Irrigation projects in Ethiopia

This article was downloaded by: [213.55.115.78] On: 15 June 2015, At: 06:26 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsdw20

Irrigation projects in Ethiopia: what can be done to enhance effectiveness under ‘challenging contexts’? Mastewal Yami

a

a

International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), P. O. Box 7878, Kampala, Uganda Published online: 15 Jun 2015.

Click for updates To cite this article: Mastewal Yami (2015): Irrigation projects in Ethiopia: what can be done to enhance effectiveness under ‘challenging contexts’?, International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, DOI: 10.1080/13504509.2015.1057628 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2015.1057628

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 2015 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2015.1057628

Irrigation projects in Ethiopia: what can be done to enhance effectiveness under ‘challenging contexts’? Mastewal Yami* International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), P. O. Box 7878, Kampala, Uganda

Downloaded by [213.55.115.78] at 06:26 15 June 2015

(Received 7 April 2015; final version received 24 May 2015) Investment in small scale irrigation (SSI) is crucial to sustain food security and livelihoods of smallholders. In Ethiopia, the government and development partners show a growing interest in developing irrigation projects. The success of irrigation projects is determined by governance and socio-cultural contexts. Yet the lack of thorough understanding of the challenging contexts undermines the efforts to achieve sustainability outcomes in irrigation projects. This article identifies the challenging contexts to irrigation projects, examines how the challenging contexts influence the effectiveness of irrigation projects, and indicates ways of improving the effectiveness of irrigation projects under the existing challenging contexts. Data were collected between April and December 2011 in three regional states of Ethiopia using in-depth interviews and focus group discussions. The lack of governance capacity and accountability are critical challenges for the sustainability of the irrigation projects. In addition, the poor consideration of local knowledge and the use of top-down approaches in planning and implementing the irrigation projects, and lack of equitable access to the irrigation schemes result in poor ownership of projects among farmers. Improving the funding scheme to support long-term capacity building at national and local levels, and in understanding the socio-cultural contexts of the intervention areas; planning irrigation projects with due consideration of the existing challenging contexts, and with active engagement of the local community, are important for the long-term viability and sustainability of irrigation projects. Keywords: Ethiopia; governance; institution; irrigation; livelihoods; sustainability

Introduction Small scale irrigation (SSI) projects have been a high priority for the allocation of international development assistance since the 1960s (Lam & Ostrom 2010). In particular, increasing investment in infrastructure and management of SSI are important strategies to enhance agricultural productivity and to catalyse agricultural and economic growth for effective poverty reduction (Ararso et al. 2009; Hagos et al. 2009; Fujiie et al. 2011). Investments that prioritise and address the ecological, economical, and social challenges at the local level could improve the livelihoods of farmers in a sustainable manner (Kumar et al. 2014). Similarly, Charlebois et al. (2014) add that knowledge sharing among development partners is relevant for achieving food security and sustainable development. However, donor-funded SSI projects in Sub-Saharan Africa result in mixed outcomes of success and failure. For instance, SSI development increases market participation and asset accumulation by smallholder farmers (Hanjra & Gichuki 2008; Hanjra et al. 2009; De Fraiture et al. 2010; Burney & Naylor 2012). Other cases indicate that poor performance of SSI projects in terms of financial, managerial, and environmental objectives build pessimism regarding investment in SSI among development partners (Makombe et al. 2001). Factors including the use of top-down approaches in planning and implementation of SSI projects and the poor *Email: [email protected] © 2015 Taylor & Francis

attention given to processes of change in reducing rural poverty by some project implementers contribute to the poor performance of SSI projects (Morardet et al. 2005). In particular, the lack of balance between the investment in building irrigation infrastructure and the investment in subsequent costs of operation and maintenance reduce the performance of SSI projects (Abernethy 2010). Frequently, donors and governments provide most of the financial support to the physical infrastructure, and emphasise less on maintenance budgets of SSI schemes, partly from their expectations that farmers take over the maintenance costs on their own (Huppert et al. 2003; Ward et al. 2013). This assumption does not acknowledge the poor technical and financial capacities of smallholder farmers to manage the SSI schemes sustainably (Araral 2005; Turral et al. 2010). The case of SSI development in Ethiopia is no different from other cases in Sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere in that investment in irrigation projects focuses on constructing irrigation infrastructure. Such use of ‘blue print’ investment strategies undermines the diverse institutional contexts of intervention sites and results in poor performance of SSI schemes. Often investments in SSI projects are not accompanied by ways of involving concerns of the local community. For example, issues related to the suitability of the design for cleaning and maintenance and the route of irrigation canals might cause conflicts within the


