IDENTIFING MAJOR CONSTRAINTS OF GROUND WATER USE FOR
IRRIGATED CROP PRODUCTION: FOGERA PLAIN, NORTH WESTERN
ETHIOPIA
A Project Paper
Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School
of Cornell University
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Professional Studies (MPS)
By
Getachew Ewonetu
January 2013
©2012 Getachew Ewonetu Mamo
ABSTRACT
Irrigated agriculture is becoming increasingly important in meeting the
demands of food security, employment and poverty reduction. Fogera
Woreda, located in the flood plain, 50 km north of Bahirdar on the road to
Gonder in the northeastern portion of the Abbay basin, has a high
groundwater potential. Currently, irrigated vegetables are grown in this
woreda, but it is limited to those lands adjacent to the two perennial rivers -Rib and Gumara. Therefore, increasing the land available to irrigation through
the increased use of groundwater sources for irrigation has a potential to
increase productivity, overcome conflict between river water users, and involve
those farmers who are not currently benefiting from irrigation. However, to
ensure the feasibility of increased groundwater use, the major constraints
were evaluated that may hinder the community from using groundwater for
irrigation crop production. Qualitative data were gathered through focused
group discussion, key informants’ interviews, informal discussions with
farmers, and personal observations. Quantitative data were generated
through standard survey questionnaires.
Based on the survey of 210 households major constraints in using
groundwater for irrigation were collapse of hand dug wells (61%), shortage of
manpower (46%) siltation of the well, (45%) shortage of funds for constructing
the well (43%). Groundwater irrigation can be improved by arranging proper
credit system that can be used to purchase old tires concrete rings to prevent
well collapsing or silting up and better pumps to reduce labor shortages ; In
addition better training should be provided on proper irrigation techniques
and optimum use of credit to assure increased groundwater use.
Dedicated
To My Beloved Little Kid
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to express my gratitude to my advisor Professor Tammo Steenhuis
for his skillful guidance and support throughout the course of this work. Much
credit also goes to Cornell University for its material and financial support.
Special thanks to Dr. Amy Collick, coordinator of Bahir Dar-Cornell University,
for her unreserved support and guidance throughout the course of the study.
She went out of her way to allow me to attend the study.
I wish to thank Seifu Admassu Tilahun, Abeyou Wale Worqul and Essayas
Kaba for their unlimited support guidance and providing data throughout my
study.
I am especially thankful to the farmers who responded to my numerous
questions with remarkable patience.
I gratefully acknowledge the sustained contributions of Demelash Gessese, for
statistical data analysis for manuscript editing and data handling: Muhammed
Elkahmil, Tadess Gashaw and Dessalegn Chanie for their critical and valuable
comments and suggestions.
I would also want to thank the Woreda office of Agricultural and Rural
development staffs especially to Ato Biadge Wube who provide available data
and information on ground water use for irrigation.
Finally, all other people who helped me during the study are acknowledged
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................Error! Bookmark not defined.v
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.vii
LIST OF TABLES ........................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.ix
LIST OF ABBREVIATION .............................. Error! Bookmark not defined.xi
1
2
3
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
1.1
Problem Statement.............................................................................. 4
1.2
Researchable Questions ..................................................................... 5
1.3
General and Specific Objectives ......................................................... 5
1.4
Significance of the Study ..................................................................... 6
1.5
Limitation of the Study ......................................................................... 6
LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................. 7
2.1
Current status of small-scale irrigation systems .................................. 7
2.2
The National Irrigation Policy .............................................................. 8
2.3
Socio economic impact of small-scale irrigation ................................ 10
2.4
Ground water use for irrigation ...................................................... 1112
METHODS AND APPROACHES ........................................................ 1314
3.1
Description of the Study Area ........................................................ 1314
3.1.1
The study area ........................................................................ 1314
3.1.2
Land use and land cover ........................................................ 1314
3.1.3
Soil type .................................................................................. 1516
3.1.4
Water resource of study area.................................................. 1516
3.2
Inventory of Irrigation Systems in the Fogera Plain ....................... 1718
4
3.3
Selection of Peasant Associations and Sampling Technique ........ 1819
3.4
Data Source, Data Type and Method of Data Collection ............... 1920
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................ 2122
4.1
Social and Economic Profile of the Study Area ............................. 2223
4.1.2
Education ................................................................................ 2223
4.1.1
Family composition ................................................................. 2324
4.1.3
Farm size holding and management....................................... 2526
4.1.4
Income of the household ........................................................ 2728
4.1.5
Livestock Holding.................................................................... 3132
4.1.6
Crop production ...................................................................... 3233
4.2
Major constraints of crop production in the study area .................. 3536
4.3
Ground water use .......................................................................... 3637
4.1.2
5
Groundwater Availability ......................................................... 3940
4.2
Opportunities of ground water use in the study area ..................... 4041
4.4
Major constraint of ground water use for irrigation in the area ...... 4142
4.5
Awareness of community on ground water potential in the area ... 5051
4.6
Best practice implemented in the area to promote groundwater use
5051
CONCLUSION ..................................................................................... 5253
REFERENCES ........................................................................................... 5455
APPENDICES ............................................................................................ 5963
APPENDIX I: Conversion factors used to estimate tropical livestock unit5963
APPENDIX II: Results from Survey Data ................................................ 5963
APPENDIX III: Questionnaire ................................................................. 6669
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3-1: Map of study area (Source of Data: Bureau of Finance and
Development Spatial Database) ................................................................. 1415
Figure 3-2: Land use and land cover of study area (FAO).......................... 1516
Figure 3-3: Soil map of the study area (spatial data from FAO Digital Soil Map,
2007) .......................................................................................................... 1617
Figure 3-4: Water resource of Fogera Woreda (Data from Amhara Water
Works Enterprise) ....................................................................................... 1718
Figure 4-1: Income of households with water source they used for irrigation
................................................................................................................... 2830
Figure 4-2: Total annual income of the different sample groups and their farm
size, ha ...................................................................................................... 3031
Figure 4-3: Total annual income, ETB, of the farmers involved in surface,
groundwater, surface and groundwater and no irrigation and family size ... 3132
Figure 4-4: Total Livestock with Water Source they used For Crop production
................................................................................................................... 3233
Figure 4-5: Tomato production using ground water .................................... 3435
Figure 4-6: Onion cultivation using ground water ....................................... 3536
Figure 4-7: Major constraints of crop production in the study area ............. 3637
Figure 4-8: Ground water use for sanitation ............................................... 3738
Figure 4-9: Ground water use for animal drinking ...................................... 3738
Figure 4-11: Hand dug well before collapsing ............................................ 4445
Figure 4-12: Hand dug well after collapsing ............................................... 4445
Figure 4-13: Soil type of the study area during digging of a well ................ 4546
Figure 4-14: Hand dug well without case ................................................... 4950
Figure 4-15: Hand dug well with cement cylinder case .............................. 4950
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1: Groundwater potential in the three Ethiopian zones (Source:
Awulachew, 2010) ...................................................................................... 1213
Table 4-1: Sample distribution in sampling groups and in each kebele ...... 2122
Table 4-2: Educational level of households ................................................ 2324
Table 4-3: Family size and age distribution of sample households ............ 2526
Table 4-4: Farm size in ha for Land use and land management of households
in each sampling group .............................................................................. 2627
Table 4-5: The area summary of irrigated land (river, lake and groundwater)
................................................................................................................... 2728
Table 4-6: Correlation of family size with land holding and total income .... 2930
Table 4-7: Type of Crops Cultivated by the House holds ........................... 3335
Table 4-8: Frequency and amount of ground water used for irrigation by
households. ................................................................................................ 3839
Table 4-9: Reason of Farmers to use or not to use ground water for irrigation
................................................................................................................... 3839
Table 4-10: Timing of ground water use ..................................................... 3940
Table 4-11: Rank of major constraints of ground water use for irrigators using
surface water, groundwater and non irrigators ........................................... 4344
Table 4-12: Number and percentage of respondents using various forms of
ground water abstraction ............................................................................ 4647
Table 4-13: Trainings on irrigation for each water source users for irrigation
................................................................................................................... 4647
Table 4-14: Correlation of Ground Water use with Major Constraints ........ 4849
Table 4-15: Household awareness of using groundwater for irrigation ....... 5051
Table 4-16: Number of households that received incentives in order to
promote groundwater use for Irrigation ...................................................... 5152
LIST OF ABBREVIATION
ACQUASTAT FAO’s Global Information Systems of Water and Agriculture
ADLI
Agricultural Development Lead Industrialization
AEZ
Agro-Ecological Zone
Chat
Slightly hallucinogenic plant
Co-SAERS
Commissions for Sustainable Agriculture and Environment
CRS
Catholic Relief Services
CSA
Central Statistics Agency
DA
Development Agent
EIA
Environmental Impact Assessment
EPA
Environmental Protection Authority
EPRDF
Ethiopian People Republic Democratic Front
ETB
Ethiopian Birr
FAO
Food and Agricultural Organization
FDRE
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
GDP
Gross Domestic Product
GOE
Government of Ethiopia
Ha
Hectares
IDD
Irrigation Development Department
Kebele
Lowest administrative unit of the Ethiopian federal system
Km2
Kilometer square
LSI
Large Scale Irrigation
m
Meter
M3
Meter cube
masl
Meter above sea level
Mha
Million hectares
MoARD
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development
MoFED
Ministry of Finance and Economic Development
MoWR
Ministry of Water Resources
MSI
Medium Scale Irrigation
NGO
Non-Government Organization
PASDEP
Plan for Accelerated and Sustained Development to End
Poverty
RDPS
Rural Development Policy and Strategy Rehabilitation
RWH
Rain Water Harvesting
SCF- UK
Save the Children Fund- United Kingdom.
SPSS
Statistical software package
SSI
Small Scale Irrigation
TLU
Tropical Livestock Unit
UN
United Nation
WoARD
Woreda office of Agricultural and Rural Development
CHAPTER ONE
1 INTRODUCTION
The importance of irrigation agriculture for a country having an agricultural-led
industrialization policy but a dependence on rainfall for much of its cultivation
is undeniable. Ethiopia, recently reaching a population of over 80 million of
which 80 percent are living in rural areas, is highly dependent on rain-fed
agriculture but not food self sufficient. To help make these rural communities
food self sufficient, irrigation agriculture in conjunction with rain-fed agriculture
is a likely answer. Unfortunately, although Ethiopia has a great water potential
for irrigation, the country’s capacity to enhance agriculture production through
the development of irrigation systems has been weak (Mengistu, 2000).
Ethiopia is endowed with relatively higher amounts of rainfall and has a
surface runoff of about 122 billion m3 and 2.6 billion m³ of groundwater
(MoWR, 1998). It has been proposed that if the country uses all its efforts to
collect all available water resources for crop production, there is a possibility
that the country can cover its food deficit and can also export agricultural
products like oil crops and cereals (MoWR, 2001).
