1 · web viewrest.2000, study on traditional irrigation system in tigray. concert engineering,...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Community Based Irrigation Management in the Tekeze Basin: Performance evaluation of small scale Irrigation Schemes
A Case Study on My Nigus Micro Dam in Tigray, Northern Ethiopia.
Dr. Mintesinot Behailu
Dr. Nata Tadesse
Abiot Legesse
Dagmawi Teklu
A collaborative project between Mekelle University, ILRI, and EARO
Funded through the IWMI - Comprehensive Assessment of water for Agriculture programme
February 2004
SUMMARY
Continuously monitoring the Performance of a given irrigation system enables to know whether the targets and objectives are being met or not. It also provides system mangers, farmers, policy makers a better understanding of how a system operates. It helps to identify alternatives that may be both effective and feasible in improving system performance to achieve maximum efficiency. The important resources in irrigated agriculture, land and water, are the one that should be considered and sustained in their productivity in order to meet the target.
IWMI comparative indicators were used as a base for the performance evaluation. These indicators were tested in May Nigus irrigation scheme, which is one of the three schemes, planned to be studied in the basin. The necessary data are collected from the wereda’s agricultural office and from the Tigray bureau of water resource development. Though the data collection procedure are not too complicated, as there is no trend of collecting and recording data’s in some of the irrigation schemes it was not possible to get full data to calculate the indicators. Data interpretation is also a problem as there is no standard guideline to compare the results obtained.
In spite of the above limitations, the comparative indicators are the best tools to compare seasonal performance of irrigation systems.
Based on the nine comparative indicators performance of the irrigation scheme the period between 1997/98 and 2001/02 indicate that in the season in which farmers are cultivating more of high value crop (1997/98) show good performance in terms of production per unit of land and water respectively, on the other hand the performance of the consecutive season doesn’t show in increasing or decreasing trend because of poor cropping pattern adopted and low input utilization. The water use performance indicators show inefficient water utilization suggesting more work has to be done in order to improve the water utilization efficiency.
The water use performance indicators RWS & RIS result indicate adequate supply as compared to demand, suggesting less efficient water utilization. Financial performance indicator GRI varied between 18.25 and 42.1 %, whereas the financial self-sufficiency value not calculated, as farmers are not capable to pay water fees, which is a major obstacle to the sustainability of the scheme.
Creating better market access to the product crops especially for the perishable and high value crop might make the farmers to cultivate more of these crop,
LIST OF TABLES page
Table 1: Area under irrigation at different years…………………………………..6
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1 May Nigus catchment………………………………………………… 4
Figure 2 Evapotranspiration rate, mean monthly rainfall and average temperature in the study site…………………………………………………………………………5
Figure 3 Production per unit cropped area………………………………………9
Figure 4 Production per unit command area…………………………………… 9
Figure 5 Production per unit water consumed………………………………….10
Figure 6 Production per unit irrigation supply………………………………….10
Figure 7 Water delivery capacity……………………………………………….11
Figure 8 Relative water supply…………………………………………………11
Figure 9 Relative irrigation supply……………………………………………12
Figure 10 Gross return on investment………………………………………… 13
LIST OF APPENDINCIES
Page
Appendix 1 calculated production rate for the season…………………………… 18
Appendix 2 land allocated for catch crop and maize ……………………………. 19
Appendix 3crop water calculated for the irrigated crop ………………………… 19
Appendix 4 weighted crop water requirement ……………………………………19
Appendix 5 Evapotranspiration, average temperature and
average rainfall data……………………………………………………………….19
Appendix 6 data collection format used ………………………………………… 20
Appendix 7 salient feature of the dam ………………………………………….. 24
ABBREVIATIONS
BoANR= Bureau of agriculture and natural resources
IWMI= International water management institute
RIS = Relative irrigation supply
RWS= Relative water supply
WDC= Water delivery capacity
FAO= Food and Agricultural Organization
DA’s = Development Agent
SARET: sustainable agriculture and environmental rehabilitation Tigray
MOWR: Ministry of Water Resource
REST: Relief Society of Tigray
COSAERT: Commission for Sustainable Agriculture and Environmental Rehabilitation in Tigray
Asl: above sea level
BoANR: Bureau of Agriculture and Natural Resource
UNDP: United Nation Development Program
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- i
List of tables---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ii
List of figures ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ii
List of appendences ------------------------------------------------------------------- iii
Abbreviations--------------------------------------------------------------------------- iv
Table of contents------------------------------------------------------------------------ v
1. Introduction-------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
1.1Background-------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
1.2Problem statement------------------------------------------------------------ 3
1.3Objective ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 3
1.4Location and physiography------------------------------------------------- 4
1.5Climate------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5
1.6Catchment and command areas------------------------------------------- 6
1.7Production constraints------------------------------------------------------- 7
2 Methodology ------------------------------------------------------------------ 8
2.1Data collection----------------------------------------------------------------- 8
2.2Data analysis------------------------------------------------------------------ 8