2

M. Yami

community. Such concerns are not addressed well in the design of some irrigation projects and result in poor ownership of the irrigation project by the local community (IFAD, 2005). Most importantly, the change in SSI governance following the decentralisation process in the country in the past decade has influenced the decision-making processes in SSI development (Gebre-Egziabher & Berhanu 2007; Hagos et al. 2009). Particularly, lack of capacities at the local level to take over the responsibilities following the decentralisation process results in an institutional arena, which is challenging for investing in SSI in the country (Yami & Snyder 2012). Several studies have assessed the performance of irrigation projects in increasing agricultural productivity and improving rural livelihoods in Ethiopia (Bacha et al. 2011; Van Halsema et al. 2011; Aseyehegn et al. 2012). The studies focus on analysing the impacts of irrigation projects on yields, food security, household income, and market participation. Most of them indicate the need for further expansion of investment in irrigation projects. However, information is lacking on what challenges investment in irrigation projects at both the national and local levels. This lack of evidence is unfortunate because understanding the challenging contexts for investments could have provided a basis for improving the interventions in SSI development and enhanced their effectiveness in reducing rural poverty. Therefore, this article contributes to bridging the gap by examining the challenges in irrigation projects. ‘Challenging contexts’ in this article refers to institutional, socio-cultural, and political barriers that reduce the effectiveness of SSI projects to achieve sustainability outcomes at the national and local levels. Challenging contexts influence the success of SSI projects in achieving sustainability outcomes including the prevention of resource degradation, equitable benefit sharing among users of resources, and enhancing the contribution of SSI for livelihood improvements. The present study was carried out in SSI systems in Amhara, Tigray, and Southern Nations Nationalities and People’s (SNNP) regional states of Ethiopia to: (1) examine the perspectives of different actors on challenging contexts to SSI projects, (2) investigate how the challenging contexts influence the outcomes of SSI projects, and (3) identify ways of improving the effectiveness of irrigation projects under the existing challenging contexts. SSI projects and challenging contexts Irrigation development dates back several decades in Ethiopia. ‘Modern’ irrigation was started by the commercial irrigated sugar estate owners established in the early 1950s by the Imperial Government of Ethiopia and the Dutch company known as HVA-Ethiopia (FAO 2005). The Ministry of State Farms had control over all largescale irrigation schemes during the Derg regime, i.e., a military government that ruled Ethiopia from 1974 to 1991, and the potential contribution of SSI development to the country’s economic development was ignored. Both

the imperial and Derg regimes emphasised commercial farming and production of industrial crops for agro-industry. This approach changed when the current government placed the development of SSI schemes and improvement of farmer-managed traditional schemes at the forefront of its water development policy. The definitions given to ‘modern SSI’ by farmers, extension personnel, and SSI project implementers translate to the construction of schemes by external bodies (government or development partners) and include concrete river diversion structures, lined canals, introduced water-lifting devices, and use of farm inputs. The ‘traditional SSI’ is defined as an SSI system developed by farmers and that has diversion structures and canals made from locally available materials such as soil and stones and a farming system with low use of farm inputs and low/or no use of modern technologies (Yami & Snyder 2012). Investments in SSI projects are important to reduce rural poverty and improve income and livelihoods (Bhattarai et al. 2002; Hussain & Hanjra 2004). Yet, past SSI projects in Africa reveal mixed results of success and failure pertaining to governance, land tenure, and ownership issues among others. Other factors include the efficiency, productivity, and biophysical elements of SSI management, access to input and output markets, the legal and socio-cultural aspects of SSI projects, and the capacity of farmers in managing SSI schemes (Mati 2008; Yami 2013). Hanjra et al. (2009) indicate that in Southern Ethiopia irrigation farmers remain poor due to small landholdings, large family size, high dependence on agriculture, illiteracy, low education, poor health, poor access to infrastructure and markets, and low use of farm inputs such as fertiliser. Evidence reveals that the challenges in SSI projects are multiple, complex, and embedded in the socio-cultural and political contexts (Dungumaro & Madulu 2003). Besides, Santikayasa et al. (2014) point out that climate change poses challenges for the sustainability of irrigation projects in Indonesia. Woolcock (2009) also emphasises that the lack of attention to ambiguous and context-specific problems by the development partners has compromised the achievement of positive outcomes. Poor understanding of the local contexts coupled by the mere focus on technical aspects of SSI schemes limits the success of past interventions in Ethiopia and elsewhere in Africa (Merrey & Cook 2012). For instance, a study in the Sahel underlines that customary land rights are suppressed by governments and development partners in the efforts to expand SSI schemes due to ambiguities in the land tenure system (Cotula 2006). Yet the presence of effective operation and maintenance systems and enabling land tenure policies positively influence the sustainability of SSI projects in Benin (Djagba et al. 2014) and Zimbabwe (Mwendera & Chilonda 2013). In Ethiopia, Gebremedhin and Peden (2002) indicate that lack of a pluralistic approach that encourages an active involvement of beneficiaries in the design, implementation, and management of schemes limits the


International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology effectiveness of SSI projects. Most importantly, lack of integration of local knowledge in project design and implementation results in poor ownership among users (Habtu & Yoshinobu 2006). Similarly, Yami (2013) demonstrates that interventions of external bodies such as government and donors in setting up the bylaws and in defining the responsibilities of users constrain farmers’ engagement and result in poor performance of Water User Associations (WUAs) in Ethiopia. The cases illustrate that effectiveness of SSI projects is largely influenced by the governance and socio-cultural contexts at the national and local levels, and a prior knowledge of the contexts is important to achieve better outcomes. Thus, understanding the existing contexts enables one to identify strengths to build on and weaknesses to put into consideration when planning and designing SSI projects. Such measures are relevant in countries that passed through weak decentralisation processes such as Ethiopia because the follow-up changes in institutions could influence the decision-making processes of the SSI projects. The assumption behind this article is that lack of understanding of the challenging contexts in donor-supported SSI projects limits the success of the interventions. In this article, the concepts of the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework are used to examine the institutional, socio-political, and biophysical contexts influencing the effectiveness of SSI projects. The framework enables an understanding of the influence of discourses and socio-political interests of actors such as donors and governments on the planning and implementation of interventions in SSI development (Figure 1). Besides, the framework introduces the context in which local actors interact to create the institutional arrangements that shape their collective decisions and actions (Andersson 2006).

Study area The data are from five irrigation schemes in villages: Mesanu and Chelekot in Tigray, Kuhar Michael and Angot in Amhara, and Suka in SNNP regional states, Ethiopia (Table 1, Figure 2). The study sites have SSI schemes constructed under Participatory Small Scale

Figure 1.

The IAD framework (Source: Ostrom 2005:15).

