The document provides an environmental impact assessment report for small-scale irrigation schemes in Lalibela District, Ethiopia. It was conducted by a team to evaluate the potential positive and negative impacts of proposed irrigation projects in Shumsha and Medagie kebeles. The assessment characterized the study area, collected baseline environmental data, and used methods like interviews and group discussions. It identified impacts on water quality, soil salinity, biodiversity, and more. The report also provided an environmental management plan and monitoring recommendations to mitigate negative impacts and ensure sustainable development of the irrigation schemes.

1. i
Environmental Impact Assessment Report
For Small-Scale Irrigation Schemes
In
Lalibela Food Security Project
Lalibela District, North Wollo Zone,
Amhara National Regional State, Ethiopia
July 2014
Addis Ababa
By Misigana Hidata
Natural Resource Mangment Officer for LWF Goro Project

2. ii
I. Table of contents
I. Table of contents .................................................................................................................................. ii
II. Acronyms and Abbreviations............................................................................................................... iii
III. List of Tables and Figures................................................................................................................. iv
V. Executive Summery............................................................................................................................... v
1. Introduction...........................................................................................................................................- 1 -
1.1. Objectives of the Study.............................................................................................................- 2 -
1.2. Project Screening ......................................................................................................................- 2 -
2. Literature Review..............................................................................................................................- 3 -
2.1. Policy, Legal and Administrative Framework ..........................................................................- 4 -
3. Methodology and Approaches ..........................................................................................................- 5 -
3.1. Description of the Study Area...................................................................................................- 5 -
3.2. Baseline Information on Bio-Physical and Socio-Economic Situation ......................................- 7 -
3.3. Study Design..............................................................................................................................- 8 -
3.3.1. Sampling Technique..........................................................................................................- 8 -
3.3.2. Tools for Data Collection...................................................................................................- 8 -
3.3.3. Data Analysis.....................................................................................................................- 8 -
4. Result and Discussions......................................................................................................................- 9 -
4.1. Environmental Impact Statement...........................................................................................- 10 -
4.2. Significant Environmental Impacts .........................................................................................- 11 -
4.3. Environmental Impact Matrix.................................................................................................- 12 -
4.4. Identified Mitigation Measures ..............................................................................................- 13 -
5. Environmental Management Plan ..................................................................................................- 14 -
6. Environmental Auditing ..................................................................................................................- 15 -
7. Nature of public participation.........................................................................................................- 17 -
8. Summary and Recommendations...................................................................................................- 17 -
9. References ......................................................................................................................................- 19 -
10. Appendix .....................................................................................................................................- 20 -

3. iii
II. Acronyms and Abbreviations
• CA: Command Area
• Df: Degree of freedom
• EIA: Environmental Impact Assessment
• LWF/DWS: Lutheran World Federation, Department for World Service
• P: Probability value
• PA: Peasant Association
• SNNP: Southern Nation National People

4. iv
III. List of Tables and Figures
Table 1 Household and Population Size of the Operation areas.................................................- 6 -
Table 2 Base line status of Biophysical Environment ................................................................- 7 -
Table 3 Chi-Square and Probability of Significance ..................................................................- 9 -
Table 4 Significant Environmental Impacts, the Impact Profile...............................................- 11 -
Table 5 Environmental Impact Matrix......................................................................................- 12 -
Table 6 Impact Mitigation Measures........................................................................................- 13 -
Table 7 Environmental Management Plan Schedule................................................................- 14 -
Table 8 Chi-Square Distribution...............................................................................................- 20 -

5. v
V. Executive Summery
This Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) study was set out to investigate the environmental
impact of two small-scale irrigation schemes in Shumsha and Medagie kebeles of Lalibela
Woreda, North Wollo zone Amhara region of Ethiopia. The irrigation schemes are proposed to
serve 130 households for Shumsha and 94 households for Midagie kebele in the command area
of 60 and 21.2 hectares of land respectively.
The EIA study was carried out by team of experts composed of LWF technical staffs and
government experts, together with target communities and Development Agents at field level.
The approaches applied during field data collection consisted of site observation and
measurement, household interviewing and focus group discussions. By the assessment, the
identified major impacts of irrigation development on environmental aspect are verified for their
significance by statistical methods.
The result of the assessment reveals that ground water quality, soil salinity problems, soil
stability, water use conflict, aquatic habitats, and biodiversity aquatic ecosystem and vegetation
covers have significant negative environmental impact, while efficient utilization of domestic
labors, creation of income opportunities, promotion of women economic empowerment, ensuring
household food security and improving nutrition are the major positive impacts of irrigation
development in Shumsha and Medagie kebeles. The Environmental Impact Matrix analysis also
indicates there was no non reversible impact identified and all negative impacts can be mitigated
by proper irrigation water and environmental management activities.
Finally, the study recommends that proper use of irrigation water, promoting organic farming,
catchment treatment and water scheduling, maintaining permissible flow in natural water way
and clear demarcation of command area and construction of appropriate drainage facilities as a
mitigation measures for every significant environmental impact to happen as result of irrigation
development in the target areas. Further, the study indicates the monitoring mechanisms and
indicators to be mentored at every stage of the project activities.

