FEDERAL DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF ETHIOPIA

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

AGRICULTURE GROWTH PROGRAM (AGP)

COMPLETION REPORT ON STUDY AND ENGINEERING DESIGN

REVIEW OF SMALL SCALE IRRIGATION PROJECTS

GENERATION INTEGRATED RURAL DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANT (GIRDC)

GIRDC October 2013
th
Commet Building (5 Floor) Addis Ababa
H/Gebresilassie Road, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Ethiopia
P.O.Box 322 Code 1250
Tel +251 (0) 116 63 15 90/91
[email protected]
 TABLE OF CONTENT PAGE

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1
2. OBJECTIVE OF THE CONSULTANCY SERVICE ............................................... 2

2.1 General objective....................................................................................................... 2

2.2 Specific Objectives .................................................................................................... 2

3. METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................. 3
4. STUDY AND DESIGN REVIEW OUTPUTS .......................................................... 4

4.1 Plan and Achievement of SSIP Review ..................................................................... 4

4.2 Advantages & Impacts of the Review ........................................................................ 4

5. MAJOR FINDINGS AND GAPS IN WATER RESOURCE AND ENGINEERING . 6

5.1 General Issues .......................................................................................................... 6

5.2 Technical Issues ........................................................................................................ 6

5.2.1 Topographic survey ............................................................................................ 6

5.2.2 Hydrology and Meteorological study ................................................................... 7
5.2.3 Geology and Geotechnical study ........................................................................ 9
5.2.4 Engineering Design Aspects ..............................................................................10

6. MAJOR FINDINGS AND GAPS IN SECTORAL STUDIES ................................ 13

6.1 Watershed management ..........................................................................................13

6.2 Soil survey and Land Evaluation ...............................................................................15
6.3 Irrigation Agronomy ..................................................................................................17
6.4 Environmental impact assessment ...........................................................................20
6.5 Socio-economy and Viability study ...........................................................................21

6.5.1 Background .......................................................................................................21

6.6. Financial and Economic Analysis ..........................................................................25

7. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SSI SUBPROJECTS ............................................ 28

Assignment Completion Report i

FDRE, AGP-CU GIRDC G

8. OTHER OUTPUTS OF THE CURRENT CONSULTANCY SERVICE ................. 31

8.1 Improving the TOR ...................................................................................................31

8.2 Preparation of Unit Rate Analysis and Cost Establishment for Sample Small-Scale
Irrigation Project ..................................................................................................................31
8.3 Workshop .................................................................................................................32

9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................... 35

Assignment Completion Report ii

FDRE, AGP-CU GIRDC G

ACRONYMS
AGP Agricultural Growth Program
ANRS Amhara National Regional State
BOWRD Bureau of Water Resources Development
D/S Downstream
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
GM General Manager
HW Head Work
IDSAA Irrigation Development and Scheme Administration Agency
MoA Ministry of Agriculture
MOFED Ministry of Finance & Economic Development
ONRS Oromia National Regional State
S&D Study &Design
SNNPRS Southern Nations Nationalities Peoples Regional State
SSIP Small Scale Irrigation Project
TNRS Tigray National Regional State
U/S Upstream
WB World Bank

Assignment Completion Report iii

FDRE, AGP-CU GIRDC G

1. INTRODUCTION

This completion report presents the summary of work accomplished in Study and design review
of AGP SSI sub projects. The report describes methodology, major findings, achievements in
study and design review, SSIP study and design revised, conclusion and recommendation
made for future AGP SSIP activities.

The study and design review were done in all the four AGP Regions namely; Amhara NRS,
Oromia NRS, SNNPRS and Tigray NRS. The review of these small scale irrigation projects was
not only of engineering design but also includes sector studies.

The consultant mobilized two irrigation engineers, one agronomist & one socio-economist in
ANRS & ONRS and one irrigation engineer, one agronomist & one socio-economist in TNRS &
SNNPRS and overall reviewed fifty one (51) SSI subprojects.

The review task was lunched with the introduction of the members of the review team by the
AGP FCU representative to respective Regional Bureau of Water Resources Development
(BOWRD) and Irrigation and Scheme Administration Agency. Briefing was given about the
mission of the review and the responsibilities of the concerned coordination offices and the
study and design review consultant.

Assignment Completion Report 1

FDRE, AGP-CU GIRDC G

2. OBJECTIVE OF THE CONSULTANCY SERVICE

2.1 General objective

The core objective of this consultancy service as stated in the TOR was mainly to support
Implementing BOWRD/IDSAA for quick project start-up activities to ensure quality design
reports and cost effectiveness for all AGP financed SSI sub project works. The consultant was
expected to provide technical advice and guide the implementers regarding the project’s
engineering aspects (appropriate procedures and standards for irrigation surveys, design and
construction supervision) so that satisfactory design and construction standards are met.
Therefore, the primary objective of this consultancy service was to review the available
feasibility study and design reports and assist the regional engineers/experts in updating the
documents to have the present level quality standard designs and estimated costs.

2.2 Specific Objectives

In general, the specific objectives of this assignment were:

 To review and Improve Design of SSI projects based on the standard design
procedures at feasibility and detail design level by reviewing the completed design and
conducting site visits also considering AGP SSI planning and implementation guidelines
 Study and revise/update feasibility study and design TOR;
 Study and produce construction supervision TOR
 Study and produce standard technical and material specifications and unit rates based
on national and international accepted standards

Assignment Completion Report 2

FDRE, AGP-CU GIRDC G

3. METHODOLOGY

The following major methodologies were used for reviewing reports and drawings of the study
and detail design of SSIP:

Short meeting was conducted during launching of the review tasks at The Regional
Bureau of Water Resources Development/IDSAA. Participants comprised of Deputy
Heads of respective Bureaus, WB Representative, AGP-SSIP coordinators, design
engineers, other client representatives, GM and Engineers of the review consultant
and Federal MoA AGP Coordination Unit. During this meeting, the objective of the
review of design, reports and drawings, the scope and expected output of the review
task, and the responsibilities of the concerned coordination offices and the consultant
were briefed by the client representative as well as the participants discussed
thoroughly on it.
The agricultural and socio-economy sectors review team mobilized to these regions
and started the tasks by briefing the objective of each sector feasibility study reports
review and the overall plan of the team with the coordinating offices.
The reviews were executed in discussion with relevant study and design experts and
supported with field visit (for adaptation of the designed project and to confirm three
basic resources i.e. availability of water, land, and beneficiaries’ interest by checking
whether they followed demand driven and participatory approach or not) on sample
project areas
compiled comments for each of the reviewed projects sector by sector and submitted
for the Bureau Deputy General Manager, AGP contact person in the bureau,
respective experts and other stakeholders for redesign and improvement.
Supported and worked out the design and reports and drawings together with the
experts while revising as per comments to meet the required standard.
Verified selected crops for each project site and checked their adaptability to each
site
Checked the worked financial and economic analysis to check viability of each SSIP.
Reviewed, soil, watershed management and EIA studies to check sustainability of
each of the revised SSIP.

Last but not least the checklist used previously for Study and Design Review of Small scale
Irrigation sub projects component of AGP under Fast Track support was improved and used
(The checklist is attached in Appendix I for reference)

Assignment Completion Report 3

FDRE, AGP-CU GIRDC G

4. STUDY AND DESIGN REVIEW OUTPUTS

4.1 Plan and Achievement of SSIP Review

The detail study and design reports and drawings planned to review 50 but total of 51 SSI sub
projects have been reviewed in all the four regions.

Among these, 47 project design reports and drawings have been approved for implementation
and 4 project documents are pended and advised to be revised and improved as per the
required standard. Summary of these reviewed SSIP projects is tabulated in Table 4-1 below.
All the 51 projects will directly benefit a total of over 11,000 house hold beneficiaries on about
6,000 hectares net.

