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 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

2 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

3 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

3.3 Selection of Peasant Associations and Sampling Technique ........ 1819

3.4 Data Source, Data Type and Method of Data Collection ............... 1920

4 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 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

5 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

1

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

2

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.

3

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.

4

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.

5

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.

6

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.

7

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

8

Crop yields and farmer incomes have gone up manifold.

2.2 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. Medium-

and 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 small-

scale 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

9

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.

10

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 year-

round farm and non-farm employment. Irrigation enables smallholders to adopt

11

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.

12

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 Available water

(Bm3) Irrigation

potential (ha)

Zone 1 high potential 1.06 211,386

Zone 1 medium potential

0.83 137,636

Zone 1 low potential 0.23 32,317

Zone 2 high potential 0.63 126,806

Zone 2 medium potential

0.49 81,542

Zone 2 low potential 0.23 32,317

Zone 3 high potential 1.56 311,808

Zone 3 medium potential

0.85 141,989

Zone 3 low potential 0.63 90,081

Total 6.5 1,165,881

13

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

14

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)

.

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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.

19

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

20

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.

21

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

Surface Groundwater Surface + GW

Non-irrigators

Total

Kokit 17 4 5 9 35

Shaga 14 0 6 15 35

Shena 11 9 13 2 35

Kideste Hana 12 11 8 4 35

Nabega 19 3 4 9 35

Wagetera 21 4 3 7 35

Total 94 31 39 46 210

22

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

23

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

Read and write

Elementary school

Secondary school

Surface water

Freq 21 56 14 3

% 22% 60% 15% 3%

Ground water

Freq 8 12 11 0

% 26% 39% 35% 0.0%

Surface + GW

Freq 13 19 7 0

% 33% 49% 18% 0.0%

Non irrigators

Freq 10 21 14 1

% 22% 46% 30% 2%

Total Freq 52 108 46 4

% 25% 51% 22% 2%

4.1.1 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,

24

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.

25

Table 4-3: Family size and age distribution of sample households

Children < 10 years

Children btwn11 and 14

Adults btwn 14 and 64

years

Elders > 64 years

Family size

Surface

mean 1.37 0.82 3.47 0.04 5.7

std dev 0.53 0.41 1.32 0.20 1.64

max 2 2 6 1 9

min 0 0 2 0 3

n 129 77 326 4 526

GW

mean 1.29 0.90 3.87 0.03 6.1

std dev 0.64 0.75 2.11 0.18 2.49

max 2 3 8 1 11

min 0 0 2 0 3

n 40 28 120 1 189

Surface + GW

mean 1.38 0.97 3.62 0.00 5.9

std dev 0.49 0.28 1.41 0.00 1.42

max 2 2 7 0 9

min 1 0 2 0 4

n 54 38 141 0 233

Non-irrigators

mean 1.24 0.83 3.61 0.04 5.7

std dev 0.57 0.38 1.51 0.21 1.70

max 2 1 8 1 9

min 0 0 2 0 3

n 57 38 166 2 263

mean 1.33 0.86 3.59 0.03 5.8

Total std dev 0.55 0.45 1.51 0.18 1.77

max 2 3 8 1 11

min 0 0 2 0 3

n 280 181 753 7 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

26

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 Groundwater Surface + GW Non-irrigators

Land (Farm) size, ha 243.1

Max 2.00 2.13 2.13 2.50

Min 0.13 0.25 0.50 0.13

Mean 1.20 1.01 1.17 1.16

Std dev 0.50 0.54 0.45 0.51

Total cultivated, ha 328.3

Max 3.50 2.13 2.63 3.00

Min 0.75 0.63 1.00 0.63

Mean 1.65 1.30 1.73 1.43

Std dev 0.60 0.43 0.48 0.55

Rainfed, ha 274.6

Max 2.00 2.00 2.13 3.00

Min 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.63

Mean 1.27 1.21 1.33 1.43

Std dev 0.46 0.43 0.45 0.55

Irrigated, ha 53.7

Max 1.50 0.25 0.81 0.00

Min 0.13 0.03 0.13 0.00

Mean 0.38 0.09 0.40 0.00

Std dev 0.26 0.04 0.19 0.00

27

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

Farm Land Size, ha Total Irrigated land ,ha

Min Max Mean Std dev Total

Surface 0.13 2.00 1.20 0.50 112.88 35.50

Ground 0.25 2.13 1.01 0.54 31.25 2.66

Surface + Ground 0.50 2.13 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

28

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 off-

farm 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

29

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

Family size

Pearson Correlation

1 .754** .846**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000

N 210 210 210

Farm land size

Pearson Correlation

.754** 1 .896**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000

N 210 210 210

Total farm income

Pearson Correlation

.846** .896** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000

N 210 210 210

**. 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

30

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.

