technical and management performance evaluation …
TRANSCRIPT
TECHNICAL AND MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF SMALL
SCALE IRRIGATION: A CASE OF ZUMA IRRIGATION SCHEME IN AMHARA
REGION, ETHIOPIA
MSc THESIS
BY
WUDINEH FELEKE ALEMU
MAY, 2017
ARBA MINCH, ETHIOPIA
TECHNICAL AND MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF SMALL
SCALE IRRIGATION: A CASE OF ZUMA IRRIGATION SCHEME IN AMHARA
REGION, ETHIOPIA
BY
WUDINEH FELEKE ALEMU
A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCE AND
IRRIGATION ENGINEERING
INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES ARBA
MINCH UNIVERSITY IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIRMENTS FOR
THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE
ENGINEERING
MAY, 2017
ARBA MINCH
EXAMINER’S THESIS APPROVAL SHEET
We, the undersigned, memebers of the board of Exminers of the final open defense by
Wudineh Feleke has read and evaluated his thesis entitled with “Technical and
Management Performance Evaluation of Small Scale Irrigation: A Case Study on
Zuma Irrigation Scheme, Amhara Region, Ethiopia”, and examined the candidate’s oral
presentation. This is, therefore, to certify that the thesis has been accepted in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Science in part requirements for
the degree of Master of Science in Irrigation and Drainage Engineering.
1. Mekonen Ayana (Associate professor)
Principal advisor Signature Date
2. Dr. Zeleke Agide
External examiner Signature Date
3. Prof. Pratap Singh
Internal examiner Signature Date
4. Ayano Hirbo
Chairperson Signature Date
5. Mr. Alemayehu Kassaye
Department Head Signature Date
6. Aschalew Cherie
PG coordinator Signature Date
ADVISORS’ APPROVAL PAGE
This is to certify that the thesis entitled “Technical and Management Performance
Evaluation of Small Scale Irrigation: A Case Study on Zuma Irrigation Scheme,
Amhara Region, Ethiopia” submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of Master’s with specialization of Irrigation and Drainage engineering, the Graduate
Program of the Department/ School of Water Resource and Irrigation Engineering, and has
been carried out by Wudineh Feleke Alemu Id. No. SMSC/107/05, under my supervision,
Therefore, I recommend that the student has fulfilled the requirements and hence hereby can
submit the thesis to the department for defense.
Mekonen A. (Associate Professor)
NAME OF PRINCIPAL ADVISOR SIGNATURE DATE
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all, I would like to thank Lord God enormous for giving me the strength and bravery
to go through all this work. God, I praise you without end.
I would like to express how grateful I am to my advisor and instructor Mekonen Ayana
(Associate professor) for his remarkable role in giving constructive comments from the very
inception of the work and guiding me throughout the study. His insightful comments for the
betterment of the whole work was appreciable.
I am deeply thankful to Professor Pratap Singh for his outstanding function in giving helpful
comments not only during proposal presentation but also afterward activities.
My special thanks also go to Ato Addis Birhanu, W/ro Tigist Amsal and Ato Gashie Beyene
of Afesa kebele staff employers for their notable help during my field work in Zuma
irrigation scheme.
In addition, I would like to thank Amhara water bureau for providing me sponsor for my
MSc study and all other people who helped me during the study are also acknowledged.
Last but not least, I would like to great thank my families for their support and advice to be
success in my life.
ii
DECLARATION
I, the undersigned, declare that the information presented here in my thesis is my original
work, has not been submitted/presented for degree at here and any other university and that
all sources of materials used for the thesis have been duly acknowledged.
Name: Wudineh Feleke
Signature:
Submission Date:
iii
DEDICATION
I dedicate this thesis to document to my families, for their love and full committed
cooperation in the success of my life.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONTENTS PAGES
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................................... i
DECLARATION ...................................................................................................................... ii
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF FIGURES.................................................................................................................vii
ABSRACT ............................................................................................................................. viii
ACRONYMS & ABBRIVIATIONS ....................................................................................... ix
CHAPTER ONE ....................................................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Background .................................................................................................................... 1
1.2. Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................... 3
1.4. Research Questions ........................................................................................................ 4
1.5. Significance of the Study ............................................................................................... 4
1.6. Scope and Limitation of the Study ................................................................................. 5
1.7. Organization of the Report ............................................................................................. 5
CHAPTER TWO ...................................................................................................................... 6
LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................................................... 6
2.1. Performance Evaluation of Small-Scale Irrigation ........................................................ 6
2.2. Benefits from Small-Scale Irrigation Schemes .............................................................. 7
2.3. Major Technical and Management Performance Challenges of Small-Scale Irrigation
Schemes ........................................................................................................................... 8
2.3.1. Performance gaps existing in irrigation water management ................................... 8
2.4. Irrigation water use efficiencies ..................................................................................... 9
2.5. Irrigation Water Performance Management ................................................................. 11
2.6. Irrigation Management Experiences in Ethiopia .......................................................... 12
2.7. The Impact of Small - Scale Irrigation ......................................................................... 13
2.8. The Role of Water Users Associations ........................................................................ 14
CHAPTER THREE ................................................................................................................ 16
MATHERIALS AND METHODS ......................................................................................... 16
3.1. General Description of the Study Area ........................................................................ 16
3.1.1. Irrigation system layout ......................................................................................... 17
3.1.2. Topography and hydro climatic conditions .......................................................... 18
3.1.3. Demography and population ................................................................................ 19
v
3.2. Methods........................................................................................................................... 20
3.2.1. Sample size and sampling procedure.................................................................... 20
3.3. Technical Performance Evaluation ............................................................................. 25
3.3.1. Conveyance efficiency ......................................................................................... 26
3.3.2. Water delivery performance ................................................................................. 27
3.3.3. Dependability of duration ...................................................................................... 27
3.3.4. Zuma irrigation scheme maintenance indicators .................................................. 28
3.4. Evaluating the Management Problems Existing in the Irrigation Scheme.................. 28
3.5. Method of Data Analysis............................................................................................. 29
CHAPTER FOUR ................................................................................................................... 30
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ........................................................................................... 30
4.1. Status of the Irrigation Scheme and Irrigation Practices ................................................. 30
4.2. Appraisal of Zuma Irrigation Scheme in terms of Technical Performances ............... 32
4.2.1. Conveyance efficiency ......................................................................................... 32
4.2.2. Water delivery performance ................................................................................. 34
4.2.4. Zuma irrigation scheme maintenance indicators .................................................. 35
4.3. Evaluating the Management Problems Existing in the Irrigation Scheme.................. 36
CHAPTER FIVE .................................................................................................................... 46
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................. 46
5.1. Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 46
5.2. Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 48
6. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 49
7. APPENDICES .................................................................................................................... 56
vi
LIST OF TABLES
TABLES PAGES
Table 3.1: A demographic feature of the Zuma irrigation scheme ......................................... 19
Table 3.2: The land use pattern in the command area of Zuma irrigation scheme ................. 20
Table 4.1: Computed conveyance efficiency of the scheme....................................................33
Table 4.2: Dependability of irrigation interval that compares the designed to the actual.......34
Table 4.3: Calculation of relative change of water level.........................................................36
Table 4.4: Type of crops produced in the Zuma irrigation scheme.........................................38
Table 4.5: Crop intensity along the main and secondary canals reach....................................39
Table 4.6: Annual household income in the scheme...............................................................40
Table 4.7: Irrigation land distribution in Zuma irrigation scheme...........................................41
Table 4.8: Methods of irrigation adopted by farmers in the Zuma irrigation scheme.............41
Table 4.9: Irrigation water managementrelated issues............................................................42
Table 4.10: Maintenance problems of the scheme...................................................................42
Table 4.11: Sedimentation and silting up problems of the weir and canals............................43
Table 4.12: Adequecy of irrigation water in Zuma irrigation scheme.....................................43
Table 4.13: Reliability of irrigation water supply in Zuma irrigation scheme........................44
Table 4.14: Fair share of irrigation water in the scheme.........................................................44
Table 4.15: Farmers responses for adequacy, reliability and fair share of irrigation water....45
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURES PAGES
Figure 3.1: Map of the study area ........................................................................................... 16
Figure 3.2: Diversion weir and schematic layout of main, secondary and tertiary canals ..... 18
Figure 3.3: Views of main lined canal where conveyance efficiency was measured ............. 26
Figure 3.4: Lower main lined canal (a), upper secondary unlned canals (b, c and d) and silted
main lined canal before water delivery (e) ...................................................................... 26
Figure 4.1: Conditions of different structures on the main and secondary canals...................31
Figure 4.2: Overview of problem faced area...........................................................................45
viii
ABSRACT
Zuma irrigation scheme was evaluated for the technical and management performances of the
irrigation scheme. The reason, performance based technical and management evaluation is a
principal approach to improve the scheme performance. The study was done during the
irrigation season from October to December, 2016. The technical evaluation was made by
taking some selected performance indicators such as conveyance efficiency, water delivery
performance and maintenance indicators. Moreover, the management performance was done
by questionnaires. Primary data collection included field observation, household survey,
interview and discussion with beneficiaries were done. Discharge measurements were also
done in the canals. The results indicated that the main canal conveyance efficiency was found
to be 88.2 and 97.8%. The conveyance efficiency of secondary canals was 74.8 and 84% at
the lower and middle secondary canal sections respectively. The actual water delivery
performance of the main canal was 92%. This shows, the current canal structures are lower
than the design of the canal capacity. Management performance provided to the beneficiaries
was not the same as to the intended.
Key words: - Zuma irrigation scheme, small-scale, technical and management, performance
evaluation, respondents.
ix
ACRONYMS & ABBRIVIATIONS
AGP Agricultural Growth Program
ANRSWB Amhara National, Regional State Water Bureau
CAADP Comprehensive Africa Agricultural Development Program
DAs Development Agents
FAO Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations
FDRE Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
GDP Growth Development Product
GDP Governmental Organization of Ethiopia
GTP Growth and Transformation Plan
IDD Irrigation Development Department
IIMI International Irrigation Management Institute
IWMI Integrated Water Management Institute
IWRMI International Water Resource Management Institute
IWUAs Integrated Water User Associations
LSI Large Scale Irrigation
MoARD Ministry of Agricultural Resource Development
MoWR Ministry of Water Resource
MSI Medium Scale Irrigation
NGOs Non-Governmental Organizations
ORDA Organization for Rehabilitation and Development of Amhara
PA Peasant Association
PIF Policy and Investment Framework
RWH Rain Water Harvest
SPSS Statistical Package for Social Science
SSI Small Scale Irrigation
USA United States of America
WUAs Water User Associations
WUC Water Users Committee
1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background
In countries like Ethiopia, where multitudes of its population live in rural areas, agricultural
development plays a central role not only in changing rural livelihoods but also in the
nation’s economic development. However, it is hardly possible for agriculture, which merely
depends on rain-fed sustainable agriculture, to play a leading role in achieving this. In
addition, smallholders dependent on rain-fed agriculture are vulnerable to food insecurity and
poverty, especially in this time of erratic climate change. Hence, it is very important to invest
in irrigation development so that the higher productivity irrigated agriculture becomes the
main source of agricultural production.Total irrigable potential of the country is about
4,256,457 hectares (Legebo et al., 2008). Out of this in 2004, the water managed area was
estimated at 510 000 ha, of which 175 300 ha estimated to be full-control irrigation.
However, a research estimated that about 30 percent of the command area was not operating
at that time (IWMI, 2010). Thus, in total around 1 958 000 ha land is considered to be water
managed in 2014/15 (FAO, 2016).
Hence, irrigation and agricultural water management holds significant Potential to improve
productivity and reduce vulnerability to climatic volatility. Although there are abundant
rainfall and water resources, its agricultural system does not yet fully benefit from the
technologies of water management and irrigation (Awulachew et al., 2010). To increase
productivity and diversify the livelihood scenarios as an option, small-scale irrigation (SSI)
schemes have been introduced (Mengistie and Kidane, 2016). By reason of water scarcity,
production adversely impacts food security (Munir et al., 2010). On the other hand, irrigation
is the supply of water to agricultural crops by artificial means, designed to permit farming in
arid regions and to offset the effect of drought in semi-arid regions. Effect of irrigation is a
term that qualitatively describes the application efficiency, uniformity and adequacy of
irrigation (Dessalew et al., 2016).
Effective, efficient and sustainable utilization of water resources are important strategies to
cope with water scarcity (Lakmali et al., 2015). However, no attention is given to the
2
monitoring and evaluation of the performance of already established irrigation systems.
Whether traditional or modern, public authority or community managed many of the existing
irrigation systems are deteriorating in their physical structures, procedure and management
(Ayana and Awlachew, 2008).
Irrigation has been serving as one of the key drivers behind growth in agricultural
productivity, increasing house-hold income and alleviation of rural poverty, thereby
highlighting the various ways that irrigation can impact poverty (Dananto et al., 2014). To
meet food requirements by 2020, food production from irrigated areas will need to increase
from 35% in 1995 to 45% in 2020. This indicates that access to water for irrigation will
become an issue of global concern and competition in the future, especially in the arid and
semi-arid regions of the world (FAO, 2000).
Even though agriculture in Ethiopia is dominated by smallholder farmers who occupy the
majority of land and produce most of the crop and livestock products (Salami et al., 2010),
the irrigated agriculture can play a vital role to supply the required raw materials for
domestic agro-industries and increase export earnings. Thus, the Government of Ethiopia
gives high priority to irrigation development, including smallholder and large scale
commercial schemes to exploit the untapped resources (Yalew et al., 2011).
