THE ROLE OF IRRIGATION IN POVERTY REDUCTION IN

CASE ON YAYA GULALE WOREDA

SALALE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
A SENIOR ESSAY SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
ECONOMICS IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE BACHELOR OF ARTS
IN ECONOMICS.

By: ALEMAYEHU SHIFERAW

ADVISOR: DEREJE A. (MSC)

JUNE, 2022

FITCHE, ETHIOPIA.

i
 DECLARATION

I declare that, this thesis is prepared by Alemayehu Shiferaw Kassaye which entitled “The role of irrigation in
poverty reduction: in the case of Yaya Gulele Woreda”, and that is submitted to the partial fulfillment of
bachelor degree in Economics in Salale University. And also, I want to say all the finding of the study
specified to efforts of me only and I quoted the other study work with respected references.

Student name: Alemayehu Shiferaw Signature Date

Advisor name: Dereje Aragaw (MSC) Signature Date

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

First, and for most I would like to thanks to the Omnipotent GOD for his continuous and
invaluable helps, during the entire our study. Next, I would like to thank express my best
appreciation is belonging to my advisor Dereje Argaw (MSC)who put me in the right truck of
the research proposal and for his continuous and constructive comments with a best approach
and endless assistance to write up the final proposal paper, and I am also indebted to my
honorable family indeed my Father and my Mother and as well as my lovely families Girum
Tiruneh, Tafesach H/Mariam, Meserat Ababu and Mihirat Cheru for their moral and financial
support.

Finally, I would like to express my gratitude for my best friend Temesgen Hailu for their
support to me in accomplish this research proposal.

i
Table of Content Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENT ......................................................................................................................................i
List Of Table ...................................................................................................................................................... iv
LIST OF ABBREVATUION AND ACRONOMY.............................................................................................. v
Abstract .............................................................................................................................................................. vi
CHAPTER ONE .................................................................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Background Of The Study ........................................................................................................................1
1.2 Statement Of The Problem. .......................................................................................................................2
1.3 Research question. ....................................................................................................................................4
1.4 Objectives Of The Study. ..........................................................................................................................4
1.4.1 General Objective ..............................................................................................................................4
1.4.2 Specific Objectives. ...........................................................................................................................4
1.5. Scope Of The Study and Limitation Of The Study ..................................................................................4
1.6. Significance Of The Study .......................................................................................................................4
1.7 Organization Of The Study .......................................................................................................................5
CHAPTER TWO ................................................................................................................................................6
LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................................................................6
2.1 Theoretical Literature Review...................................................................................................................6
2.2. Concept Of Irrigation ...............................................................................................................................7
2.2.2 Necessity Of Irrigation.......................................................................................................................8
2.3 Empirical Literature Review .....................................................................................................................9
2.3.1 Irrigation Development In The World................................................................................................9
2.4 Overview Of Ethiopian Government Policies And Strategies ..................................................................9
2.4.1 Irrigation Resources Development Of Ethiopia .................................................................................9
CHAPTER THREE.......................................................................................................................................... 11
METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY .............................................................................................................. 11
3.1 Description Of The Area ........................................................................................................................ 11
3.2 Data Source and Type ............................................................................................................................ 11
3.3 Method Of Data Collection .................................................................................................................... 11
3.4 Sampling Design And Sample Size Determination Technique .............................................................. 12
3.5 Methods Of Data Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 13
CHAPTER FOUR ............................................................................................................................................ 14
RESULT AND ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................................... 14

ii
 4.1. Demographic Profile ............................................................................................................................. 14
4.2 Irrigable Land Utilization By Different Crop Varieties.......................................................................... 20
4.3 Valuation Of Agricultural Input And Products ....................................................................................... 21
4.3.1 Valuation Of Benefit ....................................................................................................................... 21
4.4.2 Marketing Problems ........................................................................................................................ 24
CHAPTER FIVE.............................................................................................................................................. 28
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ................................................................................................ 28
5.1 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 28
5.2 Recommendations .................................................................................................................................. 29
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................................. 30
APPENDIX ...................................................................................................................................................... 32