3

Irrigation Development Program (PASIDP). PASIDP is a programme funded by the government, IFAD, and the project beneficiaries with USD 57.76 million during 2008–2015 (PASIDP Project Implementation Manual, 2008). The programme targets at improving the livelihoods of farmers through the expansion of SSI in drought-prone and food-insecure areas through the use of participatory approaches. In all sites, social capital is built on religion, family lineages, and neighbourhoods. Most importantly, social institutions including ‘Mahber’ (religious festivals), ‘Equib’ (rotational savings), and ‘Idir’ (burial institutions and social safety nets) are the basis for socialising events and serve as platforms for communication, information sharing, and conflict resolution (Yami & Snyder 2012). Farmers pursue mixed crop–livestock farming and use oxen to till their farm plots. Farming is carried out on small farm plots (average 0.5 ha per household) for both subsistence and market sales. In most cases, animal husbandry supplements crop production. The amount and availability of rainfall, agro-climate, and soil fertility influence agricultural productivity and thus livelihoods. In the Tigray and Amhara sites, farmers produce wheat, barley, and teff on rain-fed farm plots, and maize, vegetables, and fruits on irrigated fields. In the Southern Nations Nationalities and People’s Regional State (SNNPR) site, farmers cultivate maize and root crops such as sweet potatoes. The choice of crop production is related to food preferences for specific staple foods and also on rainfall availability (Yami 2013).

Data collection and analysis The participants in the qualitative interviews were chosen using a purposive sampling technique in order to select specific elements of a population that are believed to represent the range of variation expected in a population (Patton 2002). The participants included farmers, government officials, local authorities, experts on natural resources management, irrigation, agricultural extension at regional and wereda1 levels, and agricultural extension personnel of the government at kebele2 levels (Yami & Snyder 2012).

Notes: *The average rainfall is for the years from 2004 to 2009, and data on rainfall were collected from the Ethiopian Meteorological Service Agency in 2011. **Chelekot is closer to Mekele, the regional capital (17 km), than it is to Kuiha, the district town. Source: Yami and Snyder (2012). a Exclosures are areas closed off from wood cutting and grazing by domestic animals with the goal of promoting natural regeneration of plants and rehabilitating formerly degraded communal grazing lands (Yami et al. 2013).

15 30** 4 Wukro Kuiha Sawla Northern Northern Southern

545 (±58) 541 (±72) 1279 (±43) Mesanu Chelekot Suka Tigray Tigray SNNP

2021 2025 1296

2 Addis Zemen 1044 (±68) North western Angot Amhara

1898

10 Wereta 1306 (±80) North western Kuhar Michael Amhara

1795

Distance from nearest town (km) Average rainfall (mm yr-1)* Geographical location Sites Regions

Table 1.

Climate and major land uses of the study sites.

Altitude (m a. s. l.)

District town


Crop land (CL), private woodlots, grazing lands (GL) GL, protected forests, exclosuresa (EX), and CL EX, CL EX, CL CL, EX

M. Yami

Major land uses

4

Data were collected from April to December 2011 in all the study sites. In-depth interviews were conducted with development partners and project implementers on the challenges that influence interventions in SSI development. Then in-depth interviews and focus group discussions were conducted with farmers in all the study sites, using local languages. Semi-structured questionnaires with open-ended questions were used for the interviews (Bailey 2007; Silverman 2013). Participants were asked questions such as challenges in planning, designing, and implementing SSI projects, and what needs to be changed to achieve better livelihood outcomes in SSI projects. In total, indepth interviews with 50 participants were conducted. Separate focus group discussions of men, women, and youth were undertaken in each site with group size ranging from 8 to 12. Participatory tools such as problem-ranking exercises were used to assess the challenges to SSI projects in the focus group discussions. In the initial focus group discussions, participants listed problems to SSI development in their village with brainstorming and then identified the most important problems. Then the problems were used in pair-wise ranking matrices in all focus group discussions in each site. Interviews were transcribed and qualitative data analysis was conducted after repeatedly reading each transcription line by line (Strauss & Corbin 1990). Field notes and observations were used in interpreting the results. Secondary data on socio-economic settings was collected from the literature and local organisations including the Office of Agriculture and Rural Development (OARD).

Results and discussion Challenges for investing in SSI projects Most of the challenges mentioned by informants refer to the planning and implementation of SSI projects. Particularly, the use of top-down planning in SSI projects limits development partners from targeting their goals in the projects. An informant describes the planning process as follows: Federal government prepares plan, provides framework and consults regions when inputs are needed. Plans are top-down and the space given to regions and weredas is only consultation. In most cases, regions and weredas are contacted only for informing them and in few cases their inputs are incorporated. (Donor interviewee, No. 5, July 2011)

The planning of SSI projects also fails to integrate the inputs and local knowledge of local communities, and excludes farmers who are the key implementers of the projects. The attitude of projects’ staff that farmers will use SSI schemes once built in their villages often leads to unintended outcomes such as conflicts among farmers over water use. This situation is unfortunate because a due consideration of farmers’ priorities, concerns, and


International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology

Figure 2.