3 Result and discussion--------------------------------------------------------- 9
3.1 Agricultural performance--------------------------------------------------- 9
3.1.1Production per unit cropped area and per unit command-------- 9
3.1.2Production per unit water consumed----------------------------------10
3.1.3Production per unit irrigation supply---------------------------------10
3.2Water Use Performance-------------------------------------------------------11
3.2.1 Water Delivery Capacity---------------------------------------------------11
3.2.2 Relative Water Supply------------------------------------------------------12
3.2.3 Relative Irrigation Supply------------------------------------------------- 13
3.3 Financial Performances------------------------------------------------------ 13
3.3.1 Gross Return On Investment--------------------------------------------- 13
3.3.2 Financial Self-Sufficiency-------------------------------------------------- 14
4 Conclusion and Recommendation----------------------------------------- 15
2.4Conclusion----------------------------------------------------------------------- 15
2.5Recommendations------------------------------------------------------------ 16
References------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17
Annexes ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 18
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
To meet the demand of the ever-increasing population in Ethiopia (presently ~ 70 million), in the country water development for agriculture is a priority, but poorly designed and planned irrigation undermines efforts to improve livelihoods and exposes people and environment to risks. Recent estimates indicate that the total irrigable area in Ethiopia is 197,225 ha around 3 % of the irrigation potential (MOWR). Moreover, much of the increase in irrigated area had come as a result of expansion of small-scale irrigation. Yet, the existing irrigation development in Ethiopia, as compared to the resource the country has, is negligible.
The importance of irrigation in the Tekeze basin has been recognized many generations back according to members of the indigenous irrigation schemes. Field observations made in most part of the basin show that almost all of the available perennial surface water resource is used for irrigation, except those found in deep gorges, as of many decade back. In Tigray alone, the total area irrigated by 2002 was 4773 ha or 0.44% of the total arable land (BOANR, 2003). The fluctuation in size of the irrigable area from one year to the other could be due to the drying of the water source following drought or shortage of rainfall.
To achieve sustainable production from irrigated agriculture it is obvious that the utilization of the limited resources in irrigated agriculture, water and land, must be improved. The question- how is irrigated agriculture performing with limited water and land resources? Has not been satisfactorily answered. This is because that we are not able to compare irrigated land and water use to learn how irrigation systems are performing relative to each other and what the appropriate targets achievement are (Molden et al., 1998).
With many variables that influence performance of irrigated agriculture, including infrastructure design, management, climatic conditions, socio-economic settings, the task of comparing performance of systems is formidable. However, if we focus on the communalities of irrigated agriculture water, land, finance and crop production it should be possible to see, in gross sense, how irrigated agriculture is performing with various settings (Molden et al., 1998).
Now, IWMI has prepared different “comparative” indicators that are helpful for comparing irrigated agriculture between countries and regions, between different infrastructures and management types, and between different environments and for assessment over time of the trend in performance of specific project. The indicators have the following features:
The indicators are based on relative comparison of absolute values, rather than being referenced to standards or target.
The indicators relate the phenomena that are common to irrigation and irrigated agricultural systems.
The set of indicators is small, yet reveals sufficient information about the out put of the system.
Data collection procedures are not too complicated or expensive.
The indicators related to output and are bulk measures of irrigation and irrigated agricultural system, and thus provide limited information about internal processes.
These set of indicators are designed to show gross relationship and trends and should be useful in indicating where more detailed study should take place, for example where a project has done extremely well, or Where dramatic changes take place.
1.2 Problem Statement
The major problem related with irrigation development is their negative impact on the environment and human health. Irrigation projects have the potential to degrade the land, the soil and waste the valuable resource- water if they are mismanaged. In recognition of both the benefit and hazards assessment and evaluation of irrigation schemes performance has now become a paramount importance not only to point out where the problem lies but also helps to identify alternatives that may be both effective and feasible in improving system performance.
Besides the poor performance of irrigation projects in the country, evaluation of irrigation projects is not common: lack of knowledge and tools used to assess the performance of projects adds to the problem. But now, IWMI has developed a set of comparative indicators that are used to assess hydrological, agronomic and financial performance of irrigation system. Which are helpful to determine the conditions of the system and proper functioning of its elements.
And it was attempted to apply this set of comparative indicators in the Tekeze river basin, for the purpose of testing their applicability three dams were selected namely Lilaywukiro, Korrier and May Nigus.
And this research presents the historical performance of one of the schemes that was planned to be studied in the basin (May Nigus micro dam). In the paper an attempt is also made to see the causes and effects of the variation in the period of analysis.