iii
 List Of Table
Table 1Name of selected target population size in each Kebeles ....................................................................... 12
Table 2 Sex Distribution Of Respondents ............................................................................................................. 14
Table 3 Age Of The Respondent............................................................................................................................. 15
Table 4 The Composition Of The Respondents By Their Marital Status ........................................................... 15
Table 5 Educational Level Of The Respondents ................................................................................................... 16
Table 6 Family Size Of The Respondent ............................................................................................................... 17
Table 7 The Working Activity Of The Respondent .............................................................................................. 17
Table 8 Land Holding Pattern Of The Respondents ............................................................................................ 18
Table 9 Application And Usage Of Inputs ............................................................................................................. 19
Table 10 Analysis About Fertilizers ....................................................................................................................... 19
Table 11 The Average Yield Performance Of The Project The Selected Crops ................................................. 21
Table 12 The Valuation Of Benefit ......................................................................................................................... 21
Table 13The Analysis Of Internal Drought In The Study Area .......................................................................... 22
Table 14Basic Cause Of Drought In The Study Area Responses Given By Respondent. ................................. 22
Table 15Source Of Household Income From Economic Activities...................................................................... 23
Table 16 Analysis Factors Of Irrigation Schemes. ............................................................................................... 24
Table 17 Response Of Household In Factors Of Irrigation Schemes. ................................................................ 24
Table 18 Analysis Level Of Employment In Your Farmer Before Using Irrigation .......................................... 25
Table 19Analysis Level Of Employment In Your Farmer After Using Irrigation ............................................. 25

iv
LIST OF ABBREVATUION AND ACRONOMY

ADLI=Agricultural Development Led Industry

HH=Household

MOA=Ministry of Agriculture

WB = World Bank

WRDA=Water Resource Development of Agriculture

v
 Abstract
The main aim of this study was to assess the effect of irrigation in poverty reduction in Yaya Gulele

District and to recommend some reasonable solutions; the data required for the accomplishment
of this project was obtained from the different concerned bodies. Both primary and secondary
data were used. The collection of primary data involved the use of interview questionnaires.
Were as that of secondary data involved careful review of related documents, data gathered
from respective source is analyzed using descriptive methods (descriptive statistics) and
interpreted in meaningful ways. The major finding of the study where the irrigator has been able
to intensify their landholdings through double cropping and thus, they get high level of
agricultural income or yield through the intervention of irrigation scheme. In addition, the
intervention has resulted in better employment opportunity for the beneficiaries at household
level, however, there was no significant as much as expected. There should be clearer transfer
and distribution of roles and responsibilities among all concerned body is required and also in
order to increase the productivity of the farmers government should support the farmers.
Key words: small- scale irrigation, poverty reduction and necessary of irrigation in agriculture.

vi
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background Of The Study

As the world population grew from 1.6 billion to more than 6 billion during the last century
and is expected to hit more than 7 billion. Irrigation becomes a corner stone of global food
security. Under developed countries like Africa have more than a fair of share of population
increase as their population growth rate are of order of 3% to 3.2% per year. Most of the people
in sub-Saharan Africa do not have access to enough food to meet their needs for health and
productive life, of going hungry and not knowing where their next meal come from. They
usually suffer from and die of disease associated with poverty. One of the sub-Saharan African
countries, such as Ethiopian, has agricultural productivity that does not match with its
population growth. The overall performance of the economy is highly correlated with
performance of agriculture (Tesfaye,2004). There is an urgent need for overcoming institutional
failure as it remains a prime challenge in irrigation water management. There is evidence for
the need to strength economic capability of female headed households through improved access
to irrigation water. Problems of income inequality and poverty reduction can be tackled if such
bias against female headed is prevented. Thus, redesigning of institutions to overcome
corruption and nepotism in water allocation at community level will contribute to the
sustainable management of the scheme (Hamda, 2014).

Now a day, the world estimated irrigated area of 270 million hectares covers nearly 20% of the
world land and provides 1/3 of its food production. Ethiopia has estimated potentials of 3.5
million hectares’ irrigable land. Out of that 3% is used in present. This implies that the irrigated
agricultural development greatly lags behind potentials. Out of irrigable, more than 350,000
hectares are estimated to be suitable for small scale irrigation. Oromia is one of the central
regions of Ethiopia which has a wide, potentially suitable and fertile land for irrigations
(Habtamu ,1990).