Table 4-1: Summary of Reviewed SSIPs in four Region

Planne Achieve % tage Scheme type Sub Total

SN Region
d (Nr) d (Nr) reviewed. DW Pump Intake Area, HH
ha Beneficiaries
1 ANRS 20 26 130 15 5 6 3,783 7,560
2 ONRS 15 19 126 17 2 0 1,590 2,878
3 SNNPRS 10 4 40 2 2 0 424 850
4 TNRS 5 2 40 2 0 0 150 600
Total 50 51 102 36 9 6 5,947 11,888

4.2 Advantages & Impacts of the Review

The review of SSIP has brought mainly the following Advantages &impacts

It has resulted in cost saving in most of the projects due to revised designs

 Changed separate weir and pump headwork’s in to single weir headwork

that can serve supplying on both sides, e.g. Alentu SSIP in Oromia
 Changed designed fill + drop (which of-course is unnecessarily done) in
drop of same height,
 Minimized canal in deep cut in most of the SSIPs, etc.)

Minimized causes of variation in cost estimate

Reduced wastage of water by considering duty
Thus increased command area

Assignment Completion Report 4

FDRE, AGP-CU GIRDC G

Created awareness among experts and shared experience and capacity building
motivated the study and design staffs for future precaution in project planning &
design
Improved water balance by initiating to consider u/s & d/s uses

Assignment Completion Report 5

FDRE, AGP-CU GIRDC G

5. MAJOR FINDINGS AND GAPS IN WATER RESOURCE AND ENGINEERING

5.1 General Issues

Almost all project study and design reports were not compiled as to the standard study and
design document except a few of them. Consequently, the consultant review engineers tried to
assemble the existing reports and drawings and reviewed, improved and presented as a
standard study and design reports containing each sector study following acceptable format.

Information of the project such as the size of command area, design discharge of the canal
intake, the size of catchment area, the name of the project, geographic coordination of the
project and the like failed to be consistent throughout the documents.

Soil and land resource investigation and mapping which is taken as the basis for engineering
and agricultural development was not surveyed as per the standard and the TOR requirements
and even the scantly available soil data not used in most of the project studies.

5.2 Technical Issues

The technical aspects that are required for the standard study and design document of small
scale irrigation projects have been reviewed and the following findings and gaps are observed:

5.2.1 Topographic survey

Most of topographic maps of headwork and proposed command areas were presented with
layout maps. But they missed clear presentation of important features like defined boundary,
river course left and right banks, bench marks and coordinate/Grid systems to make compatible
with the standard layout system. These results in difficulty to relate the presented designed
layouts with the actual location on the ground during construction e.g. Zingini & Abbay-3 SSIPs
in ANRS. Some of the maps does not cover the required upstream of diversion weir areas thus
found difficult in perceiving backwater effects on the designed structures. In case of SNNPR SSI
projects, the Topographic map of proposed command area is totally missing in Offiya SSIP and
was unable to improve the design. The existing headwork topographic map doesn’t clearly show
the features of the field condition and it is not compatible with the property in Auto CAD soft
ware.

Assignment Completion Report 6

FDRE, AGP-CU GIRDC G

In most of them independent surveying reports have not been presented and discussed
specifically the size of the gross and net command areas, their ranges of slope, and the size of
other features like marshy and settlement areas within the proposed command areas are
important.

Some like that of Fuchana SSIP in ANRS does not reflect actual ground i.e. though the
command area is flat from Google earth and physical observation, the topographic map shows a
wide 8m deep pond/natural reservoir along the main canal. The profile of this canal had also
shown the same. Thus we discussed with the design engineer and agreed to recollect
topographic data and redesign the system as a whole. The bureau has accordingly revisited the
project and presented as per the given comments.

In general Irrigation scheme layout should have been prepared taking into consideration the
general topography of the land, method of irrigation and the soil characteristics and hence
corresponding SMU map which had not been identified for most projects in soil investigation
report. However, without having this soil suitability maps the layout was designed and
delineated and even for some of them without fixing command boundaries. On top of this, the
designed infrastructure and their legend do not show their types exhaustively.

5.2.2 Hydrology and Meteorological study

i. Meteorological Data

In most of the S&D projects especially, mean monthly meteorological data from FAO
CLIMWAT software has been retrieved and supported for design which of-course is
usually adopted for planning purposes. Furthermore, reliability, consistency and
outliers test of adopted meteorological data were not checked and about ten years
data were used in some SSIP in particular those done by own-force. To use reliable
metrological data for appropriate level of study, the reviewers advised to rely on
proxy met-stations and further checking for the reliability should be done before
utilization for higher level of study which requires more accurate and long-term data.

Daily Max Rainfall, Mean Max & Min Temp, Mean of relative humidity, Mean of
sunshine hours and Mean of wind speed data of at least recent 20 years of the study
site or similar area from NMA should have been used rather than adopting mean

Assignment Completion Report 7

FDRE, AGP-CU GIRDC G

values presented in FAO (which of-course can be used for planning purpose and
where there is no option to collect data but not to be used for design of structures
purpose).

ii. Peak Flood and Base Flow Analysis

In most cases hydrology repots were presented in shallow and not to the standard. The peak
flood analysis was not systematically presented. No recorded flow data and analysis in almost
all the projects thus it necessitated analysis of rainfall for peak flood estimation. No standard
methods were used rather different engineers used different methods though unit hydrograph
and slope-area method are common to all the projects. Base flow analysis is totally missing in
some of the reviewed projects only the results are presented. The consultant advised to present
the data and its analysis of the base flow estimation in the report. Moreover, in most of the
designed projects, Base flow is estimated only on the single day of site visit and/or only its value
was presented in the report, which could of-course does not represent lean flow of that source
of water at that point. Base flow measurement in different seasons has to be made.

Floating method is the only method used for base flow estimation. But such simple methods like
partial flume (and other methods if any) and low flow analysis where there is recorded flow data
shall be encouraged for the future,

It has been also advised and oriented to apply Gumbel Extreme Type I Distribution Analysis
method for determination of design point rainfall at 50 years return period, SCS method
systematically to estimate the design peak flood.

iii. Water Balance

Analysis of water balance in the upstream and downstream of the project site should have been
core outputs of the hydrologic study. However, this has not been addressed at all or to the
required level. Other competitive demand areas /like domestic uses, livestock, drinking water
supply, etc. if any/ were not specified or estimated almost in all the regions. In water scarce
areas this will cause serious social conflicts between potential users. The output of the water
balance computation is also expected to apply for social and environmental impact analysis. It is
recommended to give proper attention to analyze the water balance at acceptable standard to
avoid water shortage and social conflict.

Assignment Completion Report 8

FDRE, AGP-CU GIRDC G

The consultant advised the computation of water balance for each projects and the release of
minimum 10% and more base flow of the river for downstream users depending on the demand.

iv. Drainage and Sedimentation

Analysis of drainage networks in the command area and sedimentation condition of the river
supposed to supply irrigation water including its quality were not presented properly or
overlooked at all.
In some projects, provision of drainage net works is totally missing. The consultant advised the
importance of drainage system and its provision while preparing command area system layout.

5.2.3 Geology and Geotechnical study

Geology and geotechnical reports of some of the reviewed projects missed clear description of
foundation and river bank condition around the headwork site almost in all AGP-SSI projects. In
addition, some lacks locating relative position of the construction material/query sites from the
project site.

Geological cross sections at the weir and cross drain sites were also not presented in most
cases except limited description which itself is mostly by the design engineers themselves not
by the geologist especially those done by own-force.

Geological map of the study area which shows geologic structures and formations within the
project area like fractures, faults, and the like has not been identified, mapped and attached.

In addition to this, no site investigation has been carried out and laboratory test results are
attached to the report in most of the geological study and design reports. Rather reference
books have been adopted to refer to design parameters of structures such as silt factor and
depth of stiff material to which the footings of structures extend.

