Vol. 18(9), pp.

719-729, September, 2022

DOI: 10.5897/AJAR2022.16101
Article Number: 462CED469666
ISSN: 1991-637X
Copyright ©2022 African Journal of Agricultural
Author(s) retain the copyright of this article
http://www.academicjournals.org/AJAR Research

Full Length Research Paper

Unravelling systems of inequality and debating pro-

poor policy results in drought prone areas of South
West Ethiopia
Filmon Hadaro Hando
Center for Urban, Regional and Local Development Studies, College of Development Studies, Addis Ababa University,
Ethiopia.
Received 13 August, 2022; Accepted 31 August, 2022

A desk review, survey, interview and on-site observation were used to collect data. The impact of
external systems on smallholder water scarcity management institutions in the context drought stress
was analyzed in this study. The findings show that the external intervention eliminated resilient
people’s institutions such as water scarcity (in droughts). Interventions introduce new water
management systems that fuel tension, conflict and water poverty. The local water management
systems are sustainable and enhance social cohesion and trust while the new program-based
institutional arrangements/systems are nepotic and corrupt in terms of ensuring equality and
addressing needs of diverse beneficiaries. A local peoples’ institutional approach is recommended to
respond to climate change-induced stresses and such approach is capable of managing social,
political, economic and environmental dimensions. Policy interventions need to consider a bottom-up
approach to accommodate local specific context as well as built on existing local systems that ensure
social cohesion among members of community. Interventions that meet pro-poor, inclusive and
sustainable objectives need to adopt a human-rights based transformative approaches and such an
approach inclusive and sustainable.

Key words: Institutional conflict, drought stress, pro-poor policy.

INTRODUCTION

Ethiopia has been facing droughts for millennia having 2011; van der Ploeg, 2014). Irrigated farming has shown
diverse drought-prone, arid and drylands (Gezahegn, huge expansion (500% hectares in irrigated land). About
2017; WVE, 2020). In the context of rain-fed farming 40 to 270 million hectares of farm land are irrigated both
system, the country considered irrigation farming as a to increase food production as well as reduce
strategy and expansion of small-scale irrigation schemes vulnerability to droughts and crop failures by enhancing
as pro-poor farm support (Oliveira et al., 2009; Poole et resilience and adaptations to shocks in arid farm lands.
al., 2013). Irrigation farming contributes to 40% of the Irrigation farming is a change in subsistence farming to
food and fiber production in the world (Asayehegn et al., produce enough food for growing population and

E-mail: filmon.hadaro@aau.edu.et

Author(s) agree that this article remain permanently open access under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License 4.0 International License
720 Afr. J. Agric. Res.

industrial needs of our time (Oliveira et al., 2009; Cherre, food aid dependence increased to 45% and new conflicts
2010). In Ethiopia, rural households in drought shock- observed in these locations. Despite the empirical
prone areas suffer from food shortage and receive food evidence showing that access to small-scale irrigation
aid on an annual basis for many decades (OCHA, 2015; shemes inceases yields per hectare, income,
Chinigò, 2015; Gezahegn, 2020a, b). About five to ten consumption, local investment and business growth
million people on average receive food aid each year and (Asayehegn et al., 2011; Wiggins et al., 2014), the food
the number of aid-recipients are increasing (Gezahegn, aid dependence in the locations, conflicts and tension,
2021b; Assefa et al., 2016). and land degradation increased. Despite empirical
The recent droughts, civil wars, political instabilities and evidence also shows that access to small-scale irrigation
resource-based rural conflicts increased food aid can increase technology adoption (improved tecnology,
dependents by 45% since (FSCB, 2004; WVE, 2020)? In farm practice and marketing) (Hagos et al., 2009; Oni et
normal weather and market conditions, not less than five al., 2011), the evidence in this location has not been the
million receive food aid in Ethiopia over the past fifteen case. Rather, about 89% of farmers rely on rainfall; suffer
years. An average of 700,000 metric tons of food aid per from droughts and lose 25 to 100% of crop yield (Assefa
annum has been imported to meet food needs of Ethiopia et al., 2016; Regassa et al., 2019; WVE, 2020). Despite
(MoARD, 2021; Gezahegn, 2020a). In the framework of the farm land and workforce potential, poverty (food
PRSP, PASDEP and GTP I & II, range of donors insecurity) and water-based conflicts increased in the
collaborated and are collaborating with the Ethiopian locations. The farm yield reduced and modern farm
government in both short-term (emergency) and long- practices were not adopted by smallholder farmers in the
term (individual and community asset building location. Based on this background information, the study
interventions) (MoFED, 2020; MoARD, 2011; Dorosh and questioned the system of water management introduced
Mellor, 2013; Alemu and Dufera, 2017; Gezahegn, by the irrigation scheme and its impact on local
2021b). The small-scale irrigation schemes are part of institutions, water-yield sustainability and inequality
these collaborative interventions to support smallholder (Neef, 2009).
farmers in drought-prone locations, including land
restoration works, moisture retaining technologies and
institutional systems and small-scale irrigations were Local water management institutions and new
considered as government food security initiatives irrigation interventions
(MoAD, 2021; Cherre, 2010; Assefa et al., 2016).
The small-scale irrigation schemes consider farm land Increased supplies of irrigation water increase food and
potential in Ethiopia; which is between 3.7 and 4.3 million fiber production to feeding growing populations by
hectares (Awulachew, 2010; Gezahegn, 2021b; Assefa et enhancing food security, improving incomes and living
al., 2016). The actual irrigated land is 7-10%, out of which standards of farm households (Awulachew, 2010;
55% comprise traditional irrigation, 20% small-scale Hussain et al., 2004; Oni et al., 2011; Gezahegn, 2021b).
irrigation and 25% medium-to-large-scale irrigations Irrigation helps farmers in water-scarce environments to
(Asayehegn et al., 2011). Besides the low level of overcome rainfall and water constraints, improves
irrigation farming in Ethiopia, most modern irrigation sustainable water supply for cultivation, and livestock and
schemes are not functional due to shortage of water or human nutrition (Aseyehegn et al., 2011). Depending on
damaged structures or poor water institutional and the irrigation size, cost and location, small-scale irrigation
management mechanisms (Tadesse, 2009; Oni et al., systems are often considered as pro-poor, equity and
2011; Assefa et al., 2016). Though irrigated farming social protection interventions and effective and efficient
creates jobs, expands farm surplus and incomes (Kedir, to be managed at local levels (Yaro et al., 2015;
2011; Asayehegn et al., 2011), and exapnds investment Barrientos, 2016; Devereux et. al., 2011). Small scale
and local busineses (Oni et al., 2011), they could schemes are thus provided primarily for subsistence
perhaps increase conflict, inequality and unsustainability framers and in drought-prone areas (Awulachew, 2010;
in drought-prone areas. In such context, user-friendly Cherre, 2010; Assefa et al., 2016).
local systems and social cohesion may better mediate Empirical evidence shows that small-scale irrigation in
water scarcities (Yaro et al., 2015) while external drought-prone areas could damage the agroecosystem,
interventions consider these schemes as traditional reduce water yield, increase the management costs in
demanding change (Regassa et al., 2019). the context of drought cycles and enhance environmental
The study location is vulnerable to droughts; depends degradation (Abera, 2004; Oni et al., 2011). Small-scale
on rain-fed farming, is subject to land degradation and irrigation schemes may increase water loss through
about 40% of the households receive food aid via seepage, irregularities in water use by upstream and
productive, pay-for-work and relief aid schemes (Assefa downstream users, inaccessibility for farms away from
et al., 2016; GZoARD, 2020; GoPDA, 2021). To resolve the irrigation canals, produce marketing and
the food shortage and drought-impact, the government transportation, land tenure security, managing irrigation
introduced small-scale irrigation in 1991; however the systems, triggering competition among rain-fed and
 Hando 721

