1. 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)

2. 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)

3. Sites of activities

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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)

7. 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)

8. 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)

9. 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)

10. 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 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)

11. 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)

12. 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)

13. 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

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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.