No pits were dug, samples taken and tested in the laboratory along the MC except some
projects. This necessitates care during construction phases. All these defects in the
investigation process would have negative implication on the scheme structure and water
discharge potential, therefore thorough discussion and technical assistance was given to the
experts and engineers to make the required amendments in the analysis. Moreover the

Assignment Completion Report 9

FDRE, AGP-CU GIRDC G

indicated shortfall of the investigation should be corrected for other similar future irrigation study
and design projects.

5.2.4 Engineering Design Aspects

i. Headwork

Problem in headwork site selection was observed in some projects. Options of possible
headwork sites were not exhaustively surveyed and analyzed as in case of Alentu SSIP in
ONRS. On top of this, a vertical weir structure of 8m height for 15ha command area and
additional pump headwork for the left side was designed which is not technically acceptable and
cost effective, while the topographic features shows other potential sites that can deliver on both
sides. Accordingly comment given and the headwork sites are changed and related data are
revised.
In some projects recommended design procedures were not adapted like the case in Offiya
SSIP of SPNNRS. Here the consultant advice adaptation of the standard design procedure
outlining it in estimation of tail water depth, water depth in the weir crest, weir height, stilling
basin and hydraulic and structural design of the detail parts of the weir.

The designers are Adopted same approach for different sources of supply systems i.e. for
example:

River with sufficient base flow: where potential command area is a driven factor
in which case, intake should be fixed from potentially suitable irrigable area,
River with insufficient base flow: where flow or rainfall distribution/runoff drives
thus intake should be fixed from optimum level that enables to use available flow,
Spring Development: In which intake should be fixed from maximum head on its
eye not the demand or available flow unless otherwise it is possible to use
collection chamber on the downstream side.
In some projects like those in SNNPRS, provision of driving head were missed while
designing diversion headwork which could result in insufficient flow to the intake
structure during operation.

ii. Irrigation Command Area System Layout

Irrigation command area preparation was not found as sound and detailed as exemplified for
Halo-Gelana and Neri SSIPs of SNNPR and some projects in ANRS and ONRS. The consultant

Assignment Completion Report 10

 FDRE, AGP-CU GIRDC G

advice and work together with designers for the preparation of final revised sound and
systematic command area system layout. Here, both main canal and tertiary canals agreed to
follow contour line whereas secondary and field canals to align across the contour.

ii. Irrigation and Drainage Canals

Natural drainage networks should have been identified before any irrigation canal layouts are
designed. As a consequence of this, it was observed that canals were seen crossing drains by a
22m fill as in case of Loko SSIP in ONRS.

In structures of repeated nature, it requires to design all structures but single sample structure is
drawn and then table of attribute for the remaining similar structures are presented on that
drawing of related family, e.g. drops, division boxes, offtakes, etc.

In ANRS, main canals were designed for 24 hour irrigation duration but application times were
considered to be 16 or 18 hours. Thus remaining 8 to 6 hours per day should have been
considered for storage in NSR (which could have increased command area) however neither
outfalls nor such storage structures were proposed for these remaining hours. This results in
wastage of water a precious resource. It also results in shortage of irrigation water thus create
conflict with downstream users and also resulted in erosion of d/s areas.

Series of drops within 7 to 10m interval on steeply falling ground were encountered during this
review e.g. Jida SSIP in ONRS. This could however be changed in to appropriate on-farm
structures like chute as per standard design guidelines.

v. Operation and maintenance

Operation and maintenance manual prepared by engineers are not enable water users
association for operation of each of the designed structures and the system as a whole starting
from the headwork, irrigation and drainage structures. It was presented just in general i.e. not
specific to the SSIP site and the structure of each project depending on AGP SSIP S&D guide
line.

Assignment Completion Report 11

FDRE, AGP-CU GIRDC G

vi. BOQ and Cost

Here some design reports in all the regions were found out that, they missed some important
design parameters and structures in the design reports and drawings. However simply added
the structures without design in the BOQ and cost which were not considered/seen in design
and drawings,

vii. Drawings.

Drawings of structures, layout and canals were found out simple sketches worked out on Auto
CAD, thus needed to be revised to standardize them. Most of them lack quality of known
standard drawings as mentioned here under:

Cross sections of structures were seen reversed;

Scales were not kept to the standard (this is almost common problem to all the presented
SSIP reports);
Layers not identified for different features or lack legend,
levels not shown or section and plan do not fit with each other;
Used same scales for horizontal and vertical scales of profiles (this is especially common in
ANRS);

Assignment Completion Report 12

FDRE, AGP-CU GIRDC G

6. MAJOR FINDINGS AND GAPS IN SECTORAL STUDIES

6.1 Watershed management

Watershed development study is carried out in all SSIP projects at different depths of study.
Almost all studies applied watershed approach while some projects follow the scheme approach
which is not recommended by MOA nor AGP guidelines. As the result of review comments,
major changes are made to improve and bring the documents to acceptable standard.
It was clearly observed that some of the watershed studies are undertaken only to provide
limited information to compute the runoff yield, time of concentration, Curve number for
engineering purpose. Actually the inclusion of watershed development study in the project
feasibility phase is far beyond the estimation of runoff which is to identify appropriate
conservation measures to protect the irrigation scheme and to maintain the flow of water
resource. Therefore during the review and discussion sessions, recommendation was given to
improve the document.

Technical assistance was given to watershed experts to incorporate area specific bio-physical
descriptions of the watershed, which is useful to identify the major watershed development
constraints and to develop appropriate watershed management plan.

Length of Growing Period: it’s one of the watershed characteristics showing the rainfall
distribution potential for agricultural production. In order to plan long term effective land use
system then LGP assessment is required to identify land resource for cultivated land expansion.
The length of growing period analysis was not incorporated in most documents and the required
technical support is given to the experts on the recommended procedures for LGP analysis and
interpretation. .

Land use / cover is an essential physical feature that must be identified and mapped for
analysis, while most of the studies described the land use of the project kebele which might not
describe the actual watershed land cover. To resolve this problem, the watershed experts were
advised to use appropriate software like Global mapper and satellite imagery to identify the type
of land uses and their spatial distribution in the watershed.

Assignment Completion Report 13

FDRE, AGP-CU GIRDC G

Investigation of soil erosion and deforestation problems is an assignment expected to address

in watershed studies of the SSIPs, however most of the projects of Oromoia, Tigray and
SNNPR did not estimate the soil loss rate of the watershed. Soil erosion is a prominent form of
land degradation in most watersheds which can be calculated using the adopted soil loss
equation like RUSLE. It is an important data to demonstrate the level of degradation, determine
type of conservation and use as input for Land Capability Classification analysis. Accordingly,
the reviewer assisted them to reconsider the indicated gap and estimate the soil loss rate and
produce related soil erosion hazard map for the watershed. As the results, hotspots are
identified and indicated in soil erosion hazard maps to facilitate the watershed conservation
interventions.
In regard to watershed conservation proposals the following major gaps are identified and
discussions had been held with the experts to improve and incorporate in the documents. These
are:

Some conservation recommendations were proposed based on field observations and

general watershed development understanding,
Some mitigation measures are proposed without the background information that
supposed to be investigated during field survey.
The proposals sometimes do not have cost estimate and material requirements
The typical design for proposed physical structures is one of the TOR requirements
which are missed in most of the documents.

Watershed development plan (including watershed development plan map) is the most
important part of the watershed development study. Critical discussions were made with the
watershed experts to develop appropriate and applicable watershed development plans as
expected in the AGP ToR. We share our experience from previous works to apply in AGP
projects. We assisted to divide the watersheds into broader sub-watersheds and micro
watersheds depending on the size of watersheds. This approach will facilitate the labor and
financial allocation and monitoring activities. Some of the comments identified during the review
with regard to watershed development plan are:

Watershed management plan, financial requirement for SWC interventions are

missed in the document
Watershed development map is not produced for most watersheds which could show
the spatial distribution of proposed conservation measures within the watershed
Monitoring plan and responsible institutions are not part of the documents in some
studies

Assignment Completion Report 14

FDRE, AGP-CU GIRDC G

According to the review results, most of the watershed development study documents in
particular the 21 AGP-SSIPs of the Amhara NRS and some of the Oromia projects made
remarkable improvements as per the comments.