5

Location of study areas.

interests could have contributed for enabling equitable benefit sharing and preventing conflicts over water use. The other challenge is the lengthy decision-making process that involves several institutions at federal and region levels. The poor capacities of institutions to make timely decisions result in poor management of the technical and financial aspects of SSI projects. SSI projects are governed by steering committees at the regional and wereda levels. The steering committees involve higher officials, such as the head of Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development (BoARD), who are busy with other commitments and cannot take quick decisions on projects and to be involved in decision-making over the actual implementation process. Members of the steering committee meet once in two to three months’ time and give their feedback to the reports of the project units in the regions. Dependence on the steering committee to make decisions over irrigation projects including financial settlement results in delays in payments for study and construction works. Likewise, the focus of weredas to meet the deadlines of regions instead of developing their own bylaws and guidelines to implement their development plan constrains the effectiveness of SSI projects. Moreover, the lack of coordination between wereda finance offices and regional project offices contributes to the poor performance of irrigation projects. The bureaucratic decision-making process is a disincentive to project staff since they face budget constraints to implement the planned activities at the right time. In Ghana, Venot et al. (2011) indicate that bureaucratic decision-making in SSI projects such as in bidding irrigation projects encourages corruption among government officials at different levels.

Equally important is the engagement of staff of the BoARD at the regional and wereda levels in a number of developmental and political activities. For example, the high involvement of agricultural extension personnel and irrigation experts in campaign works of the government including community mobilisation towards development and election campaigns lowers the time and attention devoted to SSI projects. In such cases, the agricultural extension personnel might not focus on their core functions and keep their skills updated to manage the dynamics in SSI projects. But it is important to underline the important roles of agricultural extension personnel in mobilising local communities for land rehabilitation works. Such works are crucial in preventing soil erosion and siltation in irrigation systems. Thus finding a balance in using the agricultural extension system for community mobilisation and focusing on their core functions could resolve the problem. In line with the above, Anderson and Feder (2004) reveal that agricultural extension personnel face political interference and can be used in other activities including election campaigns in countries that undertake decentralisation. This observation also holds true in a few other countries that use the agricultural extension system to reach farmers on political issues. Such government interventions often result in poor outcomes in development projects. For example, Kassa (2002) points out that the agricultural extension personnel in Ethiopia have been involved in different activities not related to their normal duties. Joughin and Kjær (2010) also emphasise that the National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS) in Uganda fails to achieve positive outcomes due to the government’s intervention in using the NAADS system

6

M. Yami


to mobilise votes and the provision of material resources in exchange of political loyalty. In addition, lack of downwards accountability during planning of SSI projects, recruitment and capacity building of project staff, and financial management of SSI projects influence the SSI development works negatively. The challenge becomes prominent due to the frequent restructuring of the irrigation sector, and the confusions on duties and responsibilities among government and nongovernmental actors at both the national and local levels. An informant elaborates the problem as follows: SSI project documents often state the need for building capacity of project staff at all levels and budgets are out in place. However, some experts do not facilitate the project staff to take trainings on technical and managerial issues of SSI projects. They do not even consider it as their responsibility. In many instances, all the project money goes to implementing projects without building capacity. Due to this, project staff start implementation before understanding the plans. (PASIDP project staff interviewee, No. 9, June 2011)

The poor accountability of the politico-administrative structure in the country is also visible in the construction and extension works of SSI development. The agricultural extension activities are not designed to support the SSI intervention in different phases and fail to meet the extension services required in irrigation projects such as facilitation of input supply and marketing of irrigation products. Similarly, Clement et al. (2010) reveal that the political situation and institutional arrangements in Nepal affect the outcomes of SSI projects. They added that the use of ambiguous concepts in project documents results in varied interpretations of the concepts at the implementation phase. Such reluctance in building an accountable system in SSI projects is an impediment for project staff to actively contribute to the implementation process. In addition, the poor consideration given to accountability in SSI projects results in poor rule enforcement and inefficient management of financial resources. Venot et al. (2011) also point out that lack of accountability in planning and implementing SSI projects opens up opportunities for corruption, delays implementation, and escalates the construction cost of SSI projects in Ghana.

Challenges for implementing SSI projects Informants in all sites underline that overdoing of political agendas using the sub-kebele arrangements reduces farmers’ motivation to discuss the problems faced in SSI development and come up with solutions. Moreover, the subkebele arrangements could lead to unintended control over the farmers by local authorities. The issue of having ‘too many bosses’ due to the presence of several institutions farmers are engaged with could influence the power relations among farmers negatively. The contested power relations among farmers in turn impact the decision-making processes of SSI projects such as water allocation and

conflict resolution. Moreover, farmers and agricultural extension personnel have to attend frequent and long meetings on political and development agendas. In that case, they are left with limited time for specifically addressing problems in SSI projects. An agricultural extension personnel in Amhara highlights that: The local governance creates pressure on farmers with several long meetings on development and political issues. Due to this, farmers are less interested to have meetings with agricultural extension personnel on irrigation issues. To address this challenge, the agricultural extension personnel try to reach farmers through leaders of development groups. Still some group members say they do not like to communicate their views through the group leaders especially when there are disagreements among them. (Agricultural extension personnel interviewee, No. 3, May 2011)

Lefort (2010) also points out that the frequent meetings at the sub-kebele level are perceived as burden to farmers in particular when the focus of the meetings is on their involvement in party politics and on reporting a misconduct among members to a higher level. Emmenegger et al. (2011) add that the sub-kebele state and party structure in rural areas of Oromiya is used by local governments to mobilise and control households. Regardless of the above-mentioned points, the presence of organised groups at the local level is important in supporting SSI projects by facilitating the use of improved farming practices and the use of farm inputs, enabling a follow-up on the performances of farmers and mobilising farmers for collective action such as maintenance of the SSI scheme. Informants highlight that although kebele is the lowest governance unit, farmers are further organised into smaller units. Among others, the ‘one to five’ networking system comprises six farmers where a model farmer leads the other five farmers to improve agricultural practices, and applying farm inputs and advices of the agricultural extension personnel. Additionally, informants indicate that weak capacity of the study team and engineers who design and construct the schemes, study problems, and structural problems are challenges for irrigation projects in all study sites. Among others, the inadequate attention given to traditional water management systems among neighbouring villages has led to conflicts among farmers. For instance, conflicts arise among Suka and Turga farmers in the SNNPR study site because the modern scheme takes most of the water to Suka village, thereby depriving Turga farmers of water for irrigation. The design ignores the existing arrangements of river water use and multiple water uses. Such negligence leads to the destruction of canals and breaking of the SSI systems because of competition and conflicts. An informant in SNNPR adds: The canals are deep and can’t reach farm plots because the farm plots are at higher slope than the canals. Farmers are destroying part of the canals because they don’t want the