Irrigated agriculture is becoming increasingly important in meeting the demands of food
security, employment and poverty reduction. Small-scale irrigation, as commonly defined,
comprises an irrigable land area of less than 200 hectares of modern/communal
schemes, which, in most cases, is developed and managed by the user groups themselves,
who are predominantly smallholders. An exception to this is the spate irrigation, which
exceeds the above set limits as being practiced in most regions of Ethiopia (Abesha, and
Zerihun, 2008). At present, about 82 percent of the country’s population engaged in various
agricultural activities and generates its income for household consumption to sustain its
livelihood (Haile, 2016). However, smallholders are less likely to have control over impacts
on water provision and quality in the broader landscape or watershed than larger scale or
more powerful actors. Sustainable landscape design needs to take such issues and challenges
into account. The combination of GOE and donor strategies and financing commitments for
2010–2014 provided the framework to drive continued growth in the agriculture sector.
3
Similarly, to enhance the use of country's water resources under the 5 year plan of (GTP) at
this moment, expansion of small scale irrigation will be given priority while due attention
will be given to medium and large scale irrigation to the extent possible (FDRE, 2010).
Similar to the above, Amhara region of Ethiopia has more than 700,000 ha of
potentially irrigable land. Despite this huge potential of irrigable land only 90,000 ha of land
or about 12 % of the irrigable land is currently under irrigation (Teka et al., 2014).
The area of Zuma irrigation scheme is part of the above stated area, and its command area is
about 85 ha. The scheme of Zuma irrigation has fertile soil, ideal slope, satisfying climate
and number of beneficiaries are 630. It would be possible that the irrigable area could reach
as big as 115 ha, which is the net potential irrigable area of the scheme. But, at the present
time the achievement shows that it has developed only about 49 ha(Afesa kebele office).
Hence, this research was proposed and executed to recognize the underperformance of
irrigation in the Amhara Region in particular and the country at large, and in an effort to
contribute to the knowledge base of irrigation water management taking Zuma irrigation
scheme as one case.
1.2. Statement of the Problem
Ethiopia has a substantial potential for irrigated agriculture assessed both from available land
and water resource view point, the degree of this potential is still intact. This shows that a
concerted effort is ongoing by the government of Ethiopia to expand irrigation of all
categories including rainwater harvesting with the prime purpose of overcoming the problem
of food insecurity, severe rural poverty and to promote economic dynamism (FDRE, 2010).
In line with the development objective of the country, the regional government of Amhara is
also promoting SSI development so as to increase and stabilize food production in the region.
Agreeing to this aim, Zuma small scale irrigation was built up in the year of 2007 within
Afesa Kebele PA, Dangila district Awi zone of the Amhara region(Design document). Even
if some technical changes are effective at the end of the construction, still there are gaps
between intended and actual result of the project. With this gap, the problems stated below
were focused on the technical and management performance evaluation systems to address
on;
4
The irrigation water distribution and the management system was weak
Lack of proper operation and maintenances that brings the low performance of
the systems and cause food insecurity in the area.
High losses in the conveyance systems owing to the poor condition of the
channel
A station which comes from runoff from the surrounding area causes the canals
to be unsustainable. Weed growth, especially in the earth canals and in the farm
is another physical constraint which reduces efficiency of the canals and
Productivity of the farm respectively.
Hence, it is clear that there is a great deal to be done in research for some set of institutional,
social, environmental and economic practices. In this specific research particularly, technical
and management performance problems were expected to investigate and address.
General Objective
The general objective of this research is to evaluate the technical and management
performance aspects of Zuma small-scale irrigation scheme in Dangila woreda, Amhara
Region.
Specific Objectives of the Study
i) To appraise Zuma irrigation scheme in terms of technical performances
ii) To evaluate the management problems existing in the irrigation scheme
1.4. Research Questions
1. What is the extent of community participation in the management of the scheme?
2. What are the performance gaps which need to be improved?
1.5. Significance of the Study
The performances of the system described in this paper have a key role to play as we address
the future system management in the study area. One possible approach to conserve water
resource is through improving the performance of the existing irrigation scheme and
improving its management and utilization levels. To be able to quantify any improvements in
irrigation performance obtained through better management, it is vital to measure baseline
efficiency. As such development of performance indicators and severe evaluation
5
methodology is needed to help managers to improve their system. Based on this, a study on
evaluating the performance of Zuma irrigation scheme is crucial to determine the actual
performance of the scheme; for the purpose of identifying management practices and systems
that can be effectively implemented to improve the irrigation efficiency.
1.6. Scope and Limitation of the Study
This study concerns with special attention to technical and management performance
evaluation of the current condition of the irrigation scheme in terms of conveyance
efficiency, water delivery, maintenance indicators and management problems to various parts
of the systems. The results of the technical and the management performance systems,
whether their quality is managed or not considering imperfections and the risks were shown
in the existing irrigation scheme. However, by limitation of time, space and budget
conditions; evaluation of field application efficiency, all maintenance and sustainable
parameters, current soil characteristics and socioeconomic conditions were not addressed.
Therefore, further researches on these limitations should be doing for better understanding.
Even though these limitations present, the study is expected to generate valuable information
that helps to develop the constancy of the irrigation scheme.
1.7. Organization of the Report
The study comprises five chapters. Chapter one is an introduction, Chapter two deals with
review of literature. Chapter three presents the methodology part. Chapter four presents
results of the effectiveness analysis of the irrigation scheme in the study area. Chapter five
concludes the thesis and presents implications.
6
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Performance Evaluation of Small-Scale Irrigation
Performance can be simply defined as “the level of achievement of desired objectives”
(Mohtadullah, 1993). It is a practical tool to assess the successes of irrigation management at
the scheme to meet growing challenges; increasing demand for irrigation to meet the growing
food demands of the population: the competition for water allocation from high priority non-
agricultural sectors and technical infeasibility (Molden, 1998). The criteria used in
performance studies are important for in-depth assessment of irrigation systems, while
facilitating the operation through better monitoring and controlling (Lin, 2008). Performance
evaluation of irrigation schemes has specially been an important and active field of research
during the last few decades. Several approaches and methodologies have been developed for
assessing irrigation performance from different perspectives. With limited water and land
resource availability for the required global increase in food production, improving the
productivity of existing irrigation schemes has got an increasing attention. Global cereal
production has to duplicate in the next 25 to 30 years, while 80- 90% of this increase would
have to be realized from the existing agricultural land (Schultz, 2012; as cited in Agide,
2015).
Therefore, evaluations are useful in a number of analyses and operations, particularly those
that are essential to improve management and control. Evaluation data can be collected
periodically from the system to refine management practices and identify the changes in the
field that occur over the irrigation season or from year to year. Therefore, evaluation of
surface irrigation at field level is an important aspect of both management and design of the
system. Field measurements are necessary to characterize the irrigation system in terms of its
most important parameters, to identify problems in its function, and to develop alternative
means for improving the system (FAO, 1989).The principal objective of evaluating surface
irrigation systems is to identify management practices and systems that can be effectively
implemented to improve the irrigation efficiency. The available surface water resources are
often not enough to meet intense irrigation, particularly during crop growing seasons (Siebert
et al., 2010).
7
In addition, performance of irrigation schemes is assessed for a variety of reasons. It can be
to improve scheme operations, to assess progress against strategic goals, as integral part of
performance-oriented management, to assess the health of a scheme, to evaluate impacts of
interventions, to better understand determinants of performance, to diagnose constraints and
to compare the performance of a scheme with others or with the same scheme over time
(Molden et al., 1998).Thus, evaluating irrigation performance has now become of paramount
importance not only to point out where the problem exists but also helps to identify
alternatives that may be both effective and feasible in improving system performance (Kedir
et al., 2007). Thus, Performance assessment is used to identify the present status of the
scheme with respect to the selected indicators and will help to identify ‘why the scheme is
performing so’ which in turn imply means of improvement. Of course, performance
evaluation needs relevant and reliable data which is rarely measured in Ethiopia (Ayana and
Awulachew, 2008).
2.2. Benefits from Small-Scale Irrigation Schemes
In group discussions with various government institutions, including the Ministry of Water
Resources, Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources Directorate and Regional Water
Bureau revealed that the perceived benefits of small-scale irrigation are beyond drought
management and higher yields. They have identified the following benefits (Amede, 2004; as
cited in Amede, 2014):-
i) Reduced farmers’ vulnerability to annual rainfall variability and associated risks
ii) Increased agricultural productivity per unit of land, thereby reducing the expansion
of farming to less productive hillsides and valley bottom wetlands
iii) Enabled communities to develop high value commodities in homesteads and schemes
iv) Strengthened collective action for broader catchment management and
v) An incentive to improve productivity of rain fed systems.
There has been strong association between small scale irrigation and re-vegetation and
protection of the upper catchments through area enclosure, soil and water conservation and
the enrichment of the natural vegetation (Ayele, 2004). The access to consistent irrigation
water can enable farmers to adopt irrigation technologies. Irrigation facilitates the intensity of
cultivation that leads to an increase in agricultural productivity and greater returns from
8
farming. The expansion of irrigation opens up new employment opportunities in the
household that increase the efficiency of labor and land. This improves farm income,
livelihood, and the quality of life in rural areas (Hussain and Hanjra, 2004). A second
RiPPLE study (Kaur et al., 2010) assessed the effectiveness of small-scale irrigation as a
climate adaptation intervention in Ethiopia.
2.3. Major Technical and Management Performance Challenges of Small-Scale
Irrigation Schemes
These challenges can be explained as technical constraints and knowledge gaps as:
inadequate awareness of irrigation water management as in irrigation scheduling techniques,
water saving irrigation technologies, water measurement techniques, operation and
maintenance of irrigation facilities, inadequate knowledge on improved and diversified
irrigation agronomic practices, scheme based approach rather than area/catchments based
approach for the development of SSI schemes (Haile and Kasa, 2015). The financial returns
from these small-scale irrigation schemes are considered to below, compared with other well
managed schemes in Ethiopia (Awlachew and Ayana, 2011). Small-scale irrigation has the
potential to contribute to improved food security and higher rural incomes in sub-Saharan
Africa. However, a combination of factors has hampered its development. These include
pressure on agricultural water due to increased climate variability and perceived institutional
weaknesses. The complex context within which challenges and opportunities for small-scale
irrigation are situated and aims to inform policy makers and their development partners on
possible best practices for promoting irrigation development (Elizabeth et al., 2016).
2.3.1. Performance gaps existing in irrigation water management
Irrigation schemes were mostly developed in semi-arid areas where drought is apparent, and
the catchment areas were degraded by erosion, deforestation and overgrazing. Despite a large
investment has been spent in developing schemes, capital constraints often prevent farmers
from investing in sustainable access. Therefore, farmers do not necessarily reap maximum
returns (Fitsum et al., 2007). As a research team (Awlachew et al., 2010) estimates that
scheme performance is on average 30 percent below design, implying a loss of about 230
thousand hectares of irrigated land, leading to only 410,000 hectares performing to the
expectations.
9
Traditional irrigation management problems include water distribution systems with less
capacity than the peak demand, irregular delivery rates, and low irrigation efficiency and
uniformity. The major reason for the low performance of irrigation systems is an inaccurate
water distribution due to the lack of a monitoring system for water delivery (Mateos et al.,
2010).
Ethiopia is rich in the water and land resources needed to meet the food security challenge
that has dominated its history. There are a number of crop and livestock system
improvements with considerable scope to improve both water and land productivity
(Makombe et al., 2007). However, the cultivated agricultural land of Ethiopia currently under
cultivation is about 12 million ha (Haile, 2015). Moreover, the potential and actual irrigated
area is not precisely investigated (Belay and Bewket, 2013). In addition to this, even though
water management activities are performed by the farmers themselves, they lack technical
expertise to effectively manage their water (Agide, 2011).
2.4. Irrigation water use efficiencies
Michael (1997) pointed out that irrigation water use efficiency is the ratio between the
volume used by plants throughout the evapotranspiration process and the volume that reaches
the irrigation plots and indicates how efficiently the available water supply is being used,
based on different methods of evaluation. The design of the irrigation scheme, the degree of
land preparation, and the skill and care of the irrigators are the principal factors influencing
irrigation efficiency. Efficiency in the use of water for irrigation consists of various
components and takes into account losses during storage, conveyance and application to
irrigation plots. Identifying the various components and knowing what improvements can be
made is essential to making the most effective use of this but scarce resource.
The performance of farm irrigation is determined by the efficiency with which water is
diverted, conveyed, and applied; and by the adequacy and uniformity of application in each
field on the farm. Among the factors used to judge the performance of an irrigation system or
its management, the most common ones are efficiency and uniformity. These parameters
10
have been subdivided and defined in a multitude of ways as well as named in various
manners.
Common performance indicators defined by Kloezen and Garces-Restrepo (1998), based on
literature include:
Conveyance efficiency, distribution efficiency, field efficiency, application
efficiency and project efficiencies;
Reliability and dependability of water distribution;
Equity or spatial uniformity of water distribution; and
Adequacy and timeliness of irrigation delivery
For example, considering the case of conveyance efficiency in irrigation system, it provides
the best way of assessing whether canal maintenance is required. By tracking the change in
conveyance efficiencies over time it is possible to establish criteria that will indicate when
canal cleaning or reshaping is necessary. In many systems, this is undertaken subjectively on
appearance rather than using a more analytical approach. In addition, determining
conveyance efficiency will help to determine the amount of water that is lost as canal
seepage so that the amount of land to be irrigated, the types of crops to be grown and all kind
of crop versus water requirement correlations can be calculated and optimized. Since the
measuring gauge is usually installed at the offtakes of the main or secondary canals, the
amount of water loss along the canal length should be determined so that the maximum area
that should be developed could easily be determined.