31

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

32

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.

33

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.

34

Table 4-7: Type of Crops Cultivated by the Households using Irrigation, Rain fed and area covered by each crops in hectare

Crop types

Irrigation Rain fed

Cultivated Land , ha Cultivated Land , ha

Minimum

Maximum

Mean Minimu

m Maximum Mean

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

35

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.

36

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.

37

Figure 4-8: Ground water use for sanitation

Figure 4-9: Ground water use for animal drinking

38

Table 4-8: Frequency and amount of ground water used for irrigation by households.

Description Minimum Maximum Mean

Total month you irrigate 3 6 5.

Amount of water you use per irrigation time (L)

150 600 378

Number of watering per month 10 15 10

Total amount of water you use(m3) 6.5 30 19

Depth of ground water (m) 6 7 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

39

Reason to use ground water for irrigation Number of

Households Percent

Water from the well is enough to my farm land 3 4

My farm land is suitable to dig well 7 10

The water table is near to the surface 13 19

No other water source near to my farm land 36 51

To increase productivity 10 14

To reduce water scarcity 1 1

Total 70 100

Reason not to use Ground water for irrigation

Have other source better than ground water 56 40

Needs high cost to dig the well 18 13

My farm land is unsuitable to dig well 19 14

well collapsing 26 19

My farm land cannot irrigate only by ground water 1 1

Man power problem 18 13

Free grazing 1 1

Awareness on ground water use 1 1

Total 140 100

4.1.2 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 Month

Start lift water from well November

End lifting water from well March

Critical water shortage February- March

40

4.2 Opportunities of ground water use in the study area

I. 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

41

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).

42

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.

Figure 4 10: Major constraints of ground water use for irrigation

43

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

First Well collapsing Input/Motor pump, pedal pump, credit system, cases, etc./

Well collapsing

Second Siltation of wells Siltation of wells

third

Input/Motor pump, pedal pump, credit

system, cases, etc./

Labor shortage

Input/Motor pump, pedal pump, credit

system, cases, etc./

Fourth Labor shortage Well collapsing Labor shortage

Well collapsing. . The following Figures 4-11 and 4-12 are shows hand dug

well before and after collapse respectively.

44

Figure 4-1011: Hand dug well before collapsing

Figure 4-1112: Hand dug well after collapsing

1m

>2m

45

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.

46

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 Frequency Percent

Manually using rope and bucket 206 98.1

Pedal pump 4 1.9

Total 210 100

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 on irrigation?

Water Source Used for Irrigation

Ground water

Surface water

Ground and surface

Non irrigators

Total

Yes

Number of households

11 43 27 14 95

% 5.2 20.5 12.9 6.7 45.2

No Number of 20 51 12 32 115

47

Households

% 9.5 24.3 5.7 15.2 54.8

Total

31 94 39 46 210

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.

48

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

Ground use water for irrigation

Pearson Correlation

1 -.876** .558** .522** .474**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0 0 0 0

N 210 210 210 210 210

Well collapsing

Pearson Correlation

-.876** 1 -.522** -.449** -.424**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0 0 0 0

N 210 210 210 210 210

Siltation of wells

Pearson Correlation

.558** -.522** 1 .204** .173*

Sig. (2-tailed) 0 0 0.003 0.012

N 210 210 210 210 210

Input/Motor pump, pedal pump, credit system, cases, etc.

Pearson Correlation

.522** -.449** .204** 1 .137*

Sig. (2-tailed) 0 0 0.003 0.047

N 210 210 210 210 210

Labor shortage

Pearson Correlation

.474** -.424** .173* .137* 1

Sig. (2-tailed) 0 0 0.012 0.047

N 210 210 210 210 210

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed), *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

49

Figure 4-1314: Hand dug well without case

Figure 4-1415: Hand dug well with cement cylinder case

50

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?

