Analysis of water delivery performance of smallholder irrigation schemes in Ethiopia: Diversity and lessons across schemes, typologies and reaches

cg.authorship.typesCGIAR and developing country instituteen_US
cg.contributor.affiliationArba Minch Universityen_US
cg.contributor.affiliationInternational Water Management Instituteen_US
cg.contributor.affiliationInternational Livestock Research Instituteen_US
cg.contributor.crpWater, Land and Ecosystemsen_US
cg.contributor.donorGlobal Affairs Canadaen_US
cg.coverage.countryEthiopiaen_US
cg.coverage.iso3166-alpha2ETen_US
cg.coverage.regionAfricaen_US
cg.coverage.regionEastern Africaen_US
cg.creator.identifierAmare Haileslassie: 0000-0001-5237-9006en_US
cg.creator.identifierDirk Hoekstra: 0000-0002-6111-6627en_US
cg.howPublishedFormally Publisheden_US
cg.isbn92-9146-458-9en_US
cg.number15en_US
cg.placeNairobi, Kenyaen_US
cg.subject.ilriFARMING SYSTEMSen_US
cg.subject.ilriIRRIGATIONen_US
cg.subject.ilriWATERen_US
dc.contributor.authorAgide, Z.en_US
dc.contributor.authorHaileslassie, Amareen_US
dc.contributor.authorSally, Hilmyen_US
dc.contributor.authorErkossa, Tekluen_US
dc.contributor.authorSchmitter, Petra S.en_US
dc.contributor.authorLangan, Simon J.en_US
dc.contributor.authorHoekstra, Dirken_US
dc.date.accessioned2016-05-22T12:18:36Zen_US
dc.date.available2016-05-22T12:18:36Zen_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10568/73684en_US
dc.titleAnalysis of water delivery performance of smallholder irrigation schemes in Ethiopia: Diversity and lessons across schemes, typologies and reachesen_US
dcterms.abstractIrrigation systems consist of three interdependent components involving: the irrigation scheme, the on-farm management and the organizations. The irrigation scheme refers to the infrastructure for water acquisition and distribution (water delivery). This study focused on water delivery performance of 10 smallholders irrigation schemes in four regions of Ethiopia, representing diverse water sources, distribution systems, command areas (50–6000 ha) and number of beneficiary farmers (233–500 farm households) and across agro-ecologies as represented by elevation ranges (1500–2725 masl). Relative irrigation supply (RIS), irrigation intensity (Ii), cropping intensity (CI), farm level adequacy (FLA), sustainability of irrigated land (SIL), and equity and field application efficiency were employed as performance indicators. The study involved focus group discussions, household surveys and measurements of water flow across selected points of water delivery systems during 2014/2015 cropping season. More than 300 sample farmers were selected randomly from different reaches (head, mid and tail) of the schemes and before the analysis the 10 irrigation schemes were clustered into three typologies (modern, semi-modern and traditional schemes) using seven comprehensive and weighted indicators. The result showed that irrigation typology developed in this study enabled to identify three relatively homogeneous irrigation schemes typologies: modern, semi-modern and traditional. There was apparent diversity of the study schemes in terms of indicators used. At typology level, as illustrated by the RIS, the highest amount of water was diverted for semi-modern schemes (RIS of 3.84); while the highest water delivery at farm relative delivery (FRD) was recorded for the modern schemes (FRD 2.21). Traditional schemes consistently showed lower value for both RIS and FRD. Regardless of their typologies, all study schemes suffer from mismatch of water demand and supply. The lower the RIS and FRD values, the stronger was the water supply disparities between irrigation reaches. Assessment of farmers’ perception on fairness of irrigation water delivery substantiate these arguments. Implicitly, it is important to track the fate of diverted excess water. Field observation and empirical evidences show divergent points of losses of excess water indicating focus areas of improved water conservation on smallholder irrigation schemes. For example the largest proportion of over supplied water (~100%) in the semimodern schemes and in traditional schemes was lost in the conveyance and distribution systems. For modern schemes water losses in the processes of conveyance was low (26%), while the significant proportion of water (76%) was lost on farm. In view of this evidence, we concluded that irrigation schemes in Ethiopia, regardless of their typology, have low water delivery performance. As every scheme has shown its own strength and weakness, concluding sustainability in terms of typology is misleading and this suggests that policy directions should be based on composite sustainability indices.en_US
dcterms.accessRightsOpen Accessen_US
dcterms.audienceScientistsen_US
dcterms.bibliographicCitationAgide, Z., Haileslassie, A., Sally, H., Erkossa, T., Schmitter, P., Langan, S. and Hoekstra, D. .2016. Analysis of water delivery performance of smallholder irrigation schemes in Ethiopia: Diversity and lessons across schemes, typologies and reaches. LIVES Working Paper 15. Nairobi, Kenya: ILRI.en_US
dcterms.isPartOfLIVES Working Paperen_US
dcterms.issued2016-05-15en_US
dcterms.languageenen_US
dcterms.publisherInternational Livestock Research Instituteen_US
dcterms.subjectirrigationen_US
dcterms.subjectwateren_US
dcterms.typeWorking Paperen_US

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
LIVES_wp_15.pdf
Size:
1.39 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Working Paper

License bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.75 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description: