Mastewal Yami

Post Doctoral Fellow: Social and Institutional Scientist

E-mail: m.yami@cgiar.org

Challenges to Investment in Irrigation in Ethiopia: Lessons from IFAD’s Experiences

1

Addis Ababa, May 2012

The Context

Enabling policy environment: ADLI: SDPRP, PASDEP, GTP emphasize the importance of

small-scale irrigation to address food insecurity and increase income of smallholders

Water policy: highlights the importance of ensuring social equity, economic efficiency, system reliability and sustainability norms

Promotes the participation of all stakeholders, user communities, and women in particular, in relevant aspects of water resources

Decentralization has promoted decision-making at the regional level. If effective, it could enable improved decision-making at wereda and kebele level for small-scale irrigation

2

Selected Challenges to Implementation

• Policy & legal framework is not clear on community and government rights and responsibilities for sustainable management of small-scale irrigation schemes– Reduces incentives for long term Operation & Maintenance &

improvement of schemes– Neither introduced WUAs nor indigenous management

arrangements effective

• Capacities of lower levels of administration still weak and dependent on higher levels– Lack of downward accountability– Top-down quota-driven programs limit demand-based

development– Accountability and effectiveness of agricultural extension system

3

Participatory Small-Scale Irrigation Development Program (PASIDP): Specific

Objectives

• Improve food security of households

• Increase income and market participation of farmers

• Enhance gender equity by encouraging active involvement of both men and women in decision-making

• Build the capacity of WUAs to work on operation and maintenance; monitoring and evaluation

To be achieved through investments in small-scale irrigation infrastructure for 12,000 ha

4

Study Areas: Targeted SES Systems

5

Figure 1: Study areas

Study sites

• Constructed during Special Country Program II

• PASIDP operates in institutional and agricultural development

• Enable to extract lessons to help improve PASIDP

6

Amhara Sites

7

Tigray Sites

8

SNNPR Site

9

Methods

• Desk study • April and December 2011 • In-depth interviews, focus group discussions and field

surveys• 50 participants, using purposeful sampling for in-depth

interviews.• Focus groups: men, women, youth • 102 participants, using stratified random sampling for

field surveys

10

Positive Outcomes of the Project

Users of schemes and development agents highlighted benefits: • Increased crop production with application of fertilizers• Producing diverse crops; fruit and planting of fodder

trees• Use of motor pumps• Buying house utensils and furniture, building of

houses, because of increased income• Enhanced food security• Reduced borrowing of grain and money• Improved nutrition and sending children to school

11

Problems Faced in the Project

• Small land holdings limit the benefits from irrigation • Top down approaches used in the extension system• Insufficient emphasis on production of off-season and high-

value crops • Poor market linkages, high price of farm inputs, & intensive

use of labor result in low profits• Weak capacities of WUAs to work on operation and

maintenance and M and E

– Poor participation of farmers in decision-making– Poor empowerment of women and representativeness in WUAs

Result is SSI investment outcomes & sustainability fall short of expectations

12

Conclusions: Contextual & Project Issues

• Insufficient attention to strengthening local institutions and transforming top-down approaches– Mistrust by WUA members regarding finances, water allocations– Weak local O&M capacity lack of sustainability

• Inadequate technical capacities of design and construction teams design & construction quality issues

• Better understanding of local and ecological context could improve the design of schemes and promote more sustainable and user-managed SSI schemes. – SSI structural problems—designs not appropriate for context– Not building on local knowledge & practices

• Limited market access, high costs of inputs affect profits– Poor supporting infrastructure (roads, culverts, communications)

13

…Continued

• Lengthy decision-making processes for project approval

and implementation• Unit rates not revised with changing prices in the market• Insufficient flexibility in technology choice • Insufficient attention to rehabilitation of SSI schemes• Weak monitoring and evaluation (M & E) mechanisms• Too little attention on strengthening local capacities• Lack of synergy among programs supported by IFAD

14