International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology


canals crossing their farm plots and occupy space for no reason. (Farmer interviewee, No. 36, June 2011)

The high price of farm inputs and the intensive use of labour increase the cost of production in the study sites. Another study indicates that the brokerage institutions in Amhara sites play an important role in forming market linkages between smallholders and wholesalers under imperfect market conditions (Tamir 2012). However, the dominance of brokers in determining the prices could result in low payments for farmers. Akalu (2007) underlines that farmers are risk takers and are frequently exposed to cheating by brokers. Thus, improving the bargaining power of farmers with market information is crucial. Besides, the growing interest in SSI by farmers irrigating with traditional and modern river diversion structures increases pressure on the available water resources. Theft of weirs and gates of river diversion schemes are reported in Angot, developing suspicion and mistrust among irrigating farmers and affecting the sustainability of SSI development works. Belete (2006) adds that conflicts between traditional and modern SSI scheme users arise in some donor-funded SSI schemes in Ethiopia due to water shortages associated with poor study and designs. Problems of market linkage and the condition of earthen canals are listed as the most important challenges to improving the livelihoods of irrigating farmers in Tigray sites (Table 3). It is observed that poor market linkages and poor road infrastructure affect the overall contribution of SSI in reducing rural poverty as farmers suffer postharvest losses due to poor access to output market and transport facilities. Market problems revolve around two issues: (1) the crop calendar whereby farmers plant similar crops on their fields, and produce the same products at the same time of the year regardless of the market demand; and (2) infrastructure, whereby farmers face transportation problems in selling their products in better markets. The absence of all-weather roads in Chelekot constrains farmers’ from getting agricultural extension services and selling their harvest in Mekele markets. Indeed, farmers often have to wait for days to take their harvest with trucks to Mekele. In addition, the lack of all-weather roads reduces the opportunities for poor farmers to generate income from off-farm works in the urban areas due to the long distance they have to walk and the high cost of transportation. It also does not provide the better-off farmers’ with opportunities to diversify their livelihoods in trading activities, including selling vegetables and other farm products. In line with this point, Pender and Gebremedhin (2007) put

The SSI projects in all sites have weak mechanisms to equip the study team and engineers with relevant training in study and design to improve the quality of schemes and to minimise conflicts among implementers and villagers during construction. In Chile, Garande and Dagg (2005) also disclose a similar situation where the local communities have not been involved and consulted about SSI schemes. The lack of understanding of the socio-cultural contexts limits the success of the SSI projects. The problem emanates from the mere focus on technical issues in SSI projects and the undermining of local knowledge and practices. Similarly, Aberra (2004) asserts that SSI development interventions by the Sustainable Agriculture and Environmental Rehabilitation in Tigray (SAERT) fail because of myopic project planning, inadequate engineering studies, unsound designs, too short time for implementation, and lack of active involvement of farmers at different levels of project planning and implementation.

Challenges faced by users of SSI projects Focus group discussions in Amhara sites reveal that the irrigation schemes suffer from low payment for products and a poor agricultural extension system to facilitate the supply and use of farm inputs (Table 2). The low output prices (e.g., price of onion), which is attributed to the high production of onions over other crops and vegetables, reduce the potential contribution of SSI to income and livelihoods. The overproduction of onions arose from farmers’ orientation towards producing products that had good prices in the past year and the poor agricultural extension service that fails to provide farmers updated market information. Gebremedhin and Jaleta (2010) also indicate that the agricultural extension system in Ethiopia does not enable market entry of farmers through facilitating farmer linkages with buyers and the supply of market information. Farmers sell their onions by negotiating with brokers who link them with traders. Often, farmers themselves are involved in brokering because it has advantages over farming, especially those who have no farm plots, or other off-farm job opportunities. Although the study sites in Amhara have better road infrastructure and access to markets in nearby towns, the poor prices affect farmers’ interest in investing more labour and inputs in their plots.

Table 2.

7

Problem ranking with pair-wise comparison of Kuhar Michael (KM) and Angot (A).

Problems Shortage of water (SW) Lack of market linkage (ML) Pest (P) Input supply and high prices (ISP) Labour shortage (LS)

SW

ML

P

ISP

LS

Scores

RankKM

RankA

X

ML X

P ML X

ISP ML ISP X

SW ML P LS X

1 4 2 2 1

3 1 2 2 3

2 2 3 1 2

8

M. Yami

Table 3. Problems

EC

ML

PES

ISP

T

Scores

RankC

RankM

Earthen canal (EC) Poor market linkage (ML) Poor extension services (PES) Input supply and price (ISP) Transport (T)

X

ML X

EC ML X

ISP ML ISP X

EC ML PES T X

2 4 1 1 1

2 1 3 3 3

1 2 3 2 3

Table 4.


Problem ranking with pair-wise comparison of Chelekot (C) and Mesanu (M).

Problem ranking with pair-wise comparison of Suka.