This efficiency is determined to evaluate the irrigation practices in a farm. It accounts for loss
of water by seepage in the supply channel, deep percolation and occasionally runoff
occurring in fields. The efficiency may be very low in a badly managed farm and as high as
75% in a well managed farm. It can however be increased to approach 100% if crops are
under irrigated by applying lower amount of water than needed. It is sometimes done because
of water scarcity or high priced water. Under irrigation may completely prevent deep
percolation and runoff, but it is undesirable as crops suffer from water stress and give low
yields.
11
2.5. Irrigation Water Performance Management
Salilih, (2007) employed both qualitative and quantitative approaches, to assess the
contribution of irrigation on household food security and irrigation management and
problems associated with it in the case of Zingni and Fetam small-scale irrigation schemes in
the blue Nile basin of Amhara national regional state. The findings of the study revealed that
the irrigation contribution to minimizing household’s socioeconomic poverty significantly
vary from one irrigation scheme to another. Its contribution also varies across irrigation
systems depending on the physical structures of the scheme, the amount of irrigation water,
plot size, availability of agricultural inputs, management qualities and educational status of
individual farmers to accept new ideas. For instance, 83.3 % and 42% respondents in
Wonjella (Fetam) and Deninatquashta Kebeles (Zingni) respectively confirmed that
improved irrigation system benefited them to minimize households’ socioeconomic poverty.
However, the degree of poverty is still high in Deninatquashta then in Wonejella Kebele and
socioeconomic and institutional problems are commonly much higher among female-headed
households, especially those households that have no close relatives and farmers who are
disabled and aged. The two modern schemes are constrained by socio-cultural and technical
problems. With the presence of these problems it is very different to generalize that irrigation
system can reduce household socioeconomic and institutional poverty.
Salilih, (2007) finally forwarded conclusion and recommendation based on the findings,
farmers' participation from inception to completion of irrigation projects should be a
prerequisite in support of the sustainability of irrigation schemes, accountability and security
in admittance and right to resources such as land, water and credit. In addition, training on
irrigation water management contribute to break the countryside households’ socioeconomic
poverty and help mainstreaming of gender in each irrigation management activity.
Gebremedhin et al., (2002), analyzed the productivity of irrigation in the highlands of Tigray.
The survey was based on 50 communities and 100 villages. The result showed that irrigation
was found to increase the intensity of input use, especially labor, oxen, improved seeds and
fertilizer. Controlling for other factors, use of manure or compost was about 50% more likely
on irrigated plots than on rain-fed plots. By increasing such inputs, irrigation contributed to
increase crop production. The predicted impact of irrigation was 18 % increase in crop
12
production relative to rain-fed field plots. On the contrary, the impact of irrigation on the
productivity of land management practices was statistically insignificant.
In the same way, another survey was done in Amhara highlands of Ethiopia. Irrigation was
associated with improved technologies such as fertilizer and manure, and other inputs like
improved seeds and pesticides, labor and draft power. However, the impact of irrigation on
the productivity of farming practices was insignificant (Benin et al., 2003).
Gebremedhin et al., (2002), recommended that, in both the highlands of Amhara and Tigray,
the reason for failure of irrigation to improve productivity of farming practices needs further
careful research on the technical, institutional, governance and managerial aspects of
irrigation. In addition, they also suggested that such an investigation can give important
guidance for policy and institution intervention to increase the impact of irrigation on
productivity and income. Similar to the above, the proper design of the technical and social
water management structure is a crucial step in the design of an irrigation scheme.
2.6. Irrigation Management Experiences in Ethiopia
As (FAO, 2010) studied, Nearly 66% of the total land area is potentially suitable for
agriculture, which is equivalent to 72 million ha, however, due to various factors, including
climatic, demographic, socioeconomic, etc., only about 25% of the total cultivable land was
being put under cultivation by the same year. The Ethiopian highlands, constituting about
45% of the total land area, are regions facing high demographic pressure on land and water
resources. On the other hand, the lowlands in the southern, southeastern and south -western
parts of the country, with sparse settlements, offer huge and unutilized land resources
potentially suitable for agriculture. However, rain fed agriculture is least productive in these
regions owing to little and the erratic nature of rainfall both in amount and distribution.
Actually, very little irrigation infrastructure has been so far developed in these areas to bring
these vast areas under irrigation. Even though, the country is endowed with ample water
resources with 12 river basins with an annual runoff volume of 122 billion m³ of water and
an estimated 2.6 - 2.65 billion m³ of groundwater potential (Awulachew et al., 2007 and
Makombe et al., 2011).
According to the study of Awlachew et al., (2010) estimates that, current irrigation schemes
cover about 640,000 ha across the country. These irrigation schemes vary widely in size and
13
structure, from micro irrigation (RWH), to river diversion, pumping, and small or large dams,
etc. These schemes can be subdivided into: -
■ Small scale-irrigation (SSI), which are often community-based and traditional methods,
Covering less than 200 hectares. Examples of SSIs include household-based RWH, hand
dug wells, shallow wells, flooding (spate), individual household-based river diversions
and other traditional methods
■ Medium-scale irrigation (MSI), which is community based or publicly sponsored,
covering 200 to 3,000 hectares. Examples of MSIs include the Sille, Hare and Ziway
irrigation schemes
■ Large-scale irrigation (LSI) covering more than 3,000 hectares, which is typically
commercially or publicly sponsored. Examples of LSIs include the Wonji-shoa, Methara,
Nura Era and Fincha irrigation schemes.
SSI schemes are the responsibility of the MoARD and regions, while MSI and LSI are the
responsibility of the MoWR.
Ethiopia indeed has significant irrigation potential assessed both from available land and
water resources potential, irrespective of the lack of accurate estimates of potentially
irrigable land and developed area under irrigation. Despite efforts of the government to
expand irrigation, the country has not achieved sufficient irrigated agriculture to overcome
the problems of food insecurity and extreme rural poverty, as well as to create economic
dynamism in the country (Awulachew et al., 2005).
2.7. The Impact of Small - Scale Irrigation
The Federal or Regional Government normally constructs small-scale modern schemes. Such
schemes were expanded after the catastrophic drought in 1973 to achieve food security and
better peasants’ livelihoods by producing cash crops. Such schemes involve dams and the
diversion of streams and rivers. The constructed and completed schemes of such types are
usually “handed over” to WUAs for management, operation and maintenance with the
support of personnel from Regional Bureaus (Awulachew et al., 2005). Although small-scale
irrigation may have several advantages, it is never immune from problems. The problems
have become more critical in drought-prone areas where small-scale irrigation is expected to
14
solve problems of declining agricultural productivity (Aberra, 2002). The problem of small-
scale irrigation starts from the administration of the land and the water up to the most
dangerous problems like loss of water, diseases and pests. The major problems
encountered in use small-scale irrigation in the study area are problems related to lack of
water, problem in the distribution of water, pests and diseases, thief and other animals eat
the irrigation products, lack of supply inputs especially late supplying means no supplying
in time. Other factors like design issues, cultural factors, environmental problems are also
other problems of in using small scale irrigation (Abraham et al., 2014).
In order to enhance small-scale irrigation schemes to improve household livelihood, many
factors must be considered: high water and labor supply, provision of credit services and
agricultural chemicals, good irrigation infrastructure and management practices, support
of government and development agents (DAs) are all very essential. Therefore, by using
these inputs, we can increase rural people’s household incomes, livelihood diversification,
agricultural intensification, productivity, employment opportunities, income variance a
variable constant, all these and other outputs of SSI developments combined have the
capacity to achieve livelihood development in rural areas, thereby reducing the present
chronic food insecurity problem in particular and poverty in general (Mengistie and
Kidane, 2016).Therefore, it is essential to determine the what, how and when aspects of the
SSI development tasks and set its priorities on the basis of the existing internal and external
situations. This requires undergoing a process of envisioning SSI’s future as well as setting
clear goals and realistic objectives with a defined timeframe for their attainment (Langan,
2015).
2.8. The Role of Water Users Associations
Developing, operating and maintaining an irrigation networks almost always requires joint
action by the water users. In traditional irrigation networks, farmers would get together to
build a diversion weir across a river or dig an access canal, because these were things they
could not accomplish on their own. Without a capacity for organization and decision making
among the users, it was simply not possible to complete a scheme. This capacity helped users
to develop an organization capable of operating and maintaining the networks (Gholamra and
15
Shabnam, 2014). In principle, IWUAs are self-managed and governed by their members and
the general assembly is the highest body of the WUA (FDRE, 2014).
Thus, the water management of small-scale irrigation schemes is the responsibility of the
farmers themselves, mainly through informal/traditional community groups. Apart from the
provision of extension and training services to the WUAs from the MoA, no institution is
directly involved in water management in smallholder-irrigated agriculture. Once the
construction of irrigation schemes is completed, they are handed over to the beneficiaries but
maintenance remains within the responsibility of the regional governments. The absence of
any appropriate local-level organs to cater for small-scale irrigation has resulted in a lack of
guidance in irrigation operation and maintenance at a community level. With an increase in
irrigated areas and more users, irrigation water management and rules for water allocation are
becoming more complex and problematic (FAO, 2016).
In a modern scheme where most of the preparation and construction is done by a government
agency, the water users have much less experience in organizing themselves. Yet the fact that
in such schemes the water is usually delivered to a group of farmers requires a water users'
association (WUA) that is capable of assuming responsibility for water distribution among
farmers (FAO, 1996).Irrigation systems cannot meet their intended objectives without
appropriate organizations to manage, maintain and operate the systems. There are arguments
emphasizing that irrigation service delivery and thus irrigations systems performance can be
improved by transferring the management of public irrigation systems to IWUA or farmers’
organizations (Lempériere et al., 2014).
16
CHAPTER THREE
MATHERIALS AND METHODS
3.1. General Description of the Study Area
As shown in Figure 3.1, the research was conducted in the Zuma irrigation scheme located at
latitude and longitude 10°55'45"N and 36°53'00"E with an elevation of 2140 meters above
sea level at the head work in the Afesa peasant Association, Dangila Woreda, Awi zone,
Amhara region. The irrigation scheme is placed 18.5 km far from the Woreda town in East
direction. Dangila is located 485 km from the capital city Addis Ababa to the South West
direction on the main road to Bahir Dar.
Figure 3.1: Map of the study area
17
3.1.1. Irrigation system layout
The Zuma irrigation scheme was established in the year 2007 by AGP project. The total
command area of the project is 85 ha which lies on the left side of the stream. The irrigation
system consists of the main canal, secondary canals, tertiary canals and field canals. The
main canal aligned along the upper contour of the command area as far as possible following
the contour line. The majority of secondary canal parts, some of tertiary and field canals
aliened across the contour and the rest of some part of secondary, tertiary and field canals are
aligned with finding the minimum contour slope of the land. This scheme has 2.2 km lined
main canal and 3 earthen secondary canals. This scheme serves five villages by local name
they are known as: Lay Wumbry, Tach Wumbry, Ketema zuria, Worafta No.1 and Worafta
No.2. Figure 3.2 below shows the diversion point and the canal systems delivering water to
the respective villages. The weir diversion is accomplished by simple concrete intake
structure. The main canal takes water from the weir. The canal length is a masonry
rectangular canal shape. The other irrigation infrastructures such as the turnouts, the division
boxes, the road crossings, the drops, the head and cross regulators are all constructed with
masonry and reinforced concrete. Secondary canals take water from the main canal. The first
secondary earthen canal which outlying 675 meters from the weir diversion. The length of
this canal is 0.95 km and this serves Lay Wumbry and partially Tach Wumbry which has 16
ha irrigable area for 26 households. Water accessibility which comes from this canal is high.
The second canal is outlying 1.34 km from the weir diversion, the length of this canal is 1.1
km and this serves Tach Wumbry and Ketema zuria which has 12 ha irrigable area for 24
households and 22 ha irrigable area for 29 households respectively. The accessibility of water
from this canal at Tach Wumbry moderate and at Ketema zuria is slightly moderate. The last
secondary canal is outlying 2.2 km from the weir diversion, the length of this canal is 0.85km
and this serves two villages which are Worafta No.1 and Worafta No.2, they have 14 ha
command irrigable area for 25 households and 21 ha command irrigable area for 22
households respectively. Water accessibility from this canal is less.
18
Figure 3.2: Diversion weir and schematic layout of main, secondary and tertiary canals
3.1.2. Topography and hydro climatic conditions
In Dangila woreda, there are 27 rural Kebeles among which 16 of them have access to
perennial rivers. Zuma river is one of them. The Zuma irrigation scheme district is known by
its fertile soil capable of producing at least twice a year if irrigation water is made available.