irrigated agriculture (Abera, 2004; Assefa et al., 2016) and farm poverty among communities. Therefore, proper
and finally loosening of community cohesion, levels of study of such gaps, documentation, and a search for
farmer participation and contradictions to local recommendations on alternative intervention mechanisms
institutional systems (Belayneh, 2009; Hagos et al., 2009; were the motivations for this study.
Rahim et al., 2011; Tadesse, 2009; Yaro et al., 2015).
A study by Hagos et al. (2009) found that the
expansion of small-scale irrigation schemes increased RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
production, income and diet diversification in drought-
Data collection and sampling
prone areas of Oromia and Southern Nations Nationalities
and peoples‟ regions of Ethiopia. The same study The study employed a mixed methods approach with cross-
identified increase in farm investment, consumption, sectional design which is recommended for grassroots and multiple
incomes and cash crop production. Hussain et al. (2004) interest-based information and data collection by scholars such as
identified that farmers with reliable access to irrigation Creswell (2010, 2011, 2014), Kothari (2004) and McCall (2005).
water were able to adopt new technologies and Qualitative and quantitative data (from primary and secondary
sources) were collected on socio-demographic, socio-economic,
intensified cultivation which led them to increase policy and institutional variables to explain the impacts of the
productivity and greater returns to investments on land. scheme on smallholder farmers‟ sustainable water, catchment land
According to Hagos et. al. (2009) small-scale irrigation management as well as social cohesion and local peace in drought-
opens up new employment opportunities leading to prone locations observed.
improved farm and off-farm incomes and the quality of life Primary data were collected from irrigation water users and non-
in rural areas (MoARD, 2010). users using household survey (by employing a questionnaire),
interviews (by employing interview guides) and on-site observations
Awulachew (2010) and Tadesse (2009) found that (by employing checklists). The questionnaire was administered for
access to irrigation water improved household assets by irrigation users and non-users while the guides and checklists were
more than threefold for irrigation water users as administered for experts, farmers, and local institutional leaders
compared to non-users whose assets declined in the from the field. Secondary data were collected from unpublished
cycles of droughts. The association was significant at the documents including policy documents of concerned local and
broader government offices. Irrigation user and an adjacent non-
1% level and the difference-in-difference estimate user household list was developed from local agricultural and
suggested a 1.9-ton increase per households who have irrigation office; a finite population sample size determination
access to Irrigation water. Oni et al. (2011) revealed that formula was employed to decide the number of respondents. Thus,
irrigated farming improves household assets by 300 respondents were randomly selected from both user and non-
improving household incomes and returns of farm user groups of households.
investments. The study conducted by Abonesh (2006)
using Heckman two-step procedure, the variables that Data analysis and interpretation
are found to determine participation in irrigation are:
nearness to the water source, household size, size of Data collected were analyzed using descriptive and inferential
cultivated land, livestock holding, farmer‟s perception of statistics; appropriate tests were conducted to substantiate the
soil fertility status and access to credit service (Assefa et impacts of the irrigation intervention on beneficiary households, the
al., 2016). systems of water and catchment management as well as the local
social cohesion and peace. The data were collected from
In Ethiopia in general and in the study area in appropriate respondents. The instruments of data collection were
particular, previous studies focused on the positive pre-tested and revised for consistency. Triangulation of evidence,
benefits of introducing small-scale irrigation scheme to data sources and methods were made to ensure cross-checking of
beneficiaries in drought-prone locations and the negative data results and simultaneous validation of the information
impacts of such interventions are not given attention in obtained. A step-by-step data collection and analysis was
conducted. Therefore, assured reliability of the data sets and
scholarly investigations. On the basis of the benefits instruments was ensured while also the findings are believed to be
noted earlier, looking for sustainable access to the valid and dependable to answer the questions and achieve the
irrigation water and changes in jobs, income and choice research objectives. The overall data collection, analysis and
is proposed in this study as motivation for more water interpretation process ensured substantiveness of the evidence.
and more outputs by upstream and downstream users Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the socioeconomic,
and establishing the argument that interventions that do demographic and service equity aspects of the irrigation users and
non-users as well as variations in impact of the intervention. The
not consider local specificity, smallholder farmer-friendly age, sex of household head, education level, dependency ratio, and
institutional systems and considerations of doing “no family size in adult equivalent, were observed from demographic
harm” could lead to conflicts and tensions at one hand variables. The landholding in size, livestock holding in TLU and
and enhance inequality, unsustainable use of water and distance from market center were observed from socio-economic
increased land degradation. This means the pro-poor and factors. The access to irrigation water, extension and credit
equity-motivated objectives of the interventions could services, land tenure and access to mass were observed from
institutional variables. The water use (protection from crop failure
become enhancing inequality, elimination of local friendly and livestock loss in droughts), diversity in sources of incomes,
institutions of water management (resource management) livestock holdings, financial savings and farm investments were
(Neef, 2009) and increase droughts, food-aid dependence also observed in terms building assets and improving consumption
722 Afr. J. Agric. Res.