1.3 objectives
The study has the following main objectives
1. To test the comparative performance indicators in the study area
2. To assess the historical performance of the scheme with respect to land and water utilization.
3. To recommend appropriate strategies to enhance the performance of the scheme
1.4 Location and physiography
The study area is found in the central zone of Tigray region, Laelay Maichew Wereda, Dura tabia, and Dura kushet. It lies between latitude of 14°07'00" and 14°09'20"N and 38°38'00" and 38°49'09"E longitude about 7km, west of Axum town. The elevation of the area ranges from 1650 to 2500m ASL.
The topography of the area is not uniform. The catchment area of the study consists mountainous terrain and gentle slope, and considerably plain and hilly slopes. The mountainous portion is covered with scattered to good cover of bushes, while the gentle and hilly slope areas are mainly used for agricultural production. The command area is a flat land with a slope varying between 1 – 3%. Therefore, it is suitable for mechanization and farm developments. There are no gullies observed within this area except the main gully cut passing through it.
Fig1. May Nigus catchment (source Dewir 2003, Reservoirs In Tigray MSc thesis)
1.5 Climate
The area has a monomodal rainfall pattern that the main rainy season is during summer from June to August. The remaining months are dry. It has the mean annual rainfall of 662.7mm. It is found in the weynadega agro ecological zone. The meteorological data for temperature and rainfall was collected from different sources. The temperature data was collected from Seleklaka and the rainfall data from Axum.
0
50
100
150
200
250
Months
Amount
Eto(mm)
93.3
109.2
123.3
134.4
136.2
125.4
101.1
90.3
115.5
115.5
102.9
87
Avg.temp(o c)
13.02
13.95
15.45
16.75
17.35
17.3
15.55
15.15
15.05
14.85
13.5
12.4
Rain fall(mm)
1.43
4.19
9.12
21.4
21.38
22.26
214.4
207.9
54.91
3.05
7.53
2.87
Jan
Feb.
Mar
April
May
June
July
Augu
st
Sep
Octob
er
Nove
mber
Dece
mber
Fig 2 Evapotranspiration rate, mean monthly rainfall and average temperature in the study site.
1.6 Catchment and command areas
The catchment covers a total area of 13.05km2. The dominant soil type in this area is light clay soil. The area starting from the lower right end of the catchment and up to the central periphery of it is dominated by clay loam, with a dominant soil depth of < 25cm and reddish dominant soil color. This has a scattered to good vegetation cover of bushes and to some extent agricultural lands.
The area starting from the upper central part of the catchment area including the upper right end has dominantly light clay soil with dominant soil depth of >150cm and < 25cm and having brown soil color. This part of the area is mainly put under agricultural practices and to some extent with dense grass cover.
The area which is found at the lower and upper central part of the catchment which continues up to the upper central end of the catchment has dominantly silt loam soil, with a soil depth of > 150cm and with a brown dominant soil color. This portion of the catchment is mainly put under agricultural practices and considerably under grazing land.
The area which is found starting from the left side of the reservoir, which continues following up the left periphery of the catchment to some distance following up the right side of the second main gully, and up to the upper left end of the catchment has dominantly light clay soil with a dominant soil depth of >150cm and < 25cm having a brown dominant soil color. This portion of the catchment is mainly put under agricultural practices and considerably covered with scattered bush land and degraded grazing land.
The command area of irrigation scheme is highly suitable with rational water management and agronomic practices. Since the ground water table is observed at about 1m depth where the land is frequently irrigated and rarely at about 2m depth on other farms, there may be water logging problem if the existing water mangement problem haven’t shown improvement. The dam has a water storage capacity of 2.38 million m3 and can irrigate 123.9ha. of land. But the area that can be irrigated depends on the amount of water harvested during summer season. The areas that were brought under irrigation from 1997 to 2002 are shown in the following table.
Table 1 Area under irrigation at different years
Year
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
Area under irrigation (%)
71.1
73.6
81.5
59.4
88.2
Source: BOANR of the Wereda
1.7 production constraints
The area is suffering from shortage of rainfall, which leads to water deficit for crop production. Even though, this constraint was minimized with construction of dam to collect summer rainfall, still the shortage of rainfall in some years leads to small storage of water in the dam.
Farmers have lack of knowledge in using inputs such as fertilizers, seeds; chemicals, water and using natural manure. .
Weed infestation and crop diseases are one of the production constraints that decrease crop yield. Market problem and poor cropping pattern are also major problems in the study area.
2. Methodology
2.1 Data collection
For the study all the necessary data were collected from the wereda’s agricultural office and from the Tigray region water resource development bureau. Moreover, some discussions also made with farmers and the DA’s of the area to cross check the secondary data obtained. Data collected includes: production, price of crops, area irrigated, cropping pattern, amount of water harvested and climatic data.
2.2 Data analysis
The collected data were first summarized for analysis and for the performance analysis nine of the IWMI’s comparative indicators were used. To calculate the results the five years average price of commonly grown irrigated crops and each year’s yield obtained for total production calculation. The prices are averaged out to block the influence of small variation in the price of crops every year.