Average annual rainfall is about 1600 mm, but varies between 1180-2000 mm. The mean
annual potential evapotranspiration (PET) is 1250 mm. Monthly PET during November to
April exceeds monthly rainfall implying the importance of dry season irrigation. The area has
a monomodal rainfall pattern that the main rainy season is during summer from June to
August with maximum peak in August. As Ethiopian Agro-ecological Zones classification
( MoA, 2000), it is found in the Erteb Weinadega (moist- cool) agro ecological zone. The
temperature of the area ranges from minimum and maximum respectively 4.26˚C and
27.17˚C (1995 – 2016) (ANMSA 2016). The catchment area of the irrigation scheme is 101.98
km². The maximum flow hydrograph of Zuma river which is the source of water for the
scheme shows also a distinct peak that occurs in August (Design peak discharge 164.55
m³/sec). The low flow declines during the months from March to May. The topography of the
district encompasses highland 25%, midland 67% and lowland 8% with altitude ranging from
2400 to 2367 meters above sea level. This area for both rain fed and irrigable area is
19
moderately suitable gradient which is fitting for mechanized agriculture. The soil types are
clay, clay loam and loam soils (Agricultural office data). As my survey result shows that the
cropping schedule record of the Woreda, the rain fed agriculture starts in July and continues
up until November - December while the irrigated agriculture begins immediately after
harvest of the rain fed crops and extends up to June. In a research, yield responses to
irrigation for major annual and perennial crops have been recently reviewed by FAO
(Steduto et al., 2012). Likewise, farmers produce teff, barley, maize, finger millet, wheat and
other crops on rain fed cultivation. In addition to this, during irrigated season, maize, barley,
potato, tomato, beet-root, onion, garlic, cabbage, pepper and annual crops like banana,
mango, sugar cane, coffee, papaya and others are grown in the Zuma irrigation scheme.
3.1.3. Demography and population
The population, who lives in the rural area of the district, depends on crop production and
livestock rearing to support their livelihood. As given in Table 3.1 below, the total population
of the district is 846. From this, only 74.5 % are benefited by the Zuma irrigation scheme.
The number of households that own irrigable land are 126 people. However, 44 households
in the district have not irrigation land. The number of people that are benefiting or potential
beneficiaries are 630 people with an average family size of 5 people per house-hold. When
we see the relative proportion of female and male of the total population, the number of
females and males are almost equal.
Table 3.1: A demographic feature of the Zuma irrigation scheme
Name of
villages
Number of households
only irrigators
Number of population
(irrigators + non-irrigators)
Female Male Total Female Male Total
Worafta No.1 3 19 22 68 75 143
Worafta No.2 4 21 25 63 70 133
Tach Wumbry 4 20 24 72 67 139
Lay Wumbry 3 23 26 80 73 153
Ketema zuria 6 23 29 146 132 278
20 106 126 429 417 846
20
As given in Table 3.2, the house-hold population at Lay Wumbry and Tach Wumbry villages
are the first and the second respectively by using irrigation at the moment. But by total land
holding and total cropped area Worafta No.2 village is better than others. Ketema zuria's
cropped area/per person is less than the average cropped area/per person, but cropped
area/per person at Worafta No.2 village is the highest. In this scheme, the area occupied by
infrastructures 8 %, by forest 4.6 %, by grassland 5 % of the total land area.
Table 3.2: The land use pattern in the command area of Zuma irrigation scheme
Characteristics
Lay
Wumbry
Tach
Wumbry
Ketema
zuria
Worafta
No.1
Worafta
No.2
Total
Total area, ha 208 210 205 214 212 1049
Annual cropped area(ha) 15 13.4 22 16.5 13 79.9
Perennial cropped area(ha) 149 152.6 157 166.5 160 785.1
Total cropped area (ha) 164 166 185 183 173 865
Irrigable area at the design time 16 12 22 14 21 85
Irrigated area at the moment
The area occupied by
infrastructures
11.9
17
10.3
19
11.5
20
7.7
17
9.6
11
49
84
Forest area (ha) 17 10 2 7 12 48
Grassland area (ha) 10 15 4 7 16 52
Total land(ha)/total pon 135.9 % 151.1 % 73.7 % 149.6 % 159.4 % 124 %
Total irrigated land (ha) /HH on 49.6 % 47.1 % 43.1 % 35 % 38.4 % 42.8 %
Total cropped area(ha)/total pon 107.2 % 119.4 % 64.4 % 128 % 130.1 % 102.3 %
3.2. Methods
3.2.1. Sample size and sampling procedure
The selection of the study area Zuma district and the scheme site is carried out purposefully,
because of the relative accessibility of the district and the site. In the sampling design, the
measurement locations were selected nearly at equal segments by simple random sampling
techniques. As shown in Figure 3.2 above, the main canal was selected to evaluate the water
delivery and conveyance performances at the head, middle and tail reach of the main canal.
Similarly, the flow measurements were taken on the three secondary canals which are located
21
at the head, middle and tail reach on the irrigation system in part for collecting the flow data.
Whereas, measurements at tertiary canals were taken only at head and tail reach of each canal
bcause tertiary canals are shorter canals by length. This measurement activity was done by
taking sample four tertiary canals at each secondary canal. Generally, twelve tertiary canals
were taken in the measurement activity. In addition to this, each village was taken as a base
for HH selection for an interview ( based on canal location) since the view of users are
different not only each village but also each canal location in the scheme. Design values and
the scheme capacity as it stands at present ease of use and functionality of the structures such
as intake weirs, canals, water management systems were explained clearly.
3.2.2. Data sources and methods of data collection
Effective data management plays an important role in improving the performance of the
irrigation scheme. Collecting, analyzing, interpreting, and acting on data for specific
performance measures helps to identify where the current condition of technical and
management performance systems is falling short, to make corrective adjustments and to
track outcomes. In this case, data collection processes were Primary and Secondary data
sources.
Primary data sources
Actual field investigation and measurements or survey works, including simple observations
of the scheme at the site was required to collect the necessary data to know the present
condition of the scheme. The important data for the study includes: -
i) Flow measurement of the conveyance systems
ii) Measurement of the actual dimensions of the conveyance systems
iii) House-hold survey
iv) Focus group discussion
v) Key informant interview
vi) Field observations were taken to observe and investigate the status of the scheme.
Secondary data sources
The secondary data available for the site were collected from the past reports & files kept by
responsible organizations such as from the Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development
Office, Dangila Mteorological Station (ANMSA) and Kebele office. Similarly, to supplement
22
information other published and unpublished sources were consulted. Climate data, irrigated
crop, actual command areas, designed features of the scheme in the design document are
major data which utilized in the study.
Flow measurement of the conveyance systems
In this study, two methods were used for measuring canal irrigation water supply. These were
floating method and Current meter.
1. Flow measurements by using float method
Flow measurements at main, secondary and tertiary canals were taken as shown in Figure 3.2
which shows where measurements were taken. The first main canal discharge measurement
of the initial point was taken at 15m distance from the main intake gate and also the second,
and the third measurement initial points were taken at 660 and 1920m distances respectively
from the first measurement. Similarly, the first measurements at secondary canals were taken
at five meter distances from the main canal each. The second and the third measurements
also were taken at 260 and 700m distances each canal respectively. In the same way, the first
measurements at tertiary canals were taken at four meter distances from the secondary canal
each and the second measurements were taken at 250m distances each tertiary canal. This
activity was done in October, November and December months. Flow measurement was
done four times each month at the main and secondary canals (morning and afternoon) and
the average discharge was taken, but by the reason of the rotational water using system,
tertiary canals' measurement was taken three times each month.
In the irrigation scheme, the main canal had a rectangular lined section. The canal section
considered for discharge measurement had a 200m length. Floating material was put on 15m
distance from the main intake gate and the time it took to reach the 200m mark was
registered. This test was replicated four times and the average time it took was taken to
calculate the discharges. The cross-sectional area of the canal was also expected by
measuring the average depth and width of this canal section. The average velocity and the
discharge were calculated by dividing the distance 200m with the average time, and by
multiplying the cross-sectional district with the average flow velocity, respectively.
23
The next measurements 660m at 180m and the last 1920m also at 100m distances were
marked downstream from the initial trial spot, so that the quantity of conveyance loss could
be known and the conveyance efficiency be determined. The principle of choosing the
segments for discharge measurement was the ease of use of lines segment's rectangular
channel shape to measure the flow. Calculating the volume of lost or mismanaged water is
necessary for improved water management and for securing proper water delivery to the
users. In the same way, properly discharge measurement equipment is also discussed in
several publications (Murray et al., 1994) by identifying the irrigation structural conditions of
canals, the discharge through various control structures could be calculated more accurately.
The conveyance efficiency (Ec in %) is an indicator of this effectiveness and is determined as
follows:-
Ec = ---------------------------------------(3.1)
Ec = Water conveyance efficiency
Wf = Water delivered at the field
Ws = Water delivered at the source
2. Flow measurements using current meter
When the depth of water is less than 0.46m and the velocities are low, then pygmy current
meter should be used which would be usually be the case for tertiary irrigation channels.
Using a pygmy current meter a lined rectangular cross - section of a watercourse provides an
accurate measurement of the discharge (Mushtaq et al., 1997). In this case, pygmy current
meter type was involved in flow velocity measurement in the study area. The measurements
were taken at main and secondary canals, four times each month (October, November and
December) at morning and afternoon. To do the work properly, 0.6 for the one - point
velocity measurement method was made at every measurement point of the sub-divided
cross-section in the monitoring station at the observational water depth. The flow velocity
was derived from the rotation speed measured by the control unit, which was taken. The
mean flow velocity was then calculated from proportion equations depending on the average
rotation speeds. The flow velocity at monitoring points was calculated using equation (2).
The flow area of canals was calculated from flow depths and canal geometry at each position.
24
The flow area in the trapezoid (secondary canals) and rectangular canal (main canal) was
computed as in equation ( 3 & 4 ) respectively.
V = 0.9604 R/S+ 0.0312 * 0.3048 (R/S = revolutions per second)...... (3.2)
Where, V is the flow velocity in m/s measured at the observational depth of 60 percent of the
water depth (D) and R/S is the number of revolution counts per second taken on 60 percent
of the observed water depth.
A = WD + SD².......................................................... (3.3)
A = D * W................................................................ (3.4)
Where, A = flow area (m²); D = flow depth (m); W = bottom width of canal (m) and S = side
Slope of canal (m/m).
House-hold survey
In order to collect Primary data, questionnaires on technical and management performance
conditions were collected. This survey in the 5 villages was conducted using structured and
semi- structured questionnaires for the beneficiaries. Beneficiaries who were directly using
the irrigation water were surveyed to see technical and management performances of the
irrigation scheme. By random sampling technique, at the head, middle and tail users at each
village and secondary canal were selected that was 6 respondents each village, totally 30
respondents were selected for questionnaire. To convey the questions effectively to the rural
interviewees, the questionnaires were translated into the local language (Amharic).
Proportional sampling was engaged to pick female-headed HH and male-headed house-holds
from each village.
Focus group discussion
Focus group discussions were apprehended with community representatives and respondents
with particular concentration in technical and management performance pointers. In the
irrigation scheme, focus group discussions with organized groups are the main sources of
information on the technical and management performance of the Zuma SSI project. As the
discussion among WUCs, the relevance of the scheme for the farmers is apparent in different
ways across the canals through respect to the location of the field of the head work. As a
25
consequence, discussions through the scheme management committee and scheme users
were accomplished in an attempt to have preliminary supply information.
Key informant interview
The interview was prepared for the respondents according to the different situation of the
irrigation scheme such as; the benefit of the irrigation project for beneficiaries, participation
of beneficiaries to protect the sustainability of the scheme, operation and maintenance
systems, water distribution systems etc. The interview was prepared for both female and
male respondents in each village by taking random sampling.
Field visit and observation
Field investigation and site observation collectively within the scheme beneficiaries were the
main system of the study. Field visit was remunerated village to village to observe the
present water management performance conditions, and also measurements were taken to
quantify the technical performances in the scheme. Observing all the villages in the scheme
was assisting me to know their condition and to identify limitations in supporting the
refurbishes of the scheme to the under-fire communities. The straight forward inspection
system was implemented preliminary from the diversion weir up to the villages/sites with
selected respondents within the scheme. This was assist me to know exacting conditions of
water availability conditions, maintenance status /canal structural conditions, grazing and
type of crops.
3.3. Technical Performance Evaluation
Technical performance evaluation in Zuma irrigation scheme was conducted using technical
performance indicators. To this effect, measurements were done on the field and design
documents were reviewed from secondary sources. These evaluations were made for the
following purposes:-
i) To evaluate conveyance efficiency,
ii) To quantify water delivery performance
iii) Dependability of irrigation interval and
iv) To analyse the conditions of maintenance indicators of the irrigation scheme.
26
3.3.1. Conveyance efficiency
Water conveyance loss consists mainly of operating losses, evaporation and seepage into the
soil from the sloping surfaces and bed of the canal. The most important of these is seepage;
evaporation loss in irrigation networks is generally not taken into consideration (Jadhav et al.
1993). In the Zuma irrigation scheme, the conveyance efficiency was measured by floating
method and current meter as shown in Figure 3.3 and 3.4.
Figure 3.3: Views of main lined canal where conveyance efficiency was measured
b. c. d. e
Figure 3.4: Lower main lined canal (a), upper secondary unlned canals (b, c and d) and silted
main lined canal before water delivery (e)
27
3.3.2. Water delivery performance
Field observation and empirical evidences show divergent points of losses of excess water
indicating focus areas of improved water conservation on smallholder irrigation schemes. For
example, the largest proportion of over supplied water (~100%) in the semi modern schemes
and in traditional schemes was lost in the conveyance and distribution systems. For modern
schemes water losses in the processes of conveyance were low (26%), while the significant
proportion of water (76%) was lost on the farm. In view of this evidence, we concluded that
irrigation schemes in Ethiopia, regardless of their typology, have low water delivery
performance. As every scheme has shown its own strength and weakness, concluding
sustainability in terms of typology is misleading and this suggests that policy directions
should be based on composite sustainability indices (Agide et al., 2016).The simplest and yet
probably the most important operational performance indicator is the delivery performance
ratio (Bos et al., 1991). In its basic form, it is defined as:
Water delivery performance = …….(3.5)
The value of water demand was taken from the design document while actually delivered
volume of water was measured directly from the scheme by the float method and current
meter.