Problems

EC

ML

F

ISP

WS

Score

Rank (Suka)

Earthen canal (EC) Market linkage (ML) Flood (F) Input supply and price (ISP) Water shortage (WS)

X

EC X

F ML X

ISP ISP F X

EC WS F ISP X

2 1 3 3 1

2 3 1 1 3

forward that better access to roads and markets is crucial in promoting the production of higher-value crops, increasing the local prices of crops, and encouraging the use of farm inputs in Tigray. The poor market linkage and access to and high prices of input supplies challenge the productivity of irrigated fields in the SNNPR site (Table 4). The farming systems are rich in the diversity of cropping patterns, which include root crops, grains, and pulses. Yet the SSI schemes have the drawbacks of flooding, soil erosion, and siltation, making canal maintenance difficult for farmers and leading to the collapse of the irrigation system over time. Dependence on external support makes farmers less mobilised to solve problems affecting their livelihoods (focus group discussion of men in SNNPR, June 2011). The lack of other opportunities in peri-urban areas also limits the livelihood strategies of the majority of the population in Suka and they are dependent mostly on smallholder farming. Participants of focus group discussions in all the sites indicate that sustaining equity and ownership of schemes is important to enhance the livelihood outcomes of irrigation projects. In light of this condition, access to land determines benefit sharing and the livelihood outcomes of irrigation projects to farmers in the study sites. Villagers get access to irrigation through having plots in the command area, renting irrigable plots, and via laboursharing arrangements. Lipton et al. (2003) underline that the institutions that define farmers’ access to water and maintenance of irrigation systems and farmers’ ability to complement irrigation with farm inputs influence the impacts of irrigation on the livelihoods of farmers. Yet land fragmentation and landlessness characterise the study sites following population growth, and this in turn constrains equitable distribution of benefits of irrigation among farmers. Farmers without irrigable plots are excluded from the decision-making processes about operation and maintenance although their actions could impact

the irrigation schemes. The exclusion remains a challenge for women even though they have irrigable plots. For instance, an informant states: Women participate equally with men in all the farm work in the SSI, and also in selling products. However, they do not participate in decision-making issues. That is really men’s job, and not women’s. Women have no idea on how the SSI intervention has come into place. Women work according to the decision of men. (Male farmer interviewee, No. 12, May 2011)

Furthermore, informants in all the sites agree that farmers do not have the skills to address some of the structural problems such as maintaining a collapsed main canal. The schemes would have been designed to be easily maintained by farmers. Building local capacity to maintain and operate the irrigation structures could have contributed to the sustainability of the modern SSI. The monitoring and evaluation mechanisms of irrigation projects are also weak and are limited to filling in the accomplished tasks against the planned activities on a checklist by the agricultural extension personnel.

Ways of enhancing the effectiveness of SSI projects under challenging contexts It is not practical to change the challenging contexts in the short run. Yet it is possible for the government and development partners to enhance the effectiveness of SSI projects by improving how they intervene under the challenging conditions. First, working on building local capacities and upgrading the roles of weredas is essential by: (1) strengthening the involvement of weredas in decision-making, authorising weredas to confirm the study, design, and construction of SSI schemes; (2) investing in capacity building of staff at the wereda level in project implementation skills (design, construction, financial accounting, participatory planning, adaptive management,


International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology cross-sectoral collaboration); and (3) increasing the training of implementing staff on the criteria and standards of SSI development programmes. Developing an easy-toread manual that can be given to relevant staff is also important for guiding the project staff on the standards. Second, it is important to work on building the capacities of the local community through the following. (1) Investing time and funds to improving the ‘soft’ side of projects, i.e., capacity building, training in developing new approaches (such as participatory planning or community engagement processes that lead to greater community empowerment). (2) Incorporating local knowledge of farmers in the design of SSI schemes, to create more sustainable structures. Documenting what local knowledge is used and how to use this knowledge in future designs if applicable and changing the attitudes and build the skills of project engineers. (3) Developing a mechanism for WUAs to formally approve the design and construction works because WUA members have a strong interest in ensuring quality work as their livelihood improvements depend on the quality of the SSI schemes. Empowering WUAs should make the contractors more accountable to the ultimate beneficiaries. Investing in capacity building of WUAs to work on input supply, to adapt and improve their management of water resources when they shift to different crops, and to engage with upstream and downstream farmers to design ways in which to identify and solve conflicts and problems. (4) Training users on the operation and maintenance of schemes is important for the sustainability of irrigation projects and to reduce dependence on external support. SSI schemes should be designed to be easily maintained by the users. Training WUA members in financial planning and budgeting so that they can plan ahead and use the funds they raise for improved investments and consider preparing a formal agreement for government assistance to address the problems beyond community capacity to solve is crucial. Besides, encouraging the sharing of experiences among farmers (farmer-to-farmer learning) and staff at the wereda and regional levels with other parts of the country is relevant. Finally, addressing the problems of market issues is central in enhancing the livelihood outcomes of irrigation projects. Donors and the government can address marketing problems by: (1) improving market linkages for farmers in irrigation schemes by promoting off-season, highvalue crops; providing market information to farmers; and linking farmers to specific markets, and (2) coordinating more closely with the agricultural marketing programmes to look for markets, prices in nearby towns and cities, and providing information on the planting seasons of some crops and vegetables in other areas that compete for markets. Conclusions This study confirms that understanding the challenges is crucial to improving the effectiveness of SSI projects.

9

Moreover, it is crucial to understand the different challenges that emerge at the different levels of SSI development. The use of top-down approaches and poor attention given to local knowledge in planning and implementation of SSI projects results in poor ownership by the local communities. Lengthy decision-making processes accompanied by the lack of governance capacity and accountability are critical challenges for the sustainability of the irrigation projects. Furthermore, lack of equitable access to the irrigation schemes reduces the local-level ownership of SSI projects. The challenges compromise the effectiveness of SSI projects in generating income for farmers and improving livelihoods. The findings imply that there is a need to change the trend of using development assistance on mainly technical issues of SSI projects. Allocating enough funds to support long-term capacity building at the national and local levels is crucial to attain the sustainability of irrigation projects under the existing challenging contexts.