The potential evapotraspiration of the area is calculated using the penman-montine method in the CROPWAT model (FAO, 1992). The net crop water requirements and the net irrigation requirements are also calculated using the CROPWAT model. The effective rainfall is also calculated using the CROPWAT model. The results obtained on nine of the indicators are compared to each other over the five seasons. The results are presented in the form of tables and graphs.
The performance indicators used are:
Out put per cropped area (birr/ha) = production
Irrigated crop area
Out put per unit command (birr/ha = production
Command area
Out put per unit irrigation supply (birr/m3) = production
Diverted irrigation supply
Out put per unit water consumed (birr/m3) = production
Volume of water consumed by ET
Relative water supply (ratio) = total water supply
Crop demand
Relative irrigation supply (ratio) = irrigation supply
Irrigation demand
Water delivery capacity (ratio) = canal capacity at the system head
Peak consumptive demand
Gross return on investment (%) = production
Cost of infrastructure
Financial self-sufficiency (%) = revenue from irrigation
Total O & M expenditure
3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1 Agricultural performance
3.1.1 Out put per unit-cropped area and per unit of command
Figure 4 and 5 shows output per unit-cropped area and per unit command, obtained between the periods 1997/98-2001/02. The result shows that the production rate obtained varied between 2000birr/ha and 41291.68 birr/ha, per unit of cropped area and 1274.7 birr/ha to 29360.76 birr/ha per unit of command. There were large variation between the first season and the rest of the seasons. The main reason for the variation is, in the year 1997/98 the farmers produced more of high value crops (Tomato, Onion and Papers), which accounts 40% of the irrigated land, as compared to 14% by maize, which has a low agricultural value as compared to other crops to be grown in the study area. The farmers prefer to cultivate maize because of poor market access for the perishable and high value crop and it can be consumed directly and the stalk can be source of feed and fuel. Also as compared to other high value crop it requires less labor and not perishable.
production per unit cropped area
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
seasons
production
(birr/ha.)
Figure 4. Production per Unit Cropped Area
production per unit command
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
seasons
production
(birr/ha.)
Figure 5. Production Per Unit Command
3.1.2 Out put per unit water consumed
This indicator shows the output obtained out of a unit of water volume consumed or evapotranspired by the crop. When we compare the five seasons result obtained it varied from 4.41birr/m3 to 8.89 birr/m3. Except in the first season the result for the next consecutive seasons were almost the same, it doesn’t show an increasing or decreasing trend. The reason can be best described by poor cropping pattern and low crop yield as compared to the first season.
production per unit water consumed
0
2
4
6
8
10
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
seasons
production
(birr/m3)
Figure 6. Production per Unit Water Consumed
3.1.3 Production per unit water supply/harvested
The value of out put, per unit of water supply/harvested varied between 0.77 birr/m3 and 1.53 birr/m3. As shown in the figure there is large variation between the seasons. The reason could be because of variation in the area irrigated in the different seasons and crop selection; the seasons with highest value are those, which grow more of vegetables and more area under irrigation.
Production per unit irrigation supply
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
Seasons
Production (birr/m3)
Figure 7. Production Per Unit Irrigation Supply
3.2 Water use performance
3.2.1 Water delivery capacity (WDC)
The result shows that the dam’s infrastructure is capable of delivering the necessary peak water demand. In three of the seasons, the WDC ratio is below one (figure 4.1) this seams to indicate that the canals may not meet the peak demands that may occur in some particular time. But in the area since the irrigation program does not follow the normal pattern such kind of problem does not occur.
water delivery capacity
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
seasons
water delivery ratio
Figure 8. Water Delivery Ratio
3.2.2 Relative water supply (RWS)
This indicator shows weather demand supply situation is mate. From the result we observe that the ratio varied between 3.13 and 5.96. This gives an indication that for the chosen cropping pattern in the different years supply is enough to meet demand. Of course, water losses have to be accounted to calculate the net supply obtained, when this was done the result might be lower than this.
Relative water supply
0
2
4
6
8
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
Seasons
RWS (ratio)
Figure 9 Relative Water Supply
3.2.3 Relative irrigation supply (RIS)
The RIS is an indicator that shows the irrigation efficiency of the scheme as a whole. Because it compares the irrigation water supplied with the irrigation water needed. The value varied between 3.33 and 6.68, which gives an indication of irrigation efficiency between 15 to 30 %. This supports the secondary data obtained form BoANR.This shows that much of the water is lost through conveyance and applications. For storage schemes as of Mainigus, higher values indicate low irrigation efficiency. For such type of schemes, a value closer to one is preferable, which provides an indication that farmers are practicing deficit irrigations with small water supply to maximize returns on water.
Relative irrigation supply
0
2
4
6
8
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
Seasons
RIS (ratio)
Figure 10 Relative Irrigation Supply
3.3 Financial performance
3.3.1 Gross return on investment
The construction cost of the irrigation scheme infrastructure and headwork was about 69740 birr/ha. And using the production per unit command for all the seasons the gross return on investment obtained are shown below (figure 4.8). The result varied between 18.25% and 42.1%. During calculation the gross value of production was used as data on production cost is difficult to obtain in most of the schemes in Tigray.