in the context of continuous drought shocks. The analysis focused implying skill, experience, labor productivity and cost
on the observed household‟s capacity to ensure consumption, (liability) in drought shocks in the form of dependency
offset drought effects on assets and recovery from drought effects.
The descriptive statistics employed mainly include bivariate
ratio. Also, it can imply inefficient use of assets in and
analysis, percentage and T and Pearson 2-square significance constraint to recovery drought shocks (Assefa et al.,
tests. The qualitative data focused on the impact of the intervention 2016). Table 1 shows that the mean age of the all-
on local social capital (cohesion and peace), local institution respondent category is 41.5 with the standard deviation
(elimination of farmer-friendly systems of water and catchment of 11.9. Regarding households that use irrigation water
management) and conflicts among/between users and non-users of and those that do not, the mean age was found to be
the irrigation water. Such an approach was employed and proved
effective in substantiating evidence (Hunter et al., 2014).
46.4 with standard deviation of 1.7 and 39.8 years with
standard deviation of 1.1, respectively. The mean age
difference is significant at less than 1% significance level
Specification of variable associations (with t-value of -3.1 and p-value of 0.001). This indicates
that since irrigation farming requires intensive labor, the
Using the irrigation water was defined as participation in the famers in both groups are in the economically active age
program. It is dependent variable that explains the positive
improvements (as intended by the small-scale irrigation
group; therefore, the farms of irrigation water are
intervention). The independent variables include land size, livestock productive and these groups produce more than twice a
holding, new investments (Abonesh, 2006; Belayneh, 2009) leading year. This confirms the empirical findings that access to
to reduced drought effects on crops, increased crp/livestock irrigation water can potentially increase farm productive
productivity, incomes, consumption and savings. The socio- and frequency of harvests (Cherre, 2010; Gezahegn,
economic, demographic, institutional and environmental 2021a).
independent variables positively or negatively influence the impact
of the use of irrigation waters; in terms of labour and capital Regarding dependency ratio, in Table 1, the overall
investment, control of crop failures and livestock loss, and ensure mean is 1.17 with standard deviation of 0.98 units. The
the stability of the household assets in persisting droughts mean for irrigation water users is 1.08 with standard
(Abonesh, 2006; Tadesse, 2009; Kedir, 2011). These associations deviation of 0.88; while for the non-users, the mean is
manifest the pro-poor, equity and social protection support 1.19 with the standard deviation of 1.02. Though the
objectives of the intervention; but do not often include variables that
explain the negative impacts.
statistical difference for the users and non-users of
The loss of local systems due to introduction of external irrigation water is insignificant at 1% level (with t-value of
intevention systems, the „doing of harm” by interventions on local 0.40), the proportion of equivalence ratio is 1.2:0.98 (for
systems, socio-economic inequality, unsustainable resource use each productive labor, there is 0.98 dependent to feed for
and damage to local social capital (in terms of local social irrigation users) while for the non-users the ratio is 1.2:
cohession, conflict resolution and resource management) are not 1.02 (almost 1 productive labor feeds one extra person);
given attenion.
which in both cases confirm to the existing literature that
with access to irrigation water and intensive farming, idle-
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION labor reduces (Cherre, 2010)..
Babington (1999) argues that sex (gender) constrains
Here presents and discusses evidence on the impact of individual woman‟s capability to overcome constraints of
small-scale irrigation on household asset building in dignity, self-esteem and sustenance; these together
drought-prone locations by comparing users and non- eliminate women‟s ability to use available opportunities,
users of irrigation water constructed by the government. transform constraints to benefits and expand possibilities
Demographic, socioeconomic, policy support service and (Sen, 1990). For a female household, in interface of
access small scale irrigation water were analyzed against intersectionality of external and local institutional
asset building (measured by owning corrugated iron systemic barriers, sex difference easily translates to
sheets and livestock units, income and new investments). disparity, inequality, discrimination and exclusion
The analysis used descriptive statistics such as mean, (Babington, 1999; Kabeer and Deshpande, 2019). On the
percentages and standard deviations. T and pseudo R2 other hand, institutions that mediate the use of productive
were used to test reliability and validity of the evidence time, access to new information and policy support start
substantiated. The inferential statistic of a bivariate Chi- to work against women and give edges of benefit to men
square, and a T test was used for generalization. The (Kabeer and Deshpande, 2019). However, literature also
impact of irrigation water on household asset building indicates that women‟s transformative change agency
was linked to descriptive and inferential data sets to starts to flourish in constraints and women contribute to
conclude and answer research questions. innovations, productivity and growth (Boserup, 1970;
Cherre, 2010); however, in mainstream measures, these
women‟s efforts (Assefa et al., 2016). The reason for the
Households characteristics and changes in invisibility has been associated to gender-based systems
households assets of exclusion from targeting, participation, which further
expands disparities in access to and control over
In rural agrarian literature, policy impact depends on age resources, and prestige (Babington, 1999; Kabeer, 2016).
 Hando 723

Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents.

Users (150) Non-users (150) Total (300)

Continuous measures t –value
Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev.
Age of HHH 46.4 1.7 39.8 1.1 41.5 11.9 -3.05***
Dep. Ratio 1.1 0.9 1.2 1.0 1.2 0.9 0.40

Users (150) Non users (150) Total (300) Ch2

Discrete measures
N (% N (%) N (%) t –value
Sex of HHH
Female 4 (2.7) 146 (97.3) 150 (100) 0.02
Male 145 (96.7) 5 (3.3) 150 (100)

Education level
Could read and write 100 (66. 7) 98 (65.3) 198 (66.0) 0.01
Don‟t read and write 50 (33.3) 52 (34.7) 102 (34.0)

Family size 16.4812**

1-3 88 (58.7) 102 (68.0) 190 (63.3)
4-6 57 (38.0) 44 (29.3) 101 (33.7)
≥7 5 (3.3) 4 (2.7) 9 (3.0)
***Significant level at 1%,**significant level at 5%.
Source: Own Computation of Field Survey Data (January, 2021)