Moreover, during the briefing workshop where the National and regional AGP staffs were
participated, the watershed development study was one of the discussion issue raised by the
participants. The presentation highlighted most common and major gaps of the reviewed
documents. There was a suggestion by a few participants to focus on the computation of runoff
and other engineering parameters and excluding the conservation aspects of the study. Lastly
there was a consensus that the watershed studies should incorporate the conservation and
development components to maintain the irrigation water flow and the environmental protection
of the upstream catchment.

6.2 Soil survey and Land Evaluation

Most of the SSIP soil investigation reports do not have a separate report.The report was treated
as a chapter in agronomy report, which could indicate the limited depth of the study.
The review results show that the experts and institutions gave less attention to soil study and
underestimate its’ importance for all sector analysis and recommendations. During the review
and on the workshop attempted to explain the impacts of soil investigation on other sector
outputs, and agreed to make considerable efforts to improve current situations.
In depth discussions had been undertaken with all experts involved in feasibility study of the SSI
projects to show the inter-sector linkage in information or data exchange in particular soil
investigation data. The following core points were discussed with soil experts to enhance their
knowledge and concern.

Project area description: The soil survey report expected to clearly demarcate the study area,
gross command area and net command area in figures and in maps. Otherwise there is no
evidence to have the indicated irrigable land in the project area. According to the revision
results, the command area of almost all AGP-SSI projects was determined only based on
discharge capacity of the water resource.

Land use: The land use/cover investigation is one of the tasks of the soil expert to characterize
the command area for further analysis. The data is important to classify the land capability of the

Assignment Completion Report 15

FDRE, AGP-CU GIRDC G

command area which is one of the assignments given in TOR. Besides, the data could be used
by the EIA sector study to demonstrate the extent of the land use change impacts. During the
review; efforts were made to incorporate the land cover data in the documents and otherwise
recommended to apply in similar projects in future.

The topography of the command area suggested to be classified in recommended slope

ranges and quantifies respective land area coverage which is not done for all SSIPs. During the
review and discussion sessions explained how the missed slope data affects the determination
of the method of irrigation system, evaluation of land suitability, and SWC measure
recommendations.

Physical characteristics of the soils: Only two soil physical characteristics; soil texture and
soil depth were discussed for most of the AGP-SSI projects. While others important physical
properties including soil drainage, bulk density, field capacity, permanent wilting point, infiltration
and permeability were not analyzed due to different reasons. Technical explanations were given
on the level of importance of the indicated information for sustainability of the irrigated
agriculture and recommended to pay considerable attention during field survey and soil
analysis.

Chemical analysis is one of the most important tools to evaluate the land and crop suitability.
The review results indicated that about 33 SSIPs in which most of them are from Amhara NRS
SSIPs carried out the soil chemical analysis for the command area. However, most of these
projects did not exhaustively use the analysis results for their evaluation and recommendation,
for instance salinity and pH values of the soils are expected to be used for agronomy and EIA
studies, but the data were not used by indicated sectors in most of the projects. Therefore, the
required explanation and comments were given to concerned experts to make a correction and
avoid contradicting recommendations with the actual characteristics of the soils. For the projects
those do not conduct the chemical analysis is recommended to carry out the analysis to develop
reliable soil database and reduce production risk during implementation period.

Soil map is an important illustration showing the distribution of different types of soils. We
recommended to include the soil map with the scale of 1:10,000. Other limitations concerning
soil investigation studies noted during the review are:

Assignment Completion Report 16

FDRE, AGP-CU GIRDC G

Lack of capacity of the soil laboratories to process the analysis results with the given
time framework
Shortage of reagents or other laboratory equipments to make soil test
Allocation of inadequate field days to carry out the field work
Shortage/lack of field survey equipment
Less attention was given to soil sector studies in particular for small scale irrigation
projects
Unavailability of effective data exchange system within the project team

Land suitability evaluation is a priority task of the soil investigation study to evaluate the
intended command area suitability for irrigation agriculture. Moreover, the soil ToR clearly
requested to undertake this task in reference to the FAO guidelines, however the soil studies did
not come up with evaluation results. Therefore, the reviewer gave considerable attention to this
critical issue and made technical assistant on the application of land suitability guidelines to
enhance their capacity. Moreover, comments were given on crop suitability analysis, in which
each of the proposed crops supposed to be evaluated based on acceptable parameters for their
suitability to the given command area. This evaluation was not undertaken in any of the project.
It was therefore recommended to consider these valuable inputs in soil study to select promising
and suitable crops for given project area and to find out appropriate management for the
identified limiting factors.

6.3 Irrigation Agronomy

Agronomy sector studies are undertaken for all AGP-SSIPs in four regions at different level of
details. Agronomic sector reports of all AGP-SSIPs are reviewed and comments were forwarded
to respective experts for improvement. The review was conducted in collaboration with the
regional water resource bureau of Amhara, Oromia, SNNPRS and Tigray regions. The
agronomists responsible for each study were invited for discussion on the identified gaps and
comments, this approach helped to develop mutual understanding and clarity to improve the
document according to the given comments. Accordingly most documents are improved and
qualified for implementation. However in a few projects there are still gaps to be reconsidered
for improvement of the document and to fulfill the TOR requirements.

Description of the project area and most importantly the command area is the main part of the
document in which the AGP guidelines and TOR are required to address in the feasibility study.

Assignment Completion Report 17

FDRE, AGP-CU GIRDC G

Contrary to this; in most of the studies the assessment and descriptions are focused on kebele
and wereda levels.

The second important issue expected to be assessed in this study is the assessment of existing
agricultural production system and crop productivity status. Almost all SSIPs agronomy studies
discussed the crop production and yield of the project area with one year production data which
is difficult to undertake yield trend analysis. It was recommended to improve the crop production
data base at least for the last 3-5 years of the project area that could give substantial
information to select appropriate crops for the proposed irrigation project.

The third issue expected to cover in the agronomy study is assessment of farmers experience in
technology utilization and plant protection. Most of the agronomy studies have overlooked the
importance of knowledge on existing farmers’ experience to identify appropriate inputs and
develop appropriate interventions to support the implementation activities. For example, in most
projects the existing rate of agricultural input application for different crops was not addressed to
propose relevant agricultural development interventions. Detail discussions were undertaken on
this issue and the required technical support and explanation was given to incorporate in the
document and to consider in future for similar project studies.

During the review, considerable attention was given to the agricultural development proposal
part of the studies which has significant impact on the success of the project. Detail discussions
were held with the agronomists to improve the recommendations based on the available
agricultural resources and socio-economic conditions of the project area.

In some projects the applied crop selection criteria are not area specific to screen out the most
appropriate crops for particular project. Valuable technical support is given to the experts to
reconsider and incorporate additional criteria for better cropping pattern proposals. In regard to
crop selection, appropriate screening was made for all projects based on the set criteria, project
objectives and opportunities of the project area. Unsuitable crops and crop varieties were
replaced to attain optimum yield. Recommendations are given to incorporate high yielding cash
crops and seed production in particular for full irrigation season. Besides, for the crop-mixes
those who did not include pulse crops suggested to include potential and marketable pulses in
the cropping pattern.

Assignment Completion Report 18

FDRE, AGP-CU GIRDC G

The review team attempted to avoid the data inconsistency on command area size in
engineering and agronomy reports which was found a major gap for some projects in Amhara,
SNNPRS and Oromia SSI projects. For instance, the proposed irrigable land area for dry
season was exaggerated in five projects of Amhara NRS SSIPs which is found higher than the
capacity of the available water resources and designed by the engineers. This appeared
because of lack of proper data exchange system. Appropriate review comments are given to
make relevant corrections and improve their data or information exchange system.

Technical support was given to experts to determine the number of crops to be planted based
on the size of the command area. In some cases, there are projects where up to 15 crops are
proposed for 15-30 ha command area. This will be resulted in the irrigable land fragmentation to
uneconomical size; therefore recommended to reduce number of crops for sake of management
and obtain optimum yield from the project.