Gross Return on Investemet
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
45.0%
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
seasons
GRI(%)
GRI
Figure 11 Gross Return On Investment
3.3.2 Financial self-sufficiency
This indicator shows the ability of the users to manage the scheme with out the help of the government. The financial self-sufficiency result indicates how much of the revenue generated was used for operation and maintenance In the case of Minigus and other schemes in the region, as no water fees are collected it is difficult to speak on the financial self sufficiency of the scheme. However, smaller maintenance tasks such as canal cleaning are done by the farmer themselves. Up to now no large maintenance tasks happened and if such problems arise, the farmers are not in a position to cost such activities and the sustainability of the scheme will be in question.
4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
4.1 Conclusion
As there is no trend of recording data in the irrigation schemes, it was observed that obtaining historical data pose a problem. Because of this reason some assumptions are made while calculating the indicators.
The diversified cropping pattern in the first season resulted in relatively higher value of crop production per unit of cultivated land and per unit of command. The lower value in the subsequent years was influenced mainly by crop choice, water scarcity and management problem.
Total Production of all crops was not aggregated in to international tradable single crop, for this reason agricultural performance indicator are not compared with other countries worldwide.
Out put per unit of water consumed and out put per unit of supply is highest in the first season (1997/98), the rest of the seasons show almost the same value. These concepts are relatively new and made the interpretation difficult.
The water use performance RWS shows that there is an adequate supply compared to demand for the cropping pattern in the seasons. RIS value shows that the overall irrigation efficiency of the scheme is between 15 to 30 %, which supports the secondary data obtained. With regard to WDC the result indicates a value near to one, which indicates the capacity of the main canal to meet peak crop demand.
The values of gross return on investment show a variation between 18.25 and 42.1%. As there is no revenue generated from the irrigation scheme, it poses a problem to calculate the financial self-sufficiency value.
4.2 Recommendation
In spite of the problem of obtaining some data’s, the application of comparative indicators will provide good information on the seasonal performance of an irrigation system and gaps in irrigation management.
Crop selection and lack of knowledge in irrigation agronomy resulted in low performance; this variation is shown clearly between the first season and the rest of the seasons. This suggests the extension service on crop selection, irrigation water management and input utilization have to be strengthened. Creating convenient market access is also important; such action will have a positive impact on the performance of the scheme
There is a fear of water logging problem in the next few years, the possibility of using ground water for irrigation and water supply has to be explored both to curb the water logging problem and to increase the existing irrigable area.
The sustainability of the irrigation system is in doubt unless mechanisms are sought to collect water charges so that this can be used for small maintenance tasks. Also it is more important to help the farmers to form WUA or irrigation association so that they can mange the scheme by themselves to insure its sustainability.
REFERENCES
1. Molden, D; Sakthivadivel, R; Perry, C.J; Fraiture, C; and Klozen,W.H. (1998). Indicators for comparing performance of irrigated agricultural systems. IWMI. Sri Lanka.
2. Leul K. 2003, design and performance of community based irrigation in Tekeze basin, Tigray
3. CECE , 1999, Cost Recovery Study On Small Scale Irrigation Project In Tigray
4. COSAERT, 1998 Case Study On Causes Of Harvest Failure Of Dams Bordering The Eastern Escarpment
5. MOWR, 1989 Master Plan for the Development of Surface Water Resource In The Awash Basin.
6. UNDP/ECA/FAO, 1994 Sustainable Agriculture And Environmental Rehabilitation In Tigray(SAERT), Working Document
7. REST.2000, Study on Traditional Irrigation System in Tigray. Concert Engineering, Final reports on medium and large-scale water resource and irrigation development in Giba and Rama basins of Tigray. COSAERT
8. COSAERT. 1999. Cost Recovery on Small-scale Irritation Project in Tigray. Concert Engineering
9. Leul K. 1997. Practices for Maximizing Benefit Per Unit Volume of Harvested Water. COSAERT
10. Yigzaw H. 1998. Case on Causes of harvest failure of dams bordering the eastern escarpment. (Unpublished).
ANNEX:
Annex 1 Calculation of production for the seasons
1997/98
Crop type
Area cropped (ha.)
Production (ton. /ha.)
Price (birr/ton.)
Total production (ton.)
Total income (birr)
Tomato
10.57
23.4
3373.4
247.34
834376.76
Pepper
14.10
21.1
4623.98
297.51
1375680.29
Maize
52.86
6.5
1615.44
343.59
555049.03
Onion
10.57
25.6
3225.14
270.59
872690.63
Total
88.1
3637796.71
1998/99
Crop type
Area cropped (ha.)
Production (ton. /ha.)
Price (birr/ton.)
Total production (ton.)