3.3.3. Dependability of duration
The pattern in which water is delivered overtime is directly related to the overall
consumed ratio of the delivered water, and hence has a direct impact on crop production.
The primary indicator proposed for use in measuring dependability of the water deliveries
are concerned with the duration of water delivery compared to the plan, and the time
between deliveries compared to the plan (Clemmens and Bos, 1990). Hence, Zuma irrigation
scheme dependability of irrigation period was described by the following formula.
Dependability of irrigation interval = ...….(3.6)
28
3.3.4. Zuma irrigation scheme maintenance indicators
The relative change of the water level
The relative change in water level was determined by taking the actual water level depth of
the canal and comparing it with design value at the same position in the main canal.
Relative change of water level = …………. (3.7)
Sustainable of Zuma irrigation scheme
The sustainability of irrigation with respect to maintenance is best explained by the
nourishing of the resources without compromising the environmental aspects and
productivity. This may include the expected amount of land to be irrigated, the amount and
quality of irrigation water and others (Bos et al, 1997). Sustainability of the Zuma irrigation
scheme was assessed with a systematic approach by using structured qualitative interviews to
collect sustainability indicators, primary data from the beneficiaries supported by direct
observation and secondary data support. The irrigable area was used as an indicator to
measure the technical performance of the scheme. It is the ratio of current total area under
irrigation to the initial total irrigable area.
Sustainability of irrigable area = …………(3.8)
3.4. Evaluating the Management Problems Existing in the Irrigation Scheme
The existing irrigation water management performance problems on crops and cropping
pattern, cropping intensity along canal reaching, annual house-hold income, frequency of
time losing to get water, irrigation land distribution, irrigation methods and management
related issues such as unequal water distribution, irrigation schedule disturbance and water
sharing problems between upstream and downstream water users, adequacy of irrigation
water and reliability of water supply in the scheme were investigated in the study.
29
3.5. Method of Data Analysis
In General, the collected data were analyzed using GIS software, SPSS software, and
Microsoft words excel 2013 spread sheet. Finally, technical performance indicators and
existing management problems were identified.
3.6. Materials Used
The materials used in my thesis work were;
Stop watch, measuring tapes
Rollo meter
Current meter, floating material
ArcGIS 10.3
Microsoft spreadsheets, Microsoft excels, Questionnaires
Garmin GPS
30
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1. Status of the Irrigation Scheme and Irrigation Practices
The survey result shows that some of the drop and canal structures were dysfunctional.
Even though there were a number of illegal water abstraction points and canal
breaking, the main canal structure was under good condition.
The secondary and tertiary canals’ water was partly flowing through the canal and
partly out of the canal since the embankment was not functional.
Majority of twelve tertiary canals were affected by sediment
Large portions of the area located at the tail end are left unproductive during the crop
season.
Flooding type of irrigation method was widely practiced for the cereal crops.
However, in most farmers’ farming area, horticultural crops were practiced by
furrow irrigation method.
In addition to unfair distribution of irrigation water, unequal irrigation land distribution
affected participation of beneficiaries on management performance of the system.
The command area was categorized into five water user groups for operation and
management purpose.
As shown in (Figure 4.1), some part of the drops, gates and other canal structures were
dysfunctional. By these causes, only 49 ha land was irrigated out of 85 ha irrigable area, this
is almost 57.6 %. This shows that the effectiveness of the scheme compared to the design
document is very less.
31
Figure 4.1: Conditions of different structures on the main and secondary canals
Damaged
structures
Silt removed from secondary
canals and weed growth
Bridge at the
main canal Drop structures and off takes at secondary canals
32
4.2. Appraisal of Zuma Irrigation Scheme in terms of Technical Performances
The prevailing parameters assessed for technical performances of the Zuma irrigation scheme
were;
i) Conveyance efficiency
ii) Water delivery performance
iii) Dependability of duration
iv) Maintenance indicators
4.2.1. Conveyance efficiency
Conveyance efficiency of the irrigation water is normally conveyed from the water source to
the farm through main lined canal, constructed earthen secondary and tertiary canals. As
given in Table 4.1 below, the conveyance efficiency of the main, secondary and tertiary
canals' loss was monitored. From this monitoring result, seepage loss in the irrigation canals
accounted high water conveyance loss. This was the conveyance efficiency of the upper main
canal (UMC), middle main canal, lower main canal (LMC), upper secondary canals (USCs),
middle secondary canals (MSCs), lower secondary canals (LSCs), upper tertiary canals
(UTCs) and lower tertiary canals (LTCs) for the Zuma irrigation scheme. The conveyance
efficiency of the Zuma irrigation scheme was measured at a distance of 840 and 2020m. The
results were found to be 97.8 and 88.2 % at the respective measurement distances along the
main canal. At a distance of 390 and 820m was 84 and 74.8 % at the secondary canals
respectively. The amount of water lost in the main canal was 2, and 11 lit/sec in 24 hours in
length of 840, and 2020m distances respectively. This can irrigate 1.7 and 9.6 ha land each
loss ( duty as 1.14 lit/sec/ha ). At the secondary canals also, at a distance of 390 and 820m
were 6 and 14 lit/sec water losses respectively in a day. Water lost at secondary canals was
higher than the main canal. Because of this, secondary canals are earthen and not well
maintained. When we see the conveyance efficiency of the tertiary canals section, it was 64.5
%. The discharge lost was estimated as 11 lit/sec and amounts to 950.4m³ in 24 hours in the
average length of 350m. This is a large amount which is not okay to irrigate efficiently.
Therefore, water users should take care to manage the irrigation water especially on
secondary and tertiary canals. This can be done either by lining or compacting earthen canals
and maintain damaged structures; unless the effectiveness of the scheme will be under usage.
33
The average values of concrete observed discharge and conveyance efficiency of the main,
secondary and tertiary canals are reviewed in table 4.1.
Table 4.1: Computed conveyance efficiency of the scheme
Canal
sections
Average
Depth(m)
Average
width(m) Area
(m2)
Length
(m)
Time
Elapsed(sec)
Velocity
(m/sec)
Discharge
(m3/sec)
Ec
( )
UMC 0.450 0.71 0.32 200 689 0.29 0.093
Mid 0.47 0.72 0.34 180 666 0.27 0.091 97.8
LMC 0.50 0.84 0.42 100 536 0.19 0.082 88.2
USC 0.33 0.67 0.22 150 500 0.30 0.0570
MSC 0.33 0.84 0.28 130 619 0.21 0.048 84
LSC 0.32 0.84 0.27 120 600 0.20 0.042 74.8
UTC 0.14 0.36 0.05 140 225.8 0.62 0.031
LTC 0.12 0.33 0.04 100 192 0.52 0.020 64.5
34
4.2.2. Water delivery performance
Water Delivery Performance is the value calculated as the ratio of actually delivered volume
of water to the designed volume of water to be delivered. The actual delivered volume of
water through the main canal is 92 lit/sec while the designed amount based on the design
document was 100 lit/sec. The actual delivered volume of water, amounting 92 lit/sec was
the repeated measurement result during the survey. For that reason, the delivery performance
is in the regulate of 92 %. The amount of water delivered was less than the demand amount.
This implies that the capacity of the canal has decreased by different cases such as weed
growth, breakage of the canal structures and sediment load are the main reasons. In this
scheme, scarcity in water delivery has strained to extend limited area. Here, the result shows
that there is water scarcity to distribute water to each farm block.
4.2.3. Dependability of irrigation interval
The proper irrigation interval can play a major role in increasing the water use efficiency and
the productivity by applying the required amount of water when it is needed. As given in
Table 4.2 below, the dependability of Zuma irrigation scheme interval was considered by
taking some crops and vegetables and then dividing the average irrigation interval of crops
which produce in the scheme. Products of potato, maize, garlic, onion, cabbage, banana and
wheat are the major yield of the scheme to the average designed interval which was 7 days.
However, the survey result shows the average actual irrigation interval in the irrigation
scheme is 10.4 days. According to this, the irrigation interval time shows bad condition to get
good crop products. Thus, water use efficiency should be managed by avoiding water loss at
canals and choose crop types which need a little amount of water in a few hours.
Table 4.2: Dependability of irrigation interval that compares the designed to the actual
No. Crop type Actual
irrigation interval
Designed irrigation
interval
Dependability of
irrigation interval
1
2
Maize
Onion
14
7
10
5
1.4
1.4
3 Potato 11 7 1.6
4 Garlic 7 5 1.4
5 Cabbage 7 5 1.4
6
7.
Banana
Wheat
14
13
7
10
2.0
1.3
Average 10.4 days 7 days 1.5
35
4.2.4. Zuma irrigation scheme maintenance indicators
Many irrigation schemes around the world do not provide adequate service to farmers,
because gates can no longer move due to rust or because parts are missing or broken, canal
sections have collapsed or are full of silt, water level gauges have disappeared, etc. All of the
above are the result of poor maintenance (FAO, 1996). In this case, the indicators for
maintenance in the Zuma irrigation scheme were evaluated as; relative change of water level,
dependability of irrigation interval and sustainability of irrigation.
Relative change of water level (RCWL)
This is considered as the ratio of change of the water level in the canal to the designed level.
As given in Table 4.3, when the main canal carries a maximum discharge of 100 lit/sec, the
designed value of the water level (H) was 0.35m. But, when the discharge was 92 lit/sec, the
height measured was 0.32m. This makes the value of relative change of water level to be 8.6
%. This greater than 0 value shows that the designed water level in the main canal has not
been achieved. Hence, less discharge is delivered per unit time. To overcome such shortfalls,
farmers either should increase the irrigation time or otherwise under irrigate the fields.
Increasing the irrigation time ultimately bothers the irrigation program and makes water
management problems which affect downstream farmers’ irrigation scheduling with
simultaneous conflicts among beneficiaries.
Table 4.3: Calculation of relative change of water level
S.No. Description Q in lit/sec H (depth of water in m)
1. Designed max value of the main canal 100 0.35
2. Current max value of the main canal 92 0.32
3. Change of values 8 = (100 - 92) 0.03 = (0.35-0.32)
RCWL 8.6 %
Sustainability of Zuma irrigation scheme
As the survey result shows, the sustainability of Zuma irrigation scheme potential growth
irrigable area was 115 ha; the net construction was completed in 85 ha and the actual
irrigated area during the study season was only 49 ha. The reason, great water loss at
damaged structures. Therefore, by insufficiency of water at the field, there is great abundance
land which is not irrigated.
36
Even though the designed goal was not addressed by great water loss, the benefit of the
scheme is high as the survey result. About 74.7 % of the respondents believed that, the
benefit of the irrigation scheme is multiple purpose, For example, washing the clothes on the
canals, using the water in the canals for cattle watering purposes, taking a bath in the canals
and using the water in the canals for cleaning equipment near the villages where the canals
cross is some of the multiple purpose of utilizing the irrigation project. The reason is there is
no any other watering structure for livestock near the villages that is why farmers are using
irrigation canals for this purpose which has an opportunity of damaging the structures. But,
25.3 % respondents thought that, the benefit of the Zuma irrigation scheme is only for
irrigation purpose.
As the result of the discussion, 63.4 % of the house-holds use irrigation water to improve the
livelihood of the community. But, 36.6 % of the house-holds use irrigation water not only
improving the livelihood of the community, but also generated cash crops. The constructed
structures need community’s full participation to operate, maintain and manage to increase
the relevance of the scheme to the community because the breakage of gates and
sedimentation loads of conveyance structures every year as 90 % of the respondents
indicated.
4.3. Evaluating the Management Problems Existing in the Irrigation Scheme
Evaluated management problems existed in the irrigation scheme were focused on; crops and
cropping pattern, cropping intensity along canal reaching, frequency of time losing to get
water, irrigation land distribution, irrigation methods and management related issues such as
unequal water distribution, irrigation schedule disturbance and water sharing problems
between upstream and downstream water users, adequacy of irrigation water and reliability
of water supply in the scheme were investigated in the study.
According to crops and cropping pattern conditions:-
In Zuma irrigation scheme, the cropping pattern is decided by individual farmers. In the
irrigation project, there is no rule or restriction on the farmers about what type of crop to
produce. Water users determine the type and mix of crops they will grow whatever they
expect will optimize their income and spread their labor requirements. By this case, there are
diverse cropping patterns in the irrigation scheme. In the scheme, there are the most common
37
crops and vegetables grown during dry and rainy season; maize and potato covers the large
area during dry season. During the rainy season, teff, finger millet and maize are dominantly
grown in the area. Farmers sell their products by themselves as they did it in the production.
In the district, there is no any kind of mutual planning approach or contractually producing
and selling arrangement.
Production of vegetables under rain fed condition is virtually impossible unless the seasonal
rainfall is supplemented with irrigation water. During the irrigation season, households of the
Zuma irrigation scheme produce horticultural and cereal crops. When the majority produce
horticultural crops, some households produce cereal crops, whereas other households
produce both types of crops as given in Table 4.4. To increase crop productivity by using
efficiency of water and to enhance farmers benefit, mutual planning system should be exist.