Number of households Percent

Yes 121 58

No 89 42

Total 210 100

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.

51

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 to promote groundwater use for irrigation

Ground

water

Surface

water

Ground and

surface

Rain fed

Total

Yes 3 2 5 0 10

No 29 92 33 46 200

Total 32 94 38 46 210

52

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

53

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.

54

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) ( 2010-

2020, 15 September 2010

55

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.

56

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

57

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.

58

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.

59

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

Calf 0.25

Weaned Calf 0.34

Heifer 0.75

Cow and Ox 1

Horse 1.1

Donkey (adult) 0.7

Donkey (young) 0.35

Camel 1.25

Sheep & Goats (adult) 0.13

Sheep & Goats (young) 0.06

Chicken 0.013

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

60

First Constraint of Ground Water use for Irrigation Frequency Percent

well collapsing 129 61.4

Siltation of well 4 1.9

Input 5 2.4

Man power shortage 50 23.8

Cost of well to dig 16 7.6

NR 6 2.9

Total 210 100

SECOND CONSTRAINT OF GROUNDWATER USE FOR IRRIGATION

Second Constraint of Ground Water use for Irrigation Frequency Percent

well collapsing 33 15.7

Siltation of well 94 44.8

Input 21 10

Man power shortage 21 10

Cost of well to dig 40 19

NR 1 0.5

Total 210 100

THIRD CONSTRAINT OF GROUNDWATER USE FOR IRRIGATION

Third Constraint of Ground Water use for Irrigation Frequency Percent

well collapsing 35 16.7

Siltation of well 39 18.6

Input 91 43.3

Man power shortage 24 11.4

Cost of well to dig 20 9.5

NR 1 0.5

Total 210 100

FOURTH CONSTRAINT OF GROUNDWATER USE FOR IRRIGATION

Fourth Constraint of Ground Water use for Irrigation Frequency Percent

well collapsing 6 2.9

Siltation of well 29 13.8

Input 63 30

61

Man power shortage 96 45.7

Cost of well to dig 15 7.1

NR 1 0.5

Total 210 100

2. Major constraints Groundwater use for irrigation for each kebele

FIRST CONSTRAINT OF GROUNDWATER USE FOR IRRIGATION

First Constraint of Ground Water use for Irrigation

Kebeles

Total Kokit Shaga Shena

Kideste Hana

Nabega Wagetera

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 shortage

7 6 15 13 5 4 50

Cost of well to dig

1 0 5 5 2 3 16

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 constraint of Ground water use for irrigation