1
Small scale irrigation system in Oromia region comprises about 75% of the region total
improved irrigated area. Enhancing efficiency therefore is a key element of regional agricultural
development. Accordingly, Government policy has recognized farmer participation as an
important strategy towards more efficient irrigation. As a result, for their eventual management,
all implemented schemes are formally handed over to beneficiary farmers up on the end of
construction phase.

Most of the lakes are suitable for small scale irrigations; therefore, the farmer themselves use
the lakes by tradition irrigation system. But they irrigated a steep slope command area and some
plane area. The amount water traditional diverted is increasing from time to time and water
shortages has been exhibited in some part of the districts especially Lami area of the study
District. But, the largest areas of agricultural productions of the districts are rain fed.

1.2 Statement Of The Problem.

Major constraints to agricultural growth of Ethiopia are population coupled with the dominance
of the use of agricultural production technology, including traditional farm tools and farming
practices, low application of modern inputs like improved seed and fertilizers, and poor animal
breeds. The country’s capacity to support agriculture production through development of
irrigation has been weak (Mengistu, 2000; Destabeyere, 2004).

The economic impact of irrigation and the contribution of irrigation to food security and as an
engine of development are news themes in research programs. But currently, as the issue of
food security and poverty reduction are becoming the global agenda, it started giving emphasis
on the importance of increasing yields and income from irrigated agriculture to meet food needs
and to reduce poverty (Hadush, 2013).

According to (Tesfa , 2011) a greater majority of the Ethiopian population lives in rural area
and engages in some form of agricultural activity. Despite the fact that the majority of the
county’s livelihood depends of agriculture, it still would have been found at subsistence level of
a traditional practices for long year with no attempts to bring improvements. But we can say
that this farmer is efficient with the existing traditional technology in hand .it help to grow
agricultural crops, maintain landscapes, and vegetate disturbed soils in dry areas and during

2
period of less than average rainfall. Irrigation also has other uses in crop production, including
frost protection, suppressing weed growth in grain ons and preventing soil consolidation.

For a country like Ethiopia which is struggling with burgeoning population while the
subsistence rain fed agriculture is under the mercy of inconsistent rainfall, water resource
development is believed to have an imperative role in the agricultural, socio-economic and
industrial development (Ababaw and Mesfin, 2016). Additionally, the contributions of irrigation
on house hold consumption; expenditure pattern was used as a proxy indicator for standard of
living. This usually refers to the ability of the household to produce or purchase a basket of
goods containing the minimum quantity of calories and non-food commodities (Terefe, 2019).

Agriculture by irrigation are many problems such as lack of effective and efficient use of
available irrigation water due to inadequate knowledge about the use of irrigation, shortage of
labor force, limited access to technology, poor resource management system, and poor
experience of farmers to adopt irrigation farming etc., at the irrigation scheme (Woldegbrail et
al,2015)

As shown above, varies research were taken place in different parts of Ethiopia that concerned
about the effect of irrigation in poverty reduction have different study results and expectation.
Those studies and others related works were undertaken in the effect of irrigation in poverty
reduction might have a significance role in their time and scope of study. But now the time is
different, everything is changing including technology, population size and living habits of the
peasants. Therefore, irrigation was the primary vehicles of two overcome deep-rooted problem
of unpredictable rain fall patterns. These study areas, characterized by seasonal and
unpredictable rain fall, virtually large areas of agricultural practice under taking only waging
for specific rain seasons. This problem is the broad rational for Author to conduct this study.

In addition to this, the scope of this study the farming style in traditional ways and simply
production and productivity is through rainfall. The second rational to conduct this research is
the high number of young peoples and they have no works unless during the rainy season.
Therefore, this study is initiated to analyze the impact of irrigation on production and income of
rural households. It also, assesses issues with respect to community managed irrigation systems
that need government attention and innervations. After identifying the effect of irrigation on
3
poverty reduction by collected data, Author wills provides insight in how the use of irrigation
technology increasing production and productivity, increasing income level and improve life.