In order to enhance crop productivity, environmental adoptive (Water shortage resister )
crops should be selected in the irrigation scheme. This also makes unity rather than
diversification of crops which are grown in the scheme.
Table 4.4: Type of crops produced in the Zuma irrigation scheme
Type of crops Frequency Percent
Horticultural 13 43.3
Cereal 8 26.7
Both 9 30
Total 30 100
According to cropping intensity along canal reaching
The main advantages of irrigation practice lay on provision of opportunity for intensification
of cropping. Under decreasing size of land holdings in irrigated agriculture, intensification of
cropping coupled with productivity improvement is the way to enhance food production
(Bantero et al., 2007). In addition to this, tail irrigators normally suffer from water shortage
and most often practicing forced deficit irrigation and also select crops with low water
requirement. Hence, they save water while trying to minimize impact on the yield through
crop selection (Haileslassie et al., 2016). Likewise, in Zuma irrigation scheme, there are
different types of crops which are grown during irrigation and rainfall season within the five
villages. But during irrigation period crops by type and quantity have great variation within
38
five villages. The reason of this is the accessibility of water differentiation. The survey result
shows that, water accessible decreases from upstream to downstream along the main canal
and secondary canals as given in Table 4.5. In this case, not only crop intensity, but also crop
yield decrease upstream to downstream. As we have seen the accessibility of water
comparing the villages, Lay Wumbry and Tack Wumbry have the highest and moderate
condition for crop production respectively. The farmers in these villages have a chance to
produce higher crop intensification. From total household population, 39.7 % at Lay
Wumbry and Tach Wumbry have better crop production. However, 60.3 % of households at
the middle (Ketema zuria) and tail water users Worafta No.1 and Worafta No.2 are great
challenged people with water scarcity, so these people are not proactive to use irrigation
water as the above once. Of those, 40 % of the house-holds, especially, in tail command
irrigation areas, have a great experience by using underground water as supplement
irrigation. Therefore, in order to decrease water scarcity problems in the downstream, time
compensation in water distribution system should be on. This helps to increase participation
of downstream water users in the irrigation water management.
Table 4.5: Crop intensity along the main and secondary canals reach
Crop intensity along the main and secondary
canals reach
Frequency Percent
Lay Wumbry 11 36.7
Tach Wumbry 9 30
Ketema zuria 5 16.6
Worafta No. 1 3 10
Worafta No. 2 2 6.7
Total 30 100
According to annual house-hold income in Zuma irrigation scheme
Access to reliable irrigation water can enable farmers to adopt new technologies and
intensify cultivation, leading to increased productivity, overall higher production, and greater
returns from farming. This in turn opens up new employment opportunities; both on farm and
off-farm, and can improve incomes, livelihood and the quality of life in rural areas (Hussain
and Hanjra, 2004). As a study by Gebregziabher et al., (2009), using a survey of beneficiaries
39
of selected SSI schemes in the Tigray region of Ethiopia revealed that house-hold income of
irrigation users was higher than that of non-irrigators by about 50 %. The same as Zuma
irrigation, the challenges in mean per capital income between poor and non-poor house-holds
is substantial irrespective of access to irrigation. From upper stream to downstream in the
scheme, irrigation water accessibility decreases; by this case, house-holds’ income decrease
from the upper stream to downstream; because crop productivity in the downstream of the
Zuma irrigation scheme decreased by water scarcity case. Generally, Table 4..6 shows the
difference of house-hold income in the scheme before construction and after construction of
this irrigation project. Before construction house-hold income at Lay Wumbry and Tach
Wumbry villages was the minimum income record and at Ketema zuria was maximum
income. On the contrary, after construction of the project, maximum house-hold income is
recorded at Lay Wumbry and Tach Wumbry villages. This shows great advantage of the
irrigation project.
Table 4.6: Annual household income in the scheme
Household income Lay
Wumbry
Tach
Wumbry
Ketema
zuria
Worafta
No. 2
Worafta
No. 1
Average
income
Before irrigation Min 1460 1470 1680 1475 1555 1,528
Max 4,550 4,640 5880 4850 5,080 5,000
After irrigation Min 18,995 17,990 16,995 14,750 15,060 17,989
Max 40750 38850 34650 26360 28255 33,997
According to irrigation land distribution in the scheme
In the Zuma irrigation scheme, there is no equal land distribution. As mentioned above, there
are 126 irrigators and 44 non-irrigators who have not irrigation land. Even if, 126 households
have not equal irrigation land. As the survey result, unequal irrigation land distribution is a
great problem for irrigaton water performance management in the irrigation scheme. By this
case, house-holds in the district have not equal participation for irrigation water performance
management systems. This is a case to limit the enhancement of the irrigation scheme. In the
irrigation scheme, irrigation land distribution size in five villages is different as given in 4.7.
The highest irrigation area per household is in Worafta No.2; whereas, the smallest irrigation
land distribution is in Tach Wumbry village. Average irrigation land distribution per house-
40
hold at the construction time was 0.67 ha. However, current irrigated land distribution is only
0.39 ha. Reason, by shortage of water the irrigated land at current time is only 49 ha. This
indicates the occurrence of mismanagement irrigation water performance. In order to
increase participation of the house-holds of the district, irrigation land distribution system
should be addressed to all house-holds. This helps to water users to be proactive for
participation in irrigation water performance management.
Table 4.7: Irrigation land distribution in Zuma irrigation scheme
Distribution in five villages Frequency Percent
Lay Wumbry 6 20
Tach Wumbry 4 13.3
Ketema zuria 7 23.3
Worafta No.1 5 16.7
Worafta No.2 8 26.7
Total 30 100
According to irrigation methods
In the Zuma irrigation scheme, some crops are planted in rows or straight lines either singly
or in multiple rows to enhance maximum yields as well as for convenience. In addition to
this, crops are planted in flood system. As given in Table 4.8, some of the house-holds grow
crops in rows that are important to use irrigation water efficiently by decreasing water loss.
This helps them to produce good yields. On the other hand, when some households grow
their crops by flood system, others grow their crops by row and flood systems. Some crop
types such as potato, tomato, maize, onion, garlic and sugarcane are commonly grown in
furrow system. As the survey result, at flood irrigation system, more water is required and
takes long time to irrigate because there is much water loss during flood irrigation system.
Therefore, in order to use irrigation water efficiently and to get better crop production, all
irrigation water users should use furrow irrigation method by proper water distribution
system to address enough water to all crops which are at the end of the furrow.
41
Table 4.8: Methods of irrigation adopted by farmers in the Zuma irrigation scheme
Irrigation methods Frequency Percent
Furrow 11 36.7
Flood 2 6.7
Both 17 56.6
Total 30 100
According to management related issues
In the irrigation scheme, there are different causes which stands for conflict between
irrigation water beneficiaries; as respondents' discussion shows in Table 4.9, unequal water
distribution problem, dissimilarity of water sharing between upstream and downstream water
users and irrigation schedule disturbance by illegal water users are major problems.
Table 4.9: Irrigation water managementrelated issues
What are irrigation water management related issues Frequency Percent
Unequal irrigation water distribution 12 40
Disagreement of water sharing between upstream and downstream
users
10 33.3
Irrigation schedule disturbance 8 26.7
Total 30 100
Maintenance challenges
In the irrigation scheme, most of the structures from the weir upto the tertiary canals loss
water. As given in Table 4.10, the main factors for damaged structures are careless water
users, illegal water robbers, secondary and tertitiary canals’ be unlined, luck of budget saving
system for maintenance and other factors are causes for structure failerity.
42
Table 4.10: Maintenance problems of the scheme
In which structure maintenance problems present Frequency Percent
At the weir 2 6.7
At the main canal 4 13.3
At the secondary canals 6 20
At the tertiary canals 6 20
All structures have problems 12 40
Total 30 100
As given in Table 4.11, sedimentation is another great challenge in the irrigation scheme. As
the survey result indicated, high slope due to geographical condition of the area, there is great
runoff from the surrounding area during rainfall season. Some of the house-holds indicated
that the main canal is greatly affected by sediment which comes from the upstream direction
of the irrigation area by runoff. But, other house-holds confirmed as, structures from the weir
up to the tertiary canals are dysfunctional.
Table 4.11: Sedimentation and silting up problems of the weir and canals
Which structure is more affected by sedimentation Frequency Percent
The weir 2 6.7
The main canal 10 33.3
The secondary canals 8 26.7
The tertiary canals 4 13.3
All structures are silted 5 16.7
No response 1 3.3
Total 30 100
Adequacy of irrigation water
Adequacy in the Zuma irrigation scheme is also a problem. As given in Table 4.12, water
users believe in different views about the adequacy. According to views of respondants, by
unauthorized water users, seepage and herds of cattle drinking are factors for inefficient. As
some water users supposed that, according to the type of crop and duration of water delivery,
the supply condition was more/less sufficient; however, a few of the farmers thought , by
43
operating and maintaining the irrigation structures and by cleaning the canals, adequacy of
irrigation water was good.
Table 4.12: Adequecy of irrigation water in Zuma irrigation scheme
What seems like the adequacy of irrigation water Frequency Percent
The supply more/less sufficient 10 33.33
Good 7 23.33
Insufficient. 13 43.33
Total 30 100
Reliability of irrigation water supply
In the Zuma irrigation scheme, unreliable water supply in irrigation canals results in an
excess of water in upstream parts of the canal and deficits in downstream parts. This leaves
downstream areas of the farm lands with a shortage of water and eventually has pushed poor
rural dwellers. As given in Table 4.13, even though some house-holds believed as, good
reliable irrigation water supply in the scheme, most of them confirmed that, there is less
reliability of irrigation water supply. Whereas, other farmers supposed as, there is not reliable
water supply in the irrigation scheme.
Table 4.13: Reliability of irrigation water supply in Zuma irrigation scheme
What seems like reliability of irrigation water supply in
Zuma irrigation scheme
Frequency Percent
Reliable 7 23.3
Less reliable 18 60
Not reliable 5 16.7
Total 30 100
Fair share of irrigation water
Table 4.14 shows the survey result of fair share of irrigation water in the Zuma irrigation
scheme. As some respondents conducted that, the delivery of the fair share of water to users
throughout the system was fair. Whereas, most of the respondents believed that, the fair share
of water delivery system in the scheme was not enough good, because in addition to
unauthorized water users, the traditional water measuring system was not fair. Other farmers
44
also confirmed as, the share of water distribution system was not totally fair because the
geographical location of the command area affects the distribution system.
Table 4.14: Fair share of irrigation water in the scheme
What seems like the fair share of water distribution in the scheme Frequency Percent
Fair 10 33.3
Less fair 14 46.7
Not fair 6 20
Total 30 100
In general, the farmers responses for adequacy, reliability, and fair share of irrigation water at
U/S, Middle, and downstream location are given in Table 4.15.
Table 4.15: Farmers responses for adequacy, reliability and fair share of irrigation water
Canal/ village
locations
Adequacy Reliability Fair share
U/S Sufficient Reliability Fair
Middle Good Less reliable Less fair
D/S Insufficient Not reliable Not fair
As shown, in Table 4.15 above, uppsream water users have better water accessibility rather
than middle and downstream irrigation water users. On the other hand, at downstream, there
was a great irrigation water shortage. So, beneficieries were not effective by using irrigation
water to grow crops in the scheme.
45
Figure 4.2: Overview of problem faced area
In addition to the above, for the rapidly expanding the small-scale irrigation in the area, there
is some limitation in the information about how to activate the irrigation water and crop
management practices in the scheme to investigate the irrigation project which is lack of
Farmers' knowledge about technical constraints and inadequate understanding such as:-
i) Limited understanding of improved and diversified irrigation agronomic practices.
ii) Scarcity of water in the scheme from March to May months, especially immense water
scarcity at downstream users.
iii) Change in land use caused by poor returns to farming or encroachment by housing
(Ketema zuria) and a great variety of land holding distribution.
iv) Presence of water robberies in the upstream part, which affects the downstream people
to use it; especially, during the night.
Over tops by siltation at main and secondary canals
None irrigated land
by scarcity of water
46
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1. Conclusions
Technical and management performance evaluation is a suitable solution to make available
on the irrigation scheme present conditions based on technical problems and management
practices of the irrigation system. This may help stakeholders to have a better understanding
to improve the irrigation systems. Enhanced irrigation water management performance
shows a better sustainable livelihood of rural people. Irrigation is one of the options which
increases yield and output, facilitates diversification, decreases vulnerability and creates
employment opportunities.
In the irrigation scheme, most of the structures such as secondary canals, tertiary canals and
drop structures need maintenance. Water control structures are dysfunctional. The case of
this is, breakage of flow control and distribution structures, inadequate maintenance of
irrigation infrastructures, sedimentation of canals, improper operation of water delivery
system, water scarcity and design failure of water distribution structures. Relatively, the
conveyance efficiency of the main canal was fair. But, the secondary and tertiary canals were
very low. Based on this, the technical evaluation that the conveyance efficiency of the main
canal was 97.8 and 88.2 % at 840 and 2020m distances respectively. This efficiency was
good; while, the secondary canals' conveyance efficiency was 84 and 74.8 % at 390 and
820m distances respectively; and the tertiary canals' also was 64.5 % at 350m average
distance. This efficiency was really depressed when the distance is considered. The actual
measurement of the water delivery performance was 92 %; this indicates as, there is a
significant decrease in the canal permanence. As clearly observed in the field, the technical
performance indicators obtained by looking into a relative change of water level (8.6%) show
that the scheme management was not good. This shows that many of the water control and
drop structures are dysfunctional. As the result of the above, 57.6 % of the land in the
beginning planned is under irrigation at the same time as there was no change in the water
supply indicating that sustainability of the scheme is in wariness. Therefore, technical
performance of the irrigation scheme should be improved by participation of not only water
47
users but also other stakeholders. Canal structures of the irrigation scheme needs
maintenance. Due to this, way of the participation may by budgeting system.