According to the review results, few projects did not consider the wet season production as part
of the system and they did not propose crops for wet season production. In most cases,
supplementary irrigation is essential for wet season production system. The study is expected to
justify the availability of adequate rainfall for the indicated season in order to exclude the wet
season crops from the irrigation system. Decisions should be taken based on reliable data
otherwise will affect the feasibility of the project. Comments are given to incorporate the wet
season crops in the cropping patterns of the project where the rainfall is inadequate for crop
production based on the rainfall distribution data.

Determination of crop water requirement for the proposed crops is the major task of the
irrigation agronomy study. Most of the projects are applied CROPWAT 8.0 software and some
of them use CROPWAT 4 version. It’s suggested in future to work with latest version because of
the availability of meteorological and other relevant soils data to obtain more accurate outputs.
Some of the major findings concerning to crop water requirement and related parameter
computation are:

In most projects the applied soil moisture data were not taken from soil investigation
results of the projects, rather data are referred from literature and guidelines. This
approach is not advisable at feasibility level of study and recommended to rely on soil
analysis results of the command area

Assignment Completion Report 19

FDRE, AGP-CU GIRDC G

Some projects calculated the crop water requirement only for dry season which will
affect the water supply schedules during wet season cropping system. Accordingly, the
experts made the required amendments to incorporate in final documents
Appropriate amendments have been made on irrigation interval, irrigation application
depth and irrigation hours for most projects based.

Determination of agricultural input requirements for the proposed crops is not addressed
adequately in most of the study documents. After the review, most of the studies incorporated
the seasonal and annual input requirements of the projects. According to the comments the
seasonal and annual requirements of seeds, fertilizer and chemicals are calculated. This will
facilitate the planning of input supply system and budgeting including credit from micro-finance
institutions during implementation period.

6.4 Environmental impact assessment

The reports adopted national and regional EIA guidelines that include major issues including
AGP ToR. However, there are some issues missed to attain the required EIA standard.
Technical support was given to fill the gaps and improve the EIA reports. Knowledge about the
bio-physical features of the project area and socio-economic situations is a basis for
identification of potential project impacts. Most of the AGP SSI projects did not assess or
obtained the required data from other sectors about the bio-physical features of the project area,
rather most of the discussions were rely on kebele and wereda bio-physical features. During
discussions held with each environmentalist, the reviewer demonstrated the use of various
sector data for the purpose of environmental analysis and recommendations. In some cases,
the recommendation of the EIA is contradicting say with chemical analysis of the soils or
physical description of the project area. These and other related comments were amended in
reference with the sectoral findings. Other identified major issues are:

 Less attention is given for conservation of reverine vegetation. For example In Digdiga
SSIP of Oromia NRS, the description of the project area indicated that there is a forest
cover at the riverside, however, the EIA did not recommend any mitigation measures like
buffer zone. This issue was discussed and recommended to incorporate in the report as
an intervention.
 Loss of agricultural land due to project intervention was estimated and identified as the
negative impact of the project in a few studies.
 Loss of grazing area and bush land due to crop encroachment in the command area are
not assessed if any.

Assignment Completion Report 20

FDRE, AGP-CU GIRDC G

 In most projects, the interest/opinion of the downstream communities was not seen or
consulted
 Potential agro-chemicals impacts due to intensive application is not discussed in
reference with the use of proposed agro-chemicals
 Costs for environmental mitigation implementation and monitoring were not estimated in
few studies
 In most projects the report is not self-contained to submit to environmental protection
bureau for approval which is mandatory to implement the project.

6.5 Socio-economy and Viability study

6.5.1 Background

The review work includes the Socio economy studies; community organization & management
studies; and financial and economic analysis. The review is using an evaluation checklist which
includes elaborations and suggestions that could help enriching the documents further. As a
demonstration of updating the viability studies, a sample worked result of one project was given
and discussed. As a support document, conversion factors for calculating by- product crops,
appraisal report prepared by MOFED and Guideline prepared by Development Bank of Ethiopia
are given.

Out of the reviewed socio economy studies and viability analysis, many of them are updated
and re-submitted. In the revised version, the studies are enriched and updated whereas there
are also identified points which are not yet incorporated. Among these, a point that needs to be
considered by many projects is the issue of potential water conflict with other upstream and
downstream water users. Some of the major study reviews are presented briefly herein under.

6.5.2 General Comments

• Not all the reports include essential report contents like executive summary; cover page;
lists of tables; attachments; and others. Besides, they also require editorial works.
• It is better to put the socio economy, O&M and viability analysis in separate study
volumes so that they could be more detailed.
• The study analysis largely limited at kebele and wereda levels and do not concentrated
on the specific project sites which is the prime concern of the study. Instead of project

Assignment Completion Report 21

FDRE, AGP-CU GIRDC G

specific primary data, the specific project sites are largely represented by secondary
data of the kebeles and the weredas.

6.5.3 Specific comments

Analyze the Present Economic Condition of The Farmers in the Project Area: Many project
studies didn’t analyze the Present Economic Condition of the farmers, including primary and
secondary sources of incomes and expenses, by the help of project specific quantified figures.

Gender Analysis: Women and men headed households; number of existing and anticipated
male and female irrigators; gender based economic and social services discussion are not
made. Thus, many project studies do not provide area specific gender base analysis and the
importance of the project expressed in terms of gender is not shown.

Identify development potentials and constraints of the project area in order to involve all
stakeholders in the project area for sustainability of the project: The identification of project
development potentials and constraints towards involving all stakeholders and sustainability of
the project is not given. The analysis which could be discussed with respect to the development
of livestock; apiculture; agro- processing industries; machinery rentals; input supplies;
marketing; development of social services; stakeholder’s participation for long-term
sustainability; assessments of backward and forward project linkages; identification of
constraints and proposals for the integrated use of the project are not done.

Identify the existing farming systems, inputs used, production, markets, agricultural
incomes, other sources of income and attitudes to irrigation: Analysis is not given for the
entire phases ranging from the production system of the production process up to the marketing
aspects. The existing farming system of the project area is not discussed by many project
studies. The types and quantities of inputs used together with its limitations and problems; type
and quantity of production; Markets in relation with price analysis, market places, marketable
products and others; the type and the level of quantified agricultural incomes; are either not well
discussed or not discussed at all by many projects. The amount of surplus product that could be
delivered to the market and its projection is not done. The classification of crop products of a
farmer between marketable, reserve and consumption need are not quantified and discussed.
Marketing aspects which are the major marketing study aspects both for the existing condition

Assignment Completion Report 22

FDRE, AGP-CU GIRDC G

and for the proposed crops including for the inputs are not identified and discussed
quantitatively. Besides, even though outlets are identified in some reports, their absorption
capacity not distinguished. In addition, attitudes towards irrigation are given not by all relevant
stakeholders.

Population Dynamics: Many study documents do not provide site specific discussion on
population and projections, implications on the level of landholdings, economic activities and
social services. Moreover, many of the reports do not show the number of population residing
within the proposed command area and the discussion is largely limited at kebele level.

Investigate the availability of accessibility of all social services (health, education, water supply)
in order to assess the potentials/constraints and possibility of the contributions it has for future
development of the irrigation project:

Many reports do not provide site specific discussions on the availability and accessibility of all
social services. Besides, assessments of their potentials & constraints and their contributions
towards the future development of the project are not made. In relation to this, availability or
non-availability of historical, archeological, religious, holly places, tourisms, etc. with their
implication towards the project are not shown.

Investigated input supply, credit service and market facilities: In many project documents,
input supplies for the existing and projected crops are not analyzed for the specific project
places. Credit is discussed by many whereas site specific analysis using primary data is not
given. The credit service is not elaborately discussed by incorporating the uses and purposes of
the credit services. Investigation for the marketing facilities of agricultural products is not given.

