Discussion of Key Findings The above major findings are discussed in the following paragraphs. Referring to finding 1 above, what explains the difference in the variation in costs? This question will be answered below on a component-by-component basis. But it is worthwhile to note that the overall project budgets varied considerably between Legedini ($975,000), Adidaero ($550,000) and Harbu ($293,000), meaning there were more funds for Legedini to allocate to project components than for either Adidaero or Harbu. Second, CRS and partners allocated costs in relation to the importance of the key objectives to food security and livelihoods. Referring to finding 2 above, the benefits of the various interventions are summarized in Table 5.11 and these will also be discussed in the following paragraphs. Table 5.11: Benefits of various interventions BENEFITS By WATERSHED CoMPoNENT
(INCoME IS $/HH/yR) (% oF WATERSHED HHS BENEFITINg) Harbu
Adidaero
Legedini
1. Income - all NRM sources 2. Grass for animals • Also for house con-
NRM + Agriculture
struction , shelving,
$35
etc. (NQ)
(46%)
$15 (10%)
3. Income (rain-fed agri-
3 mos.
--
culture)
(73%)
2 mos.
•SSI farmers
543
(79%)
•Dry-land farmer
(20%)
509 (11%)
4. Other benefits (NQ)
480
440 (79%)
• Replenishing water table
(98%)
$17(4.5%) 2.5 mos. (65%) $553 (11%) $398 (94%)
• Improved micro-environment • Bio-diversity improved
Irrigation
Additional Income 1. Daily time savings/HH
Domestic
2. Health
water supply
3. Backyard gardens
$931
879 (20%)
$170 (11%)
2
2
4-6
NQ
NQ
NQ
(11%)
Health Sanitation
Production of fruit,
NQ
NQ
NQ
(latrines and
vegetables and soil
NA
NA
NA
arborloos
fertility(Arborloos)
SILC
Income
-----
17
8
Stoves
Time savings
1.5 hrs
------
2.3 hrs
Beekeeping
38
1. Production 2. Income
1350 kg/yr NA
NQ – Benefit could not be quantified NA – Data not available
$226
NA