1.3 Research question.

1. At is the contribution of scheme in employment generations?

2. What is main problem associated with construction and utilization of dams?

1.4 Objectives Of The Study.

1.4.1 General Objective

General objective of the study will be to assess the impact of irrigation scheme in poverty
reduction in case of Yaya Gulele District.

1.4.2 Specific Objectives.

1. To examine the contribution of scheme in employment generations.

2. To point out the main problem associated with construction and utilization of dams.

1.5. Scope Of The Study and Limitation Of The Study

The scope of the study is limited the Oromia Regional state North Showa Zone Yaya Gulele
District irrigation scheme around Kebele Lami, chamari and Goto. It is also limited to an
impact assessment of scheme assuming that prior- cost benefit analysis will be done to justify
project investment.

The study may be limited to only one distinct due time and resource constraints. In some
government bureau, workers do not allow using data available in the office. Unwillingness and
Carelessness of respondents to fulfill questionnaires papers may be other limitations. The time
allowed for distributing and collecting the questionnaires was not sufficient. Shortage of time
would another limitation to conduct the study.

1.6. Significance Of The Study

The study of this research paper is expected to provide information the concerned bodies on
4
time and enables them to take more feasible investment decisions. On the other hand, it services
as necessary inputs for the appropriate design and implementation of future programs and
projects. It can also evaluate whether the existing irrigation scheme in the study area are serving
the planned poverty alleviation goals or not. Generally, it may enable those who are interested
this matter to briefly see the role of irrigation plays for poor households in the study area.

1.7 Organization Of The Study

The research paper contains five chapters. The first chapter comes up with introduction part of
the research which contains, back ground of the study, statement of the problem, research
question, objectives of the study, scope of the study, significance of the study and limitation of
the study, and organization of the study. The second chapter will deal with the literature review
that contains theoretical and empirical. The third chapter is deals with methodology of the
study; which includes data source, method of data collection, sample size and sampling
techniques. The fourth chapter is the main parts which represent analyzing and discussion of the
study and the final or fifth chapter is concerned with conclusion idea and recommendation.

5
 CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Theoretical Literature Review

In Ethiopia, crop production virtually rains fed. So, rain fed agriculture is not sustainable and
could not meet the demand for food of its people by itself. Small holding owner cultivators and
tenants had been the back bone of rural economy and even today. Traditional type’s agricultural
system’s very common in country as whole. Due to erratic nature distribution of rain fall,
shortage of improved seeds and use of rain feed agriculture reduces the productivity of the land
thereby increasing shortages of food self-sufficient and made the country to wait the hands of
the others (Tesfaye, 2004).

This will be solved if the people use small scale irrigation development scheme, hence the
country is rich in potential water resource by its natural. Everybody knows it that irrigation is
an old age practice and in fact as old as men’s first attempt at crop growing and it has dictated
largely the progress of agricultural development even though irrigation practice is an old ages
practices and traditionally common. Especially in high lands of Ethiopia and some part of low
land, it does not meet its people demand for food.

If this traditional method is improved, it will reduce poverty and can satisfy the country’s needs
as well, as a principle. Optimum benefit from irrigation is obtained only when crop production
inputs are provided and technologies are applied like high yielding. Verities of fertilizers use
multiple cropping. Crop culture and protection with its best utilization of irrigation
development scheme, more than 85% of Ethiopian population is dependent on agricultural
production (Tesfay, 2004).

Despites the dependency on agriculture, however the productivity of the sector is very low due
to erratic nature of rain fall, environmental degradation, traditional use of water and absence of
modern inputs and technologies.

To reduce this situation government at both regional and as well as national level has been
6
devising and introducing different programs, for instance extension packages that are working
in introducing agricultural inputs and technologies, sustainable agricultural and environmental
rehabilitation commission in regional level, designing and constructing different water
harvesting and introducing modern small-scale irrigation development scheme. This all
programmers are aimed at improving productivity, ensuring food security and better level hood
at household level (World Bank, 2012).