6. - 1 -
1. Introduction
Environmental Impact Assessment is an instrument to forecast and consider both positive and
negative environmental and social consequences of a proposed development project. It is a tool
by which possible benefits of a project is analyzed and considered by full involvement of all
project stakeholders, in this case includes LWF, government line offices and local communities.
It is also by which significant impacts of the project is analyzed and mitigation measures
proposed; so that harmful and the potential harmful impacts of the project will be mitigated or
avoided.
The Lutheran World Federation Department for World Service (LWF/DWS) is an international
humanitarian and development organization that is currently addressing development issues in
various parts of Ethiopia has designed a three years Food Security Project to be implemented in
three kebeles of Lalibela Woreda, North wollo Zone in Amahara National Regional State. The
planned interventions through this project aim to address key challenges of the target community
and ultimately achieve food security among the target communities in Lalibela Woreda. Among
the key proposed activities include construction of two small scale irrigation schemes at
Shumsha and Medagie kebeles. The irrigation scheme at Shumsha kebele is proposed to irrigate
60 hectares of land and expected to benefit approximately 130 households in irrigated crop
production in the command area, whereas the proposed scheme in the Medagie is capable to
irrigate 21.2 hectares of land and benefits more than 94 households in the command area.
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is an integral part of the project assessment process in
order to learn what potential impact the irrigation construction will have on the environment
including the bio-diversity of the area and also to suggest the mitigation measures. Considering
this, EIA study was conducted in two small-scale irrigation schemes in July 2014. The
assessment was carried out by a team of experts composed of 4 LWF technical staffs (one
environmental officer, one agriculturalist, one surveyor and one irrigation engineer) and two
government/district experts, one from District Office of Environmental Protection and Land
Administration (DOEPLA) and the other from Office of Agriculture and Rural Development
(DOARD), together with target beneficiaries and Development Agents at field level.

7. - 2 -
Finally, the study team produce this EIA report consists of the following main sections; begins
with executive summery that briefly elaborates information about the assessment and highlight
the main findings and recommendations; it then presents the introduction, which focuses mainly
on the objectives and nature of the assessment; and provides review of different literatures on
EIA standards and pre-findings relevant to the major theme of the assessment; and then it
describes methodologies not to over rush scientific producers; it then presents results and
discussions of Environmental management plan to mitigate the negative environmental impacts
and lastly provides summary and recommendations upon serious environmental issues that
requires a especial attention by the project proponents.
1.1. Objectives of the Study
• To insure sustainable management of natural resources by the project target communities
• To protect and enhance quality of all forms of life,
• To assess the project’s environmental positive and negative impacts and provide
mitigation measures for the negative impacts,
• To promote local communities and insure public participation,
1.2. Project Screening
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is the requirement of the country’s environmental
policy, which acknowledges that private and public sector development programs and projects
recognize any environmental impacts early in the planning phase and incorporate their
containment into the development design. Hence, importance of EIA for irrigation project is not
questionable. Accordingly, the LWF/DWS has conducted the EIA for two small-scale irrigation
schemes in Lalibela district as one part of the project assessment process. According to the
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Environmental Protection Authority (2000); irrigation
projects has been screened for its impacts on downstream users, soil chemical properties, water
quality, change in river morphology, sedimentation, social conflict, vegetation cover and human
health

8. - 3 -
2. Literature Review
EIA is a management tool for planners and decision makers and complements other project
studies on mitigation of biophysical and socio economic environmental impacts.
Environmental assessment is now accepted as an essential part of development planning and
management. It should become as familiar and important as economic analysis in project
evaluation. EIA provides a unique opportunity to demonstrate ways in which the
environment will be improved as part of the development process. It also predicts the
conflicts and constraints between the proposed projects and its environment. It provides an
opportunity for mitigation measures to be incorporated to minimize problems. It enables
monitoring methods to be established to assess future impacts and provide data on which
managers can take informed decisions to avoid environmental damage (FAO, 1995). Hence, the
LWF/DWS-ET has made this environmental impact assessment to maximize positive impacts
of the irrigation projects in two target kebeles of Lalibela woreda by implementing sustainable
environmental management plan.
Initially EIA was seen by some project promoters as a constraint to development. But this
view has been gradually disappearing. It is now well understood that environment and
development are complementary and interdependent and EIA is a technique for ensuring
that the two are mutually reinforcing. A study carried out by the Environmental
Protection Agencies showed that there were significant changes to projects during the EIA
process, marked improvements in environmental protection measures and net financial benefits,
(Wathern, 1988). So that, Irrigation projects without considering environmental issues costs
much in terms water use conflicts among communities of upper and lower stream, land
degradation by salinity and erosion, soil nutrient depletion if inappropriately regulated by
certain type of vegetables, loss of water quality because of water fragmentation, waterborne
diseases and other social issues.
Environmental assessment is appropriate for both site specific projects and wider programs or
plans covering projects activities over a wide geographic area (Tiffen, 1989). In this document
the term "project" is used for irrigation projects in site specific areas of two kebeles. As this

9. - 4 -
document is specifically prepared to address irrigation related issues like its drainage,
water use and other environmental issues; it is to be used to carry out environmental
impact management activities with regard to biophysical and socioeconomic issues of both
short and long-term.
Usually the primary costs of irrigation projects are mostly much higher than predicted. This is
because of from the outset, not all the environmental mitigation costs are adequately incurred
together with unforeseen costs. The initial investments will be lost if the complementary
expenditures are not made. This explains why many irrigation projects are constructed at
excessive costs and remained with social conflicts by compromising minimum permissible
water flow in the natural waterways, Debebe. (2010).
This can be a good lesson to LWF/DWS and other organizations to carefully consider financial
and water use economy while constructing the irrigation schemes to enable communities use
the water resources efficiently to improve their livelihood without compromising the minimum
permissible amount of water in the natural water course and determine appropriate command
area that can be managed by the amount of water. Unless and otherwise, water use conflicts
among the water users will cost higher because of an ambitious irrigation design.
2.1. Policy, Legal and Administrative Framework
According to Environmental Proclamation Number, (181/2011); “Environmental Impact
assessment is to be a process which indicates the impact assessment starting from the plan up to
completion during the preparation of development proposals, selecting places, operating,
revising and terminating. Hence, LWF/DWS-ET has made this EIA to address the major
environmental negative impacts of the proposed irrigation projects in close consultation and
collaboration with government line offices and target communities.
Increasingly, at the national level, environmental policies are being introduced, perhaps
including a National Environmental Action Plan or National Plan for Sustainable
Development. Such policies are often supported by legislation. Government policies in

