangay Cabladan. Moreover,
watershed rehabilitation and Integrated Social Forestry (ISF) were also done in Barangay
Callahan of which 6% were rehabilitated and 2% were subject to ISF (DENR, 2008).

2.6. Impact of Integrated Watershed Management Intervention

Appropriate technology options and scientific and technical backstopping by the consortium of
Institutions through the integrated watershed management. The success is mainly because of
good participation the farmers and due to tangible economic benefits to individuals
equitably through technically backstopped holistic approach. Investments in crop
technologies and integrated watershed management interventions have brought a shift in
cropping pattern and increased yields. This shift has increased productivity and incomes
of the farmers as well as diversified the cereal based systems using legumes (Wani et’al.,
2003a, d). The impact of integrated watershed management interventions on poverty and
livelihoods of rural communities at on-farm watersheds in Adarsha Watershed. Adoption

9
of the improved varieties not only increased crop yields, but also enhanced the economic
profitability of othersoil and water conservation investments, which may otherwise be
economically less attractive to farmers. The increased availability of water (and hence
supplementary irrigation) and better employment opportunities in watershed development
related activities have contributed to diversification of income opportunities and reduced
vulnerability to drought and other shocks (Wani et’al., 2003d). Watershed management
intervention, however may also have UN intended cost downstream. Despite their evident
resource conditions in watershed, watershed development program actually do harm downstream
area. How watershed management interaction produced perverse outcome is illustrated by
example for Karnataka and Andhra perdition in ideally where the ornamentation of forestry,
irrigation and soil and water conservation measure including water harvesting in the upper
watershed produced serious water strategy in lower part catchment. With the lowering of ground
water table downstream well needed to be dinned more deeply which the poor could
often not a afford lending to in equitable water distribution and use (Wani et’al., 2003a).

2.7. Sustainable Integrated Watershed Management

Watershed management encompasses the holistic approach to managing watershed resources that
integrates forestry, agriculture, pasture and water management, which can be broadened to rural
development with a strong link to the livelihoods of the local people (Pudasaini, 2003).
Sustainable management of upland natural resources for the welfare of local population is one of
the key objectives of watershed management. The hills and mountains of Nepal are the
watershed areas with most fragile ecosystems and poor agricultural potential due to their steep
slopes, fragile mountain geology and poor quality soil. Studies carried out in various parts of the
country (Thapa and Weber 1993; Pandit and Thapa, 2004) point out that, problems such as
forest depletion, land degradation, improper water management, air pollution and food
security in the country are related to the WSM problems. These problems are further aggravated
by improper management of upstream areas, where the government's effort is limited (Thapa
and Weber 1993; Wagley and Bogati 1999). These problems are caused partly by
people's encroachment upon, and destruction of, forests and pastures for commercial crop
cultivation, livestock ranching, logging and promotion of special political interests (Thapa and
Weber 1993; Wagley and Ojha, 2003; ICIMOD 2006) and partly by the lack of upstream and
downstream linkages in planning and implementation (Thapa and Weber 1993; ICIMOD, 2006).

10
Conflicts between upstream and downstream users of land, forest and water are on the
rise because of the limited access of poor people to these resources. As upstream and
downstream areas are hydrologically interlinked, it is not possible to ensure the long-term
protection of downstream river banks without conservation of upstream land (Sthapit and
Bendtsen 2000; Rimal, 2003; ICIMOD, 2006).

Managing watersheds for sustainable rural development in developing countries is a relatively

new concept. In many ways it is much more complex than the old concept. It is concerned not
only with stabilizing soil, water and vegetation, but also with enhancing the productivity
of resource in ways that are ecologically institutionally sustainable (Farrington et’al.,
1999). Watershed management is practiced as a means to increase rainfed agriculture
production, conserve natural resources and reduce poverty in the semi arid tropical regions of
South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, which are characterized by low agricultural
productivity, sever natural resource degradation, and high level of poverty (Kerr, 2002). The
success of watershed projects is determined by the „environmental services‟ offered by the poor
people to the rich farmers who live downstream (Kerr, 2002). The term ‘environmental services’
is defined as the conditions and processes through which ecosystems sustains and fulfill human
life, including the provision of food and other goods (Rosegrant, 2002). The watershed has
recognized as a unit for integrated resource management, where management is not only limited
to land, water and biomass, but also worried with integration for self reliance and holistic
development of the rural poor. In an operational context, this would mean integrated: different
uses and management of resources, different departments with sartorial interest through an inter-
disciplinary approach, and towards alleviation of poverty (Mollinga, 2000).

