SMALL SCALE IRRIGATION INNOVATION LAB ON SMALL SCALE IRRIGATION Field level pilot interventions in small-scale irrigation and agricultural water management To insert your implementing partner institutional logo, go to View >> Slide Master, and replace the gray box with your logo, placing it to the right of the USAID logo at the bottom. No text or partner logos can be placed within the upper blue banner. Petra Schmitter Stakeholder workshop 14th June 2016 (Photo credit left Dale Pulker)

Main activities GW/SW use: manual/& motorized water lifting devices (pulley, rope and washer, petrol & solar pump) Gender: female & male irrigators Irrigation management (Soil moisture based, CWR (ET), WFD, Drip & conservation agriculture - NCAT) Crops (vegetables, fruit trees & fodder) Improving groundwater recharge Credit constraints and opportunities (survey & interviews, revolving fund)

Sites of activities

National Partners Research - Universities: Bahir Dar Univerisity (Robit & Dangista) (Prof. Seifu Tilahun) Arba Minch University (Bochesa & Upper Gana) (Prof. Mekonen Ayana) 2 PhD students 7 Msc. students 2015 graduated (3 Economics – 4 Engineering) 9 Msc. Students 2016 (2 Economics – 7 Engineering) Site implementation: Woreda Agricultural Office On site Development Agents Micro – finance institutions and Multi-purpose cooperatives Send-A-Cow and iDE iDE and JICA certified rope and washer manufacturers

IWMI - ILSSI Ethiopia Jennie Barron: Project Leader Nicole Lefore: Project Manager Amare Haileslassie: Interim Office Head & Agronomist Petra Schmitter: Ag. Water Specialist Gebrehaweria Gebregziabher: Economist Fitsum Hagos: Economist Prossie Nakawuka: Irrigation Engineer James Ray: Research assistant & data managment Desalegn Tadesse: Communication officer Desalegn Tadesse: Communication officer

Groundwater recharge ARF is 1400mm Dry season stream flows are insufficient Groundwater use is increasing Recharge is 20 to 40% of rainfall: 280 – 560 mm To insert your implementing partner institutional logo, go to View >> Slide Master, and replace the gray box with your logo, placing it to the right of the USAID logo at the bottom. No text or partner logos can be placed within the upper blue banner. (A. Yimer, 2016)

Manual Water lifting Water lifting, well depth and gender influence discharge: Male pulley irrigators obtain higher discharges than women as depth increases whilst women using R&W obtain higher discharges for R&W compared to pulley (Source data: M. Tesema, T. Ewnetie, H. Mulugeta and D. Tegegne, 2015 and M. Gedfew, 2016)

water applied Length Growing period 119 109 104 90 65 20 % GW recharge <Irrigation depth applied >< 40 % GW recharge (except for supplementary irrigation of Desho and O&V) Variation in irrigation water applied, influenced rather by manual water lifting than water management and gender (Source data: M. Tesema, T. Ewnetie, H. Mulugeta and D. Tegegne, 2015)

Crop productivity Fresh yield variability influenced by water lifting, water management & gender Large variability in irrigation applied without significant increases in yield Oats & Vetch and Desho promising irrigated crops (annual vs. perennial) (Source data: M. Tesema, T. Ewnetie, H. Mulugeta and D. Tegegne, 2015)

Economic water productivity All products assumed to be sold fresh on the market: value of irrigated fodder low compared to vegetables (1.75 birr/kg (Napier and Desho), 2 birr/kg OV vs. 6- 10 birr/kg for vegetables) (Full cost benefit analysis including input – labor etc. ongoing) Tomato seems to give the highest return for the water abstracted assuming water availaiblity is not a constraint (Source data: M. Tesema, T. Ewnetie, H. Mulugeta and D. Tegegne, 2015; A. Abera and M. Blummel 2016)

Technical efficiency of manual water lifting technologies Technical efficiency evaluated based on production (econ. analysis) decreases as irrigation water applied increases R&W efficiency vs. Pulley: strongly site specific Women seem equally efficient with onion and napier but less for tomato (T. Assefa, 2015)

Farmers’ choice of Technology preference by site % of sample farmers who prefer Motor pump R&W Pulley Adami-Tulu 70 28 2 Lemo 16 41 43 Robit 55 Dangeshita 7 65 Possible reasons: availability of water sources (Robit & A-T have access to river and lake) which if suitable for pumping) ; agro-ecological difference; access market and access to credit, etc. Preliminary results of cost-benefit analysis show that the economic feasibility of irrigation technologies vary by crop, gender and site. These preliminary results will be reanalyzed using HH survey data collected in 2016 (M. Dessie, 2015)

CONSTRAINTS IDENTIFIED Limited GW recharge & availability Low market price for crops; Access to high quality seed/ fertilizer vs. low quality price Lack of experience in micro-credit; Free hand-outs of technologies To insert your implementing partner institutional logo, go to View >> Slide Master, and replace the gray box with your logo, placing it to the right of the USAID logo at the bottom. No text or partner logos can be placed within the upper blue banner. Manual water lifting technologies & Gender (labor constraints) Limited area available for irrigation vs. water availability

CONCLUSIONS Constraints for male and female irrigators in relation to water lifting and water management is different Variability between farmers in the same site, same technology and same water management is high => continuation needed to confirm preliminary findings Need for site specific irrigation recommendations: water - labor and land availability whilst making a good economic decision on what to grow To insert your implementing partner institutional logo, go to View >> Slide Master, and replace the gray box with your logo, placing it to the right of the USAID logo at the bottom. No text or partner logos can be placed within the upper blue banner.

To insert your implementing partner institutional logo, go to View >> Slide Master, and replace the gray box with your logo, placing it to the right of the USAID logo at the bottom. No text or partner logos can be placed within the upper blue banner.

U.S. Government Partners Please include this slide in your presentation in the appropriate location. Notes: Feed the Future connects U.S. Government efforts targeted at global hunger and food security. Led by USAID, Feed the Future draws on the resources and expertise of the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, State and Treasury; the Millennium Challenge Corporation; the United States African Development Foundation; the Peace Corps; the Overseas Private Investment Corporation; the Office of the United States Trade Representative; and the U.S. Geological Survey.