The Ethiopian Government has embarked on wide range of water
development efforts throughout the country. In the last decade, small-scale
irrigation and rainwater harvesting were the government new policy and
strategy on agricultural to increase crop productivity and reduce water
shortage for crop and animal production. In some parts of the regions, where
there are scarce and erratic rainfall, there is evidence that irrigation has
1
achieved positive impacts: better opportunity for production, better income,
reduction of risks, and hence generated benefits for poor rural communities.
Irrigation provides greater security in areas depending on rainfall alone. The
total amount of rainfall in most crop producing areas in Ethiopia is quite
sufficient; however, irrigation ensures that the crop receives adequate water at
critical stages of crop growth. If a crop does not receive moisture during these
critical stages, plant growth will surely suffer (Briggs and Courtney 1989 as
cited by Mintesinot, et.al, 2004). Irrigation aids in fulfilling the crop water
requirements of the crop and maintains or even increases production.
Irrigation development involving the construction of dams and river diversions
can be expensive and often limited to the production of highly valuable crops
(Mikinay, 2008). However, in areas where access to irrigation water is easy,
such as areas with high groundwater tables or springs irrigation systems can
be implemented rather inexpensively.
Thus, groundwater has become an important water source for irrigation and it
is an integral part of the strategy “to overcome food scarcity” in many
developing countries including Ethiopia” (Nata et al., 2009). Since the 1950’s
when in many rural areas cheap electricity became available, the irrigated
area has been rapidly increasing (Rosegrant et al., 1999). By using readily
accessable water sources and inexpensive irrigation devices, an increasing
numbers of poor farmers with small landholdings have been able to afford to
irrigate crops. Irrigated crops are often consumed by farmers but may also be
sold at local markets, thereby increasing household income and improving
their livelihood.
2
Increasing productivity in smallholder agriculture is a high priority for the
Ethiopian Government because the government has recognized the high
prevalence of rural poverty and the large productivity gap in the smallholder
subsector (GoE, 2010). However, increasing productivity is not a complete
solution but should be complemented by more effective practices so farmers
are able to shift smoothly from purely subsistence farming practices to those
practices of semi-subsistence/ semi-commercial status farmers. As these
farmers become more self-sufficient, they too can adopt more sustainable
natural resource management practices in order to reduce severe resource
degradation and begin the long process of regeneration.
This ambitious goal will not be achieved in a solely rain fed agriculture system,
but rather by the conjunctive use of surface water and ground water for
irrigation. Therefore, irrigation development is one of the strategies to reverse
food insecurity throughout Ethiopia. According to the Water Sector Strategy
(GoE, 2001), the Ethiopian irrigation development strategy aims to develop
over 470,000 ha of irrigation by 2016. Of this development, 52% will be large
and medium scale schemes while the remaining 48% will be small-scale
schemes (GoE, 2001).
Besides an expansion of small scale irrigation, demand for water for other
agricultural use, domestic supply, and industrial water has increased rapidly.
Thus, a greater emphasis on optimal utilization of both ground and surface
water is needed. In this thesis we are concerned with the ground water
irrigation.
3
1.1
Problem Statement
Irrigation development is being promoted because of its potential to increase
farmers’ incomes, improve food security, and enhance the livelihoods of rural
families throughout Ethiopia. Many of the existing traditional and modern
irrigation schemes are small and obtain water from river diversions. Ground
and spring water as sources for irrigation are underutilized. For example, in
the Fogera plain adjacent to Lake Tana in the north-western part of Ethiopia
where ground water is abundant, vegetables (mostly onions and tomatoes)
and, horticulture crops (fruit and fodder trees) are only irrigated with surface
water from two perennial rivers, the Rib and the Gumara. Therefore, only
farmers with land near these two rivers profit form irrigation, while others must
wait until the rainy season to cultivate their crops, mostly cereals and maize.
As the demand for irrigation water from these two rivers increases by an
expanding number of farmers, the stream flow has decreased significantly
especially from February to April. This has led to crop failure causes conflict
among the up- stream and downstream water users. Therefore, the utilization
of groundwater sources for crop production may aid in the expansion of
irrigated land and enhance water availability. However, to assure that the use
of groundwater is a feasible and sustainable solution, this study identifies the
major opportunities and constraints of the community in utilizing groundwater
for irrigated crop production in the high ground water potential region of the
Fogera Plain.
4
1.2
Researchable Questions
For a specific study of ground water constraints linking with issues of the use
for irrigation crop production, a number of questions can be raised. The study
tries to address the following major research questions:
a) What are major constraints of the community to use ground water
for irrigation crop production?
b) Are the communities aware about their ground water potential for
crop production?
c) What types of practices were implemented in the area to promote
groundwater uses for irrigation crop production by different
governmental and non-governmental organizations?
1.3
General and Specific Objectives
This paper investigates opportunities and constraints in Fogera Woreda on
ground water use for irrigation crop production.
In particular it will:
a) Identify major constraints why farmers are not using ground water
for irrigated crop production.
b) Evaluate communities' awareness about the potential use of
groundwater for irrigated crop production
c) Assess the best approach to promote ground water use for irrigation
by governmental and non-governmental organizations.
5
1.4
Significance of the Study
The government in the Plan for Accelerated and Sustained Development to
End Poverty policy (MoFED, 2006) intends to increase its total area of irrigated
land from the current 640,000 hectares to about 1.8 million ha in the next five
years by using all available water resources including surface and ground
water sources. Fogera Woreda has a great ground water potential and 76% of
the area is flat and suitable for irrigation. Once the opportunities and major
constraints of ground water use for irrigated crop production are identified,
solutions can be explored to better use groundwater sources for irrigation
enhance livelihood of the community through increased income and better
food security. At the same time this study can help solve conflicts between up
and downstream communities by providing an alternative source for
downstream communities that were using surface water for irrigation.
1.5
Limitation of the Study
The study has limitations including a shortage of data concerning on ground
water recharging rate, accurate farmers’ crop production yields because
farmers were not comfortable when asked about their income, the specific
types of soil, water yield of wells.
6
CHAPTER TWO
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1
Current status of small-scale irrigation systems
The present most frequently cited estimate of small-scale irrigation estimated
area is about 65,000 ha (MoWR, 1998; CSA, 1998; AQUASTAT, 1998;
IDD/MOA, 1993 as cited in CRS, 1999)). These figures are in sharp contrast to
the widely cited overall potential for irrigation throughout the country, including
small, medium and large-scale irrigation.
FAO (2000:16) concluded that smallholder irrigation has brought many
successes to farmers, among others are;

It enabled farmers to grow high value crops and increase their income
hence improve their livelihoods.

The schemes helped in reducing the rural to urban migration by offering
the rural population an alternative source of employment.

In arid areas where drought is frequent phenomenon irrigation helped
as strategy to cope with the problem.

With more integrated approach smallholder irrigation can be the basis
for other rural infrastructure to be developed in areas, which could
otherwise have remained without roads, telephones, schools and
clinics.

Smallholder irrigators have developed a commercial mentality
7

2.2
Crop yields and farmer incomes have gone up manifold.
The National Irrigation Policy
Over the next five years, Ethiopia has planned in the PASDEP to increase its
total area of irrigated land from the current 640,000 hectares to about 1.8 Mha.
Small-scale irrigation (SSI) and rainwater harvesting (RWH) will account for
about two-thirds of this expansion, as they require lower capital and technical
investments, labor is available, they are able to reach fragmented communities
and households, and they are possible on small plain areas.
However, beyond the next five years, Ethiopia will have to significantly expand
its irrigation sector to reach the full irrigable potential of over 5 Mha. Mediumand large-scale schemes will be an important strategy to achieve this
aspiration, in combination with exploring and developing groundwater
potential, especially given that an estimated 85 percent of Ethiopia’s total
surface water irrigation potential is estimated to be in large-scale schemes.
MoWR planned to construct 128,000 hectares of medium- and large-scale
irrigation schemes in the original PASDEP plan, but actually constructed
projects covering only about 43,000 hectares by 2010, which is 66 percent
below target. In the same plan, MoARD planned 389,000 hectares for smallscale irrigation projects but was able to implement only 285,000 hectares by
2010 (27 percent less than planned).
The development of the country’s irrigation potential is an important part of a
major program for the intensification of agriculture launched by the new
Federal Government (EPA, 1997). As part of this effort, Water Resources
8
Management Policy to guide water sector development has now been
operational. The stated goal of this policy is: “To enhance and contribute its
share in all national efforts towards the attainment of prosperous, healthy and
socio-economically developed society with all its human dignity by promoting
sustainable management of water resources of the country, without
endangering and compromising the capacity of water resources base for
regeneration in the services of future generations (MoWR, 1998).” More
specifically, the objectives of the policy underline the need for the
development, conservation and enhancement, provision of basic necessities,
and the allocation of water.
These objectives are based on comprehensive and integrated plans and
principles that incorporate efficiency of use, equity of access and sustainability
of the resources. The policy objectives are also expected to ensure that
environmental protection measures are taken into account in the course of
studies, planning and implementation and operation of water resources and
water resources systems (MoWR, 1998)”. The policy has also addressed the
issue of basins development by giving due emphasis and showing a direction
for its inclusion as an integral part of the overall water resources management.
The agricultural sector policy and strategy also give special enfaces regarding
water development in the country. The national science and technology policy
does not specifically address water in its policy framework. However, the
policy document contains priority sectors and programs, which emphasize the
water sector development.
9
2.3
Socio economic impact of small-scale irrigation
Small-scale irrigation schemes as compared with other irrigation strategies
used in Africa, if properly implemented with appropriate technologies, may
have a considerable potential in improving rural livelihoods. However, the
viability of such systems becomes questionable when the financial
responsibility rests entirely on the community in the absence of institutional
support services that enhance market orientation (Kamara and McCormick.
2002). Literature on smallholder irrigation in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) gives
conflicting conclusions on the viability and sustainability of smallholder
schemes (FAO, 1986; Webb, 1991; Teshome, 2003).
The sustainability of the irrigation sector in Africa has been an issue of debate
because of its disappointing performance in many cases. Because of the
complex set of constraints facing smallholder producers, providing access to
irrigation water by itself is not enough. Smallholders also require a broad
range of support services (access to inputs, credit, and output markets),
knowledge of farming and secure land tenure. To achieve economic viability in
small-scale irrigation schemes on a market-oriented basis requires access to
support services and opportunities for producing high value crops.