In addition to the above, the significant communal problem is irrigation land distribution for
dwellers' in the scheme, thoughtless use of irrigation water at upstream that is troublesome
downstream users from irrigating their fields. Even though, the irrigation distribution system
was good before some years ago, nowadays by water scarcity case, irrigation water cannot be
simultaneously delivered into each rotation block, especially at downstream users. Thus,
irrigation distribution system should be improved by modification of irrigation schedule
technics for equal irrigation water sharing.
In general, as the survey result shows, nonexistence of farmers training about technical and
management performances of the irrigation scheme. Reason, great factors for expansion of
technical and management performance faults indicated farmers' low skills, knowledge and
education. The technique and skill gaps in the scheme caused the poor performance of
irrigation systems. For instance, breakage of structures, expansion of unfairness in irrigation
water distribution, inadequacy of irrigation water distribution and unreliability of irrigation
water supply in the scheme. Therefore, the system should be performed well to satisfy
beneficiaries; thoughtful system management helps to get the enhanced changes of the
scheme. Furthermore, improving water management and employment systems, adequate
maintenance of irrigation infrastructures, capacity building of users in different aspects which
can be supported for improving irrigation water utilization, soil and water conservation
practices are essential to provide diversification benefits.
48
5.2. Recommendations
The following recommendations; may be considered to improve the technical and
management performance of the scheme: -
i) For the success of irrigation facilities, all water users should give equal attention to
technical and management performances of the irrigation scheme. The maintenance,
rehabilitation and reform of the system constructed/operated by the users' association
shall be conducted by the person's participation upon their request.
ii) In order to avoid farmers’ low skills and knowledge gaps reforming and training is
important for ensuring better management of the irrigation scheme. So, the regional
government should be budgeted to give trainings and to mainten broken structures of the
scheme.
iii) The upstream traditional irrigation water users are causes for great water scarcity in this
irrigation scheme. Therefore, irrigation water users in this scheme should agree with
upstream users to use irrigation water by rotation. In addition to this, water distribution
system of upstream and downstream users within the scheme should use a rotational
system with full technical scheduling to avoid water shortage in the scheme.
iv) In order to increase participation of farmers in the irrigation scheme management, people
who live in the scheme should get clearly defined and well-enforced land and water rights
that helps to avoid problematic social relations within the scheme, this also increases
productivity.
v) In general, the irrigation scheme performance is very poor. As a result of this,
considering systematic performance management is essential to get the required targets of
the scheme.
49
6. REFERENCES
Aberra, Y., (2004). Problems with the solution: intervention into small‐scale irrigation for
drought proofing in the Mekele Plateau of northern Ethiopia. The Geographical
Journal, 170 (3), p. 226-237.
Abesha, D. and Zerihun, A., (2008). Irrigation and water for sustainable development.
Small-scale irrigation development intervantions under IFAD-suported projects.
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, P. 15.
Abraham, G. Y., Addis, A. G. and Mesfin, T. G., (2014). The Impact of Small – Scale
Irrigation on Income of Rural, Farm Households: Evidence from Ahferom Woreda in
Tigray, Ethiopia, International Journal of Business and Economics Research. 4(4),
2015, p. 217 - 228.
Agide, Z., Schultz, B. and Hayde, L.G., (2011). Irrigation performance in community-
managed schemes: Assessment uses comparative indicators and utility analysis.
In Proceedings of the ICID 21st International Congress on Irrigation and Drainage,
Tehran, Iran, 15-23 October, 2011, p. 17-17.
Agide, Z., (2015). Hydraulic and operational performance of irrigation schemes in view of
water saving and sustainability: sugar estates and community managed schemes In
Ethiopia. CRC Press/Balkema.
Agide, Z., Haileslassie, A., Sally, H., Erkossa, T., Schmitter, P., Langan, S. and Hoekstra, D.,
(2016). Analysis of water delivery performance of smallholder irrigation schemes in
Ethiopia: Diversity and lessons across schemes, typologies and reaches. LIVES Working
Paper 15. Nairobi, Kenya: International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI).
Amede, T., (2004). Effects of small scale irrigation on system productivity, natural resource
management and community innovation in Ethiopia: IFADs’ Interventions. IFAD
interim evaluation mission. Small Scale Irrigation Schemes – special country program
SCPII-Ethiopia, Working paper and contribution to the main Report, Rome, Italy.
Amede, T., (2014). Technical and institutional attributes constrain the performance of small-
scale irrigation in Ethiopia. Water resources and rural development, 6, p. 78-91.
Awulachew, S. B., Merrey, D. J., Kamara, A. B., Van Koppen, B., Penning de Varies, F.,
Boelee, E. and Makombe, G. (2005). Experiences and opportunities for promoting
50
small–scale/micro irrigation and rainwater harvesting for food security in Ethiopia.
Colombo, Sri Lanka: IWMI. V. p. 1-86. (Working paper 98).
Awulachew, S. B., Yilma, A. D., Loulseged, M., Loiskandl, W., Ayana, M. and Alamirew,
T., (2007). Water Resources and Irrigation Development in Ethiopia. Colombo, Sri
Lanka: International Water Management Institute. P.1-78. (Working Paper 123).
Awulachew, S.B., Merrey, D., Van Koopen, B. and Kamara, A., (2010). Roles, constraints
and opportunities of small scale irrigation and water harvesting in Ethiopian agricultural
development: Assessment of existing situation. In ILRI workshop, p. 14-16.
Awulachew, S. B. and Ayana, M., (2011). Performance of irrigation: an assessment at
different scales in Ethiopia, Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 47 (1), p. 57-70.
Ayana, M. and Awulachew, S.B., (2008). Comparison of irrigation performance based on
management and cropping types. Impact of Irrigation on Poverty and Environment in
Ethiopia, p. 1-472.
Ayele, W.Y., (2004). Preliminary impact assessment: case studies of three selected SSI
schemes. IFAD Interim evaluation, Special country program, Phase II in Ethiopia,
IFAD office of Evaluation, Rome, p. 56.
Bantero, B., Ayana, M. and Awulachew, S.B., (2008). Across system comparative
assessment of irrigation performance of community managed scheme in Southern
Ethiopia, [email protected], p. 1-59.
Belay, M. and Bewket, W., (2013). Traditional irrigation and water management practices in
highland Ethiopia: case study in Dangila Woreda. Journal of Irrigation and
Drainage, 62 (4), p. 435-448.
Benin, S., Pender, J. and Ehui, S., (2003). Policies for sustainable development in the
highlands of Amhara Region: Overview of research findings. Http: //www.eiar.gov.et/
Bos, M. G., Wolters, W., Drovandi, A. and Morabito J. A., (1991). The Viejo Retamo
secondary canal-performance evaluation (case study). Mendoza, Argentina. Journal of
Irrigation and Drainage Systems, 5 (1), p. 77-88.
Bos, M.G., (1997). Performance indicatType equation here.ors for irrigation and drainage,
Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Systems, 11 (2), Kluwer, Dordrecht, p. 119-137.
51
Clemmens, A.J. and Bos, M.G., (1990). Statistical methods for irrigation system water
delivery performance evaluation. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Systems,4.p345-
365
Dananto, M.U. and Alemu, E., (2014). Irrigation water management in small scale irrigation
schemes: The case of the Ethiopian rift valley lake basin. Journal of Environmental
Research, Engineering and Management, 1 (67), P. 5-15.
Dessalew, T., Ayalew, A., Desalegn, T., Mathewos, M. and Alemu, G., (2016). Performance
Evaluation of Bedene Alemtena Small Scale Irrigation Scheme in Hallaba Special
Woreda, Southern Ethiopia. Open Access Library Journal, 3 (2), p. 1-6.
Elizabeth, H., and Canford, C., (2016). Small-scale irrigation in Malawi: challenges and
opportunities. School of Global Studies. Research briefing January (2016),
cidt.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Malawi-brief. p. 1-4.
FAO (1989). Irrigation Manual: Planning, Development, Monitoring and Evaluation of
Irrigated Agriculture with Farmers Participation, 1 (1-6), p. 1-72.
FAO (1996) Irrigation scheme operation and maintenance. Irrigation scheme management.
International institute for land reclamation and improvement,training manual,10.P.1- 48.
FAO (2000). Socioeconomic Impact of Smallholder Irrigation Development in Zimbabwe:
Case Studies of Ten Irrigation Schemes.
FAO (2010). Topics: Irrigation. Water development and management unit, United Nations
Foodland Agricultural Organizations, Accessed on 17/7/ 2010,
fromhttp://www.fao.org/nr/water/topics_irrigation. Html.
FAO (2016). AQUSTAT website. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United
Nations. Website accessed on [yyy/mm/dd].
FDRE (Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia).(2010). Accelerating Ethiopian Agriculture
Development for Growth, Food Security, and Equity, https://agriknowledge.org,July
2010, p. 1-116.
FDRE (2014). Irrigation water users’ association (IWUA) proclamation of Ethiopia,
Proclamation No. 841/2014, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Fitsum, H., Kruse man, G., Abreha, Z., Linderhof, V.G.M., Mulugeta, A. and Girmay, G.,
(2007). Impact of small scale water harvesting on household poverty: Evidence from
Northern Ethiopia, Vrije Universiteit, Institute for Environmental Studies. (No. 07/01).
52
Gebregziabher, G., Namara, R.E. and Holden, S., (2009). Poverty reduction with irrigation
investment: An empirical case study from Tigray, Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural
water management, 96 (12), p. 1837-1843.
Gebremedhin, B., J. Pender, S.K. Ali and Mitiku, H., (2002). Policies for Sustainable Land
Management in the Highlands of Tigray, Northern Ethiopia, Working paper no. 54.
Gholamra, D. and Shabnam, M., (2014). Factors affecting on maintenance of the irrigation
network in Alborz dam view point of members of water user association. Journal of
Biodiversity and Environmental Sciences, 5 (1), p. 258 - 266.
Haile, B., (2016). Large and Medium Scale Commercial, Farms Annual Survey, The
Domino effect of World Bank Intervention, Challenges and innovative Approaches: The
experience of Ethiopia, Washington, DC, p. 1-22.
Haile, G.G. and Kasa, A.K., (2015). Irrigation in Ethiopia: A review. Academic Journal of
Agricultural Research, 3 (10), p. 264-269.
Haile, G.G., (2015). Irrigation in Ethiopia, a Review. Irrigation and Water Management
Research, Mekelle Agricultural Research Center, Tigray Agricultural Research Institute,
Mekelle, Ethiopia, 5 (15), p. 141-147.
Haileslassie, A., Agide, Z., Erkossa, T., Hoekstra, D., Schmitter, P. and Lange, S., (2016).
On-farm smallholder irrigation performance in Ethiopia: From water use efficiency to
equity and sustainability. LIVES Working Paper 19. Nairobi, Kenya: International
Livestock Research Institute (ILRI).
Hussain, I. and Hanjra, M.A., (2004). Irrigation and poverty alleviation: Review of the
empirical evidence, IWMI, Journal of Irrigation and Drainage, 53 (1), p. 1-15.
IWMI ( 2010). Irrigation potential in Ethiopia. Constraints and opportunities for enhancing
the system. International Water Management Institute.
Jadhav, P.B., Thokal. T., Mane, M.S., Bhange, H.N. and Kale, S.R., (1993). Conveyance
Efficiency Improvement through Canal Lining and Yield Increment by Adopting Drip
Irrigation in Command Area. International Journal of Innovative Research in Science,
Engineering and Technology, 3 (4), p. 120-129.
Kaur, N., Getnet, M., Shimelis, B., Tesfaye, Z., Syoum, G. and Atnafu, E., (2010). Adapting
to climate change in the water sector. Assessing the effectiveness of planned adaptation
interventions in reducing local level vulnerability. RIPPLE: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
53
Kedir, Y., Alamirew, T. and Dubale, P., (2007). Performance assessment of small-scale
irrigation schemes using comparative indicators: A case in awash river basin of
Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of Natural Resources.
Kloezen W. H. and Garces-Restrepo C., 1998. Assessing Irrigation Performance with
Comparative Indicators: -The Case of the Alto Rio Lerma Irrigation District, Mexico.
Research Report 22. International Water Management Institute. Colombo, Sri, Lanka.
Lakmali, W.A.S. Gunawardena, E.R.N. and Dayawansa, N.D.K., (2015). Comparative
Performance Assessment of Major Irrigation Systems in Upper Deduru Oya Basin.
Postgraduate Institute of Agriculture, University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka. Tropical
Agricultural Research, 26 (2), p. 343 -354.
Langan, S., Kebede, H., Tadesse, D. and Terefe, B. (Eds.). (2015). Proceedings of the
Launching Workshop of the Agricultural Water Management Platform, Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia, p. 15-16.
Legebo, T., Twarowski, J. and Taye, H., (2008). Irrigation development, water management,
crop development and marketing: An integrated approach to sustainable agricultural
development experiance from the agriculture sector support projct.