10. - 5 -
areas such as water, land distribution and food production, especially if supported by
legislation, are likely to be highly significant for irrigation and drainage projects. Hence, this
EIA outline the policy environment relevant to the study. Results are also easily understood
and interpreted in the light of prevailing policies.
According FAO, (2000/53); Policies and regulations are sometimes conflicting and may
contribute to degradation. Assessments could be within the scope of EIA to highlight
such conflicts and detail their consequences in relation to the irrigation and drainage
proposal under study. An example of conflicting policies would be an agricultural policy to
promote agrochemicals to increase production and an environmental policy to limit the
availability of persistent chemicals. A totally laissez-faire policy will result in unsustainable
development, for example through uncontrolled pollution and distortions in wealth. This
creates problems which future generations have to resolve. On the other hand, excessive
government control of market forces may also have negative environmental impacts.
For example, free irrigation water leads to the inefficient use of this scarce and expensive
resource, inequities between head and tail users and water logging and salinity problems.
Hence, this EIA report addressed all significant concerns and their mitigations to the project
proponents in line with sustainable environmental management direction.
3. Methodology and Approaches
Like any empirical studies, this EIA approach has followed standard procedures to find
important environmental impacts and recommend mitigation measures for impacts that could
happen during implementation of the irrigation activities. Hence, this section focuses on
description of the study area, base line environmental information and the study design.
3.1. Description of the Study Area
Lalibal/Lasta Woreda is one of the districts in North Wallo Zone, Amhara National Regional
State of Ethiopia. It is found at 675 km northeast from Addis Ababa. It is bordered on the east by
Gidana district, on the west by Bugna district, on the north by Wag Hemra Zone and on the south

11. - 6 -
by Meket district. The intervention areas namely Midaghe and Shumshaha kebeles are located
within 6 km and 34 km distances from the Lalibela town respectively. The area altitude ranges
between 2,200-1,850 m.a.s.l and average temperature varies between 20 and 350
c. Rainfall varies
from 950 to 1,400 mm per year. Agro-ecologically the project kebeles are categorized under
Kolla (dry tropical climate), with annual rainfall and spatial distribution not sustaining plant
growth and maintain to maturity.
Based on the 2007 national census conducted by the Central Statistical Agency of Ethiopia
(CSA), Lalibela woreda has a total population of 117,777, of whom 58,451 are men and 59,326
women; 17,367 or 14.75% are urban inhabitants. The majority of the inhabitants
practiced Ethiopian Orthodox Christianity, with 97.65% reporting that as their religion, while
2.32% of the population said they were Muslim. The number of population and households
living in the targeted two kebeles is shown in the table below.
Table 1 Household and Population Size of the Operation areas
No Name of
Kebeles
Household size Population size
Male Female Total Male Female Total
1. Medagie 1,245 486 1,731 2,641 2,789 5,430
2. Shumshaha 764 253 1,017 2,129 2,275 4,404
Total 2,009 739 2,748 4,770 5,064 9,834
Livelihood of communities of the two target Kebeles is based on subsistence crop production
predominantly carried out under rain-fed conditions. There is an average of three livestock, six
goats and one donkey per household. Opportunities for off-farm income are very limited and most
people thus rely to a large extent on agriculture for their subsistence. The major crops grown in
Medagie are teff and wheat. Teff is the most preferred crop, while sorghum and wheat ranks the
second major crops grown in Shumsha and Medagie areas respectively. Farmers usually grow
teff, wheat, barley, beans and sorghum in Shumsha areas.
The rate of land degradation is also high in the areas mainly due to limited natural resource
conservation activities practiced. However, the recent efforts by the government of community
mass mobilization in natural resource soil and water conservation activities carried out on

12. - 7 -
hillsides and other degraded lands seems to bring some positive changes in raising awareness of
the target communities of Medagie and Shumsha kebeles. In this regard, farmers usually used to
practice farm terracing, soil and stone bunds in farmlands located on steep/slope terrain areas to
combat soil and water erosion problems. Some farming communities in Midagie kebele also
observed using Eucalyptus plantation for its economic importance despite of its ecological costs
by scavenging soil nutrients and water resources.
3.2. Baseline Information on Bio-Physical and Socio-Economic Situation
This part is very important to know initial environmental status of the operation area in order to
know the prevailing environmental changes as a result of the project interventions and audit
against the base line while taking mitigation measures. The following table is to show baseline
information in terms of biophysical and socioeconomic environmental variables. Variables were
rated as low, medium, high ways qualitative rating through physical observation and public
discussions.
Table 2: Base-line status of Biophysical Environment
No Environmental Variables
Name of the Irrigation Projects and their some
Biophysical and Socioeconomic status.
Shumsha Irrigation Site Medagie Irrigation Site
A Biophysical Variables
1. Soil Fertility Medium Medium
2. Soil Stability Low Low
3. Soil Erosion Medium Medium
4. Soil productivity Low Medium
5. Silt accumulation Low Low
6. Water logging problems Low Low
7. Vegetation cover change Low Low
8. Wild life Low Low
B Socio Economic Variables
1. Resource use complain Low Medium
2. Human Health Good Good
3. Income generation status from
irrigation resources
Not at all Poor