Examine past practices and existing attitudes towards the proposed irrigation project:

Project specific analysis which could help to analyze attitudes towards the project as well as to
take lessons for water source selection and construction; crop selection; water management
and operational activities; cost sharing; skill transfer; and other issues are very limited. Site
specific past or existing practices on traditional irrigation activities (if any) are not discussed by
many project studies. In particular, practices which can be viewed through methods of water

Assignment Completion Report 23

FDRE, AGP-CU GIRDC G

abstraction; farm implements; water use management; land use arrangements; production;
negative impacts from irrigation practices and other discussions are not given. In addition to
this, cost and benefit streams, number of HH irrigators, Lessons learnt and benefit comparison,
and, the way farmers are expecting more income than what they earn using traditional irrigation
practices, and many related issues are not given.

Other than the project, there could be existing water demand potentials outside the project.
However, many of study documents didn’t identify and analyze the views of other existing and
potential water users. Analysis on water demands of other places and upstream and
downstream water users towards the common use of resources and avoidance of water use
conflict is not given. Even if there are non-other users at present, there may emerge in the
future whereas the study does not provide projections of future water use. Consultation is done
at the community level but doesn’t tell whether the consultative meeting participants are drawn
from the project area or not. Besides, many of the studies contain discussions on cost sharing
and scheme management. However, their contributions and agreement on EIA, watershed, and
annual operational cost and replacement costs to be covered by them and on the issues of land
redistribution, compensation plan is not enough to serve as bases of intervention programs. The
reports do not show whether the beneficiary farmers have participated in selecting the
command area, the various infrastructure locations, material sites, share of their irrigation
practices and farm management and others.

Assess the social implications of the project, including displacement, land reallocation,
compensation, etc. Quantitative and qualitative identification and estimation of the possible
direct and an indirect project negative impacts that could be caused by the project is not
analyzed at sufficient level. Land relocation, land sharing and compensations issues (if any) are
not discussed and quantified with a support of legal aspects.

Organizational Structure: The organizational structure of irrigation users’ cooperative doesn’t

have budget estimates and the structure doesn’t show accountable body from the top. Some
didn’t have organizational study and structure at all. Those who did also used various position
names, different structures and there is no uniform structure.

Assignment Completion Report 24

FDRE, AGP-CU GIRDC G

6.6 Financial and Economic Analysis

The financial analysis is done for many of the projects and discussed relevant issues. The
observed limitations are however presented as below.

6.6.1 General Comments

• Contrary to the TOR of the AGP, many projects do not have economic analysis. In
addition to this, there are projects that didn’t conduct financial analysis. Many viability
analysis reports are compiled as a chapter together with other studies and thus they are
not detailed. Besides, many relevant tables are not incorporating within the reports so
that it is not easy to follow the discussions. Some documents do not use similar
agronomy, engineering and other sectoral datas. In addition to this, certain studies have
excluded some relevant costs such as contingency, construction management and
supervision and VAT which need to be included in the analysis.

• Financial analysis at farm level of beneficiary farmers is not conducted for each of the
project sites to confirm return of projects to the farmers. Same discounting rate is used
for both the financial and economic analysis. The country has established a discount
factor of 10.23% for economic analysis whereas higher rates are applied by many
projects.

6.6.2 Specific comments

Prepare crop budgets (yield, input usage, draught power, labor, machinery, etc.) for the
project: The indicated task is not done for economic analysis whereas the issues are
considered in financial analysis of many projects. On the other hand, there are certain projects
who didn’t prepare crop budget which is the bases of the viability analysis. For certain projects,
land development plan and cropping” do not coincide with the irrigation development plan
contained in the agronomy reports. Many projects used 5 years yield build –up period which is
very long and optimum level of production may be attained at shorter period. The crop budget
could also include byproducts.

Estimate production costs including transport costs: Per ha production costs by type of
costs as well as their aggregate sum are given in financial analysis .However; many analyses

Assignment Completion Report 25

FDRE, AGP-CU GIRDC G

do not provide total annual requirements on cost category bases. Besides, their breakdown in
terms of foreign and local cost components is not given.

Comparison of summary of yearly production cost and revenue under "without" and
"with" project condition: Many project documents do not provide the comparison between the
two and thus the analysis doesn’t show the incremental benefit for a typical household income.
Crop budget is required to be prepared by the agronomy whereas it is observed to be done by
the financial analyst. Cost comparisons, annual crop production and by product estimates for
each of the crops and their totals, gross and net benefit of the same, are not shown in a
completed way for many of project documents. Land development plan, and crop intensity are
not given in many studies. The aggregate labor requirement figures for both the situations are
not prepared and compared. Family labor is not considered for some projects. The crop budget
for the without the project condition doesn’t consider the existing traditional irrigation aspect by
many analysis. Farm gate prices are required for crop budget. However, for crop budget of
some projects, the use of farm gate price is either not specifically mentioned, or even if
assumed to be taken, transportation cost is included which translates farm gate price to market
prices.

Analyze economic IRR, FIRR, NPV, and B/C ratio: Contrary to what is requested by the TOR,
viability analysis is conducted for economic analysis. However, the study requires both since
economic analysis is difficult to be conducted without financial analysis. Analysis for the
beneficiary farmers is not done. Some project documents exclude VAT, contingency,
construction supervision, replacement costs, study and design, and other sectoral costs. Costs
and benefits are not recorded on the bases of their maturity period. For some projects, farm
implements are not treated as an investment. For others, they consider only their replacement
costs and not initial investment costs. The types of farm implements are also not given in some
cases. Certain costs such as motor cycles which are not specific to the project are included to
many projects. Investment costs on offices of water users associations are not included. The
without benefit is recorded beginning from year 1 onwards. However, this could have been
recorded beginning in line with the start of the proposed crops provided that the construction
doesn’t affect them.

Assignment Completion Report 26

FDRE, AGP-CU GIRDC G

Annual operational costs do not take into account costs for annual pump operating and sectoral
costs of certain projects. The use of oxen and machinery rates are combined in some projects.
Not all cost and benefit like land tax, miscellaneous expenses are included in the crop budget.

With regard to streams of Expected Benefits; the streams of benefits are not properly shown .By
Product benefit which is one of the benefits of crop production are not considered in the
analysis. The streams of benefits are required to be properly shown in the viability table in
accordance with its maturity date. Attainable yields, yield development and the types of crops
are found to be different from the agronomy in certain reports.

Limitations are observed in discounting procedures, rates and periods. Discounting is a major
aspect for the viability analysis whereas NPV and B/C Ratio are calculated from the
undiscounted cash flows. Same discounting factor is used for both the economic and financial
analysis. MOFED has established 10.23% whereas the studies used a rate of 8.5%-12%. The
discounting rate is not in conformity with the notational country standard figures in many cases.

The viability analysis table for both the financial and economic analysis is not provided for
certain projects. At the established IRR, NPV and B/C Ratio should be zero and 1 respectively
whereas such results are not obtained in many projects. The period of analysis of certain
projects is not in accordance to the lifespan of head work infrastructure. While conducting
economic analysis, the methodology of establishing economic values are not clearly described
and shown.

Assignment Completion Report 27

 FDRE, AGP-CU GIRDC G

7. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SSI SUBPROJECTS

Review of engineering design and sector feasibility studies of 51 AGP-SSI projects was
completed in collaboration with the regional stakeholders. The study and design of 48 SSIPs are
improved (for some redesigned). Therefore it is recommended to immediately start
implementation of these projects. However, designs of the remaining 4 SSI projects are not able
to be improved due to lack of field survey data. It is proposed that data has to be recollected,
analyzed, and redesigned to the acceptable standard. The status of each 51 SSIP by Regional
states is summarized in Table 7.1 below.