There are strong direct and indirect linkages between irrigation and poverty
(Hussain and Hanjira, 2004). Direct linkages operate through localized and
household level effects, whereas indirect linkages operate through aggregate
or sub-national and national level impacts. Irrigation benefits the poor though
higher production, higher yields, lower risk of crop failure, and higher and yearround farm and non-farm employment. Irrigation enables smallholders to adopt
10
more diversified cropping patterns, and to switch from low-value staple
production to high-value market-oriented production. Increased production
makes food available and affordable for the poor.
Past interventions in irrigated agriculture in Africa have yielded immense
benefits. For example, in Zimbabwe farmers could secure food production
thanks to irrigation and the use of high yielding varieties and fertilizers (FAO,
2000). In Gambia, irrigation provided smallholder farmers the chance for
increasing income that was reflected on increased expenditure, investment in
productive and household assets, and trade (Webb, 1991).
In central Ethiopia, Fuad Adem (2001) shows that many of the people who
have been regular beneficiaries of periodic cash crop production using
irrigation are now more income secured and have better access to food.
Another study conducted by Save the Children-UK (SCF /UK) (1999) on the
North Wollo East plain reported that irrigators can plant three times per year.
The majority of the farmers who have irrigation plots have been categorized as
rich in wealth group in the community.
2.4
Ground water use for irrigation
Groundwater in Ethiopia can be used for irrigation in multiple ways, such as
deep and shallow wells from underground aquifers. Compared with other
sources of irrigation, groundwater as a resource for agricultural development
offers a number of advantages, including:
 Reliability of the water source, since it has a naturally renewable
capacity if water is not extracted above certain thresholds.
11
 Availability in many places, e.g., in highlands, steep terrains, inland
valleys, and plain areas.
 Relative consistency of supply, which can help to buffer highly
variability of surface water resources.
Despite these advantages of groundwater, it is not widely exploited in
agriculture in Ethiopia. There is very scant information on which to base an
estimate of current use of groundwater in irrigated agriculture in Sub Saharan
Africa including Ethiopia. The most traditional and widespread use of
groundwater is for village ‘garden-scale’ irrigation of vegetables and seedlings,
which helps to improve food and nutritional security at local scale groundwater
irrigation potential of Ethiopia estimates around 1.1 million ha (Awulachew,
2010) and irrigable potential by zone is summarized in Table 2-1 below.
Table 2-1: Groundwater potential in the three Ethiopian zones (Source:
Awulachew, 2010)
Ground Water potential
Zone 1 high potential
Zone 1 medium
potential
Zone 1 low potential
Zone 2 high potential
Zone 2 medium
potential
Zone 2 low potential
Zone 3 high potential
Zone 3 medium
potential
Zone 3 low potential
Total
Available water
(Bm3)
1.06
Irrigation
potential (ha)
211,386
0.83
137,636
0.23
0.63
32,317
126,806
0.49
81,542
0.23
1.56
32,317
311,808
0.85
141,989
0.63
6.5
90,081
1,165,881
12
CHAPTER THREE
3 METHODS AND APPROACHES
3.1
Description of the Study Area
3.1.1 The study area
Fogera Woreda located in northeast Ethiopia is a woreda in the Amhara
Region and situated on the main road from Bahirdar to Gonder adjacent to
Lake Tana (Figure 3-1). According to the Woreda agricultural and rural
development office the Woreda has a total area of 117,405 hectares and 27
rural kebeles with total population of approximately three hundred thousand
people.
Fogera Woreda is known by its floods in the plain area during the rainy
season. Which accounts for which is 76% of the total land area or 89,228 ha in
the woreda. The mean annual rainfall is 1216 mm and average temperature in
Fogera is 190C. The altitude ranges from 1,774 up to 2,410 meter above sea
level.
3.1.2 Land use and land cover
According to the Woreda Agriculture and Rural Development Office (WoARD)
(2010), the present land use pattern includes 48 % cultivated land, 22 %
grazing land, 21% water bodies, 2 % forest land and 7 % for others. Rice, teff,
maize, vegetables and horticultures are cultivated vastly in the woreda. Fogera
Woreda is one of the rice producing areas in Ethiopia. During the rainy season
13
most of cultivated land in the flood plain is covered by rice cultivation. Figure
3-2 below shows land use of the woreda
Figure 3-1: Map of study area (Source of Data: Bureau of Finance and
Development Spatial Database)
.
14
Figure 3-2: Land use and land cover of study area (FAO)
3.1.3 Soil type
The dominant soil type in the Fogera plains is black clay soil (Eutric vertisols),
while the mid and high altitude areas are Haplic Luvisols and Eutric Fluvisols
are respectively dominant as shown in Figure 3-3 below.
3.1.4 Water resource of study area
According to the Amhara Water Bureau there are no major water problems on
the plains. There are several rivers, and the ground water table is close to the
ground surface. There are 77 rivers and 196 springs in the study area
(WoARD, 2011). However, local farmers during group discussion said that
15
water scarcity is a major problem in the dry season to for crop production as
well as for livestock because water is being diverted for upstream irrigation.
There are 4 modern communal irrigation projects with an irrigation potential of
310 ha (WoARD, 2011). The total households benefited from these modern
Figure 3-3: Soil map of the study area (spatial data from FAO Digital Soil Map,
2007)
Communal projects are 990HHs from which 946 are male-headed households
while 44 are female-headed households (WoARD, 2011). Most springs and
shallow wells are located on the upstream of the study area as shown in
Figure 3-4 below. This is because of the soil type at the upstream side is
Eutric Fluvisols soil which is differ from vertisol soil type differs in the flood
16
plain. Eutric Fluvisols has stable property in terms of expanding and shrinking
property plus create favorable condition for digging well unlike vertisol.
Figure 3-4: Water resource of Fogera Woreda (Data from Amhara Water
Works Enterprise)
3.2
Inventory of Irrigation Systems in the Fogera Plain
According to Woreda Agricultural and Rural Development Office (WoARDO),
traditional irrigation practice has a long history by the community by diverting
traditionally rivers and streams for production of horticulture crops for home
consumption. Based on the available documents and WoARDO commercial
oriented crop production in the woreda was started in two kebeles of the
woreda namely Abuana Kokit and Bebeks in 1997 and 1999, respectively.
Abuana Kokit project was a public irrigation project and supported by the
17
WoARDO. This project uses both gravity and motorized irrigation by diverting
the rivers. While Bebaeks irrigation project was started by a business man
lived in Debretabor whose name is Aba Alemayehu Behonegn with four
farmers who share-cropped. The production of commercial-oriented crops at
this project has dramatically increased.
3.3
Selection of Peasant Associations and Sampling Technique
Fogera plain was selected because of its ground water potential for irrigation,
and thus potential for high value vegetable crop production for market. There
are more than 27 kebeles in the woreda, but only six of these kebeles are part
of the Fogera flood plain and the study. Besides their high ground water
potential, these six kebeles have easily accessed ground water due to the
shallow water table. Selection of kebeles was done in consultation with
Woreda Office of Agriculture and Rural Development and available documents
which provide information about irrigation practice of the area.
The sample farmers were selected randomly in each kebeles that the house
hold practicing irrigation using ground water source, both ground and surface
water source, surface water source and non irrigators to get appropriate
sample in each Kebele by going through in each household, and each sample
farmer was then categorized as farmers who use ground water, surface water
(river and lake water), both ground water and surface water source for
irrigation crop production, or non-irrigators.
18
3.4
Data Source, Data Type and Method of Data Collection
To fulfill the objectives of the study, both quantitative and qualitative data were
gathered from the primary sources.
Quantitative data were generated through survey methods employing
structured interviews from a total of 210 households (HHs) respondents of six
kebeles selected randomly house to house, 35 households from each kebele
to gather data particularly demographic data, socio-economic data, major
constraints of crop production in the area, major constraints of ground water
use for irrigation, awareness of the community about their ground water
potential to irrigation and best practice implemented in the study area to
promote ground water use for irrigation from the sample respondents. In
addition; relevant secondary data like annual rainfall, average temperature,
population of the study area, number of ground water users in the area and
others were collected from available reports, records and other published and
unpublished documents from the concerned offices and from the internet.
ArcGIS 9.3 and SPSS 16 soft ware are used for the preparation of maps and
for analyses of collected questionnaire data, respectively.
For the household survey, enumerators were development agents (DAs)
because they are familiar with the study area and then were trained
concerning the objectives, methods of data collection and interviewing
techniques. The interview schedule was semi-structured and pre-tested before
the true interviews took place. Besides the surveyed sample, different
methods were used in order to elicit relevant qualitative information especially
19
on major opportunities and constraints of ground water use for irrigation crop
production.
The qualitative data were gathered through focused group discussion, key
informant’s interviews, informal discussions with farmers, and personal
observations. During focus group discussion the group comprises elders,
religious leaders, opinion leaders, and knowledgeable individuals. The overall
aim of focus group discussion haled in each kebeles were to get full picture of
the area ground water use practice for irrigation, practice forward by any NGO
or governmental office to the community to promote ground water use for
irrigation and to identify their major constraints on ground water use for
irrigation.
Emphasis was given to the qualitative data in order to capture all the relevant
information required to have an in-depth view of irrigation and to find out
opportunities and constraints in relation to use of ground water for irrigation
crop production.
20
CHAPTER FOUR
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter presents survey results from the six selected kebeles, namely
Kokit, Kideste Hana, Shena, Shaga, Wagetera and Nabega. These six
kebeles are located on the flood plain of Fogera Woreda. The findings are
part of the study aimed at identifying major constraints of ground water use for
irrigation crop production. The analysis was done among farmers which are
randomly selected in the study area and are 31 HHs are ground water users
for irrigation, 94 HHs are river and lake (surface) water users for irrigation, 39
HHs are both ground and surface water users for irrigation crop production
and 46 HHs are non-users of either ground water or surface water for their
crop production as shown in Table 4-1. Lake irrigation, in addition to river and
groundwater irrigation, are possible in two kebeles—Nabega and Wagetera—
because they are adjacent to the lake. River and groundwater are the only
possible irrigation sources in the remaining four kebeles. Shena Kebele is the
model irrigation kebele with 33 irrigators and only two non-irrigators, while the
highest number of non-irrigators was found in Shaga Kebele. Kideste Hana
had the greatest number of groundwater users (11) followed by Shena (9).
Table 4-1: Sample distribution in sampling groups and in each kebele
Study
kebeles
Kokit
Shaga
Shena
Kideste Hana
Nabega
Wagetera
Total
Surface Groundwater
17
14
11
12
19
21
94
4
0
9
11
3
4
31
21
Surface
+ GW
5
6
13
8
4
3
39
Nonirrigators
9
15
2
4
9
7
46
Total
35
35
35
35
35
35
210
4.1
Social and Economic Profile of the Study Area
4.1.2 Education
As shown in Table 4-2 below from total population included in the survey data,
almost 25% of the sample population is illiterate, 51% can read and write, 22%
finished elementary school and the remaining 2 % finished secondary school.