Total income (birr)
Tomato
0.91
22.6
3373.4
20.57
69390.84
Pepper
4.57
16.6
4623.98
75.86
350775.12
Maize
78.52
7.7
1615.44
604.60
976695.02
Onion
7.30
18.65
3225.14
136.15
439102.81
Total
91.3
1835963.79
19999/2000
Crop type
Area cropped (ha.)
Production (ton. /ha.)
Price (birr/ton.)
Total production (ton.)
Total income (birr)
Tomato
2.02
20.5
3373.4
41.41
139692.49
Pepper
10.10
11.5
4623.98
116.15
537075.28
Maize
79.79
6.65
1615.44
554.54
895826.09
Onion
9.10
16.5
3225.14
150.15
484254.77
Total
101
2056848.63
2000/01
Crop type
Area cropped (ha.)
Production (ton. /ha.)
Price (birr/ton.)
Total production (ton.)
Total income (birr)
Tomato
2.95
23.5
3373.4
69.33
233877.82
Pepper
3.69
17.5
4623.98
64.58
298616.63
Maize
58.98
7.15
1615.44
421.71
681247.20
Onion
8.1
14.0
3225.14
113.40
365730.88
Total
73.72
1579472.53
2001/02
Crop type
Area cropped (ha.)
Production (ton. /ha.)
Price (birr/ton.)
Total production (ton.)
Total income (birr)
Tomato
6.56
29.0
3373.4
190.24
641755.62
Pepper
6.56
16.5
4623.98
108.24
500499.59
Maize
85.25
7.5
1615.44
639.38
1032880.03
Onion
10.93
12.5
3225.14
136.63
440650.88
Total
109.3
2615786.12
Annex 2 Land allocation for cash crops and maize
Year
Cash crop (ha.)
Maize (ha.)
Total (ha.)
1997/98
35.24
52.56
88.1
1998/99
12.78
78.52
91.3
1999/2000
21.22
79.79
101
2000/01
14.74
58.98
73.72
2001/02
24.05
85.25
109.3
Annex 3 Crop water requirement calculated for the irrigated crops
Crop type
Net CWR (mm/season)
Net IR (mm/season)
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
Tomato
519.84
463.36
519.84
478.38
519.84
519.84
Pepper
430.92
395.55
430.92
401.12
430.92
430.92
Maize
449.64
382.75
449.64
406.28
448.37
449.64
Onion
528.74
467.49
528.74
486.35
528.74
528.74
Annex 4, weighted crop water requirement:
Season
Net CWR (mm/season)
Net IR (mm/season)
1997/98
464.56
404.63
1998/99
455.73
455.73
1999/2000
456.33
414.46
2000/01
460.20
459.18
2001/02
460.63
460.63
Annex 5, Evapotranspiration, average temp. And average rainfall data
Month
Jan
Feb.
Mar
April
May
June
July
August
Sep
October
November
December
Eto(mm/day)
3.11
3.64
4.11
4.48
4.54
4.18
3.37
3.01
3.85
3.85
3.43
2.9
Avg.temp(o c)
13.02
13.95
15.45
16.75
17.35
17.3
15.55
15.15
15.05
14.85
13.5
12.4
Rain fall(mm)
1.43
4.19
9.12
21.4
21.38
22.26
214.4
207.87
54.91
3.05
7.53
2.87
Annex 6, Data Collection Format used.
Crop1-------, crop2 ----------, crop3 ----------, crop 4 ---------, crop5 ----------, crop 6 -------
Data required
Name of the dams
MY NIGUS
L. WUKRO
KORRIER
Gross command area (ha)
Catchment area (ha)
Estimated runoff (m3)
Water users (number)
Average land holding (ha)
Rain fall duration from,
Start to end (winter)
Start to end (summer)
Cropping intensity (%), actual
Year
Year
Year
19-
19-
19-
19-
19-
19-
19-
19-
19-
19-
19-
19-
19-
19-
19-
Summer
winter
Main crop (% of total cropped), actual
Winter
Crop
Year
Year
Year
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
Summer
1
2
3
4
5
Production (tones/ha), actual
Summer
Main
Crop
Year
Year
Year
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
Winter
1
2
3
4
5
6
Gross irrigation supply (* 1000 m3), actual
19--
19--
19--
19--
19--
Irrigation supply left at the end of growing period (* 1000 m3), actual
Winter
19--
19--
19--
19-
19-
19--
Rain fall (mm)
19--
19--
19--
19-
19-
19-
Summer
19--
19-
19-
19--
19--
Rain fall, mm (effective)
Winter
(Summation of monthly effective values) total)
19
19-
19-
19
19-
19--
Summer
(total)
19--
19--
19-
19-
19-
Evaporation (mm)
Winter
(Total)
19-
19--
19--
19-
19--
Summer
(total)
19--
19--
19--
19-
19--
19--
Local prices, (birr/tone) per year or per season
Main crop
Year,
MN
Year,
LW
Year,
KO
19-
19-
19-
19-
19
19-
19-
19-
19-
19-
19-
19-
19-
19-
19-
19-
19-
19-
1
2
3
4
5
Actual capacity of main canal, secondary canal and tertiary canal (m3/s) and length in meter and their number
MN LW K
Cap.