13. - 8 -
3.3. Study Design
The study was designed as empirical descriptive type that provides comprehensive information
about environmental situations and public concerns with respect to the possible biophysical and
socio economic environmental variables because of the project interventions. Data was collected
from sample population for both biophysical and socio economic variables and analyzed
statistically for their significant environmental impacts so that mitigation measures are
recommended for the possible negative environmental impacts of the project.
3.3.1. Sampling Technique
Sample households were taken from direct beneficiaries of the proposed irrigation schemes using
non probability sampling of purposive type. The study area, that is, the irrigation sites has a total
household population of 130 for Shumsha and 94 for Midagie irrigation sites. Accordingly, a
total of twenty sample households were selected randomly proportional to size from each
irrigation sites.
3.3.2. Tools for Data Collection
In this assessment, both primary and secondary data were collected. The required primary data
for the assessment was collected from 20 sample respondents through household interviewing,
focus group discussions, and site observation and direct measurements of some physical
environmental variables like river flow rate, train or slope, altitude and temperature. Relevant
secondary data was also collected from government line offices. Further, telephone
conversations were used with different officials to triangulate data from secondary sources for
some consistency barriers.
3.3.3. Data Analysis
Statistical analysis was used to measure significance of negative impacts by the proposed
irrigation projects on biophysical and socio economic environmental variables. From sample

14. - 9 -
statistics, an inference was made by statistical inferential model we called Chi-square using
SPSS software. In this method, every environmental variable were analyzed and rated for any
possible negative impact that they could receive from the irrigation project activities.
4. Result and Discussions
From the formula of Chi-Square; 2;
where, X2
is Chi-Square, Of is Observed
frequency; Ef is Expected frequency with respect to degree of freedom (df) of variables; there
calculated X2
value and probability of getting the value is taken from Chi-Square table (Table 3).
The following table shows significance of environmental impact from the irrigation projects on
proposed biophysical and socio-economic components based on P values. Note that, Ho or null
hypothesis stated that “there is significant negative impact from irrigation projects on biophysical
and socio economic environmental components”. If probability (P) values are less or equals to
0.05 at the specified degree of freedom (df), the null hypothesis is to be refused and the impact is
insignificant. If P value is greater than 0.05; the null hypothesis is to be accepted and mitigations
measures are recommended. The following table is to show significance of impact of the
proposed irrigation projects on biophysical and socio economic environmental elements.
Table 3: Chi-Square and Probability of Significance
No.
Environmental
Variables proposed
to be affected
For SHUMSA IRRIGATION
SCHEME
FOR MIDAGE IRRIGATION
SCHEME
df X2
P
Value
Significance
Status
X2
df P
Value
Significance
Status
1. Climate 3 8.333 <0.05 Insignificant 8.333 3 0.05 Insignificant
2. Air Quality 2 6.667 <0.05 Insignificant 6.667 2 <0.05 Insignificant
3. Ground water
quality
1 1.000 >0.05 Significant 1.000 1 >0.05 Significant
4. Surface water
quantity
1 5.444 <0.05 Insignificant 5.444 1 <0.05 Insignificant
5. Surface water
quality
1 5.444 <0.05 Insignificant 5.444 1 <0.05 Insignificant
6. Soil salinity 2 2.000 >0.05 Significant 2.000 2 >0.05 Significant
7. Soil stability 2 1.444 >0.05 Significant 1.444 2 >0.05 Significant
8. Train 1 5.444 <0.05 Insignificant 5.444 1 <0.05 Insignificant

15. - 10 -
9. Water use conflict 1 1.000 >0.05 Significant 1.667 2 >0.05 Significant
10 Vegetation cover 1 5.444 <0.05 Insignificant 4.667 3 >0.05 Significant
11 Wetland 1 5.444 <0.05 Insignificant 5.444 1 <0.05 Insignificant
12 Aquatic habitats 2 1.667 >0.05 Significant 1.667 2 >0.05 Significant
13 Fish stock 2 6.000 <0.05 Insignificant 6.000 2 <0.05 Insignificant
14 Terrestrial habitats 1 5.444 <0.05 Insignificant 5.444 1 <0.05 Insignificant
15 Wild life aquatic 1 5.778 <0.05 Insignificant 4.778 1 <0.05 Insignificant
16 Wildlife Terrestrial 1 5.444 <0.05 Insignificant 5.444 1 <0.05 Insignificant
17 Forest resource 1 5.444 <0.05 Insignificant 5.555 1 <0.05 Insignificant
18 Biodiversity 1 2.778 >0.05 Significant 2.555 1 >0.05 Significant
19 Ecosystem function
aquatic 1
2.778 >0.05 Significant 2.444 1 >0.05 Significant
20 Ecosystem function
terrestrial
1 5.444 <0.05 Insignificant 5.4441 1 <0.05 Insignificant
21 Rear species 1 5.000 <.05 Insignificant 6.000 1 <0.05 Insignificant
22 Protected area 1 5.444 <0.05 Insignificant 5.000 1 <0.05 Insignificant
23 Human health 1 5.778 <0.05 Insignificant 5.777 1 <0.05 Insignificant
24 Socio-Economic 1 3.778 <0.05 Insignificant 3.454 1 <0.05 Insignificant
25 Cultural Heritage 1 5.444 <0.05 Insignificant 5.444 1 <0.05 Insignificant
The data in table 3 above shows the identified environmental components for which negative
impacts from the proposed irrigation projects are significant. These are ground water quality, soil
salinity, soil stability, water use conflict, aquatic habitat, bio diversity and aquatic ecosystem
functions for irrigation projects and impact on vegetation cover is also significant for Midage
irrigation scheme.
4.1. Environmental Impact Statement
The study assessed possible environmental impacts of the two irrigation schemes at Shumsha
and Midage kebeles of Lalibala district. The result of the study from Chi-square analysis showed
that environmental components that could be negatively affected by the irrigation projects are
soil physical and chemical properties and water use regime of communities especially with upper
stream users and even among the same schemes within the river ecosystem. However, all
negative impacts found significant can be mitigated and avoidable if provided that proper
environmental management plan could be implemented proactively.
Results of the study also identified environmentally positive impacts of the irrigation projects.
From focus group discussion of both irrigation projects, the irrigation has significant contribution
of income creation, efficient utilization of domestic labors, ensuring household food security and