Acknowledgements I would like to thank all the participants for their time and kind cooperation. Furthermore, I would like to thank Katherine Snyder, Doug Merrey, and Terry Clayton for their valuable comments on earlier drafts, and Yenenesh Abebe for mapping the study areas.

Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Funding The study was conducted under Challenging Contexts project, which was funded by the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) in the International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Notes 1. 2.

Wereda is an administrative region comprising a number of villages (approximately 20 kebeles). Wereda is often used as synonym with district. Kebele (tabia in Tigray) refers to the lowest administrative level.

References Abernethy CL. 2010. Governance of irrigation systems: does history offer lessons for today? Irrig Drain. 59:31–39. Aberra Y. 2004. Problems of the solution: intervention into small-scale irrigation for drought proofing in the Mekele plateau of northern Ethiopia. Geogr J. 170:226–237. Akalu A. 2007. Vegetable market chain analysis in Amhara National Regional State: the case of Fogera Woreda, South Gondar zone [M.Sc. thesis]. Department of agricultural economics, Haramaya University; 117p. Anderson JR, Feder G. 2004. Agricultural extension: good intensions and hard realities. World Bank Res Obser. 19:41–60.


10

M. Yami

Andersson K. 2006. Understanding decentralized forest governance: an application of the institutional analysis and development framework. Sustain Sci Pract Policy. 2:25–35. Araral Jr E. 2005. Bureaucratic incentives, path dependence, and foreign aid: an empirical institutional analysis of irrigation in the Philippines. Policy Sci. 38:131–157. Ararso GS, Schultz B, Hollanders P. 2009. Planning water management for secure food production in sub-Saharan Africa. Irrig Drain. 58:509–521. Aseyehegn K, Yirga C, Rajan S. 2012. Effect of small-scale irrigation on the income of rural farm households: the case of Laelay Maichew district, central Tigray, Ethiopia. J Agric Sci. 7:43–57. Bacha D, Namara R, Bogale A, Tesfaye A. 2011. Impact of smallscale irrigation on household poverty: empirical evidence from the Ambo district in Ethiopia. Irrig Drain. 60:1–10. Bailey CA. 2007. A guide to qualitative field research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications. Belete Y. 2006. Current experience on existing small scale irrigations. In: Awulachew SB, Menker M, Abesha D, Atnafe T, Wondimkun Y, editors. Best practices and technologies for small scale agricultural water management in Ethiopia; p. 3–11. Proceeding of a MoARD/MoWR/ USAID/IWMI symposium and exhibition held at Ghion Hotel; Mar 7–9; Addis Ababa. Colombo: IWMI; 190p. Bhattarai M, Sakthivadivel R, Hussain I. 2002. Irrigation impacts on income inequality and poverty alleviation: policy issues and options for improved management of irrigation systems. Working Paper 39. Colombo: International Water Management Institute. Burney JA, Naylor RL. 2012. Smallholder irrigation as a poverty alleviation tool in sub-Saharan Africa. World Dev. 40:110– 123. Charlebois S, Sterne RH, Buhr M. 2014. Sharing and preparing: cross-institutional, food security-based knowledge in Canada. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol. 21:532–539. Clement F, Banset G, Bharati L. 2010. Rethinking development models and irrigation projects in Nepal. Hydro Nepal. 11:112– 120. Cotula L. 2006. Land and water rights in the Sahel: tenure challenges of improving access to water for agriculture. London: International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED); 88p. De Fraiture C, Molden D, Wichelns D. 2010. Investing in water for food, ecosystems, and livelihoods: an overview of the comprehensive assessment of water management in agriculture. Agric Water Manage. 97:495–501. Djagba JF, Rodenburg J, Zwart SJ, Houndagba CJ, Kiepe P. 2014. Failure and success factors of irrigation system developments: a case study from the Ouémé and Zou valleys in Benin. Irrig Drain. 63:328–339. Dungumaro EW, Madulu NF. 2003. Public participation in integrated water resources management: the case of Tanzania. Phys Chem Earth Parts A/B/C. 28:1009–1014. Emmenegger R, Keno S, Hagmann T. 2011. Decentralization to the household: expansion and limits of state power in rural Oromiya. J East Afr Stud. 5:733–754. [FAO] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2005. Irrigation in Africa in figures – AQUASTAT Survey 2005. Rome: FAO. Fujiie H, Maruyama A, Fujiie M, Takagaki M, Merrey DJ, Kikuchi M. 2011. Why invest in minor projects in subSaharan Africa? An exploration of the scale economy and diseconomy of irrigation projects. Irrig Drain Syst. 25:39–60. Garande T, Dagg S. 2005. Public participation and effective water governance at the local level: a case study from a small under-developed area in Chile. Environ Dev Sustain. 7:417–431.