But if we look according to water source, first, from surface water irrigators,
about 23 percents are illiterate, 60 percents can read and write, 15 percent
have finished elementary school and 3 percent have finished secondary
school. About 26 percent of groundwater users are illiterate, 39 percent can
read and write, 35 percent have finished elementary school. In addition,
groundwater and surface water irrigators, 33 percent are illiterate, 49 percent
can read and write and 18 percent are completed secondary school. On the
other hand, from the households that do not practice irrigation, nearly 23
percent are illiterate, 46 percent can read and write, 30 percent completed
secondary school and 2 percent completed secondary school.
The above figures in the discussion show that there is not much difference in
the educational status between the different groups surveyed. This indicates
that the water source choice of the community they used for irrigation is not
influenced by educational status of the household head. However, the rather
high literacy rate (> 70% in all groups) is important how farm households may
learn of new technologies and agricultural innovations.
Fogera farmers are knowledgeable and intuitive at identifying their critical
problems and have the capacity to choose technologies suitable to their living
22
environment. Creating awareness also can create a favorable condition for
intervention of effective and profitable technology.
For example, rice production was introduced to Fogera Woreda in the 1994/95
season with 30 farmers in two kebeles on 6 ha of land; but now every farmer
surveyed and most farmers on the flood plain within six kebeles and other 8
kebeles out of the flood plain cultivate rice during the rainy season. This
increased cultivation of rice has coincided with steadily increasing market
prices for this commodity. Therefore, rice cultivation can significantly increase
a household’s income.
Table 4-2: Educational level of households
Illiterate
Surface
water
Ground
water
Surface +
GW
Non
irrigators
Total
4.1.1
Freq
%
Freq
%
Freq
%
Freq
%
Freq
%
21
22%
8
26%
13
33%
10
22%
52
25%
Read and
write
56
60%
12
39%
19
49%
21
46%
108
51%
Elementary
school
14
15%
11
35%
7
18%
14
30%
46
22%
Secondary
school
3
3%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
1
2%
4
2%
Family composition
Family labor in traditional agriculture is the most important factor of production
both for increasing income and production and hence food security. According
to the result of the sample survey as shown in Table 4-3, a family with an
average size of 5.8 people has a labor force of 4.5 people per household,
23
which is about 77 % of the total family members (including children with the
age group of between 11 and 14). In rural areas, children labor is mostly used
for cattle rearing and in some areas children within the same age group
participate in agricultural activities, especially in weeding and threshing.
The family composition of the surveyed households using different irrigation
water source gives the following results. Surface water users have an average
family size of 5.7 people and a labor force of 4.3 people. Ground water source
users for irrigation have an average family size of 6.1 people per household of
which 4.8 people are able to do labor on the farm. Both ground and surface
water users as irrigation source have an average family size of 5.9 with 4.5
people in the labor force. In addition non irrigators have an average family size
of 5.7 and a labor force of 4.5 people.
The results clearly indicate that there is no difference in labor force between
households that irrigate or not thus the use of surface water, ground water,
combination of surface and ground water and only rainfall water source for
crop production is not influence by family size even though use of ground
water as irrigation water source needs high manpower to dig the well, to lift
water from well and to water the crop unless the users uses better
technologies which substitutes the labor force. Based on the survey result
most households have sufficient manpower to use ground water as irrigation
water source and expand ground water use for irrigation crop production if
they used all available labor forces effectively.
24
Table 4-3: Family size and age distribution of sample households
Surface
GW
Surface
+ GW
Nonirrigators
Total
mean
std dev
max
min
n
mean
std dev
max
min
n
mean
std dev
max
min
n
mean
std dev
max
min
n
mean
std dev
max
min
n
Children Children
< 10
btwn11
years
and 14
1.37
0.82
0.53
0.41
2
2
0
0
129
77
1.29
0.90
0.64
0.75
2
3
0
0
40
28
1.38
0.97
0.49
0.28
2
2
1
0
54
38
1.24
0.83
0.57
0.38
2
1
0
0
57
38
1.33
0.86
0.55
0.45
2
3
0
0
280
181
Adults btwn
14 and 64
years
3.47
1.32
6
2
326
3.87
2.11
8
2
120
3.62
1.41
7
2
141
3.61
1.51
8
2
166
3.59
1.51
8
2
753
Elders
> 64
years
0.04
0.20
1
0
4
0.03
0.18
1
0
1
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
0.04
0.21
1
0
2
0.03
0.18
1
0
7
Family
size
5.7
1.64
9
3
526
6.1
2.49
11
3
189
5.9
1.42
9
4
233
5.7
1.70
9
3
263
5.8
1.77
11
3
1221
4.1.3 Farm size holding and management
According to FAO (1997), farm resources include fixed resources, such as
land and an irrigation system; provide services for a household over a number
of years or at least for the seasonal production period.
As shown in table 4-4 the farms in the survey covered 243 ha with 85 ha
double cropped in 2010/ 2011 growing year, giving a total cropped area of 328
25
ha. Of the 328 ha cropped area 274 ha was rainfed and 54 ha used some
form of irrigation.
The average farm land size (Table 4-4) for each of the sample groups varies
between 1 and 1.12 ha. It is relatively similar due to the redistribution of land
implemented throughout the country following the land reform policy of 1996
(Ethiopian calendar year (2003/2004). The land reform policy used household
size as special criteria for land distribution. Due to this house hold family size
included in the study (Table 4-3) is almost the same resulting in similar farm
sizes between the different water source users for irrigation and non irrigators.
Table 4-4: Farm size in ha for Land use and land management of households
in each sampling group
Surface
Land (Farm) size, ha
Max
2.00
Min
0.13
Mean
1.20
Std dev
0.50
Total cultivated, ha
Max
3.50
Min
0.75
Mean
1.65
Std dev
0.60
Rainfed, ha
Max
2.00
Min
0.50
Mean
1.27
Std dev
0.46
Irrigated, ha
Max
1.50
Min
0.13
Mean
0.38
Std dev
0.26
Groundwater Surface + GW
243.1
2.13
2.13
0.25
0.50
1.01
1.17
0.54
0.45
328.3
2.13
2.63
0.63
1.00
1.30
1.73
0.43
0.48
274.6
2.00
2.13
0.50
0.50
1.21
1.33
0.43
0.45
53.7
0.25
0.81
0.03
0.13
0.09
0.40
0.04
0.19
26
Non-irrigators
2.50
0.13
1.16
0.51
3.00
0.63
1.43
0.55
3.00
0.63
1.43
0.55
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
From the 53.7 ha cultivated using different water source users for irrigation
around 66% (35.5ha) of land is irrigated using surface (River +Lake) water,
5% (2.7 ha) of irrigated land is cultivated using groundwater and 29% (15.5ha)
of land is cultivated using lake water source as shown in Table 4-5 below.
Thus the use of ground water for irrigation crop production in the study area is
very low and farmers are more concentrated on river and lake water sources
than ground water sources.
Table 4-5: The area summary of irrigated land (Surface, Ground and Ground +
surface).
Type of Water
Source Used for
Irrigation
Surface
Ground
Surface + Ground
Farm Land Size, ha
Min
Max
0.13
0.25
0.50
2.00
2.13
2.13
Total
Irrigated
Mean Std dev Total
land ,ha
1.20
0.50
112.88
35.50
1.01
0.54
31.25
2.66
1.17
0.45
45.50
15.50
4.1.4 Income of the household
Farming is the primary source of income for rural communities of Ethiopia. .
Based on survey results, households have an annual income that range from
30,500 ETB and 92,360 ETB, with an average of 62,473 ETB (Figure 4-1).
Surprisingly there is no significance difference between the various users
groups. Average income of surface water users is approximately 63 thousand
ETB. Non surface water users have up to 3000 ETB less income. It should be
noted that the ground water users have a small amount of land to cultivate the
irrigated crops as home garden. If they increase their cultivated land size they
may improve their income. One would expect that irrigators should have more
income than non irrigators. The results might be affected by off-farm income
27
sources or sometimes farmers were not comfortable when they asked about
their income.
About 19% of the household have off-farm income sources. Those households
with off-farm income had lower annual incomes on average, nearly 20,000
ETB less than the average total annual income for all the households. The offfarm income sources are daily labor, small trade, hand crafts and fatten the
animal and sell. All households engaged in off-farm activities had farm land
less than a 0.6 hectare in size and cultivating their piece of land is not
sufficient to feed them year round. Therefore, they participate in off-farm
activities to support their income and the activities seem reasonable
Figure 4-1: Income of households with water source they used for irrigation
28
Total annual income has strong correlation with household resource
endowments, such as farm size and family size as shown in Table 4-6, Figure
4-2 and Figure 4-3 below. Family size has a strong positive relationship to land
holding size and income of the family, though this is not always true in all
cases. The results show that a family with large landholding and high income,
the family size also, while a small landholding household with low income have
fewer children.
Table 4-6: Correlation of family size with land holding and total income
Correlation
Family size
Farm land
size
Total farm
income
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Family size
Farm
land size
Total farm
income
1
.754**
.846**
210
0.000
210
0.000
210
.754**
1
.896**
0.000
210
210
0.000
210
.846**
.896**
1
0.000
210
0.000
210
210
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Figure 4-2 below explains the relation of farm land size and income of each
water source user groups. Based on the result income of surface water source
users, both surface and ground water source users and non irrigators are
strongly correlated with farm land size of the house hold with coefficient of
determination (R2 )= 0.89, 0.87 and 0.89, respectively. On the other hand
income of ground water source users are much less correlated with farm land
size of the household with coefficient of determination (R2 )= 0.48 and is likely
29
caused by the use of groundwater only for home gardens and not for income
producing crops.
Figure 4-2: Total annual income of the different sample groups and their farm
size, ha
Figure 4-3 describes relation of income of the house hold and family size of
the household for each category groups. Income of all water source user
groups has strong linear relationship with family size with coefficients of
determination (R2) between 0.64 and 0.79.
30
Figure 4-3: Total annual income, ETB, of the farmers involved in surface,
groundwater, surface and groundwater and no irrigation and family size
4.1.5 Livestock Holding
The study area is suitable for livestock production and is one of the places of
Ethiopia’s indigenous milk cow. Tropical Livestock Units (TLU) is used as a
convenient method for quantifying a wide range of different livestock types and
sizes in a standardized manner. For this study one cow or ox is 1 TLU, a
donkey is 0.7 TLU, a sheep or Goat is 0.13 TLU and a chicken is 0.01 TLU
(Stork, et al., 1991)
There is an average of 4.9 TLU for all surveyed households (figure 4-4);
Although non irrigator households had on the average almost one cow or ox
31
less than the surface and ground water households, there is no significant
difference among the various water user groups,
Figure 4-4: Total Livestock with Water Source they used For Crop production
4.1.6 Crop production
Farmers in the study area produce both rain fed and irrigated crops Onions,
tomato, vegetables, fruits and maize are irrigated and maize and rice, teff,
cereals and maize are grown as rain fed crops (table 4-7). Rice is the major
cultivated crop followed by teff, while onion is the major irrigated crop followed
by tomato. High yielding maize is cultivated both rain fed and with irrigation.