16. - 11 -
improving nutrition and promotion of women economic empowerment. Irrigation is generally
considered as an effective way of increasing agricultural production (more land under crops,
more crops per hectare per year, more crop production per hectare per season). As production
increases, per capita income increases; and thus the socio-economic condition and livelihood
improve. Thus the access to irrigation or development of irrigation facility has a positive impact
and profound role to play on poverty reduction.
4.2. Significant Environmental Impacts
The data reveals in Table 3 above shows the identified environmental variables that are
negatively affected by the two irrigation projects. The following table is to show significant
environmental impacts and the impact profile.
Table 4: Significant Environmental Impacts, and the Impact Profile
No.
Significant Environmental
Impacts
Impact Profile
1. Ground water quality • Increase in water turbidity
• Raising in saline water table
• Addition of toxic chemicals
2. Soil salinity • Raise in saline water table
• Change in soil physics and release of salt from soil micro pores
during inappropriate time of irrigation
• There also threat of silt deposit form upper catchment to irrigation
water and irrigable field as there is no vegetation cover and trapping
mechanisms on the catchments
3. Soil stability • During construction of irrigation infrastructures and flood
irrigation, as the soil is fragile and young it could easily liable to
disturbance
4. Water use conflict • This is a serious issue if proper command area is not demarcated
from possible minimum canal flow during design. It is difficult to
shorten command area after once included. It causes social conflict,
economic loss.
5. Aquatic habitat • Aquatic habitat will be damaged if minimum permissible flow is
not maintained in natural water flow.
• Addition of agro chemicals could damage aquatic habitats
6. Bio-Diversity • Addition of agro-chemicals could affect biodiversity
7. Aquatic ecosystem function • Addition of agro-chemicals could affect aquatic ecosystem function
8. Vegetation cover • Construction of irrigation infrastructures will affect the vegetation
cover especially for Medagie irrigation. Besides, the farm area is
partially covered with Eucalyptus trees as they are using as cash
crop.

17. - 12 -
4.3. Environmental Impact Matrix
Ideally, all development activities costs environment. However, it is important to get the lower
opportunity costs by mitigating significant environmental impacts indicated in Table 3 above.
The following table is to show status of significant environmental impacts by environmental
impact matrix.
Table 5 Environmental Impact Matrix
Description of Codes:
A: Significant Environmental Effect that can be Mitigated
B: Potential Significant Negative Environmental Effect unknown
C: Significant Public Concern
D: Significant Negative Environmental Effect that Cannot be Mitigated
E: No Significant Negative Environmental Effect
F: Positive Environmental Impact
Project
Undertakings
Environmental Components Negatively Affected by the Irrigation
Projects
Ground
waterquality
SoilSalinity
SoilStability
Wateruse
Aquatic
Habitat
Bio
Diversity
Climate
Aquatic
Ecosystem
Function
Human
Health
Vegetation
Cover
HHEcono
Construction
of headwork
E E A C A E E A E E E
Construction
of Canals
A E A E E E E E E A D
Irrigation
Agronomy
A A E C A A E A A A D
Post Harvest E F F E E E E F E F
Interactive
effects
A E A C A E E A E A D
Cumulative
effects A: Significant Environmental Effect that Can be Mitigated

18. - 13 -
4.4. Identified Mitigation Measures
The study also identified mitigation measures for identified potential environmental negative
impacts of the irrigation projects. The following table is to show the mitigation measures per
every significant impact.
Table 6 Impact Mitigation Measures
No. Impacts Identified Mitigation Measures
1. Ground water
quality
• Practice of organic farming
• Use of appropriate furrow length to irrigate vegetables
• Adjusting time of irrigation
2. Soil salinity • Adjust time of irrigation
• Appropriate drainage lines at every edge of farm field
• Silt clear up from canals and treatment of upper catchment
3. Soil stability • Construction of retain wall during irrigation infrastructure
construction especially for sensitive and slid-able soil
• Avoid flood irrigation
• Allow appropriate amount of water per territory canal outlet
based on furrow length and slop
4. Water use conflict • Predetermination of command area based on crop annual water
requirement and available water without compromising natural
waterway.
CA=
• Water scheduling and determination crop type during critical
water shortage
• Treatment of upper catchments to increase side recharge to river
5. Aquatic Habitat • Use of organic farming
6. Bio Diversity • Use of organic farming
7. Aquatic Ecosystem
Function
• Use of Organic farming
• Catchment treatment to encourage drawdown
8. Vegetation Cover • To substitute another plantation site out of irrigation
• To substitute multipurpose ecologically friendly trees than
eucalyptus trees