Gebre-Egziabher T, Berhanu K. 2007. A literature review of decentralization in Ethiopia. In: Assefa T, Gebre-Egziabher T, editors. Decentralization in Ethiopia. African Books Collective. Addis Ababa: Forum for Social Studies (FSS); p. 9–68. Gebremedhin B, Jaleta M. 2010. Commercialization of smallholders: does market orientation translate into market participation? Improving Productivity and Market Success (IPMS) of Ethiopian Framers Project Working Paper 22. Nairobi: ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute). Gebremedhin B, Peden D. 2002. Policies and institutions to enhance the impact of irrigation development in mixed crop–livestock systems. Integrated water and Land Management Research and Capacity Building Priorities for Ethiopia, Workshop Proceedings MoWR/EARO/IWMI/ILRI. Addis Ababa: ILRI; p. 168–184. Habtu S, Yoshinobu K. 2006. Traditional irrigation management in Betmera-Hiwane, Ethiopia: the main peculiarities for the persistence of irrigation practices. J Mount Sci. 3:139–146. Hagos F, Makombe G, Namara R, Awulachew S. 2009. Importance of irrigated agriculture to the Ethiopian economy: capturing the direct net benefits of irrigation. Colombo: International Water Management Institute; 37p. IWMI research report no. 128. Hanjra M, Ferede T, Gutta D. 2009. Pathways to breaking the poverty trap in Ethiopia: investments in agricultural water, education, and markets. Agric Water Manage. 96:1596–1604. Hanjra MA, Gichuki F. 2008. Investments in agricultural water management for poverty reduction in Africa: case studies of Limpopo, Nile, and Volta river basins. Nat Resour Forum. 32:185–202. Huppert W, Svendsen M, Vermillion DL. 2003. Maintenance in irrigation: multiple actors, multiple contexts, multiple strategies. Irrig Drain Syst. 17:5–22. Hussain I, Hanjra M. 2004. Irrigation and poverty alleviation: review of the empirical evidence. Irrig Drain. 53:1–15. [IFAD] International Fund for Agricultural Development. 2005. Special Country Programme Phase II (SCP II) Interim Evaluation Report; 144p. Joughin J, Kjær AM. 2010. The politics of agricultural policy reform: the case of Uganda. Forum Dev Stud. 37:61–78. Kassa B. 2002. Constraints to agricultural extension work in Ethiopia: the insiders’ view. S Afr J Agric Extension. 31:63–79. Kumar S, Raizada A, Biswas H. 2014. Prioritising development planning in the Indian semi-arid Deccan using sustainable livelihood security index approach. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol. 21:332–345. Lam WF, Ostrom E. 2010. Analyzing the dynamic complexity of development interventions: lessons from an irrigation experiment in Nepal. Policy Sci. 43:1–25. Lefort R. 2010. Powers- mengist- and peasants in rural Ethiopia: the post-2005 interlude. J Mod Afr Stud. 48:435–460. Lipton M, Litchfield J, Faurès JM. 2003. The effects of irrigation on poverty: a framework for analysis. Water Policy. 5:413–427. Makombe G, Meinzen-Dick R, Davies SP, Sampath RK. 2001. An evaluation of Bani (Dambo) systems as a smallholder irrigation development strategy in Zimbabwe. Can J Agric Econ. 49:203–216. Mati BM. 2008. Capacity development for smallholder irrigation in Kenya. Irrig Drain. 57:332–340. Merrey DJ, Cook S. 2012. Fostering institutional creativity at multiple levels: towards facilitated institutional bricolage. Water Alternat. 5:1–19. Morardet S, Merrey D, Seshoka J, Sally H. 2005. Improving irrigation project planning and implementation processes in sub-Saharan Africa: diagnosis and recommendations. IWMI Working Paper 99. Colombo: IWMI; xx, 71p.


International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology Mwendera E, Chilonda P. 2013. Conceptual framework for revitalization of small-scale irrigation schemes in Southern Africa. Irrig Drain. 62:208–220. Ostrom E. 2005. Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press. Patton M. 2002. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage. Pender J, Gebremedhin B. 2007. Determinants of agricultural and land management practices and impacts on crop production and household income in the highlands of Tigray, Ethiopia. J Afr Econ. 17:395–450. Santikayasa IP, Babel MS, Shrestha S, Jourdain D, Clemente RS. 2014. Evaluation of water use sustainability under future climate and irrigation management scenarios in Citarum River Basin, Indonesia. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol. 21:181–194. Silverman D. 2013. Doing qualitative research: a practical handbook. 4th ed. London: Sage Publications. Strauss A, Corbin J. 1990. Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. London: Sage. Tamir S. 2012. The brokerage institutions and smallholder market linkages in marketing of horticultural crops in Fogera Woreda, South Gondar, Amhara National Regional State [M. Sc. thesis]. Department of agricultural economics, Haramaya University; 154p.

11

Turral H, Svendsen M, Faures JM. 2010. Investing in irrigation: reviewing the past and looking to the future. Agric Water Manage. 97:551–560. Van Halsema G, Lencha B, Assefa M, Hengsdijk H, Wesseler J. 2011. Performance assessment of smallholder irrigation in the central rift valley of Ethiopia. Irrig Drain. 60:622–634. Venot JP, Andreini M, Pinkstaff CB. 2011. Planning and corrupting water resources development: the case of small reservoirs in Ghana. Water Alternat. 4:399–423. Ward FA, Amer SA, Ziaee F. 2013. Water allocation rules in Afghanistan for improved food security. Food Security. 5:35–53. Woolcock M. 2009. Toward a plurality of methods in project evaluation: a contextualised approach to understanding impact trajectories and efficacy. J Dev Effect. 1:1–14. Yami M. 2013. Sustaining participation in irrigation systems of Ethiopia: what have we learned about water user associations? Water Policy. 15:961–984. Yami M, Mekuria W, Hauser M. 2013. The effectiveness of village bylaws in sustainable management of community-managed exclosures in Northern Ethiopia. Sustain Sci. 8:73–86. Yami M, Snyder K. 2012. Improving sustainability of impacts of agricultural water management interventions in challenging contexts. Project report, International Water management Institute, Addis Ababa (Ethiopia); 36p.