2.8. Role of Watershed Management Rural Poverty Reduction

Although poverty reduction is usually an objective of watershed management programs,
empirical evidence of poverty reduction impact is weak. Most project reviewed includes poverty
reduction among their objective, but there was little evidence of any exact analysis of poverty
that would have helped to improve project design and actual impact where rarely measured. The
poor may even be at risk program; for example land less people dependent on conmen natural
resource for their livelihood may suffer from conservation intervention such as range land
closures as observed in upper watershed in Ideal (Kerr, 2002). However targeting only the poor

11
has produced difficult, a difficult watershed management has to be inclusive of all stakeholder in
the watershed. In best practice examples poverty concern are introduced though the
participatory the role of stakeholder is analyzed with in watershed and instructional
mechanism and the stakeholder commutation process are designed to include poor. In these cease
investment program also include income generating activity that benefits the poor. When
management issue arises in the larger watershed program may be able to strengthen the voice of
upstream communities so that they and the poor within them do not bear the cost of providing
environmental service to downstream. Basins committees that empower stare hatred through
participatory processes are one possible approach. Although watershed management could be
expected reduce poverty are risk with the approach. Most watershed management intervention
developing countries take place in poor up land area and they typically have poverty reduction as
an objective. However watershed management intervention can create benefited and cost that are
unevenly distributed among stakeholder (Kerr, 2002). It is likely that improving the productive
of asset and natural resource will benefit different segment of the population un equal,
unless institutional mechanism are developed to ensure that all artifice benefit. Land owners are
expected to be the first to benefit from the area development programs where as land less people
or poor farmer unable to pay their share of the cost of investment would in the absence of
targeted programs, benefit only from trickle-down effect in economy, where the project
offer a subsidy to land owner for soil in water conservation in Ideal, it is reported that it is the
larger farmer downstream who can least afford to participate. In fact several review on the
performance of watershed development project in India (Sharma, 2005).

12
3. MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1. Description of the Study Area

The study will be conducted in Kacha Kebele, Konta Zone Southwestern
Ethiopia. The study zone is located in South West, 444 km far from Addis Ababa, town.
According to the information of konta chief administrative office of transformation plan module
(2012), it lays at an altitude of 1573 m up to 1765 m above sea level and it receives an annual
rainfall of 2500 up to 2700 mm with an average temperature of 270C up to 320C. The zone
was bounded with four Woreda in four directions, namely Melekoza woreda from South
direction, Dedo woreda North, Aba woreda in the East and Decha woreda in the West. The
Kacha Kebele far from Ameya town by 26km. The total populations of this kebele are
2671. Out of these population 1408 are male and the remain 1263 are female. The Kacha
Kebele of Gicha watersheds have a total catchment area of 250 hectare characterized by kola
ecology inhabited by population of 95. Of these populations 72 are male whereas 23 of are
female. Society of Kacha Kebele cultivate different type of crops like maize, Teff,
sorghum and other vegetation like carrot, onion, cabbage. In addition to this production of tree
like Banana, Mango, Papaya and Avocado are widely practiced to improve livelihood of the
farmers.

3.1.1. Topography
The dominant topography in the study area is undulating plane which covers 50% of the total
area which is commonly found at the central part of the watershed. Mountains and
Hillsides topographies that are commonly found at the periphery of the watershed cover 30%
and 20% of the total area respectively (kebele DA`s and kebele documents, 2015)

3.1.2. Soil type

The major soil types of the area based on their texture are clay loam and sandy loam. From those
soil types, the dominant one is clay loam which covers 75% of the total area which is found in
crop land, forest land and grazing land. The second type soil is sandy loam which covers 25% of
the soil of total area which is found in the cultivated land, homestead and grazing (kebele DA`s
and kebele documents, 2012)

13
3.1.3. Water bodies
The watershed has rivers such as Gicha and Koma, which are used for small scale irrigation.

3.1.4. Livestock production

The total populations of livestock in Gicha watershed are 75 oxen,135 cows, 20 donkeys,
15sheep, 105 goats and. Livestock play a significant role in the watershed. Their contribution is
providing such services as cash generation, draft power, food and for prestige. Livestock
which are farmers rearing in the study area are cattle, donkey, camel, goats, sheep and poultry.
Oxen are kept to provide draft power, cows to provide farm households with milk and butter for
consumption and sale. The rest animals such as sheep, goats and poultry are kept for sale as well
as for their meat. The feed sources commonly used for livestock include natural grazing, crop
residues and sometimes the byproducts from industries.

3.2. MATERIAL and METHODS

3.2.1. Sample size and Sampling Techniques
In this study the sample kebele will be purposively selected based on population density, area
land degradation, topography and area farmers’ skill gap on integrated watershed
management practice. There are 95 households. Due to the heterogeneity of households
the stratified sampling methods will be used based economically potential that means high,
medium and low with their economic grounds. In order to determine sample size use Yemaneh
formula developed in 2012.

Where, n= Sample N= Target population e=significance level=0.1

n=95/1+95(0.1)2 =48 or n=1700/1+1700(0.1)2 =94

Finally, the researcher will be used 48 households (95 respondents) in order to collect
information a data for interview and questioner.

3.2.2 Methods of Data Collection

The data w i l l b e collected using both primary and secondary source of data.
Primary data will be collected through encompassed data includes questionnaire, interview,
a n d observation, An interview to the watershed community of Gicha was conducted to
describe
14
the technical profile of the integrated watershed management impacts,
while the secondary source was include different types of reference books,
materials like strategic plan document of Konta Zone agricultural office,
office reports, kebele administration and the kebele experts, sample done by
other professionals which deal about this issue and other written materials through
opening internet service. The study was employed both and quantitative data.
The quantitative data was collected using structured questionnaire that was
properly tested and carefully prepared.

3.3.3. Methods of Data Analysis

Both qualitative and quantitative methods of data analysis will be used to analyze
the data which was acquired from primary and secondary data sources. The
descriptive statistical such as tables and percentages will be used to analyze the
quantitative sources of data and the quantitative method will be used to interpret the
information by using appropriate statistical producers.