19. - 14 -
5. Environmental Management Plan
The identified significant and negative impacts of irrigation development on environmental
aspect are ground water quality, soil salinity, soil stability, water use conflicts, aquatic habitats,
biodiversity, aquatic ecosystem function and vegetation cover. The following table is to show
adverse impacts with respect to the project stages and proposed mitigation measures and
implementation schedules.
Table 7: Environmental Management Plan Schedule
Project
Stage
Project
Activities
Adverse
Impacts
Proposed Mitigation
Institutional
Responsibility
Implementation
Schedule
Construction
stage
Head work
& canal
construction
Water quantity
in river will be
at risk
Allow minimum
permissible amount of
water in river
Follow up and
monitoring for proper
implementation
At the start of
construction
Soil stability
disturbed
Retaining walls of side
embankments and
catchment treatment
Follow up and
monitoring for proper
implementation
At the start of
construction
Aquatic
Ecosystem
Function
affected
Allow minimum
permissible amount of
water in river and
catchment treatment
Follow up and
monitoring for proper
implementation
At the start of
construction
Some
vegetation
plantation will
be removed
Support Substitution of
plantation sites out of
irrigation area
Follow up and
monitoring for proper
implementation
At the start of
construction
Operation
stage
Irrigation
Agronomy
Ground water
quality
Organic farming and
proper irrigation water
management
Follow up and
monitoring for proper
implementation
During operation
Soil salinity
Irrigation water
management and
catchments treatment
Follow up and
monitoring for proper
implementation
During Operation
Aquatic
Habitats could
be damaged
Organic farming and
catchment treatment
Follow up and
monitoring for proper
implementation
During Operation
Effect on bio
diversity
Organic Farming and
water use efficiency
Follow up and
monitoring for proper
implementation
During Operation
The EIA study also assessed capacity of the district office of Environmental Protection and Land
Administration. The office has vested the responsibility of implementing and regulating
environmental activities by government. To accomplish regulation and implementation of
environmental activities, the office has shortage of motor cycle to monitor and follow up field
activity implementation, skill gap of geo spatial technologies and lack of computers for data
management by database system.

20. - 15 -
6. Environmental Auditing
Environmental auditing is a detailed environmental monitoring plan for proper implementation of the recommended mitigation
measures for identified negative environmental impacts. There are parameters to be monitored and the monitoring report should be
submitted to respective offices. Hence, all activities stated as the impact mitigation measures are to be audited using against plans.
Environmental mitigation measures will be taken throughout the project lifetime to avoid or minimize the destruction to environment.
These are proper use of irrigation water, promoting organic farming, catchment treatment and water scheduling, maintaining
permissible flow in natural water way and clear demarcation of command area and construction of appropriate drainage facilities.
Besides, various soil and water conservation structures will be constructed and biological measures such as tree planting will be
undertaken to treat the irrigation catchment areas and other degraded lands. Furthermore, the target community will be educated to
utilize, preserve and manage their scarce resources effectively. Total amount of budget estimated for the implementation of these
natural resource management activities over a three years period is 1,897,375 Birr. The following table is to show implementation
schedule and budget used as parameters for auditing.
S.N. Activity Description Unit Quantity
Unit Price
(ETB)
Total Budget Year I Year II Year III
ETB
(Birr)
EUR
(Euro)
CAD
(Canadian
Dollar)
Physical
Target
Budget
(CAD)
Physical
Target
Budget
(CAD)
Physical
Target
Budget
(CAD)
1 Treat the irrigation watershed with
physical and biological measures
1.1 Physical conservation measures
- Soil bund construction Km 45 11,250 506,250 19,471 28,125 13 8,125 32 20,000
- Stone bund construction Km 30 3,750 112,500 4,327 6,250 9 1,875 21 4,375
- Cutoff drain construction Km 20 3,500 70,000 2,692 3,889 6 1,167 14 2,722
- Check dam construction Km 10 10,000 100,000 3,846 5,556 10 5,556
- Micro basin excavation No. 24,000 7 168,000 6,462 9,333 9,600 3,733 14,400 5,600
- Construction of farm terrace Km 45 2,500 112,500 4,327 6,250 13 1,806 32 4,444
- Road construction/maintenance Km 15 10,000 150,000 5,769 8,333 11 6,111 2 1,111 2 1,111

21. - 16 -
1.2 Biological Measures
- Establish/strengthen project tree
nursery sites (labor & materials)
# of
nursery
2 22,500 45,000 1,731 2,500 1 1,250 1 1,250
- Support/rehabilitate government
nursery sites (materials)
# of
nursery
2 10,500 21,000 808 1,167 2 1,167
- Purchase seeds for conservation Kg 100 120 12,000 462 667 50 333 50 333
- Produce conservation tree
seedlings
# of
seedlings
450,000 0.30 135,000 5,192 7,500 135,000 2,250 180,000 3,000 135,000 2,250
- Plantation of conservation
seedlings
# of
seedlings
436,500 0.15 65,475 2,518 3,638 130,950 1,091 174,600 1,455 130,950 1,091
2 Introduce target farmers to
improved natural resources
conservation practices
- Per-diem participants (600person
x 3days x 65Birr)
# of
trainees
770 195 150,150 5,775 8,342 250 2,708 270 2,925 250 2,708
- Stationary (writing pad and pen) # of
trainees
770 30 23,100 888 1,283 250 417 270 450 250 417
- Refresher (tea/coffee, soft drink
for 3days x 20Birr)
# of
trainees
770 60 46,200 1,777 2,567 250 833 270 900 250 833
3 Promote controlled grazing system
and area closure
Ha 60 2,000 120,000 4,615 6,667 42 4,667 18 2,000
3.1 Provision of tools
- Spade hoe No. 150 90 13,500 519 750 90 450 60 300
- Crow bar No. 80 120 9,600 369 533 48 320 32 213
- Pick axe No. 200 80 16,000 615 889 120 533 80 356
- Sledge hummer No. 80 125 10,000 385 556 48 333 32 222
- Line level No. 30 25 750 29 42 18 25 12 17
- Measuring tape (30-50meter roll) No. 30 120 3,600 138 200 18 120 12 80
- Measuring tape (pocket size) No. 30 25 750 29 42 18 25 12 17
- Nylon rope Roll 40 150 6,000 231 333 24 200 16 133
Total – NRM Activities 1,897,375 72,976 105,410 27,966 60,095 17,348
Exchange Rate (as at June 2014): 1 CAD 18 ETB : 1 EUR 26 ETB