Kebele

Total Kokit Shaga Shena

Kideste Hana

Nabega Wagetera

well collapsing 3 1 6 12 2 9 33

Siltation of well 16 12 27 12 14 13 94

input 5 6 0 2 4 4 21

Man power 3 5 1 3 5 4 21

62

shortage

Cost of well to dig

7 11 1 6 10 5 40

NR 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

Total 35 35 35 35 35 35 210

THIRD CONSTRAINT OF GROUND WATER USE FOR IRRIGATION

Third constraint of Ground water use for irrigation

Kebele

Total Kokit Shaga Shena

Kideste Hana

Nabega Wagetera

well collapsing 4 5 12 7 5 2 35

Siltation of well 4 3 3 12 8 9 39

input 14 17 16 11 19 14 91

Man power shortage

5 4 3 4 1 7 24

Cost of well to dig

7 6 1 1 2 3 20

NR 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

Total 35 35 35 35 35 35 210

FOURTH CONSTRAINT OF GROUND WATER USE FOR IRRIGATION

Fourth Constraint of Ground Water use for Irrigation

Kebele

Total

Kokit Shaga Shena Kideste

Hana Nabega Wagetera

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

First crop production constraint Frequency Percent

Erratic rainfall 130 61.9

Labor shortage 2 1

63

Less access to input 3 1.4

Drought 20 9.5

Farm land shortage 48 22.9

water logging 1 0.5

Water scarcity 6 2.9

Total 210 100

SECOND CROP PRODUCTION CONSTRAINT IN THE STUDY AREA

Second crop production constraint Frequency Percent

Erratic rainfall 40 19

Labor shortage 6 2.9

Less access to input 2 1

Drought 30 14.3

Farm land shortage 88 41.9

water logging 5 2.4

Water scarcity 39 18.6

Total 210 100

THIRD CROP PRODUCTION CONSTRAINT IN THE STUDY AREA

Third crop production constraint Frequency Percent

Erratic rainfall 15 7.1

Labor shortage 37 17.6

Less access to input 16 7.6

Drought 31 14.8

Farm land shortage 30 14.3

Soil erosion 7 3.3

Pest and Diseases 2 1

water logging 19 9

Water scarcity 53 25.2

Total 210 100

FORTH CROP PRODUCTION CONSTRAINT IN THE STUDY AREA

Forth crop production constraint Frequency Percent

Erratic rainfall 15 7.1

Labor shortage 59 28.1

Less access to input 17 8.1

Drought 52 24.8

Farm land shortage 19 9

Soil erosion 7 3.3

water logging 10 4.8

Water scarcity 31 14.8

Total 210 100

64

4. Major Constraints of Crop production in the study area for each

kebeles.

FIRST CROP PRODUCTION CONSTRAINT IN EACH KEBELE

First crop production constraint

Kebeles Total

Kokit Shaga Shena Kideste

Hana Nabega Wagetera

Erratic rainfall 21 22 25 20 19 23 130

Labor shortage 0 0 0 0 1 1 2

Less access to Input

1 0 1 1 0 0 3

Drought 4 0 6 5 2 3 20

Farm land shortage

9 11 3 8 11 6 48

water logging 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

Water scarcity 0 2 0 0 2 2 6

Total 35 35 35 35 35 35 210

SECOND CROP PRODUCTION CONSTRAINT IN THE STUDY AREA FOR

EACH KEBELE

Second crop production constraint

Kebeles Total

Kokit Shaga Shena Kideste

Hana Nabega Wagetera

Erratic rainfall 8 4 7 7 8 6 40

Labor shortage 0 1 0 0 2 3 6

Less access to input

0 0 0 1 1 0 2

Drought 1 0 4 7 8 10 30

Farm land shortage

15 16 18 15 12 12 88

water logging 0 0 5 0 0 0 5

Water scarcity 11 14 1 5 4 4 39

Total 35 35 35 35 35 35 210

65

THIRD CROP PRODUCTION CONSTRAINT IN THE STUDY AREA FOR

EACH KEBELE

Third crop production constraint

Kebele Total

Kokit Shaga Shena Kideste

Hana Nabega Wagetera

Erratic rainfall 2 5 3 4 1 0 15

Labor shortage 7 11 1 3 7 8 37

Less access to input

2 1 2 3 4 4 16

Drought 6 5 6 4 5 5 31

Farm land shortage

6 4 7 9 2 2 30

Soil erosion 0 0 3 1 2 1 7

Pest and Diseases

0 0 1 1 0 0 2

water logging 3 0 10 3 1 2 19

Water scarcity 9 9 2 7 13 13 53

Total 35 35 35 35 35 35 210

FORTH CROP PRODUCTION CONSTRAINT IN THE STUDY AREA FOR

EACH KEBELE

Forth crop production constraint

Kebele Total

Kokit Shaga Shena Kideste

Hana Nabega Wagetera

Erratic rainfall 4 4 0 2 3 2 15

Labor shortage 12 9 1 8 16 13 59

Less access to input

2 1 3 6 2 3 17

Drought 9 9 13 9 5 7 52

Farm land shortage

2 3 6 3 2 3 19

Soil erosion 0 0 5 0 1 1 7

water logging 1 0 4 5 0 0 10

Water scarcity 5 9 3 2 6 6 31

Total 35 35 35 35 35 35 210

66

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? _______

67

7. Please list the age category of your family members

Age Category (Years) Sex

Total Male Female

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 (Code A)

Family member 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

68

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________

69

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.

Crop type

Rain fed

Irrigation

2009/10

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

Rank(1,2,3,…)

Erratic rainfall

Labor shortage

Less access to input

Drought (Water scarcity)

Land shortage

Soil erosion

Pest and Diseases

Other (specify)

70

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)____________

71

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

72

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

73

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__________________

74

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

75

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?

76

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

Rank(1,2,3,…)

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

69. What other things are in your mind which is important for ground water use for irrigation?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------