Mostly upland rice varieties are grown by the farmers because it does not
need as much water as rice varieties cultivated on flooded soils.
32
The area has the potential to produce a wide variety of crops using ground
water source for irrigation and is suitable for perennial crops like chat and
fruits. Currently chat is high value crop in the country and it is cultivated in the
neighboring woredas (DeraHamusit).Cultivation of this high value crop in the
study area will increase income of the farmers. According to FAO (2010) from
major exported commodities of Ethiopia, chat covers 1.7% of total exported
volume. Introduction of chat in the Fogera plain needs awareness creation
among the farmers, a supply of chat seedling to model farmers and should be
done by WoARD without any precondition. Recently farmers are becoming
business oriented. So to use ground water as irrigation water source needs to
be profitable. For this reason promoting production of high value crops like
chat and other perennial crops is important.
In the past chat was considered harmful crop by the community. However, if
farmers are producing chat in their area they can increase their income and
living condition. Now a days there is no ethical issues on chat cultivation
anywhere in Ethiopia except religious areas (church areas)
Once farmers start production of perennial crops and see that is profitable,
they will put a strong trust on use of ground water for irrigation crop production
as full irrigation or supplementary irrigation. By this we can shift their mind
towards ground water conjunction use with surface water and it should
implement for area having high ground water potential. The photographs
(figures 4-5 and 4-6) illustrate the use of ground water as a source of water for
irrigating crops.
33
Table 4-7: Type of Crops Cultivated by the Households using Irrigation, Rain
fed and area covered by each crops in hectare
Irrigation
Rain fed
Cultivated Land , ha
Cultivated Land , ha
Crop types
Minimu
Maximu
Minimu
Mean
Maximum Mean
m
m
m
Onion
0.031
1.000
0.200
____
____
___
Tomato
0.031
0.250
0.168
____
____
___
Vegetables
0.063
0.250
0.125
____
____
___
Fruits
0.063
0.063
0.063
____
____
___
Rice
____
____
____
0.500
2.375
1.13
Teff
____
____
____
0.063
0.250
0.197
Cereals
____
____
____
0.125
0.250
0.181
Maize
0.125
0.250
0.213
0.063
0.250
0.137
Figure 4-5: Tomato production using ground water
34
Figure 4-6: Onion cultivation using ground water
4.2 Major constraints of crop production in the study area
During the survey farmers were asked to rank major crop production
constraints. The rank is shown in Figure 4-7. Farmers put erratic rainfall as
their primary constraint, second was farm land shortage, third water scarcity,
fourth manpower shortage and finally farmers considered drought as their
major constraints for crop production. Similar results are obtained for each
kebele as shown in the Appendix I. Farmers put erratic rainfall and water
scarcity as first and third major constraints, respectively. But if they used
ground water as a water source for their crop production they can reduce or
minimize rainfall dependency and water scarcity problems.
35
Figure 4-7: Major constraints of crop production in the study area
4.3 Ground water use
Almost all farmers in the study area have hand dug wells which they use for
home consumption and animal drinking purpose (figures 4-8 and 4-9). Some
households in the study area use ground water for vegetable and horticulture
crop production as homestead crop production.
The average water lifting from the well is 19 m3 (Table 4-8) Individual water
lifting rate depends both on the size of land that is cultivated using ground
water and the number of month they lift water from the well.
36
Figure 4-8: Ground water use for sanitation
Figure 4-9: Ground water use for animal drinking
37
Table 4-8: Frequency and amount of ground water used for irrigation by
households.
Description
Total month you irrigate
Amount of water you use per
irrigation time (L)
Number of watering per month
Total amount of water you use(m3)
Depth of ground water (m)
Minimum
3
Maximum
6
Mean
5.
150
600
378
10
6.5
6
15
30
7
10
19
6.3
Based on collected survey data result, one third (70) of the sample population
used ground water for irrigation. But if the total land cultivated using different
water sources used for irrigation in Table 4-4 is considered, the total land
cultivated using ground water is only 11% of the irrigated land and 1.8% of the
total land cultivated in year 2010/11. Beyond home consumption and animal
drinking, farmers use hand dug well to irrigation for home stead cultivation.
This small percentage of cultivation using ground water for irrigation is
associated with many problems and will discuss below.
From 70 households using ground water for irrigated crop production,
approximately half of them do so because of there is no another water source
around their farm land (Table 4-9). About 19% use ground water for irrigation
because the ease of getting water from the groundwater that is close to
surface (Table 4-9). Contrarily, from 140 households included in the survey
that did not used ground water for irrigation, about 40% explain that they use a
water source better than ground water (river and lake sources) for irrigation,
19% described that well collapsing as a reason not to use ground water as a
source for irrigation, and 13% put man power shortage as a reason not to use
ground water source for irrigation.
Table 4-9: Reason of Farmers to use or not to use ground water for irrigation
38
Reason to use ground water for irrigation
Water from the well is enough to my farm land
My farm land is suitable to dig well
The water table is near to the surface
No other water source near to my farm land
To increase productivity
To reduce water scarcity
Total
Reason not to use Ground water for irrigation
Have other source better than ground water
Needs high cost to dig the well
My farm land is unsuitable to dig well
well collapsing
My farm land cannot irrigate only by ground water
Man power problem
Free grazing
Awareness on ground water use
Total
4.1.2
Number of
Percent
Households
3
4
7
10
13
19
36
51
10
14
1
1
70
100
56
18
19
26
1
18
1
1
140
40
13
14
19
1
13
1
1
100
Groundwater Availability
The ground water table is at the ground surface during September at the end
of the rainy phase of the monsoon and 6.5 m deep during March to April at the
end of the dry season. This shows that the area has tremendous ground water
potential and the only loss is evapotranspiration. In the area as shown in Table
4-10 farmers start lifting the water from the well during November and stop
lifting during March while farmers face critical water shortage during February
to March. They tackle this water shortage problem by digging the well deeper.
Table 4-10: Timing of ground water use
Descriptions
Start lift water from well
End lifting water from well
Critical water shortage
Month
November
March
February- March
39
4.2
I.
Opportunities of ground water use in the study area
Alternative water source. The study area has huge potential of ground
water and the only loss is evapotranspiration. This precious resource
can be used for domestic and agricultural purpose. If farmers used this
resource wisely for crop production, they can reduce rainfall and stream
water dependency.
II.
Increase productivity and reduce crop failure. Ground water can be
used as irrigation water source for those areas having ground water
potential. The study area has significant ground water potential that can
be used for irrigation crop production year round. By using this resource
for irrigation farmers can increase their productivity and reduce crop
failure. Increasing farmer productivity is a crucial to improve smallholder
income and livelihood. Irrigation helps improve crop productivity,
especially when used in conjunction with improved inputs (e.g., seed,
fertilizer). Irrigation with groundwater is also generally more productive
compared surface water irrigation by reducing water loss. The study
conducted in India by Dhawan (1989) shows evidence that that crop
yield/m3 on groundwater-irrigated farms tends to be 1.2–3 times higher
than on surface-water-irrigated farms.
III.
Gender equality. Irrigation can provide benefits to rural women by
enabling women to increase their cash incomes and diversify family
nutrition and food sources. Women may benefit from irrigation by
producing crops around their home as home garden crop. These
produced crops then help the women as income source. In addition the
40
production of these crops using irrigation as home garden will reduce
finance dependency of women on men and promote gender equality in
rural areas.
IV.
Decrease waterlogging problem. The study area has water logging
problem during the rainy season and is problem to cultivate some type
of crops. If ground water is use for irrigation with extracted not above
certain thresholds may reduce the water logging problem without
affecting the environment. By doing this farmers may get extra farm
land which previously water is sleeping.
V.
Decrease work load of Women’s. Women’s in rural part of Ethiopia
travel long distance to fetch water. But if they dug hand dug well in their
area and used Ground water source for household consumption, it will
minimize work load of women.
4.4 Major constraint of ground water use for irrigation in the area
Huppert (1989, in Mollinga 2003) explained that irrigation is not simply a
technical task of delivering water to crops. In many developing countries the
success of irrigation systems is highly affected by policy, institutional and
social factors much more than technical issues (Gebemedhin and Peden,
2002).
41
Figure 4 10: Major constraints of ground water use for irrigation
During survey data collection, the key informants were asked to identify and
rank major constraints of ground water use for irrigation crop production in the
study area as shown in the Figure 4 10. These results are the same for each
of the kebeles as shown in Appendix II.
42
The priority of the listed constraints in figure 4-10 and table 4-11 for each
water users group is interesting, because households that use either irrigate
with surface water or not irrigate at all list the siltation and collapse of the wells
as the most important constraint for using ground water as source of irrigation,
while groundwater users had labor shortage as their major constraint and well
collapse came only on the fourth place. This tells us ground water source
users tolerate the well collapse problem once they start using ground water for
crop production and gets profit from it. However, non irrigators are still
frustrated about well collapse so in order to attract non irrigators to use ground
water source awareness creation and supplying materials which reduce
collapsing is important. Surface water source users have the same constraint
and priority rank with non irrigators.
Table 4-11: Rank of major constraints of ground water use for irrigators using
surface water, groundwater and non irrigators
Surface Water
Ground Water
Non Irrigators
Input/Motor pump,
pedal pump, credit Well collapsing
system, cases, etc./
Second Siltation of wells
Siltation of wells
Input/Motor
Input/Motor pump,
pump, pedal
pedal pump, credit
third
Labor shortage
pump, credit
system, cases,
system, cases,
etc./
etc./
Fourth Labor shortage
Well collapsing
Labor shortage
First
Well collapsing
Well collapsing. . The following Figures 4-11 and 4-12 are shows hand dug
well before and after collapse respectively.
43
1m
Figure 4-1011: Hand dug well before collapsing
>2m
Figure 4-1112: Hand dug well after collapsing
44
Well collapsing problem is mostly related with soil type of the area. The
dominant soil type in the study area as shown in Figure 4-13 is black vertisol.
Figure 4-1213: Soil type of the study area during digging of a well
This soil has a property of expanding when it get wet and shrinking when it get
dry. When the farmers dug a well during October and December, there is not a
problem with collapsing until the end of the dry season when the soil becomes
too dry.