Table 7-1: Summary and Recommendation of Reviewed AGP-SSIP

Area, ha Status of the review

SN Project Headwork Recommendations
Planned
I. Amhara National Regional State AGP SSIPs
1 Gudaber Intake 157 Reviewed & improved: Approved for implementation
2 Muz Wuha Intake 88.9 Reviewed & improved: Approved for implementation
3 Lower Dinsra Weir 90 Reviewed & improved Approved for implementation
4 Zeya Weir 62.28 Reviewed & improved Approved for implementation
5 Sure Weir 285 Reviewed & improved Approved for implementation
Pended
There are comments to be considered for
revision mainly; different options of pumping
units have not been analyzed rather nine units
are proposed in series for such small SSIP
which is uneconomical design; Pump
operation cost not estimated; Suction pool
Reviewed but not design
improved To realize the project in future the following
6 Tana Zaghi Pump 450
suggestion is given:
Under such small-scale irrigation project
condition, operation of nine pumps for
development of 450 ha is not manageable.
Thus the command are shall be sub-divided
in to 100 ha or 200 ha each to manage and
operate separately instead of using series of
nine pumps which is not manageable to
operate
7 Gulo Intake 100 Reviewed & improved Approved for implementation
8 Nazero Intake 71 Reviewed & improved Approved for implementation
9 Yebered Weir 32 Reviewed & improved Approved for implementation
10 Lemchek Sewer Intake 60 Reviewed & improved Approved for implementation
Approved for implementation with
preconditions to improve the design as per
Timble Mehal Reviewed & partly
11 Weir 204 given comments before implementation mainly
Mocha improved.
unnecessary inclusion of drop structures for
TC 3-1 & TC4-1 which have impact on cost

Assignment Completion Report 28

 FDRE, AGP-CU GIRDC G

Area, ha Status of the review

SN Project Headwork Recommendations
Planned
12 Fetam Tajet Weir 530 Reviewed & improved Approved for implementation
Approved for implementation with
preconditions to improve
Reviewed & partly mainly: Water balance which not analyzed in
13 Guang Pump 37 improved detail; Design flood level not fixed; hydraulic
& structural design parameters of stabilizing
pond not fixed; Pump operation cost not
estimated
14 Enfranz Diversion 172 Reviewed and improved Approved for implementation
Reviewed and u
15 Zingini Diversion 152 Approved for implementation
improved
16 Kermuki Diversion 64 Reviewed and improved Approved for implementation
17 Upper silala Diversion 140 Reviewed and improved Approved for implementation
18 Tana Asrate Pump 284 Reviewed and improved Approved for implementation
19 Lalen Diversion 70 Reviewed and improved Approved for implementation
20 Ayima Pump 100 Reviewed and improved Approved for implementation
21 Tana Mekonta Pump 200 Reviewed and improved: Approved for implementation
22 Bishano Intake 150 Reviewed and improved Approved for implementation
23 Tetima Diversion 73.28 Reviewed & improved: Approved for implementation
24 Abay 3 Intake 200 Reviewed and improved Approved for implementation
25 Sarkita Diversion 60 Reviewed & improved Approved for implementation
26 Funchana Diversion 30 Reviewed and improved Approved for implementation
Sub-total 3862.46
II. Oromia Regional State AGP-SSIP
Approved for implementation
with precondition to include the comments for
1 Ameto Diversion 75 Reviewed and improved ex the designed layout has missed some
contours along main canal layout thus needs
to be fulfilled during construction
2 Worga Diversion 100 Reviewed and improved Approved for implementation
3 Bucha Diversion 70 Reviewed and improved Approved for implementation
4 Alentu Diversion 30 Reviewed and improved Approved for implementation
Approved for implementation but Structure
drawings shall be redrawn to the scale and
5 Leliso Diversion 330 Reviewed and improved
made ready with standard scales before
commencing construction.
Approved for implementation but Structure
drawings shall be redrawn to the scale and
6 Baka Pump 90 Reviewed and improved
made ready with standard scales before
commencing construction.
7 Robe Waltei Pump 50 Reviewed and improved Approved for implementation
Approved for implementation with
8 Didiga Diversion 210 precondition the weir has to be redesigned
3
for updated 177 m /s flood discharge.
Approved for implementation
Reviewed but not all
With precondition to redesign the diversion
9 Loko Diversion 50 comments are 3
weir using the updated 474 m /s flood
incorporated
discharge.
Pended
Reviewed but not
10 Bobe Diversion 69 mainly the Engineering designs & reports are
improved
not qualified for implementation
11 Hofofe Diversion 65 Reviewed and improved Approved for implementation

Assignment Completion Report 29

 FDRE, AGP-CU GIRDC G

Area, ha Status of the review

SN Project Headwork Recommendations
Planned
12 Boye Diversion 55 Reviewed and improved Approved for implementation
13 Ejersa Diversion 96 Reviewed and improved Approved for implementation
Reviewed but the
14 Lega Harbu 93 documents are found
Pended
incomplete
15 Fincha Debsa 97.1 Reviewed and improved Approved for implementation
16 Adami Diversion 52 Reviewed and improved Approved for implementation
17 Borer 15 Reviewed and improved Approved for implementation
18 Jida Diversion 30 Reviewed and improved Approved for implementation
19 Danaba Diversion 15 Reviewed and improved Approved for implementation
Sub-Total 1592.1
III. SNNPR AGP SSIPs
1 Hallo Gelana Pump 80 Reviewed and improved Approved for implementation
2 Neri Pump 83 Reviewed and improved Approved for implementation
Approved for implementation with given
Reviewed and partially
preconditions.
improved
3 Wosha Weir 180 Refer the comments in the attached
reviewed document in sub-folder “final
comments”.
Pended
Reviewed but not
Some field data collection works were not
4 Offiya Weir 120 improved
undertaken and the study & design is
incomplete
Sub-total 463
IV. Tigray National Regional State AGP SSIPs
1 Mokoza Pump 750 Review and improved Approved for implementation
2 Rubassa Weir 50 Review and improved Approved for implementation
Sub-total 800

Assignment Completion Report 30

FDRE, AGP-CU GIRDC G

8. OTHER OUTPUTS OF THE CURRENT CONSULTANCY SERVICE

8.1 Revising SSIP study and Detail Design TORs

As part of the current assignment, the team reviewed the existing TOR and revised in order to
make it comprehensive and be used in similar projects in the future. Accordingly TOR for
undertaking of Feasibility Study and Detail Design of Small-scale Irrigation Projects and TOR for
undertaking Construction Management and Contract Administration of Small-scale Irrigation
projects were reviwed and revised. Our wrok were based on the TOR is entitled “The MINISTRY
OF AGRICULTURE, Agriculture Growth Program, Terms of Reference (TOR), Feasibility Study
and Detail Design of Small-scale Irrigation Projects, April 2013, Addis Ababa” and the second is
entitled as “ MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, AGRICULTURE GROWTH PROGRAM, Terms of
Reference on Construction Management and Contract Administration of Small-scale Irrigation
projects ,May 2013 , Addis Ababa.

The draft revised TORs were submitted to the client and stakeholders for review, comments and
the final version is submitted herewith this completion report.

8.2 Preparation of Unit Rate Analysis and Cost Establishment for Sample SSIP

GIRDC has prepared sample presentations for unit rate analysis and cost establishment of
small scale irrigation projects. The document is prepared as one part of the assignment given
to the firm and could serve for undertaking study and design of similar small scale irrigation
projects. The format is produced in a document contains various components including analysis
of existing situations; analysis and proposed rates; implementation strategy and safety
standards are included. For this purpose, a template which can uniformly be applied for the
presentation of cost and physical plans is also prepared. The data which is to be prepared using
such a formats would further contribute for undertaking viability analysis. The templates includes
formats for the presentation of physical plan; initial investment costs; annual investment, local
and foreign cost components; replacement costs; annual operation and maintenance costs and
annual input cost requirement. The produced document is entitled “FDRE, MINISTRY OF
AGRICULTURE, AGRICULTURE GROWTH PROGRAM, Unit Rate Analysis and Cost
Establishment, for Sample Small-Scale Irrigation Project, June 2013, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia”.
.