When interventions remain gender insensitive, a policy statistical relation between access to irrigation scheme
that intends to benefit women may give males better and education is statistically insignificant (Chi2 = 0.0104,
opportunities to get targeted and involved with “relatively p = 0.919); because (1) there has been experience of
full information” (Crenshaw, 1989; Sen, 1990). In Table 1, traditional irrigation scheme and from experience farmers
the sex composition of irrigation water users shows clear in the location practice irrigation and (2) the farmers
gender disparity in access to “new” scheme; about 96.7% whose farm plots are across the irrigation canals and
irrigation users are males as compared to 2.7% for facility have already access to the scheme.
females. In the non-user group, about 97.3% are females Active labor is associated with farm productivity and land
while only 3.3% are males. This further indicates that management leading to more incomes from a unit land
female heads of households do not have farm plots along (Gezahegn, 2020a). The family size for the whole
the irrigation facility; however, the statistical result is not respondent category shows that households with 1 - 3
significant (Chi2=0. 02, p=0. 874). As it is long argued by persons are 63.3%, 4 - 6 are 33.7% and 7 and above are
gender scholars such as McCall (2005) aggregate and 3%. Regarding the irrigation users, households with 1 - 3
categorical quantitative measures often hide women‟s active labor were 58.7%, 4 - 6 were 38% and above 7
lived-experiences of exclusion in the development were 3.3%. For the non-users, 1 - 4 active labor is 68%, 4
process and benefits. While Hancock (2007), Chant - 6 is 29.3%, 7 and above were 2.7%. The average family
(2008) and Chant and Sweetman (2012) argue in the size in adult equivalent was 4.82. This is slightly less than
framework of feminizing exclusion, poverty and inequality the national average (5) and regional average (6). The
rather than working with and expanding individual qualitative interview and on-site observation data show
women‟s agency. that active labor from non-user households allocate idle
In the literature, it has been clear that education labor via seasonal migration to cities and places where
enhances technology adoption, productivity of farm labor wage work is available. The finding confirms with what
and returns to unit land (Cherre, 2010; Assefa et al., Bryceson (2002) explains it as allocation strategy of labor
2016). In this study, out of the total sampled households, allocation efficiency by smallholder farmers in poverty
slightly more than three in five (66%) could read and write and crisis context; a strategy to reduce vulnerability to
while the rest could not. Comparing education level of shocks.
users and non-users of irrigation schemes, slightly less The majority of farmers in rural Ethiopia derive their
than seven in ten (66.67 and 65.77 %) in both cases of livelihoods from crop and livestock farming; and in
households could read and write, respectively, while the drought contexts, these farmers face risk sets that
remaining 33.33 and 34.23% could not, respectively. The increase their vulnerability to shocks and manifest in
724 Afr. J. Agric. Res.

Table 2. Socio-economic characteristics of sampled households.

Variable (Discrete) Users (150) Non-users (150) Total (300)

Occupation of HHH N (%) N (%) N (%)
Farming activities 138 (92.0) 126 (84.0) 264 (88)
Farming & related activities 12 (8.0) 24 (16%) 36 (12.0)

Users (150) Non-users (150) Total (300)

Variable (Continuous) T –value
Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev.
Land size 1.1 0.1 0.7 0.05 0.8 0.61 -3.56***
Livestock 4.7 2.5 3.6 2.6 3.9 2.61 -2.24**
Market town 5.2 0.5 6.2 0.27 5.9 2.94 1.98**

Variable (discrete) Users (150) Non-users (150) Total (300) Ch2 value
oil fertility N (%) N (%) N (%)
Infertile 73 (48.7) 100 (66.7) 173 (57.7) 3.95**
Fertile 77 (51.3) 50 (33.3) 127 (42.3)
*** and ** indicate significant at 1 and 5%, respectively.
Source: Own computation of field survey data (January, 2021).

asset loss (Gezahegn, 2021b; Assefa, et. al., 2016). Data Gezahegn (2020a), Assefa et al. (2016) and Cherre
results in Table 2 below that from the overall respondent (2010).
category, 88% of the observed households were Livestock in farm settings is instrumental for agricultural
engaged in farming and the remaining 14% were activity (as draught power) and the livestock products are
engaged in farming and related economic activities. both sources of income and balanced diet for rural farm
However, the share of irrigation users that were mainly households (Atena et al., 2020a). Livestock is also
engaging in agriculture was found to be 92%. The associated with endowments and savings for bad crop
remaining 8% of households were engaged in farming yield years and is a critical household asset (Chinigò,
and related economic activities. Regarding the non-users 2015; Devereux, 2006). Drought shocks in such setting
of irrigation, 84% of the households were engaged in affect rural farm households in diminishing their draught
farming which the rest 9% engaged in farming related power, source of income, balanced diet, savings and
activities. The data sets in Table 2 below, regarding capability for transfer of shocks (from crops to livestock-
economic activity, irrigation users engage mainly holding), making the livestock holding as buffer to and at
agriculture than for the non-users, which indicates that the same time vulnerable to drought shocks when the dry
the irrigation scheme associates with irrigation farming; spells prolong and affect livestock weights (Assefa et al.,
and this confirms with the findings of World Vision (2021) 2016). In Table 2 also, the average livestock measured in
in East Ethiopia (east Hararghe, Oromia). tropical livestock units was 3.86 with standard deviation
Since land is key factor of production for crop growing of 2.61 units. The average holding was 4.65 with
and harvest (Dorosh and Mellor, 2013; Cochrane and standard deviation of 2.48 and 3.58 with standard
Nigussie, 2018; Assefa et al., 2016), land size, proximity deviation of 1.61 units, respectively for irrigation water
to irrigation canals, the application of inputs and new farm users and non-users. The statistical test is significant at
practices determine level of harvests, incomes and 5% (t=-2.2431, p=0.03).
assets holding as buffer to offset drought shocks. The Proximity to nearest town center improves access to
average cultivated land size holding of the total sampled information on inputs, price, farm technology,
household was found to be 0.77 ha with the standard administrative and policy supports (Poole et al., 2013;
deviation was 0.61 units. The average cultivated land Wiggins et al., 2014; Assefa et al., 2016). The mean
size for irrigation users and non-users was found 1.05 distance is 5.94 km with a standard deviation of 2.94 for
with standard deviation of 0.11 and 0.67 ha with standard the whole respondent groups. The mean average
deviation of 0.05, respectively. In addition, the standard distance to the nearest town for users and non-users of
deviation for both groups was 0.1 and 0.05, respectively. the irrigation water is 5.15 with the standard deviation of
The mean land size difference between the users and 0.5 and 6.22 with the standard deviation of 0.27 units,
non-users is statistically significant at 1% level (t=-3.56, respectively. The mean difference for irrigation water
p= 0. 005). This finding confirms with the findings of users and non-users is statistically significant at 5% level
 Hando 725

Table 3. Access to services related to SSI by sampled households.