Lempériere, P., Hagos, F., Nicole, L., Haileslassie, A. and Langan, S., (2014). The
establishment and strengthening irrigation water users’ associations (IWUAs) in
Ethiopia: Manual for trainers. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: International Water Management
Institute, p. 76.
Lin, D., (2008). Performance Evaluation of Participatory Irrigation Management of the
Supply Chain Balanced Scorecard Approach: Case Study in the Red River Basin, Cau
Son-Cam Son Irrigation System, Northern Vietnam (Doctoral dissertation, University of
Copenhagen, Faculty of Life Sciences, Department of Agriculture Science).
Makombe, G., Kelemework, D. and Aredo, D., (2007). A comparative analysis of rain fed
and irrigated agricultural production in Ethiopia. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage
Systems, 21 (1), p. 35-44.
Makombe, G., Namara, R., Hagos, F., Awulachew, S.B., Ayana, M. and Bossio, D.,
(2011). A comparative analysis of the technical efficiency of rain-fed and smallholder
irrigation in Ethiopia (Vol. 143). IWMI.
54
Mateos, L., Lozano, D., Baghil, A.B.O., Diallo, O.A., Gómez-Macpherson, H., Comas, J. and
Connor, D., 2010. Irrigation performance before and after rehabilitation of a
representative, small irrigation scheme besides the Senegal River, Mauritania. Journal of
Agricultural water management, 97 (6), p. 901-909.
Mengistie, D. and Kidane, D., (2016). Assessment of the impact of small-scale irrigation of
household livelihood improvement in Gubalafto District, North Wollo, Ethiopia. Journal
of Agriculture, 6 (3), p.27.
Michael, A. M., (1997). Irrigation Theory and Practice. Evaluating Land for Irrigation
Commands. Reprinted Edition, Vikas Publishing House Pvt Ltd, New Delhi, India.
Mohtadullah, K., (1993). Performance of irrigation systems, 15th-Congress on Irrigation and
Drainage. ICID, 602, p. 74-83.
Molden, D.J., Sakthivadivel, R., Perry, C.J. and De Fraiture, C., (1998). Indicators for
comparing performance of irrigated agricultural systems (Vol. 20). IWMI.
Munir, A., Hanjra, M. and Ejaz, Q., (2010). Global water crisis and future food security
in an era of climate change. Food Policy, 35 (2010), p. 365-377.
Murray-Rust, D.H. and Vander Velde, E.J., (1994). Changes in hydraulic performance and
comparative costs of lining and desilting of secondary canals in Punjab, Pakistan.
Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Systems, 8 (3), p. 137-158.
Mushtaq, A. K., Khalid, M.and Gaylord, V. S., (1997). Current meter discharge
measurements for steady and unsteady flow conditions in irrigation channels.
Bahawalnagar field station, Pakistan National Program, International irrigation
management institute, report no. T- 7, p. 1- 64.
Ragab, R., (2015). Integrated management tool for water, crop, soil and N‐fertilizers: the
SALTMED model. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage, 64 (1), p. 1-12.
Salami, A., Kamara, A.B. and Brixiova, Z., (2010). Smallholder agriculture in East Africa:
Trends, constraints and opportunities. Tunis: African Development Bank.
Salilih, K., (2007). Irrigation Management and its Contribution in Reducing Households'
Socioeconomic Poverty: The Case of Two Small Irrigation Schemes in Blue Nile Basin
of Amhara National Regional State., MS. C (Doctoral dissertation, Thesis).
Schultz, E., (2012). Land and water development. Finding a balance between planning,
implementation, management and sustainability.
55
Siebert, S. and Döll, P., (2010). Quantifying blue and green virtual water contents in global
crop production as well as potential production losses without irrigation. Journal of
Hydrology, 384 (3), p. 198-217.
Steduto, P., Hsiao, T.C., Fereres, E. and Raes, D., (2012). Crop yield response to water.
Roma: FAO.
Teka, D., Gebreegziabher, T., Almaw, A., Tukue, G. and Getaneh, A., (2014). Assessment of
the Potential of Flood-Based Farming in Ethiopia. (Afar, Amhara, Benshagul Gumuz,
Oromia, The Southern Nations, Nationalists and People Region), p.1- 27.
Yalew, B., Hussein, K. Ermias, B. and Sorssa, N., (2011). The federal democratic republic of
Ethiopia Ministry of Agriculture, natural resource sector small scale irrigation capacity
building strategy for Ethiopia Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
56
7. APPENDICES
Appendix A: Observed discharges at main and secondary canals
Table 7.1: By current meter measurement, concrete observed discharge of the main canal in the three months by m³/s.
Canal
section
Average
depth (m)
Average
width (m)
Average
area (m²)
Timein
seconds
Revolutions R/s Mean
velocity
Discharge
(m³/s) Ec( )
UMC 0.45 0.71 0.32 46 14 0.30 0.29 0.093
Mid1 0.47 0.72 0.34 44 12 0.28 0.27 0.091 97.8
Mid2 0.50 0.84 0.42 48 10 0.21 0.21 0.087 93.5
LMC 0.50 0.84 0.42 45 9 0.20 0.19 0.082 88.2
USC 0.33 0.66 0.22 45 13 0.30 0.30 0.066
MSC 0.33 0.84 0.28 44 10 0.22 0.21 0.060 90.9
LSC 0.32 0.84 0.27 46 9 0.2 0.20 0.052 78.8
57
Table 7.2: By current meter measurement, concrete observed discharge of the three secondary canals in the three months by m³/s.
Canal sections Average
depth (m)
Distance in
(m)
Average area
(m²)
Time in
seconds
Revol
utions
R/S Mean
velocity
Discharge in
(m³/s)
Upper secondary canal 1 0.35 0.69 0.24 43 12 0.28 0.28 0.067
Middle secondary canal 1 0.34 0.83 0.28 42 8 0.19 0.19 0.053
Lower secondary canal 1 0.34 0.86 0.29 44 8 0.18 0.18 0.052
Upper secondary canal 2 0.34 0.67 0.23 45 13 0.29 0.29 0.067
Middle secondary canal 2 0.33 0.85 0.28 44 10 0.23 0.23 0.06
Lower secondary canal 2 0.33 0.85 0.28 46 9 0.19 0.19 0.053
Upper secondary canal 3 0.31 0.65 0.2 47 14 0.30 0.30 0.06
Middle secondary canal 3 0.32 0.84 0.27 46 12 0.26 0.26 0.07
Lower secondary Canal 3 0.29 0.84 0.24 48 10 0.21 0.21 0.05
58
Appendix B. Research Questioners for Sampled Farmers
Arba Minch University
School of graduate studies
Institute of Technology
Department of water resource and irrigation engineering
Dear respondents,
My name is Wudineh Feleke from Arba Minch University, Ethiopia. I have conducted a
study on the technical and management performance evaluation on the Zuma irrigation
scheme. The main objective of this questionnaire is to recognize the problems of irrigation
scheme, with regard to the water delivery system and maintenance issues, which is used for
the stockholders to follow appropriate management plans. This is therefore; you are kindly
requested to give an answer freely and openly as much as you can. All the questioner targets
in the head, middle and tail reaches of the scheme and collects at household level. The
questioner is fully for the academic research purpose, any information you give will be kept
confidential. Thus, your cooperation is very necessary to achieve the desired goal of the
study.
Section I
Questioners for individual farmers
1. General
1.1. Research site: region--------------Zone-----------District---------------
PA--------------village---------------
Interviewer full name---------------Date of interview------------
Time of interview--------------
1.2. Household head:
1. Male 2. Female 3. Total
1.3. Age of interviewers
1. 18-20 2. 21- 40 3. 41- 65 4. > 65
1.4. Marital status:
1. Married 2. Single 3. Divorced 4. Other
1.5. Ethnic background in the area
1. Agew 2. Amhara 3. Other
59
1.6. Educational status of the beneficiaries
1. Reading and writing2. First cycle
3. Second cycle 4. Illiterate
2. Relevance of the project
2.1. What is the main purpose of using irrigation?
1. To generate cash income
2. To produce food for the household
3. Produce livestock feed
4. Other
2.2. Is your life changed after you start to use this irrigation scheme?
1. Yes 2. No 3. Same as before
2.3. If you say yes, what is/ are the indicators?
1. Income increase 2. Send children to school
3. New house building 4. Other
2.4. What is the source of water for your scheme?
1. River 2. Spring 3. Other
2.5. Are there upstream irrigation water users?
1. Yes 2. No
2.6. Are there downstream irrigation water users?
1. Yes 2. No
2.7. If water is promised on a certain date with a certain flow for a certain
Duration, does it arrive that way?
1. Yes 2. No
2.9. Are the canals functional when the farmers need water?
1. Yes 2.No
3. Water distribution system
3.1. Have you a specific time for delivering water to each village to address to form blocks?
1. Yes 2. No
3.2. How much time the delivered water take to reach to your command area?
1. 1 2. 2hrs 3. 3hrs 4. >3hrs
60
3.3. Is water equally available as full irrigation season in the scheme?
1. Yes 2. No
3.4. If you say No, what are the factors for inadequacy of water in the scheme?
1. Breakage of canals 2. Unauthorized people
3. Water scarcity by upstream users 4. Don’t
3.5. Is the delivered water addresses in all farm blocks?
1. Yes No
3.6. Is water delivery time enough to irrigate crops, according to their needs?
1. Yes 2. No
3.7. Does the water delivery begin at the best date for agronomic purposes?
1. Yes 2. No
3.8. Is there an equitable distribution of irrigation water among all beneficiaries, have you
started?
1. Yes 2. No
3.9. What seems like the adequacy of water distribution in the scheme?
1. Good 2. Not good 3. Bad
3.10. What seems like the reliability of water distribution in the scheme?
1. Good 2. Not good 3. Bad
3.11. How fair is the water distribution among multiple users of the delivery system?
1. Fair 2. Unfair
3.12. How do you sense about the water distribution in general?
1. Good 2. Not good 3. Bad
4. Physical structures and technical aspects
4.1. What seems like physical structures and technical aspects in the irrigation scheme?
1. Good 2. Not good
4.2. Do you see any seepage on the head work, canals and canal structures?
1. Yes 2. No
4.3. Was there any maintenance?
1. Yes 2. No
4.4. What is the community participation by keeping physical structures?
1. Good 2. Not good
61
4.5. Which system is vulnerable to damage?
1. Head work 2. Main canal 3. Secondary canals
4. Tertiary canals 5. All structures
4.6. Did you experience lack of water due to structure failure?
1. Yes 2. No
4.7. Have you ever taken training on the operation and maintenance of the structures?
1. Yes 2. No
4.8. How do you feel the operation and maintenance work?
1. Satisfied 2. Not satisfied
5. Community participation
5.1. What are the performance management systems seems like according to
1. Water distribution
2. Community participation in meeting
3. Community participation in financial system
4. Community participation in maintenance
5.2. Do you think the project is important to the community?
1. Yes 2. No
5.3. Do you have rain fed agriculture in addition to irrigation project?
1. Yes 2. No
5.4. If you say yes, how much hectares?
1. <2 2. >2
5.5. How do you manage your irrigation system?
1. Correct management 2. Incorrect management
5.6. Do you participate in the maintenance of irrigation canals?
1. Yes 2. No
5.7. If you say yes, in what way you participate?
1. by rule without payment
2. by payment in the form of money
3. by payment in the form of food aid
5.8. Explain the type of contribution you made for the project
1. Money 2. Labor 3. Material 4. Other
62
6. Capacity building problems
6.1. Were capacity building problems in the scheme?
1. Yes 2. No
6.2. What type methods were taken to avoid the problems?
1. Canal cleaning 2. Drainage system 3. Other
6.3. Was there any training given to the beneficiary community before hand over?
1. Yes 2. No
6.4. Is training given after hand over?
1. Yes 2. No
6.5. If so, what kind of training?
1. Irrigation agronomy
2. On farm water management
3. Crop diversification
6.6. Who gives the training?
1. Kebele employers 2. Woreda
3. Region 4. Federal
6.9. If the training was taken, for how many days was given by the trainer?
1. < 7 days 2. > 7 days
6.10. Were the community self-readiness to take the training?
1. Yes 2. No
6.11. Do the scheme has been constructed with the permission and full participation of the
Beneficiaries?
1. Yes 2. No
6.12. Do you irrigate all of your irrigable land?
1. Yes 2. No
6.13. If not, why?
1. Shortage of water
2. Low productivity
3. Poor maintenance
6.14. How many times you produce annually by using irrigation?
1. 1 2. 2 3. > 2
63
6.15. What are the major agricultural crops you produce using irrigation?
1. Potato 2. Maize 3. Wheat 4. Other
6.16. Type of crops which are produced in the Zuma irrigation scheme
1. Horticultural crops 2. Cereal crops 3. Both
6.17. What seems like the crop intensity along the main and secondary canals reach?
1. Decreasing from upstream to downstream 2. Higher at upstream
3. Lower at downstream 4. Equally at all villages
6.18. What seems like an annual household income in the scheme?
1. Same as before 2. Higher at upstream
3. Decrease from upstream to downstream 4. Lower at down stream
6.19. What seems like frequency of time missing to get water in five villages?
1. 5-7 days 2. 7-10 3. 8-11 days
4. 10-14 days 5. 12- 16
6.20. What seems like frequency of time to get water in five villages?
1. Same in all villages 2. Irrigation time decrease in down
6.21. What seems like irrigation methods in the scheme?
1. Furrow irrigation 2. Flood irrigation 3. Both
6.22. Generally, how do you feel the irrigation service?
1. Satisfied 2. Not satisfied