Assignment Completion Report 31

FDRE, AGP-CU GIRDC G

The draft report was submitted to the client and stakeholders for review, comments and the final
version is submitted herewith this completion report.

8.3 Workshop

Consultative workshop was held in Adama from 12/08/2013 up to 13/08/2013. The workshop
was arranged by the MOA AGP FCU. Regional water bureaus of Amhara, Oromiya, SNNPRS
and Tigray were participated. GIRDC Study and design review team prepared and presented
major findings, issues and constraints, recommendations on engineering, socio economy and
viability studies, agronomy, soil, watershed, environmental impact assessments. In-depth
discussion was made on each points and resolution forwarded and in most issues consensus
reached by the participants.

Engineering Aspects: The following points are the major discussion points of engineering
aspects.

Lack of proper resource identification;

Potential of each project sites are not clearly identified on the bases of indicative
information; Project handing over both for study and design and completed projects have
not been properly done;
there is no sufficient as-built drawings;
operation and maintenance manual not definitely prepared for specific SSIP
Development plan and schedule which should be prepared as per the SSIP
implementation program during design to enable good contract management not
prepared.
Water users associations are not organized well and no appropriate guideline is
prepared for them;
Lack of the experienced client staff to review (identify gaps as per the TOR and other
acceptable standards) for projects done by consultants;
Lack of experienced and capacitated supervisor who is capable of managing
contractors;
The project shall recruit its own responsible professional staff from the market ;
Zonal offices are overlooked as they are considered as part of regional organs;
Huge cost variation which has been resulted from poor engineering geological study;
Absence of responsive and skilled participation of community;
Lack of paying attention to watershed study which could result in: Increased runoff and
hence structure destroy; Flow regenerate thus base flow increase ;
Conflict among upstream and downstream beneficiaries as a result of lowered base
flow;

Assignment Completion Report 32

FDRE, AGP-CU GIRDC G

Lack of commitment, ethics and integrity of expert;

Lack of design standard and of setting design criterion;
Overlooking drainage system;
Working team were not integrated and lack of communication among the study and
design team.

The participants forwarded the following points as solution:

Prepare standard checklist so as not to forget while visiting the site;

Design verification and quality control system after completion;
Imagine findings of hydraulic findings otherwise misled practicability of the design;
Study sources of variation on all stages including Data collection, Data analysis and
Data compilation.
Establish enforcing guideline;
Review shall not be only on desk but also on the field right from inception of the project;
Catch drain is a must but on farm drains shall be left for the beneficiaries,
Consistency of basic data shall be kept by working together e.g. a sort of data flow
system established among study team.

Socio Economy and Viability Analysis: With regard to the review presentations of socio
economy and viability studies, the following points were raised and discussed by the workshop
participants. The comments and suggestions are very much exhaustive. To avoid the observed
data inconsistencies of study documents, the owner of sector specific data should be identified
and there should be data exchange mechanisms among experts. The study of socio economy
studies are not largely site specific and the viability analysis are not done as per the required
standards. The socio economy data are the responsibility of the socio economist from where
other study disciplines should be able to access. There is a difficulty of preparing and having
checklists while collecting data and information and this could lead to incompleteness of study
outputs. The client doesn’t establish appraisal and verification systems for evaluating study
documents. There is subjectivity in making analysis and in this regard, experts intentionally tend
to reduce some costs and increase benefits for the sake of making projects viable. Thus, not all
costs and benefits are properly reflected in the viability analysis. There is a deficiency of data
bank systems and also there is no enforcing guideline and standards for making feasibility
studies. The clients and experts were not aware that there study documents would be reviewed
and this contributed to the presence of many comments. It was also suggested to make the
reviewing task along with the collection of data and information. It was recommended that
commitments for better quality work should be given by the part of the experts and the
management. Project specific data is not collected from the area and there is data

Assignment Completion Report 33

FDRE, AGP-CU GIRDC G

inconsistency. However, the TOR of the AGP demands for economic analysis. The community
should be involved in site selection and related activities. They are also required to be
conducted for such types of replicable projects which would have the summation impacts upon
the national economy. The participants believe that the studies of socio economy and financial
& economic analysis are important to serve as one of the criteria whether to implement projects
or not. It was thus recommended that they would be given due consideration for further similar
studies whereas the existing documents would be updated by incorporating major comments.

Agronomy, soils, watershed and EIA: the participants forwarded various issues on these
sectors for further improvement for reliable data collection and document preparation. Data
inconsistency and weak data exchange system was noted as the major constraints of the sector
feasibility studies which in turn could affect the sustainability of the projects. The field days
allocated for data collection and investigation found very short to undertake the tasks as
required, besides secondary data are not accessible or unavailable to the required quality from
different stakeholders at kebel and werdea offices.

The participants admitted that the data inconsistency in agronomy, watershed and EIA reports
with engineering and soils investigation findings is a critical problem that all stake holders mainly
the water resource bureau and consultants should have resolve the problem for the next
studies.

Based on the presentation made by the consultant, the soil investigation sector has got attention
by the participants. They pointed that the gaps identified in soil investigation studies found
critical which affected the whole irrigation development studies. They noted that without reliable
soil survey data further analysis and recommendation will not be appropriate. Therefore the
project owners should give maximum efforts to undertake the soil studies at acceptable quality
and standard.

With regard to the watershed development study, there was an idea suggested to undertake the
study for the purpose of generating data for hydrological and engineering studies. However, at
the end the participants came to consensus that the watershed development studies should
have multi-disciplinary approach to incorporate the conservation aspects of the interventions.

Assignment Completion Report 34

FDRE, AGP-CU GIRDC G

9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

We strongly recommend that the bureau shall capacitate its study and design engineers,
agriculturalists, socioeconomics and other study teams in all aspects so that they can
prepare quality design and project documents which can meet the required standard.
Otherwise, variations and technical fault during implementation can cost more than
maintaining its quality at design level.

Establish design standards as a minimum requirement of quality project design

documents so that each design engineer can follow this standard and produce the
required quality design document. Alternatively. It is recommended that feasibility study
and design of SSIPs should follow AGP, guideline supported by MOWE, its own regional
guidelines and other as appropriate to prepare standard feasibility study and design
document.
As it observed during the review the entire design flood was computed using empirical
equations that uses limited parameter which do not consider the factors which greatly
affect the runoff process. Now a days there are software and approaches which
incorporates and estimates relevant results Like SWAT model and catchment transfer
approach. Therefore we recommend having training on the software and approaches.

Quality of data is the bases for design quality and hence construction phases of a project
and should not be compromised. Otherwise it may not only create much more variation
than expected (i.e. maximum of 20% of engineering estimate) but also it creates hole
for and/or initiate fraudulent practices.
A design team has to establish site specific SSIP design criteria based on scheme type
and site conditions during inception phase assessment.
There shall be well established data collection and survey methodologies (guidelines)
based on standards agreed up on for example for topographic survey, geotechnical
investigation, soil survey etc.

Considering the target of AGP it is difficult to make feasibility study and design by own
force. Therefore it is advisable to outsource to local consultants through open national
competitive bidding procedures. The bureau has to concentrate in contract
administration, supervision, M &E...etc

It has been observed that, there is lack of capacity in project planning, feasibility study
detail design, contract document preparation including preparation of contract and
working drawings. Therefore comprehensive capacity building should be formulated
including supervision and overall contract administration for the experts

Social structures such as foot paths, cattle troughs, water points, washing basin, should
be included in all the projects during implementation in discussion with beneficiaries’.

As-built construction drawings have to be prepared as per actual field condition during
construction. Moreover there should be strict contract supervision including approval of
schedules, works and material used

Assignment Completion Report 35

FDRE, AGP-CU GIRDC G

A Study and design quality control teams comprising multidisciplinary professions should
be established and frequently updated with design techniques in all regional office.
It is not expected that; development of SSIP would have significant environmental
impact. However, Environmental Management plan cost should be allowed in future
SSIP study and design projects

Assignment Completion Report 36