Len.
No.
Cap.
Len
No.
cap
Len.
No.
Main canal
Secondary canal
Tertiary canal
TC1
TC2
TC3
Year
Expenditure for operation, maintenance and administration (birr/year)
MN LW KORR
19-
19-
19-
19-
19-
year
Total income from water fees
MN
LW
K
19-
19-
19-
19-
19-
This can be either estimated from original costs, or by using of present costs of similar type of irrig. Infrastructure
Investment cost of irrigation infrastructure( birr / ha),
MN
L. WUKRO
KORRIER
Soil data, major soil types in the command area
MN
LW
KORR
Vertisols(%)
Luvisols(%)
Camisole (%)
Area lost due to water logging and salinity (%)
MN
LW
KOR
Water logging
Salinity
Other problems
Cropping intensity (%), planned
MN LW KO
Year
Year
Year
19-
19-
19-
19-
19-
19-
19-
19-
19-
19-
19-
19-
19-
19-
19-
Summer
Winter
Main crop (% of total cropped), planned
MN LW KO
Winter
Crop
Year
Year
Year
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
1
2
3
4
5
Summer
1
2
3
4
5
Production (tones/ha) , planned
MN LW KO
Summer
Main
Crop
Year
Year
Year
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
Winter
1
2
3
4
5
6
Gross irrigation supply (* 1000 m3), planned
MN LW KORIER
19--
19--
19--
19--
19--
19--
19--
Irrigation supply left at the end of growing period (* 1000 m3), planned
Winter
19--
19--
19--
19-
19-
19--
Annex 7 Salient Feature Of The Dam
Name: Mai Negus
Year of construction: 1996/1997
Authority: SAERT
Dam height (m): 24
Dam crest length (m): 354
Original capacity (m³): 23820000
Reservoir area (ha): 40,00
Designed irrigated area (ha): 150
Average Actual irrigated area (ha): 104
Trap efficiency (%): 98
Catchment area (km²): 12,62
Length of catchment (m): 4500
Mean annual rainfall (mm): 663
Rain gauge station: Axum
Number of years: /75% reliable of rainfall (mm): /
PAGE
25
-
Chart5
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
Sheet1
blue
SeasonsRWSRISout put per unit irrigation supply (birr/m3)gross return on investment (%)
1997/984.525.032.03
1998/994.464.461
1999/20004.564.911
2000/014.424.431.05
2001/024.444.421.17
red
SeasonsRWSRISout put per unit irrigation supply (birr/m3)gross return on investment (%)
1997/985.966.681.53
1998/995.725.720.77
1999/20003.133.331.47
2000/013.333.331.4
2001/024.764.731.1
SeasonsGRI
1997/9842.0%
1998/9921.3%
1999/200023.8%
2000/0118.3%
2001/0230.3%
Sheet1
0
0
0
0
0
rwsblue
0
0
0
0
0
risblue
risblue
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
irrigationsupblue
irrigationsupblue
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
rwsred
table out put per unit irrigation supply
seasonswater harvested
1997/9817
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
rwsred
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
risred
risred
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
irrigationsupred
year
1990
1991
1992
199
irrigationsupred
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
Sheet8
Sheet8
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
Chart1
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
Sheet1
blue
SeasonsRWSRISout put per unit irrigation supply (birr/m3)gross return on investment (%)
1997/984.525.032.03
1998/994.464.461
1999/20004.564.911
2000/014.424.431.05
2001/024.444.421.17
red
SeasonsRWSRISout put per unit irrigation supply (birr/m3)gross return on investment (%)
1997/985.966.681.53
1998/995.725.720.77
1999/20003.133.331.47
2000/013.333.331.4
2001/024.764.731.1
rwsblue
rwsblue
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
risblue
risblue
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
irrigationsupblue
irrigationsupblue
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
rwsred
rwsred
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
risred
risred
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
irrigationsupred
irrigationsupred
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
Sheet8
Chart4
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
Sheet1
blue
SeasonsRWSRISout put per unit irrigation supply (birr/m3)gross return on investment (%)
1997/984.525.032.03
1998/994.464.461
1999/20004.564.911
2000/014.424.431.05
2001/024.444.421.17
red
SeasonsRWSRISout put per unit irrigation supply (birr/m3)gross return on investment (%)
1997/985.966.681.53
1998/995.725.720.77
1999/20003.133.331.47
2000/013.333.331.4
2001/024.764.731.1
SeasonsGRI
1997/9842.0%
1998/9921.3%
1999/200023.8%
2000/0118.3%
2001/0230.3%
Sheet1
0
0
0
0
0
rwsblue
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
risblue
risblue
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
irrigationsupblue
irrigationsupblue
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
rwsred
rwsred
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
risred
risred
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
irrigationsupred
year
1990
1991
1992
199
irrigationsupred
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
Sheet8
Sheet8
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
Chart2
JanJanJan
Feb.Feb.Feb.
MarMarMar
AprilAprilApril
MayMayMay
JuneJuneJune
JulyJulyJuly
AugustAugustAugust
SepSepSep
OctoberOctoberOctober
NovemberNovemberNovember
DecemberDecemberDecember
Sheet1
Annex 5, Evapotranspiration, average temp. And average rainfall data
MonthJanFeb.MarAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSepOctoberNovemberDecember
Eto(mm)93.3109.2123.3134.4136.2125.4101.190.3115.5115.5102.987
Avg.temp(o c)13.0213.9515.4516.7517.3517.315.5515.1515.0514.8513.512.4
Rain fall(mm)1.434.199.1221.421.3822.26214.4207.8754.913.057.532.87
Sheet1
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Sheet2
Sheet3
Chart2
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
Sheet1
blue
SeasonsRWSRISout put per unit irrigation supply (birr/m3)gross return on investment (%)
1997/984.525.032.03
1998/994.464.461
1999/20004.564.911
2000/014.424.431.05
2001/024.444.421.17
red
SeasonsRWSRISout put per unit irrigation supply (birr/m3)gross return on investment (%)
1997/985.966.681.53
1998/995.725.720.77
1999/20003.133.331.47
2000/013.333.331.4
2001/024.764.731.1
rwsblue
rwsblue
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
risblue
risblue
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
irrigationsupblue
irrigationsupblue
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
rwsred
rwsred
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
risred
risred
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
irrigationsupred
irrigationsupred
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
Sheet8
Chart6
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
Sheet1
seasonout put per unit cropped areaout put per unit commandout put per unit water consumedout put per unit irrigation supplygross return on investmentfinential self-sufficiencyRWSRISWDC
1997/9841291.6829360.758.892.7347.711003.413.331.02
1998/9920109.1314818.114.411.35175.491003.413.330.98
1999/200020364.8416600.884.461.36196.61003.413.330.89
2000/0121425.2912747.964.661.42150.971003.413.331.22
2001/0223932.1721112.085.191.58250.031003.413.330.82
Sheet2
Sheet2
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
Sheet7
Sheet7
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
Sheet6
Sheet6
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
Sheet5
Sheet5
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
Sheet4
Sheet4
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
Sheet3
Sheet3
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
Chart2
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
Sheet1
seasonout put per unit cropped areaout put per unit commandout put per unit water consumedout put per unit irrigation supplygross return on investmentfinential self-sufficiencyRWSRISWDC
1997/9841291.6829360.758.892.7347.711003.413.331.02
1998/9920109.1314818.114.411.35175.491003.413.330.98
1999/200020364.8416600.884.461.36196.61003.413.330.89
2000/0121425.2912747.964.661.42150.971003.413.331.22
2001/0223932.1721112.085.191.58250.031003.413.330.82
Sheet2
Sheet2
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
Sheet7
Sheet7
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
Sheet6
Sheet6
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
Sheet5
Sheet5
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
Sheet4
Sheet4
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
Sheet3
Sheet3
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
Chart3
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
Sheet1
seasonout put per unit cropped areaout put per unit commandout put per unit water consumedout put per unit irrigation supplygross return on investmentfinential self-sufficiencyRWSRISWDC
1997/9841291.6829360.758.892.7347.711003.413.331.02
1998/9920109.1314818.114.411.35175.491003.413.330.98
1999/200020364.8416600.884.461.36196.61003.413.330.89
2000/0121425.2912747.964.661.42150.971003.413.331.22
2001/0223932.1721112.085.191.58250.031003.413.330.82
Sheet2
Sheet2
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
Sheet7
Sheet7
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
Sheet6
Sheet6
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
Sheet5
Sheet5
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
Sheet4
Sheet4
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
Sheet3
Sheet3
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
Chart1
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
Sheet1
seasonout put per unit cropped areaout put per unit commandout put per unit water consumedout put per unit irrigation supplygross return on investmentfinential self-sufficiencyRWSRISWDC
1997/9841291.6829360.758.892.7347.711003.413.331.02
1998/9920109.1314818.114.411.35175.491003.413.330.98
1999/200020364.8416600.884.461.36196.61003.413.330.89
2000/0121425.2912747.964.661.42150.971003.413.331.22
2001/0223932.1721112.085.191.58250.031003.413.330.82
Sheet2
Sheet2
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
Sheet7
Sheet7
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
Sheet6
Sheet6
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
Sheet5
Sheet5
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
Sheet4
Sheet4
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02
Sheet3
Sheet3
1997/98
1998/99
1999/2000
2000/01
2001/02