140 likes | 321 Views
Challenges to Investment in Irrigation in Ethiopia: Lessons from IFAD’s Experiences. Mastewal Yami Post Doctoral Fellow: Social and Institutional Scientist E-mail: m.yami@cgiar.org. Addis Ababa, May 2012. The Context. Enabling policy environment:
E N D
Challenges to Investment in Irrigation in Ethiopia: Lessons from IFAD’s Experiences Mastewal Yami Post Doctoral Fellow: Social and Institutional Scientist E-mail: m.yami@cgiar.org Addis Ababa, May 2012
The Context Enabling policy environment: • ADLI: SDPRP, PASDEP, GTP emphasize the importance of small-scale irrigation to address food insecurity and increase income of smallholders • Water policy: highlights the importance of ensuring social equity, economic efficiency, system reliability and sustainability norms • Promotes the participation of all stakeholders, user communities, and women in particular, in relevant aspects of water resources • Decentralization has promoted decision-making at the regional level. If effective, it could enable improved decision-making at wereda and kebele level for small-scale irrigation
Selected Challenges to Implementation • Policy & legal framework is not clear on community and government rights and responsibilities for sustainable management of small-scale irrigation schemes • Reduces incentives for long term Operation & Maintenance & improvement of schemes • Neither introduced WUAs nor indigenous management arrangements effective • Capacities of lower levels of administration still weak and dependent on higher levels • Lack of downward accountability • Top-down quota-driven programs limit demand-based development • Accountability and effectiveness of agricultural extension system
Participatory Small-Scale Irrigation Development Program (PASIDP): Specific Objectives • Improve food security of households • Increase income and market participation of farmers • Enhance gender equity by encouraging active involvement of both men and women in decision-making • Build the capacity of WUAs to work on operation and maintenance; monitoring and evaluation To be achieved through investments in small-scale irrigation infrastructure for 12,000 ha
Study Areas: Targeted SES Systems Figure 1: Study areas
Study sites • Constructed during Special Country Program II • PASIDP operates in institutional and agricultural development • Enable to extract lessons to help improve PASIDP
Methods • Desk study • April and December 2011 • In-depth interviews, focus group discussions and field surveys • 50 participants, using purposeful sampling for in-depth interviews. • Focus groups: men, women, youth • 102 participants, using stratified random sampling for field surveys
Positive Outcomes of the Project Users of schemes and development agents highlighted benefits: • Increased crop production with application of fertilizers • Producing diverse crops; fruit and planting of fodder trees • Use of motor pumps • Buying house utensils and furniture, building of houses, because of increased income • Enhanced food security • Reduced borrowing of grain and money • Improved nutrition and sending children to school
Problems Faced in the Project • Small land holdings limit the benefits from irrigation • Top down approaches used in the extension system • Insufficient emphasis on production of off-season and high-value crops • Poor market linkages, high price of farm inputs, & intensive use of labor result in low profits • Weak capacities of WUAs to work on operation and maintenance and M and E • Poor participation of farmers in decision-making • Poor empowerment of women and representativeness in WUAs Result is SSI investment outcomes & sustainability fall short of expectations
Conclusions: Contextual & Project Issues • Insufficient attention to strengthening local institutions and transforming top-down approaches • Mistrust by WUA members regarding finances, water allocations • Weak local O&M capacity lack of sustainability • Inadequate technical capacities of design and construction teams design & construction quality issues • Better understanding of local and ecological context could improve the design of schemes and promote more sustainable and user-managed SSI schemes. • SSI structural problems—designs not appropriate for context • Not building on local knowledge & practices • Limited market access, high costs of inputs affect profits • Poor supporting infrastructure (roads, culverts, communications)
…Continued • Lengthy decision-making processes for project approval and implementation • Unit rates not revised with changing prices in the market • Insufficient flexibility in technology choice • Insufficient attention to rehabilitation of SSI schemes • Weak monitoring and evaluation (M & E) mechanisms • Too little attention on strengthening local capacities • Lack of synergy among programs supported by IFAD