Variable (Discrete) Users (150) Non-users (150) Total (300)

Ch2
Credit access N (%) N (%) N (%)
No 27 (18.0) 68 (45.3) 95 (31.7)
Yes 123 (82.0) 82 (54.7) 205 (68.3) 8.99*

Extension access
No 31 (20.7) 28 (18.7) 59 (19.7)
Yes 119 (79.3) 122 (81.3) 241 (80.3)

Access to radio
No 115 (76.7) 126 (64.0) 241 (80.3)
Yes 35 (23.3) 24 (16.0) 59 (19.7)
*** indicate significant at 1% probability level respectively.
Source: Own Computation of Field Survey Data (January, 2021).

but actual it is pseudo-association. users of the irrigation water, about 18 and 45.3% have
In literature, soil fertility affects crop productivity and not accessed credit, respectively. The Chi-square test
increases invest injected on the farm plot (in financial and result is significant at 1% significance level (Ch2=8. 99,
labor) based on experience whether the soil is easily p=0. 003). The reason for those who did not access
ploughed, holds water and yield in the past (Gezahegn, credit, from interviews and observations that lack of
2020a, 2021b; Assefa et al., 2016). From Table 2, the collateral, preference not to take risk and the high costs
data shows that out of the farm plots, for the overall of credit loan, in rank order, expressed by the
respondent group, 57.7% believed their land is not fertile respondents. Also, from interview and on-site
while 42.3% believed their soil is not fertile. From the observations, households whose farm plot face
irrigation water user group, 48.7 respondents do not have interruption in access to irrigation water and those whose
fertile land while 66.67% of the non-users do not have farm plots are far from irrigation canals did not opt for
fertile soil. From the user group, 51.3% have fertile land credit. But the households that do not have access to
while 33.3% from the non-user group has fertile soil. The irrigation water (non-users) accessed credit in order to
Chi square test is statistically significant at 5% level invest farm-product related services such as selling food
(Ch2=3. 95, p=0. 047) for the association between use of and drink in market days.
irrigation water and soil fertility. Access to agricultural extension plays a great role in
Regarding access to services, farm credit solves technology adoption and improvement in production
financial constraints of farmers to invest as well as apply (Regassa et al., 2019; Assefa et al.., 2016; Wigginset al.,
new techniques and purchase inputs (Cherre, 2010; Yaro 2014). In Table 3, what can be observed is that out of the
et al., 2015). With access to credit, farmers purchase total sampled households, 80.3% accessed extension
farm inputs, boost yields, diversify income sources and service and the remaining 19.7% did not get extension
improve consumption (including food security) (Atena et service support. Here agricultural extension service refers
al., 2020a; Chinigò, 2015). Farm households have limited to advice, training and demonstration of agricultural
credit sources and do not afford collateral criteria set by techniques and displaying its productivity as compared to
formal finance institutions (Clay et al., 1999; Gezahegn, local farming techniques that the households were using
2020a, b). Therefore, rural cooperatives (finance, service for years.
and producers) unions and agricultural extension support In the same Table 3, 79.3 and 81.3% of the irrigation
offices offset the financial constraints of smallholder water users and non-users, respectively, had access to
farmers (Yaro et al., 2015; Wiggins et al., 2014). These extension service during the observation season. The
institutions provide credits on kind such as improved remaining 20.7 and 19.7% of users and non-users did not
seeds, fertilizers and farm extension services and loan get access to extension service, respectively. In the
finance (Neef, 2009; Wiggins et al., 2014; Regassa et al., literature, access to agricultural extension expands
2019). As indicated in Table 3, from the survey result, exposure to information on farm technologies, market
from the overall category, about 68.3% accessed credit prices and quality of farm products (Poole et al., 2013).
and 31.8% did not access credit during the observation Access to extension service almost the same to the two
season. Access to credit for the users and non-users of groups since extension service is a universal government
irrigation water in the observation season was 82 and support and services to smallholder farm households in
54.7%, respectively. In the same order for users and non- all farming systems in Ethiopia (MoARD, 2021; Assefa et
726 Afr. J. Agric. Res.

al., 2016). However, as observed in the site, from the initiative increased inequalities among beneficiaries and
interviews, the frequency of visits of extension agents to non-beneficiaries (Wiggins et al., 2014). Thus, this
sampled households was associated to farming specific intervention has done “harm” to local people.
techniques adopted by the farmers. From the qualitative
interviews, the experience is that extension agents
frequently visit users of irrigation water; and these groups The modern irrigation water and facility management
of farmers harvest increased crop yields per hectare and systems
cultivate more than two times in the year.
Access to mass media is supposed to benefit farmers Management of small-scale irrigation is considered
in access to useful information about available and essential for sustainable water utilization and increasing
working agricultural technologies and market information allocative efficiency of water in empirical and policy
(Poole et al., 2013; Assefa et al., 2016). The mass media practice literature (Atena et al., 2020a; Assefa et al.,
considered here were access radio program on 2016).
agriculture and marketing which is widely accessible in all From the response of the irrigation users and non-
rural areas of the country. Radio has been important users on the management of irrigation water, irrigation
media for rural households in the area. The data on this, water adequacy, reasons for the inadequacy of irrigation
in Table 3, show that out of the total sampled water and the modern irrigation canal management as
households, 46.3% had no access to radio and the compared to the traditional ones were assessed. The
remaining 53.7% had access to radio program focusing response rate on the adequacy of irrigation water for crop
on agricultural technologies and marketing. For those cultivation was that out of the total irrigation users and
who owned radio, the frequency of attending messages non-users, as indicated in Table 4, 67.3% of users have
for the users of irrigation was relatively higher than that of responded that the irrigation water was not enough. The
the non-users. About 76.7% from the uses and 16% from remaining 32.7% responded that the water was enough;
the non-users of irrigation water own radios and listen to but the respondents in this group were households that
farm information every day. While 23.3% from the users are residing in the upper streams and next to the irrigable
and 64% from the non-users of the irrigation water do not water reservoir. Both the water users and non-users were
own and do not follow information. However, regarding asked to rank in order of criticality of the main causes for
information relevance, none positively replied to this. the inadequacy of the water yield. The aggregate rank
From the interviews and onsite observations, the order of the two groups showed that the reduction in the
respondents informed that messages on relevant farm volume of the river water in the dry season was the first
techniques and information are required on daily basis cause; hence, the water yield is not enough.
while on market price are relatively useful on weekly The reasons for the reduction of the river water are
basis since rural market center work on weekly basis in related to the weak yield of the springs across the
the area. The service is specifically frequent and relevant mountains; but as forests and grasses vanished; and the
based on farm (on input, seedling and pest handling) and mountain range changed to farm plots and the gullies.
in the harvest seasons the practice was aimed at The weak enforcement of water users‟ rules, schedules
reducing harvest grain losse). Even if users of irrigation and exclusion of households that previously use irrigation
water have a better access to media than non-users, the water by the traditional canals was the second cause of
association is statistically insignificant (Ch2=0. 92, p=0. inadequacy in downstream and plots away from the new
34). irrigation canals. The third cause was water wastage in
In general, the data results in Tables 1 to 3 clearly the irrigation canals that were not maintained in time; this
imply planned discrimination in service provision to was confirmed by 69.3% of users and 89.3% of the non-
irrigation users and non-users; leading to increased users. Also, considerable respondents, 31.7% from the
inequality and differentiation among farm households in users and 10.7% from the non-users claimed the canals
drought-prone locations. It further implies that were maintained timely. From the total category, 20.7%
interventions can have positive outcomes (such as claim that the canals were maintained timely while the
improvements in productivity, etc.) but also “do harm” to rest 79.3% were skeptical of timely maintenance of the
non-beneficiaries of the intervention (Wiggins et al., canals. Also, water seepage is high and illegal water
2014). If gender and other exclusion analysis is not users increased; even by damaging the canals and
conducted, new facilities, targeting and provision diverting the water to traditional canals for plots far away
arrangement exclude the non-beneficiaries; and when from the new facilities. From the interview and on-site
new institutions and systems are introduced, without observation sessions, problems raised were that greedy
attention to the local context, new forms of tension arise upstream users are not willing to allow the irrigation water
leading to conflicts (Assefa et al., 2016). Therefore, the to cross their farms and, thus, those next to the dam and
study found that small-scale irrigation intervention that canals are growingly engaging in water-intensive crops
was considered pro-poor, pro-equity and pro-social such as growing banana trees. Thus, neither the
protection scheme in drought contexts; however, the upstream nor downstream users consistently use the
 Hando 727

Table 4. Access to services related to SSI by sampled households.

Variable (Discrete) Users (150) Non-users (150) Total (300)

Water yield declined after the scheme N (%) N (%) N (%)
Yes 101 (67.3) - 101 (67.3)
No 49 (32.7) - 49 (32.7)

Canal not maintained timely as before

Yes 104 (69.3) 134 (89.3) 238 (79.3)
No 46 (31.7) 16 (10.7) 62 (20.7)

New scheme excluded past users

Yes 115 (76.7) 134 (89.3) 249 (83.0)
No 35 (23.3) 16 (10.7) 51 (17.0)

Traditional canals not functioning

Yes 121 (80.7) 131 (87.3) 252 (84.0)
No 29 (19.3) 19 (12.7) 27 (16.0)

Water scarcity increased conflict

Yes 135 (90.0) 139 (92.7) 274 (91.3)
No 15 (10.0) 11 (7.3) 26 (8.7)

No catchment work as before

Yes 144 (96.0) 141 (94.0) 285 (95.0)
No 6 (4.0) 9 (6.0) 15 (5.0)
Source: Own Computation of Field Survey Data (January, 2021)

irrigation water because of the decline in yields. From the areas are of policy concern; specially giving due attention
field observation, the issues were observed and found to previous farmer-friendly enforcement systems.
that in the irrigation scheme, the diversion weir was filled The irrigation water users and non-users were asked
by sand during the heavy rain and over flooding. The whether the new facility introduced excluded previous
sand accumulation was not cleaned and the damaged users, whether traditional; irrigation canals still function,
facilities were not maintained. whether land restoration works in the river catchment is
The interview participants said that the accumulated still undergoing and finally whether the new irrigation
stone and sand was difficult to clear manually unless system enhanced social cohesion, reciprocity in the use
government assists the community with machines. In the of resources and whether there is any conflict after the
field also observation was made on the situation of introduction of the irrigation facility in the location. In
canals. It was found that the primary and secondary general, respondents from both groups that engaged in
water delivery canals were covered by grass which the interview and observation sessions agree that the
indicates that water is not flowing to farms and the major scheme improved farm productivity, grain surplus,
problem is the lack of maintenance in time. The intensification of cash crops such as banana and
respondents prioritized this issue into four areas: first, the improvements in consumption, incomes and food security
participation of users was less; second, there is weak rule of the irrigation scheme beneficiary households.
enforcement for water use; third, there is weak water However, in respect to answers to the aforementioned
coordination at upstream and downstream; and finally, questions, survey questionnaire respondents from both
the new system of the water management eliminated the groups indicate that 76.7 and 89.3% of irrigation water-
traditional systems respected by the local residents. users and non-users, respectively said that the new
Besides the lack of farmers‟ respect and trust in the new facilities excluded households that traditionally practice
system, as interview respondents reiterated, the new irrigation farming and 80.7 and 87.7% of irrigation water-
system introduced corruption and nepotism among local users and non-users, respectively said that because of
government authorities and greedy-individuals. Thus, the the new facilities, the traditional irrigation canals stopped
technical and management aspect of irrigation water functioning. After the introduction of the new facilities, 90
needs to be strengthened and the aforementioned four and 92.7% of respondents believed that conflict over
728 Afr. J. Agric. Res.

water use increased, reciprocal social cohesion of people interventions at local levels need to integrate the local
declined and is increasingly replaced by individualistic institutional values and systems; otherwise, interventions
and myopic relations; and thus, the new scheme that are intended to generate positive outcomes turn to
increased problems which is not the case before in the “doing harm” to local people, increase differentiation
location; even in the time of critical drought shocks. (leading to more inequality and exclusion) and waste
Finally, the age-old practice of river catchment efforts of actors and scarce resources.
development work tradition (system); which were useful Furthering empirical research and policy information is
for managing the community forests were gradually required to synthesize and document available best
replaced by myopia. Finally, from users, 96% believed practices in irrigation water use and conflict transformation
that catchment rehabilitation practices of the past were in drought-prone locations. Specifically, best ways of
not observed and 94% of the non-users agree on these integrating local institutional systems and implementing
same issues. conflict-sensitive development need assessment,
From the data aforementioned results, though the planning, implementation, evaluation and dissemination
scheme has been useful for beneficiary households, in its of lessons is of academic, policy practice, advocacy and
beginning, now, the benefits are not as before; since the media concern in revisiting pro-poor and equity policy
water yield is declining, the systems of corruption and actions. Finally, participatory action-research, tailored
nepotism replaced reciprocal social relations and thus awareness, locally customized intervention and holistic
growing water-based conflicts in the locations. The participation of stakeholders should be given attention
finding here further implies that the positive intentions of including similar intervention domains.
the scheme have gradually created harm to local
reciprocal and farmer-friendly as well as respectful and
trustworthy local systems of water and land management CONFLICT OF INTERESTS
to myopic and unsustainable; yet nepotic and corrupt
systems. Thus, the new intervention gradually eliminated The authors have not declared any conflict of interests.
local working systems, enhanced inequality, exclusion
and unsustainable use of land and water resources in the
context of persisting droughts in the location. REFERENCES

Abera Y (2004). “Problems of the solution: intervention into small-scale

irrigation for drought proofing in the Mekele Plateau of northern
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION Ethiopia,” The Geographical Journal 10(3):226-237.
Abonesh T (2006). The impact of small-scale irrigation on household
food security and assessment of its management systems: the case
This study analyzed the causes of tensions and conflict
of filtino and godino irrigation schemes in ada liben district, east shoa,
among/between irrigation water users and non-users in Ethiopia, an MSc thesis. Haramaya University.
the study location and inquired why the tensions exist Alemu A, Dufera E (2017). Climate smart coffee (coffea arabica)
despite the institutional mechanisms in place from the production. American Journal of Data Mining and Knowledge
Discovery 2(2):62-68.
outset of the project. After primary and secondary
Asayehegn K, Yirga C, Rajan S (2011). Effect of small-scale irrigation
descriptive, inferential and qualitative data analysis, the on the income of rural farm households: The case of Laelay Maichew
study found that the scheme improved farming practices, District,Central Tigray, Ethiopia. Journal of Stored Products and
incomes and consumption of beneficiary households; Postharvest Research 2(10):208-215.
Assefa S, Biazin B, Muluneh A, Yimer F, Haileslassie A (2016).
especially for upstream beneficiaries. It also improved
“Rainwater harvesting for supplemental irrigation of onions in the
assets, assets of the irrigation beneficiaries. However, southern dry lands of Ethiopia,” Journal of Agricultural Water
the introduction of the scheme also introduced myopic, Management 178:325-334.
corrupt and nepotic new systems replacing local Atena A, Tolessa T, Denu B (2020a). “Analysis of Rural Households‟
Resilience to Food Insecurity: Does Livelihood Systems/Choice/
reciprocal, inclusive and farmer-friendly systems of water
Matter? The Case of Boricha Woreda of Sidama Zone in Southern
and relationship management in the context of droughts. Ethiopia.” Environmental Development 35:100530
This caused water wastage, undermined water security Awulachew SB (2010). Irrigation potential in Ethiopia:. International
and become a cause for conflicts at local levels over the Water Management Institute Constraints and Opportunities for
Enhancing the System pp. 5-56.
scarce waters. As opposite to what was expected as
Barrientos A (2016). “Justice-based Social Assistance.” Global Social
outcomes of the schemes, which was improvements in Policy 16(2):151-165.
food security, equity in access to farm inputs, the Belayneh T (2009). Agricultural Water Management National Situation
intervention increased inequality, conflicts and decline in Analysis Brief. Retrieved december 2011, from http://www.awm-
solutions.iwmi.org.
social cohesion and reciprocity among households in the
Boserup E (1970). Women Role in Agriculture Development,
location. Earthscan, London.
The introduction of new systems with the intervention Chant S (2008). The „Feminisation of Poverty‟ and the „Feminisation‟ of
eliminated the age-old local institutions while introducing Anti-Poverty Programmes: Room for Revision? Journal of
Development Studies 44(2):165-197.
“greed”, corruption and nepotism to the local culture;
Chant S, Sweetman C (2012). Fixing women or fixing the world? „Smart
which were not existing in the previous reciprocal economics‟, efficiency approaches, and gender equality in
institutional systems of the people. Therefore, development. Journal of Development Practice 20(3):517-529.
 Hando 729

Cherre S (2010). Irrigation Policies, Strategies and Institutional Support Hussain I, Namara RE, Madar S (2004). Water for food security for the
conditions in Ethiopia. poor: A collection of thematic papers. Asian Development Bank.
Chinigò D (2015). Historicizing agrarian transformation: agricultural Colombo, Sri Lanka.
commercialization and social differentiation in Wolaita, southern Kabeer N, Deshpande A (2019). (In)Visibility, Care and Cultural
Ethiopia. Journal of Eastern African Studies 9(2):193-211. Barriers: The Size and Shape of Women‟s Work in India, Ashoka
Clay DC, Molla D, Habtewold D (1999). Food aid targeting in Ethiopia. A University Discussion Paper Series in Economics, DP No. 10, May
study of who needs it and who gets it. Food Policy 24:391-409. 2019.
Cochrane L, Nigussie Z (2018). The state of knowledge on food security Kedir B (2011). The impact of Small scale irrigation on household food
in Ethiopia. Journal of Rural and Community Development 13:152- security in Dugda woreda oromia region. Msc. Thesis. Addis Ababa:
166. Ethiopian Civil Service.
Crenshaw KW (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: Kothari CR (2004). Research Methodology – Methods and Techniques
A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory (3rd Ed.): One World, New Delhi.
and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum 1989:139- McCall L (2005). The Complexity of Intersectionality – Anti-categorical
157. Perspective, Journal of Signs 30(3):1771-1800.
Creswell JW (2010). Mapping the developing landscape of mixed MoARD (2010). Annual Report: The Status and Crop, Livestock and
methods research. In A. research. In: Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Water Use in Ethiopia, An Arid Areas Development Programme,
handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral, pp. (2nd ed., Ministry of Agriculture an Rural Development, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
pp. 45–68). MoARD (2021). Agriculture and Food Security Programme: Request for
Creswell JW (2011). Controversies in mixed methods research. In N. funding public sector window Agriculture growth program (GAFSP
Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), (4th ed., pp. 269-284). Thousand Oaks, Gap Financing) in Ethiopia, Addis Ababa.
CA: The SAGE Handbook on Qualitative Research. MoFED (2020). Ethiopia‟s Progress Towards Eradicating Poverty: An
Creswell JW (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Interim Report on Poverty Analysis Study (2019/20). Development
Mixed Methods Approaches, 4th ed. Calf: sage Publications: Planning and Research Directorate. Ethiopia, Addis Ababa.
Thousand Oaks. Neef A (2009). “Transforming rural water governance Institutions:
Devereux S (2006). Distinguishing between chronic and transitory food Towards deliberative and polycentric models,” Water Alternatives
insecurity in emergency needs assessments. World Food 2(1):53-60.
Programme, Emergency Needs Assessment Branch (ODAN) pp. 5-6. OCHA (2015). The Status of the 2015 Drought and Food Security in
Devereux S, McGregor JA, Sabates-Wheeler R (2011). “Introduction: Eastern Ethiopia, An Intervention and Policy Brief, National
Social Protection for Social Justice.” IDS Bulletin 42(6):1-9. Document, March 2015.
Dorosh PA, Mellor JW (2013). Why agriculture remains a viable means Oliveira AS, Trezza R, Holzapfel EA, Lorite I, Paz VP (2009). “Irrigation
of poverty reduction in sub-Saharan Africa: the case of Ethiopia. water management in Latin America,” Chilean Jar Journal pp. 7-16.
Development Policy Review 31(4):419-441. Oni SA, Maliwichi L, Obadire L, Saeed O (2011). “Assessing the
Food Security Coordination Bureau (FSCB) (2004). The New Coalition contribution of smallholder irrigation to household food security in
For Food Security In Ethiopia Food Security Programme. Addis comparison to dryland farming in Vhembe district of Limpopo
Ababa. province, South Africa.” African Journal of Agricultural Research
Gezahegn A (2017). Description of long-term climate data in Ethiopia. 6(10):2188-2197.
Data in Brief 14:371-392. Poole ND, Chitundu M, Msoni R (2013). Commercialisation: a meta-
Gezahegn A (2020a). Cash-for-work and food-for-work programmes‟ approach for agricultural development among smallholder farmers in
role in HH resilience to food insecurity in southern Ethiopia, Africa? Food Policy 41(6):155-165.
Development in Practice, DOI: 10.1080/09614524.2020.1747398 Rahim S, Saeed D, Rasool GA, Saeed G (2011). Factors Influencing
Gezahegn A (2020b). “Dealing with Climate Change and Other Household Food Security Status. Food and Nutrition Sciences pp. 1-
Stressors: Small-Scale Coffee Farmers in the Fero-Two Peasant 4.
Association in the Wensho District, Southern Ethiopia.” GeoJournal. Regassa A, Hizekiel Y, Korf B (2019). „Civilizing‟ the pastoral frontier:
doi:10.1007/s10708-020-10210-7. land dispossession and coercive agrarian development in Ethiopia.
Gezahegn A (2021a). Debate on the linkages between largescale The Journal of Peasant Studies 46(5):935-955.
agriculture and farmers food security: Examples from Ethiopia. Sen A (1990). Development: As Freedom, Cambridge Pre: London.
Journal of Human Geography pp. 1-14. DOI: Tadesse B (2009). “Agricultural Water Management National Situation
10.1177/19427786211019186. Analysis,” Policy Brief. Retrieved December 2011, from http://awm-
Gezahegn A (2021b). Farmers‟ food insecurity coping strategies in the solutions.iwmi.org.
Sidama region of southern Ethiopia, Development in Practice van der Ploeg JD (2014). Peasant-driven agricultural growth and food
31(5):619-635, DOI: 10.1080/09614524.2021.1907537 sovereignty. The Journal of Peasant Studies 41(6):999-1030.
Gofa Prosperity and Development Association (GoPDA) (2021). Gofa Wiggins S, Argwings-Kodhek G, Samuel G (2014). Cautious
Zonal Agricultural, Water and Natural Resource Potential for Commercialization, Findings from Village Studies in Ethiopia, Ghana,
Smallholder Farming, as Assessment Report, May 2021. Kenya, Malawi and Tanzania. UK: Future Agriculture Consortium.
Gofa Zone Agriculture and Rural Development (GZoARD) (2020). Gofa Wiggins S (2016). “Agricultural and rural development reconsidered: A
Zone Agriculture, Droughts, Water and Crop Status Report, June guide to issues and debates,” OECD and, IFAD Research Series 01,
2020. ISBN 978-92-9072-604-3.
Hagos F, Makombe G, Namara RE, Awulachew SB (2009). “Importance World Vision Ethiopia (WVE) (2020). Impact of Climate Change Induced
of Irrigated Agriculture to the Ethiopian Economy: Capturing the Droughts on Smallholder Farming in eastern Ethiopia, A Field-based
Direct Net Benefits of Irrigation,” International Water Management Assessment Report, December 2020.
Institute pp. 1-27. Yaro JA, Teye J, Bawakyillenuo S (2015). Local institutions and
Hancock AM (2007). Intersectionality as a Normative and Empirical adaptive capacity to climate change/variability in the northern
Paradigm, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. savannah of Ghana. Climate and Development 7(3):235-245.
Hunter R, Brandes MO, Moore M and Brandes L (2014). An Evolution of
Collaborative Watershed Governance: A Watershed Governance
Case Study, POLIS Project on Ecological Governance, water
sustainability project.