Siltation of well during rainy season. During the rainy season the well fills
up with sediments which enter the well with the land floods with the sediment
rich waters. Farmers dig the sediment out after the rainy season and use the
well again. To avoid collapsing and sedimentation the well should be lines and
the casing should be far enough about the surface that flood waters cannot
enter. However this requires capital that is often not available.
45
Input. According to survey results in Table 4.11, input is third major constraint
of ground water use. Inputs include water lifting device (pedal pump and other
mechanical water lifting device), credit systems, training on ground water use,
casings (cement cylinder or used tire) which can be inserted inside the well
used to prevent collapsing of well and other requirements for groundwater
irrigation. This means that when credit becomes available for buying the
required input material that prevents siltation and collapsing of the well, the
number of ground water users for irrigation will increase.
In Table 4-12, around 98% of the respondent used manual rope and bucket
system while nearly 2% uses pedal pump to lift water from well. By substituting
this traditional water lifting system by modern water lifting device (pedal pump,
motor pump, etc.), the work load and man power demand of each farmer who
uses ground water for irrigation crop production can be reduced.
Table 4-12: Number and percentage of respondents using various forms of
ground water abstraction
Method of abstraction
Manually using rope and bucket
Pedal pump
Total
Frequency
206
4
210
Percent
98.1
1.9
100
If we look at training on irrigation in Table 4-13 less than 45% take training
while 55% did not take training on irrigation.
Table 4-13: Trainings on irrigation for each water source users for irrigation
Participation in training
Ground
on irrigation?
water
Yes
No
Number of
households
%
Number of
Water Source Used for Irrigation
Surface Ground and
Non
water
surface irrigators
Total
11
43
27
14
95
5.2
20
20.5
51
12.9
12
6.7
32
45.2
115
46
Households
%
Total
9.5
31
24.3
94
5.7
39
15.2
46
54.8
210
From 45% of training takers, ground water source water user’s accounts for 5
%, These survey results suggest that WoARD should emphasize create
awareness in the communities on the benefits of using ground water for
irrigation. Once this accomplished and a credit system is in place for installing
wells that are properly lined, WoARD should do training on maintaining wells
and on proper irrigation with ground water
Manpower/Labor shortage. Digging groundwater wells, lifting water from
well and watering the crop requires a significant amount of labor and lack of
labor is therefore is of greater concern for ground water users than surface
water irrigators and in rain-fed farming (tables 4.11 and 4.14).
In summary, the four major constraints for the use of ground water for
irrigation can be overcome by providing credit to former for the purchase of
water lifting devices, cement cylinders or old tires, and provide training on
ground water use. Institutions of these measures by MoARD and WoARD in a
cooperative effort will result in the effective and sustainable use of ground
water by the community without harming environment.
47
Table 4-14: Correlation of Ground Water use with Major Constraints
Correlation
Ground water
use for
irrigation
Well
collapsing
Siltation
of wells
Inputs/Motor pump,
pedal pump, credit
system, cases, etc.
Labor
shortage
Pearson
1
-.876**
.558**
.522**
Correlation
Ground use water
Sig. (2-tailed)
0
0
0
for irrigation
N
210
210
210
210
Pearson
-.876**
1
-.522**
-.449**
Correlation
Well collapsing
Sig. (2-tailed)
0
0
0
N
210
210
210
210
Pearson
.558**
-.522**
1
.204**
Correlation
Siltation of wells
Sig. (2-tailed)
0
0
0.003
N
210
210
210
210
Pearson
.522**
-.449**
.204**
1
Input/Motor pump,
Correlation
pedal pump, credit
Sig. (2-tailed)
0
0
0.003
system, cases, etc.
N
210
210
210
210
Pearson
.474**
-.424**
.173*
.137*
Correlation
Labor shortage
Sig. (2-tailed)
0
0
0.012
0.047
N
210
210
210
210
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed), *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
48
.474**
0
210
-.424**
0
210
.173*
0.012
210
.137*
0.047
210
1
210
Figure 4-1314: Hand dug well without case
Figure 4-1415: Hand dug well with cement cylinder case
49
4.5 Awareness of community on ground water potential in the area
Farmers in the study area have access to water at an average distance of
6.3m from the ground surface. According to the Woreda Agriculture and Rural
development office the total cultivated land using irrigation by 2010/2011 is
19773 ha of which 612 ha is irrigated with ground water. Based on the survey
result shown in Table 4-15 below, 58% of the respondents are aware of
potential of irrigation with ground water. Despite the awareness farmers are
not actively irrigating with ground water because of the constraints mentioned
above.
Table 4-15: Household awareness of using groundwater for irrigation
Does your area GW have
potential for irrigation?
Yes
No
Total
Number of
households
121
89
210
Percent
58
42
100
4.6 Best practice implemented in the area to promote groundwater use
Although the study area has high groundwater potential, practices that initiate
and promote communities to use ground water for irrigation is limited. Initially
when the use groundwater for irrigation was introduced, the Woreda
Agricultural and Rural development office (WoARD) was supplying cement
cylinders and pedal pumps as a gift to the farmers that volunteered to use
ground water for irrigation. But now due to increase in cost of cement cylinder
and other factors the WoARD has completely stopped supplying cement
cylinder and even pedal pumps.
50
Recently, the imported pedal pump from India is being replaced by a locally
produced pedal pump called”SELAM”. Acceptance by the community is poor
because it is not well manufactured.
According to the WOARD office, a non-governmental organization has
recently supplied 40 pedal pumps and 38 cement cylinders to the Shena
Kabele.
Only around 5% of the respondents (i.e. 10 households) have received
incentives for using ground water for irrigation (Table 4-16) none of the
households on rainfed households included in the survey was approached
with incentives for irrigating with ground water. Again here the Woreda
Agriculture and Rural Development office (WoARD) should use available
resources to promote ground water use for irrigation
Table 4-16: Number of households that received incentives in order to
promote groundwater use for Irrigation
Did you get incentives from anybody Groun Surfa Ground
to promote groundwater use for
d
ce
and
irrigation
water water surface
Yes
3
2
5
No
29
92
33
Total
32
94
38
51
Rain
Total
fed
0
46
46
10
200
210
CHAPTER FIVE
5 CONCLUSION
The study is carries out in the Fogera plain. The area is rich in both ground
and surface water. According to the survey result from 210 households only 70
of them use ground water mainly for home gardens. Most of the farms that are
in proximity of the rivers or lake have pumps and use this water for surface
irrigation.
The major causes why farmers are not use ground water as source for
irrigating crops is that the hand dug well collapse, siltation of the well during
rainy season, lack of funds for purchasing water lifting devices and cement
rings for lining the wells and less availability of labor.
Groundwater constraints can be overcome by arranging proper credit system
that addresses specifically ground water use for irrigation crop production. The
credit system may be used to purchase;

Old tires or cement cylinders that can be used to prevent collapse and
siltation of the well

Water lifting devices that can reduce work load and solve the man
power shortage of the farmer. These water lifting devices includes
pedal pump, motor pump and other devices which can used lift water.
In addition most of households included in the survey have not taken any
training in irrigation. Even if households are trained it is on operation and
maintenance of motor pumps not on ground water use for irrigation. Therefore
52
the Woreda Agricultural and Rural Development Office should provide the
needed awareness to the community specifically on ground water use for
irrigation and related issues.
Generally if the Woreda ground water resource is managed properly and used
for intended target it can change the living condition of the community, reduce
crop failure due to water shortage by using as supplementary or fully irrigation
water source, reduce conflict among farmers due to water shortage for crop
production and also gives opportunity for those farmers that do have land
around the streams to cultivate crops with ground water as irrigation water
source.
53
REFERENCES
ACQUASTAT (1998). FAO’s Global Information Systems of Water and
Agriculture
Awulachew S.B. ( 2010). Irrigation potential in Ethiopia Constraints and
opportunities for enhancing the system. International Water
Management Institute.
CRS (Catholic Relief Services) (1999). Programmatic Environmental
Assessment of smallscale irrigation in Ethiopia. Cooperating Sponsors.
Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
CSA (Central Statistical Authority). (1998). Agricultural Sample Survey
1997/98 (1990 E.C.).Report on Land Utilization (Private Peasant
Holdings). Volume IV. Statistical Bulletin 193. CSA, Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia.
Dhawan, B. D. (1989). Studies in irrigation and water management. Delhi:
Commonwealth Publishers.
Environmental Protection Authority. (EPA). (1997). Environmental Policy In:
Environmental Protection Authority in collaboration with the Ministry of
Economic Development and Cooperation. Addis Ababa.
Ethiopia’s agricultural sector policy and investment framework (PIF) ( 20102020, 15 September 2010
54
FAO (1986), Irrigation in Africa South of the Sahara. FAO Investment Center.
Technical paper No 5. FAO, Rome.
FAO (1997). Assessment of the Socio-Economic Impact of Smallholder
Irrigation on Smallholder Farmers in Zimbabwe. FAO Sub-Regional
Office for East and Southern Africa (SAFR), Harare.
FAO (2000), Socioeconomic Impacts of Smallholders Irrigation Development
in Zimbabwe, SAFR, Harare.
FAO (1994). Water Lifting Devices and Groundwater Management for
Irrigation: Report of the Expert Consultation of the Asian Network on
Water Lifting Devices for Irrigation, Bangkok, Thailand, 27 Sept.-1
Oct.1993. Rome: FAO.
FAO/WFP (2010), Crop and Food Security Assessment Mission to Ethiopia.
Especial report 26 February, 2010.
FDRE (2000). Ethiopia: Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP).
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Fogera Woreda Agricultural and Rural Development office (WoARD), (2010).
land use pattern of Fogera Woreda, unpublished report
Fogera Woreda Agricultural and Rural Development office, (WoARD) (2011),
Water Resource of Fogera Woreda, Unpublished Report.
Fuad Adem (2001). Small-Scale Irrigation and Household Food Security: A
Case Study from Central Ethiopia. Discussion Paper No 4. Forum for
Social Studies. Addis Ababa.
55
Gebremedhin B. and Pedon D. (2002). Policies and Institutions to Enhance
the Impact of Irrigation Development in Mixed Crop- Livestock ,
Workshop Held at ILRI.
Government of Ethiopia (GoE) (2005). A Plan for Accelerated and Sustained
Development to End Poverty (PASDEP) 2005/06-2009/10, September,
2006, Addis Ababa: Ethiopia.
Government of Ethiopia (GoE) (2010). Ethiopia’s Agricultural Sector and
Investment Framework (PIF), 2010-2020 Draft.
Government of the Republic of Ethiopia (GoE) (2001). Water sector strategy.