22. - 17 -
7. Nature of public participation
Prior to any project planning, all stakeholders including potential beneficiaries should be
consulted and involved. They have to be involved in the identification of problems, planning of
activities, implementation, monitoring and evaluation. This is important for developing sense of
ownership, on the part of the community, and ensures sustainability. Accordingly, the project
involved the target communities and government line offices during the assessment of this
environmental impact study and continues throughout the implementation process.
8. Summary and Recommendations
This Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was conducted in two small scale irrigation
projects at Shumsha and Medagie kebeles of Lalibela Woreda, North Wollo Zone Amhara
National Regional State of Ethiopia. The irrigation scheme at Shumsha kebele is proposed to
irrigate 60 hectares of land and expected to benefit approximately 130 households in irrigated
crop production in the command area, whereas the proposed scheme in the Medagie is capable to
irrigate 21.2 hectares of land and benefits more than 94 households in the command area.
The EIA study was carried out by team of experts composed of LWF technical staffs and
government/district experts together with local communities and field level Development
Agents. The approaches applied during field data collection consisted of site observation and
measurement, household interviewing and focus group discussions. The discussion involved all
segments of the community including women, men, leaders, youth, elders and influential
members as well as development agents. By the assessment, the major impacts of irrigation
development on environmental aspect are verified for their significance by statistical methods.
The result of the study reveals that ground water quality, soil salinity problems, soil stability,
water use conflict, aquatic habitats, and biodiversity aquatic ecosystem and vegetation covers
have significant and negative impacts of irrigation development on social and environmental
aspect. Environmental Impact Matrix was done to indicate importance of impacts that can affect

23. - 18 -
environmental components. The matrix analysis shows there was no non reversible impact
identified and all impacts identified are impacts that can be mitigated. The study further shows
that efficient utilization of domestic labors, creation of income opportunities, promotion of
women economic empowerment, ensuring household food security and improving nutrition are
the major positive impacts of irrigation development in the targeted intervention kebeles.
Finally, the study recommends that proper use of irrigation water, promoting organic farming,
catchment treatment and water scheduling, maintaining permissible flow in natural water way
and clear demarcation of command area and construction of appropriate drainage facilities as a
mitigation measures for every significant environmental impact to happen. The study result also
indicated monitoring mechanisms and indicators to be mentored at every stage of the project
activities.

24. - 19 -
9. References
1. Amhara Regional State Environmental Proclamation. (181/2011), Bahirdar
2. Debebe. (2010), Irrigation use and challenges, Addis Ababa
3. Ethiopia Federal Environmental Authority. (2000), Addis Ababa
4. FAO. (2000/53), Environmental Impact Assessment of Irrigation and Drainage Projects,
London.
5. Tiffen. (1989), EIA for Program Planning, UK
6. Watern. (1998), Cost of EIA Preparation, USA

25. - 20 -
10. Appendix
Table 8 Chi-Square Distribution
d.f. .995 .99 .975 .95 .9 .1 .05 .025 .01
1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 2.71 3.84 5.02 6.63
2 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.21 4.61 5.99 7.38 9.21
3 0.07 0.11 0.22 0.35 0.58 6.25 7.81 9.35 11.34
4 0.21 0.30 0.48 0.71 1.06 7.78 9.49 11.14 13.28
5 0.41 0.55 0.83 1.15 1.61 9.24 11.07 12.83 15.09
6 0.68 0.87 1.24 1.64 2.20 10.64 12.59 14.45 16.81
7 0.99 1.24 1.69 2.17 2.83 12.02 14.07 16.01 18.48
8 1.34 1.65 2.18 2.73 3.49 13.36 15.51 17.53 20.09
9 1.73 2.09 2.70 3.33 4.17 14.68 16.92 19.02 21.67
10 2.16 2.56 3.25 3.94 4.87 15.99 18.31 20.48 23.21
11 2.60 3.05 3.82 4.57 5.58 17.28 19.68 21.92 24.72
12 3.07 3.57 4.40 5.23 6.30 18.55 21.03 23.34 26.22
13 3.57 4.11 5.01 5.89 7.04 19.81 22.36 24.74 27.69
14 4.07 4.66 5.63 6.57 7.79 21.06 23.68 26.12 29.14
15 4.60 5.23 6.26 7.26 8.55 22.31 25.00 27.49 30.58
16 5.14 5.81 6.91 7.96 9.31 23.54 26.30 28.85 32.00
17 5.70 6.41 7.56 8.67 10.09 24.77 27.59 30.19 33.41
18 6.26 7.01 8.23 9.39 10.86 25.99 28.87 31.53 34.81
19 6.84 7.63 8.91 10.12 11.65 27.20 30.14 32.85 36.19
20 7.43 8.26 9.59 10.85 12.44 28.41 31.41 34.17 37.57
22 8.64 9.54 10.98 12.34 14.04 30.81 33.92 36.78 40.29
24 9.89 10.86 12.40 13.85 15.66 33.20 36.42 39.36 42.98
26 11.16 12.20 13.84 15.38 17.29 35.56 38.89 41.92 45.64
28 12.46 13.56 15.31 16.93 18.94 37.92 41.34 44.46 48.28
30 13.79 14.95 16.79 18.49 20.60 40.26 43.77 46.98 50.89
32 15.13 16.36 18.29 20.07 22.27 42.58 46.19 49.48 53.49
34 16.50 17.79 19.81 21.66 23.95 44.90 48.60 51.97 56.06
38 19.29 20.69 22.88 24.88 27.34 49.51 53.38 56.90 61.16
42 22.14 23.65 26.00 28.14 30.77 54.09 58.12 61.78 66.21
46 25.04 26.66 29.16 31.44 34.22 58.64 62.83 66.62 71.20
50 27.99 29.71 32.36 34.76 37.69 63.17 67.50 71.42 76.15
55 31.73 33.57 36.40 38.96 42.06 68.80 73.31 77.38 82.29
60 35.53 37.48 40.48 43.19 46.46 74.40 79.08 83.30 88.38
65 39.38 41.44 44.60 47.45 50.88 79.97 84.82 89.18 94.42
70 43.28 45.44 48.76 51.74 55.33 85.53 90.53 95.02 100.43
75 47.21 49.48 52.94 56.05 59.79 91.06 96.22 100.84 106.39
80 51.17 53.54 57.15 60.39 64.28 96.58 101.88 106.63 112.33
85 55.17 57.63 61.39 64.75 68.78 102.08 107.52 112.39 118.24
90 59.20 61.75 65.65 69.13 73.29 107.57 113.15 118.14 124.12
95 63.25 65.90 69.92 73.52 77.82 113.04 118.75 123.86 129.97
100 67.33 70.06 74.22 77.93 82.36 118.50 124.34 129.56 135.81