In: Water Sector Development Programme 2002–2016. Irrigation
Development Programme. Ministry of Water Resources
Hussain, I. & Hanjira, M. (2004). Irrigation Poverty Alleviation: Review of the
Empirical Evidence. International Water Management Institute,
Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Kamara A.and McCcornick (2002). Synthesis of Research Issues and
Capacity Building in Water and Land Resources Management in
Ethiopia .In Integrated Water and Land Management Research and
Capacity Building Priorities for Ethiopia, Proceedings of
/EARO/IMWI/ILRI International Workshop Held at ILRI, Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia. 2-4 December.
Mengistu Huluka (2000). Ethiopia: Agricultural Sector Development and the
Role of the National Agricultural Extension Program, Center for Applied
56
Studies in International Negotiation, the Food Chain in Sub-Saharan
Africa, Geneva.
Mikinay Hailemariam (2008). Social Networks and Gender Dimensions in Use
of Irrigation by Farmers in Alamata Woreda, Southern Tigray, Ethiopai
M.Sc Thesis.
Ministry of Water Resources (1999). Ethiopian Water Resources Management
Policy. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Ministry of Water Resources, (2001). Initial national communication of Ethiopia
to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC). A report submitted to the conference of parties of the
UNFCCC under the GEF support Climate Change Enabling Activities
Project of Ethiopia. Ethiopia, Addis Ababa.
Mintesinot Behailu, Mohammed Abdulkedir, Atinkut Mezgebu and Mustefa
Yasin (2004).Community Based Irrigation Management in the Tekeze
Basin. Impact Assessment. A Case Study on Three Small Scale
Irrigation Schames (micro dams). Mekelle University
MoA-GoI, (2003). All India Report on Agricultural Census, 2001–02, Ministry of
Agriculture, Government of India, New Delhi.
MoFED (Ministry of Finance and Economic Development) (2006). Ethiopia:
Building on Progress, A Plan for Accelerated and Sustained
Development to End Poverty (PASDEP) 2005/06-2009/10, September,
2006, Addis Ababa: Ethiopia.
57
Mollinga P. P. (2003). On the Water Front: Water Distribution, Technology and
Agrarian Change in a South Indian Canal Irrigation System, Orient
Longman Private Limited, New Delhi
MoWR (Ministry of Water Resources). 1998. The process and framework of
policy andstrategy development: A summary report. MoWR, Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia.
Nata Tadesse, K. Bheemalingeswara and Asmelash Berhane (2009).
Groundwater Suitability for Irrigation: a Case Study from Debre Kidane
Watershe, Eastern Tigray, Ethiopia
Rosegrant M.W., Ringler C. and Gerpacio R.V. (1999). Water and Land
Resource and Global Food Supply. In: Peters G.H. and von Braun J.
(eds), Food Security, Diversification, and Resource Management:
Refocusing the role of Agriculture? Proceedings of the 23rd
International Conference of Agricultural Economics, held in
Sacramento, California, 10–16 August 1997. Ashgate, Oxford, USA.
SCF(UK) (1999). the North Wollo East Plain Food Economy Zone. Baseline
Report. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Storck, H., et al. (1991). Farming Systems and Farm Management Practices of
Smallholders in the Hararghe Highlands, Farming Systems and
Resources Economics in the Tropics. Vol. 11, Wissenschaftsverlag
Vauk Kiel KG, Germany.
58
Teshome, W. (2003). Irrigation Practices, State intervention and Farmers Life
worlds in Drought Prone Tigray. Ph.D Dissertation, 2003 Addis Ababa
University.
Webb. P. (1991). When Projects Collapse, Irrigation Failure in the Gambia
from Household Perspective. Journal of International Development Vol.
3. No 4 July institute, Washington
APPENDICES
APPENDIX I: Conversion factors used to estimate tropical livestock unit
Animal Category
TTLU
0.25
0.34
0.75
1
1.1
0.7
0.35
1.25
0.13
0.06
0.013
Calf
Weaned Calf
Heifer
Cow and Ox
Horse
Donkey (adult)
Donkey (young)
Camel
Sheep & Goats (adult)
Sheep & Goats (young)
Chicken
Source: Stork, et al., 1991
APPENDIX II: Results from Survey Data
1. Ground Water Constraints in the Study Area
FIRST CONSTRAINT OF GROUNDWATER USE FOR IRRIGATION
59
First Constraint of Ground Water use for Irrigation
well collapsing
Siltation of well
Input
Man power shortage
Cost of well to dig
NR
Total
Frequency
129
4
5
50
16
6
210
Percent
61.4
1.9
2.4
23.8
7.6
2.9
100
SECOND CONSTRAINT OF GROUNDWATER USE FOR IRRIGATION
Second Constraint of Ground Water use for Irrigation Frequency Percent
33
15.7
well collapsing
94
44.8
Siltation of well
21
10
Input
21
10
Man power shortage
40
19
Cost of well to dig
1
0.5
NR
210
100
Total
THIRD CONSTRAINT OF GROUNDWATER USE FOR IRRIGATION
Frequency Percent
Third Constraint of Ground Water use for Irrigation
35
16.7
well collapsing
39
18.6
Siltation of well
91
43.3
Input
24
11.4
Man power shortage
20
9.5
Cost of well to dig
1
0.5
NR
210
100
Total
FOURTH CONSTRAINT OF GROUNDWATER USE FOR IRRIGATION
Frequency Percent
Fourth Constraint of Ground Water use for Irrigation
6
2.9
well collapsing
29
13.8
Siltation of well
63
30
Input
60
96
15
1
210
Man power shortage
Cost of well to dig
NR
Total
45.7
7.1
0.5
100
2. Major constraints Groundwater use for irrigation for each kebele
FIRST CONSTRAINT OF GROUNDWATER USE FOR IRRIGATION
First Constraint
Kebeles
of Ground
Total
Kideste
Water use for
Kokit Shaga
Shena
Nabega Wagetera
Hana
Irrigation
Well collapsing
24
29
13
13
26
24
129
Siltation of well
1
0
0
1
0
2
4
Input
1
0
2
0
1
1
5
Manpower
7
6
15
13
5
4
50
shortage
Cost of well to
1
0
5
5
2
3
16
dig
NR
1
0
0
3
1
1
6
Total
35
35
35
35
35
35
210
SECOND CONSTRAINT OF GROUND WATER USE FOR IRRIGATION
Second
Kebele
constraint of
Ground water
Total
Kideste
Kokit Shaga
Shena
Nabega Wagetera
Hana
use for
irrigation
3
1
6
12
2
9
33
well collapsing
16
12
27
12
14
13
94
Siltation of well
5
6
0
2
4
4
21
input
3
5
1
3
5
4
21
Man power
61
shortage
Cost of well to
dig
NR
Total
7
11
1
6
10
5
40
1
35
0
35
0
35
0
35
0
35
0
35
1
210
THIRD CONSTRAINT OF GROUND WATER USE FOR IRRIGATION
Third constraint
Kebele
of Ground
Total
Kideste
water use for
Kokit Shaga
Shena
Nabega Wagetera
Hana
irrigation
4
5
12
7
5
2
35
well collapsing
4
3
3
12
8
9
39
Siltation of well
14
17
16
11
19
14
91
input
Man power
5
4
3
4
1
7
24
shortage
Cost of well to
7
6
1
1
2
3
20
dig
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
NR
35
35
35
35
35
35
210
Total
FOURTH CONSTRAINT OF GROUND WATER USE FOR IRRIGATION
Fourth
Kebele
Constraint of
Ground Water
Kideste
Kokit Shaga
Shena
Nabega Wagetera
Hana
use for
Irrigation
Total
well collapsing 2
0
2
2
0
0
6
Siltation of well 2
9
5
7
3
3
29
input
7
11
12
15
8
10
63
Man power
shortage
20
14
13
9
21
19
96
Cost of well to
dig
3
1
3
2
3
3
15
NR
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
Total
35
35
35
35
35
35
210
3. Major Constraints for Crop Production in the area
FIRST CROP PRODUCTION CONSTRAINT IN THE STUDY AREA
Frequency
Percent
First crop production constraint
130
61.9
Erratic rainfall
2
1
Labor shortage
62
3
20
48
1
6
210
Less access to input
Drought
Farm land shortage
water logging
Water scarcity
Total
1.4
9.5
22.9
0.5
2.9
100
SECOND CROP PRODUCTION CONSTRAINT IN THE STUDY AREA
Frequency
Percent
Second crop production constraint
40
19
Erratic rainfall
6
2.9
Labor shortage
2
1
Less access to input
30
14.3
Drought
88
41.9
Farm land shortage
5
2.4
water logging
39
18.6
Water scarcity
210
100
Total
THIRD CROP PRODUCTION CONSTRAINT IN THE STUDY AREA
Frequency
Percent
Third crop production constraint
15
7.1
Erratic rainfall
37
17.6
Labor shortage
16
7.6
Less access to input
31
14.8
Drought
30
14.3
Farm land shortage
7
3.3
Soil erosion
2
1
Pest and Diseases
19
9
water logging
53
25.2
Water scarcity
210
100
Total
FORTH CROP PRODUCTION CONSTRAINT IN THE STUDY AREA
Frequency
Percent
Forth crop production constraint
15
7.1
Erratic rainfall
59
28.1
Labor shortage
17
8.1
Less access to input
52
24.8
Drought
19
9
Farm land shortage
7
3.3
Soil erosion
10
4.8
water logging
31
14.8
Water scarcity
210
100
Total
63
4. Major Constraints of Crop production in the study area for each
kebeles.
FIRST CROP PRODUCTION CONSTRAINT IN EACH KEBELE
First crop
Kebeles
production
Total
Kideste
Kokit Shaga
Shena
Nabega Wagetera
Hana
constraint
21
22
25
20
19
23
130
Erratic rainfall
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
Labor shortage
Less access to
1
0
1
1
0
0
3
Input
4
0
6
5
2
3
20
Drought
Farm land
9
11
3
8
11
6
48
shortage
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
water logging
0
2
0
0
2
2
6
Water scarcity
35
35
35
35
35
35
210
Total
SECOND CROP PRODUCTION CONSTRAINT IN THE STUDY AREA FOR
EACH KEBELE
Second crop
Kebeles
production
Total
Kideste
Kokit Shaga
Shena
Nabega Wagetera
Hana
constraint
8
4
7
7
8
6
40
Erratic rainfall
0
1
0
0
2
3
6
Labor shortage
Less access to
0
0
0
1
1
0
2
input
1
0
4
7
8
10
30
Drought
Farm land
15
16
18
15
12
12
88
shortage
0
0
5
0
0
0
5
water logging
11
14
1
5
4
4
39
Water scarcity
35
35
35
35
35
35
210
Total
64
THIRD CROP PRODUCTION CONSTRAINT IN THE STUDY AREA FOR
EACH KEBELE
Third crop
Kebele
production
Total
Kideste
Kokit Shaga
Shena
Nabega Wagetera
Hana
constraint
2
5
3
4
1
0
15
Erratic rainfall
7
11
1
3
7
8
37
Labor shortage
Less access to
2
1
2
3
4
4
16
input
6
5
6
4
5
5
31
Drought
Farm land
6
4
7
9
2
2
30
shortage
0
0
3
1
2
1
7
Soil erosion
Pest and
0
0
1
1
0
0
2
Diseases
3
0
10
3
1
2
19
water logging
9
9
2
7
13
13
53
Water scarcity
35
35
35
35
35
35
210
Total
FORTH CROP PRODUCTION CONSTRAINT IN THE STUDY AREA FOR
EACH KEBELE
Forth crop
Kebele
production
Total
Kideste
Kokit Shaga
Shena
Nabega Wagetera
Hana
constraint
4
4
0
2
3
2
15
Erratic rainfall
12
9
1
8
16
13
59
Labor shortage
Less access to
2
1
3
6
2
3
17
input
9
9
13
9
5
7
52
Drought
Farm land
2
3
6
3
2
3
19
shortage
0
0
5
0
1
1
7
Soil erosion
1
0
4
5
0
0
10
water logging
5
9
3
2
6
6
31
Water scarcity
Total
35
35
35
35
65
35
35
210
APPENDIX III: Questionnaire
Questionnaire Prepared to identify major constraints to ground water uses for
Irrigation crop production at Fogera plain, North Western Ethiopia.