26. - 21 -
Environmental Impact Assessment Format for
Irrigation Projects
I. House Hold Interview
A. General
1. Project Name_______________________________________________________________
2. Project Tittle________________________________________________________________
3. Project Year_________________________________________________________________
4. Name of the River____________________________________________________________
5. Project Location_____________________________________________________________
5.1.Region_____________________________
5.2.Zone_______________________________
5.3.PA_________________________________
5.4.Coordinate N________________________
E_________________________
B. Household Status
1. Respondent’s ID and Family Size
Sex Age Family Size ID Number
M F T
2. Land Use Status in Hectare
Cultivable None Cultivable Forest Land Marginal Irrigable Non Irrigable Pasture Total
3. Socio Economic Indications
3.1. Number of Livestock? ______________________________________________________________
3.2. Type of Grazing you are using? _______________________________________________________
3.3. For how many months in a year you are using open grazing? _______________________________
3.4. What are your most income sources? _________________________________________________
3.5. Percent of your income covered from the irrigation site? __________________________________
3.6. Percent of communal land you are using for grazing? _____________________________________
3.7. Type of crop residue you are using for feed? ____________________________________________
3.8. Have you been faced feed shortage in the past three years? 1. Yes 2. No
3.9. How many % of your land is within the command area?
3.10. If size of land within the command area is greater than 0.5 hectare, would you manage it?
3.11. If No for question number 3.10; how would you mange irrigation water use issues?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
3.12. Have you ever been faced water shortage in the last three years? 1. Yes 2. No
3.13. If yes for question number 3.12; in what months? List the months.
______________________________________________________________________________
Temperature Min ______Max_________
Altitude __________________________
Annual Rain Fall____________________
Major soil type_____________________
Land Capability_____________________
Land Suitably_______________________
Somephysicaldata
oftheirrigationsite
Name of Enumerator_______________________Tel.__________________signiture______

27. - 22 -
3.11. What are the minimum and maximum distances in km to get water resources with respect to
Difference seasons? ___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
3.12. What are the coping strategies used during the shortage? ___________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
3.13. Is your source of water for consumption the same as the water intended for irrigation? 1. Yes
2. No
3.14. Are there alternative water sources than what was proposed for irrigation? 1. Yes 2. No
3.15. Is your family members infected with water born diseases for the last six months?
1. Yes 2. No
3.16. What is the most important water born diseases at your locality? ______________________
____________________________________________________________________________
3.17. Do you know where malaria reproduces? 1. Yes 2. No
3.18. Do you have latrine? 1. Yes 2. No
3.19. What are the most sources of Environmental pollutions around you?
1. Open defecation 2. Night dumping, 3. Chemical spoilage
4. Natural Resources Management
4.1. Have you ever been participated on conservation activities for the last six months?
1. Yes 2. No
4.2. What is the most conservation activities carried out?
1. Biological conservation, 2. Physical conservation 3. Both
4.3. What are your concerns about the irrigation site for its impacts on your usual natural
resources management activities? _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
4.4. What are the most natural resources you are getting from the proposed irrigation site?
1. Fire wood, 2. Pasture, 3. Construction wooden materials, 4. All
4.5. Do you allow your land resources for irrigation infrastructures? 1. Yes 2. No
4.6. If no, for Question number 4.5; how would you react?________________________________
4.7. Is you or any of your relatives displaced because of the irrigation infrastructures? 1. Yes, 2. No
4.8. Do you need the irrigation scheme? 1. Yes 2. No
4.9. How the irrigation site will benefit you? ___________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
4.10. Is the opportunity cost of irrigation greater? 1. Yes, 2. No
4.11. If yes for Question number 4.10, State it. _________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
6. Technical Observation by Subject Matter Specialist
6.1. Vegetation feature of the irrigation site _____________________________________
6.2. Topographic feature of the site, ____________________________________________
6.3. Permissible river flow, ___________________________________________________
6.4. Appropriate command area that can suite amount of water, _____________________
5.1. Storm on importance of the
irrigation site as well as public
concerns with regard to Social,
Economic, and Cultural issues.
Statement of the Consensus,
______________________________________
______________________________________
______________________________________