Date (Eth Calendar)
Name of PA______________
Enumerator Name_________________
Starting time ______________
Ending time________________
Part I. General Information
1. Sex of the household
a) Male
b) Female
2. Age of the household head: ____________
3. Educational level of the household
a) Illiterate
b) Read and writes
c) Primary school
d) Secondary school
4. Marital status of the household
a) Married
b) Unmarried
c) Divorced
d) Widowed
5. Social status or responsibility
a) Religious leader
b) Political leader
c) None
d) Other specify________
6. Total family size the household? _______
66
7. Please list the age category of your family members
Age Category (Years)
Sex
Male
Female
Total
Children less than and
equals to 10
Children 11-14
Adults 15-64
Elders over 64
8. Farm experience (Number of years since started farming) of the
household head ____________ years.
9. Do you or any of your family members engaged in any off- farm activity?
a) Yes
b) No
10. If your answer is yes to Q. 9 .Please mention the type of activity and the
amount of money earn?
Type of activity Family member
(Code A)
Amount of money earned annually*
Code A 1. Weaving/spinning 2. Milling 3. Other handcrafts (pottery, metal
works, etc) 4. Livestock trade 5. Sale of local drinks 6. Agricultural
employment 7. Pity trade (grain, vegetables, fruits, etc.) 8. Sell of firewood
and grass 9. Daily labor 10.
Others (specify)
* If payments were made in kind, convert them to Birr at the prevailing
price
11. Have you received any other income (such as remittances, gifts, aid or
other transfers) in 2009/10.?
a) Yes
b) No If yes what amount (in birr)? ___________
12. Do you use labor outside the family member for farming activity?
a) Yes
b) No
13. Do you use hired labor when you face labor shortage in farming activity?
a) Yes
67
b) No
14. Do you use traditional mutual labor exchange when you face labor
shortage in farming activity?
a) Yes
b) No
Part II. Land Resources
15. What is the total size of your farm land? ______in hectare or local units?
16. What is the total area of land you cultivated in 2010/11? ________in
hectare or local units
a) Owned ___________
b) Rented in ________________
c) Share cropped ____
d) fallow _____
e) Others (specify)________
17. How many number of farm plots you cultivated in 20010/11?
Rain fed _____ irrigation_____
18. How is the trend in total area you cultivate from year to year?
a) Increasing
b) Decreasing
c) No change
19. How is the trend in total production per unit area from year to year?
a) Increasing
b) Decreasing
c) no change
20. If your answer to (Q.19) decreasing what do you think the reason is?
___________________________________________________________
21. What measure do you take when the productivity of the farm land
decline?
a) Change to other land
b) Try to improve the fertility
c) both
d) other________
68
22. If you change to other land, what kind of land you choose for?
a) Clear forest
b) fallow land
c) Farming grazing land
d) other________
23. What is the farthest distance of your farm plot from your home? ______
24. What is the nearest distance of your farm plot from your home? ______
Part III. Crop production
25. List the type of crops you cultivated and their average production for the
year 2010/11.
2009/10
Crop
type
Rain
fed
Irrigation
Area (hectare)
or in local unit
Total
Production
(Qt)
26. What is the trend of crop production you observed for the last five
years?
a) increasing
b) Decreasing
27. What are the major constraints in crop production in your area? (Rank)
Major constraints in crop
production
Erratic rainfall
Labor shortage
Less access to input
Drought (Water scarcity)
Land shortage
Soil erosion
Pest and Diseases
Other (specify)
Rank(1,2,3,…)
69
Part IV. Livestock production
28. Do you own livestock?
a) Yes
b) No
29. If your answer is Yes for Q.28, List down the type and number of
livestock you have.
Livestock type
Total population
(use numbers)
Ox
Cow
Heifer
Young bulls
Calf
Goat
Sheep
Donkey
Mule
Poultry
Bee hive
30. What is/are the main feed source(s) for your livestock?
a) Grazing
b) Hay
c) Crop residue
d) All
e) others (specify)_____________
31. How is the trend in size of grazing land year to year?
a) Increased
b) Decreased
c) Remain the same
32. If the answer is decreasing for (Q.31), state the major reason.
(Rank)__________
a) Expansion of farm land
b) Expansion of Area closure
c) Expansion of settlement
d) Others (specify)____________
70
33. Have you face any grazing pasture shortage for your livestock last year?
a) Yes
b) No
34. What was your coping strategy to alleviate this problem in last year?
a) Move your livestock to other area
b) Sell of them
c) sell some of them
d) Give collected feed
e) Lopping of trees (cutting of branches)
f) other (specify)
35. Did you collect animal feed to your livestock in last year?
a) Yes
b) No
36. If yes, what were the main sources for this collected feed?
a) Grass
b) Leaf
c) Crop residue
d) other, specify---------37. How is the trend of livestock productivity?
a) Increasing
b) Decreasing
c) No change
d) Other specify__________________
38. Did you sell any of your animals in the year 2010/11?
a) Yes
b) No
39. If yes for what reason you sell?
a) To purchase agricultural inputs
b) To pay taxes and other debts
c) To purchase food
d) To cover social obligations
e) to purchase farm oxen
71
f) Others (specify)_____________________
40. What are the major livestock production constraints in the area?
Livestock production constraints
Rank(1,2,3…)
Repeated drought
Animal diseases
Feed Shortage
Ingression of thorny weeds
Economic dearth
Other (specify)
V. Irrigation activities
41. Is any Irrigation technique training given to the household member
a) Yes
b) No
42. If yes who gives the training?
a) Woreda BoARD
b) Non-governmental organizations
c) If others-------------43. If the answer for Q. 41 is no, Reasons for not getting training
a) Favor for relatives
b) Illiterate
c) Not selected for training
d) Priority given to poor
44. Which type of source do you use for irrigation crop production?
a) Groundwater
b) Lake abstraction
c) River abstraction
d) Rain water harvested water
e) Groundwater and River abstraction
f) Groundwater and Lake abstraction
g) River abstraction and Lake abstraction
72
45. For how many of your land size do you practice irrigation for crop
production?
h) Groundwater -----------ha
i) Lake abstraction -----------ha
j) River abstraction-----------ha
k) Rain water harvested water
46. How many of your cultivated farm land are near rivers that can be used
for irrigation? _______ha?
47. How many of your cultivated farm land have wells for irrigation?
_______
48. Which crops do you cultivate by using irrigation
water___________________
Part VI. Ground Water Use for Irrigation
49. Do you have hand dug well?
a) Yes
b) No
50. If your answer for Q. No. 49 is “yes”, how many wells do you have?
________
51. Do you use ground water for irrigation?
a) Yes
b) No
52. If your answer for Q. No. 51 is “yes”, why you use Ground water for
irrigation?
a) Water from the well is enough to my farm land
b) My farm land is suitable to dig well
c) The water table is near to the surface
d) No other water source near to my farm land
e) Needs high cost to use river water
f) Water shortage from rivers due to increasing user numbers
g) To increase productivity
h) To reduce water scarcity
i) Other specify__________________
73
53. If your answer for Q No 51 is “No”, why you did not use Ground water for
irrigation?
a) Have other source better than ground water
b) Needs high cost to dig the well
c) My farm land is unsuitable to dig well
d) well collapsing
e) My farm land cannot irrigate only by ground water
f) Free grazing
g) Man power problem
54. If you are used the groundwater for irrigation, at what depth do you get
the ground water when you dig the ground?
a) 2 m
b) 4 m
c) 6 m
d) 7 m
e) 8 m
55. If you are used the groundwater for irrigation, at which month do you
start pumping water from the ground ___________?
56. If you are used the groundwater for irrigation, ends pumping water from
the ground _____________?
57. The technique used for water pumping.
a) manually using rope and bucket
b) engine pump
c) mechanically by using rope and pulley system
d) Other ____________________
58. At what month do you face ground water shortage for your irrigation crop
production?
a) December- January
b) January – February
c) February- March
d) March – April
e) April – may
f) May- June
74
59. What measure do you take when there is limited water from the wells?
a) Digging further the well/1-2m,2-3m,3-4m/
b) reducing the amount of watering
c) increasing the interval of watering
d) fetching water from lake or river using donkey cart
e) other option_______________________________
60. What material do you used to construct hand dug well?
a) Using locally available material/wood,
b) Using concrete
c) Using
d) I did not use anything
e) If other…………………………
61. How many months you irrigate using ground water? __________
62. How frequent do you irrigate the crops and how much water you apply
per month?
a) frequency_____________
b) amount _______________litters
63. For what purpose you use ground water in addition to irrigation?
a) For domestic use
b) Animal drinking
c) all
64. Does your area Ground Water have potential for irrigation?
a) Yes
b) No
65. Where you get the information about Ground Water potential of the
area?
a) From WoARD
b) By observing ground water users for irrigation
c) Ground water table distance from ground surface
d) By trying ground water for irrigation
e) Other _______________
66. Do you get any intensive to use Ground Ware for irrigation?
75
a) Yes
b) No
67. If yes who gave the incentive?
a) The WoARD
b) NGOs
c) Other _______________
68. What are the major constraints in crop production using Ground Water
irrigation in your area? (Rank)
Major constraints in crop production using Ground
water irrigation
Labor shortage/Man power shortage
Fragmented farm land
Cost of well to dig
Input/water lifting device, credit system, cases, etc./
Well collapsing
Siltation of well
Rank(1,2,3,…)
69. What other things are in your mind which is important for ground water
use for irrigation?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
76