(ADLI) is one of the strategies designed by government for sustainable development. It is the
first stage development that will be achieved by development of agriculture by small scale
irrigation development that is believed to provide market base as a source of raw material and
accelerates the capital accumulation for industrializations. Government will promote irrigation
where the resources exit to allow development at reasonable cost. In addition to this, the
government should encourage by opening new area for large scale irrigation development
scheme and irrigated food security program through irrigation. Therefore, any irrigation
development scheme like small scale irrigation, medium scale irrigation, and large-scale
irrigation saves many people from poverty by creating employment opportunity and by
increasing productivity of land society’s annual income (World Bank, 2013).

2.2. Concept Of Irrigation

2.2.1. Definition Of Irrigation

Irrigation may define as the process of supplying water to land by artificial means of for the
purpose of cultivation. In other case irrigation means the action of applying water to land in
order to supply crops and other plants with necessarily, or irrigation the artificial application of
water to the land (Mekuria ,2003). On the other hands, the “artificial of water to land for the
purpose of crop” with good economic return and no damage to land and soil, to supplement the
natural source of water to meet water requirement of crops (Majumadar, 2002).

Irrigation is also used for nonagricultural purpose and activates like to improve environmental
and for drinking purpose. Irrigation scheme may be classified based on different creation such
as the level of water available, duration of irrigation system and the available command area
(Mekuria, 2003).

7
On the basis of the level of available water, irrigation can be followed irrigation system if the
water is available at the high level. Thus, can be further classified into direct storage and
combined irrigation system on the basic of the source of water from which the flow irrigation
canals take off (Mekuria ,2003).

2.2.2 Necessity Of Irrigation.

The yield from agricultural land depends on up several factors. But the most important factors
are that the crops get adequate water various growth stage of the plants. The natural supply of
water to the land for the production is throw rain thus, if the normal rain fall at any place is
adequate to meet the total water requirements of crops grown and the time interval of the rain is
such that water is available whenever the plant need it and then irrigation is not required
(Habtamu ,1990).

2.2.3 Rational For Irrigation Agricultural Development.

Irrigation development has attention and support of policy makers and international donors. A
World Bank country study on Indonesia strategy for sustainable poverty reductions puts
irrigation as the most power full single tools for reaching poor farmers, as the only way in
which the earning power very small plot of land, over large area of country can be dramatically
increase. Irrigation provides for small farmers an opportunity to increase cropping intensity and
double or triple the effective size holding (World Bank, 2005).

The world commission on environmental and developmental as sited in the world bank, states
that, irrigation in arid and semi-arid area is anticipated to provide a degree of sufficient by
reducing the adverse effect of erratic nature of the rain fed agriculture and heavy population
pressure “ planners anticipated irrigation agriculture will provide a degree of self-sufficient at
least aid in ensuring national food security, equitable distribution rising rural population living
standard, creating employment opportunity and reducing urbanization pressure”. And
furthermore, if irrigation supported by modern technologies and high yield crop varieties, it
could maximize productivity by giving chance for double or multiple cropping (World Bank,
2000).

8
2.3 Empirical Literature Review
2.3.1 Irrigation Development In The World.
Irrigation is an ancient as civilization among the more notable irrigation in the world, more
those of Egypt’s, Iraq, India, Pakistan, Peru and Mexico more than six major based civilizations
a rose between 2000 and 6000 years ago. They include the Sumerians, Babylonians, and
Assyrians, thrived in the basins of the Tigris Euphrates rivers of present-day Iraq, the long
testing irrigation society was developed the valley of Nile River, the Harappa civilization
developed in the Indian river valley of present-day Pakistan, the Yellow River Basin of north
central China sow measures development of irrigation during the period. Sometimes later
irrigation based on culture rose in central Mexico, Costal Peru and American south west each of
which saw the rise and fall of advanced societies depending on irrigation agriculture. The
influence of irrigation on the development of the above society and their vulnerability and
environmental deterioration offer lessens for global irrigation of modern time (A.M Michael
1997).

2.4 Overview Of Ethiopian Government Policies And Strategies

2.4.1 Irrigation Resources Development Of Ethiopia

Ethiopia has a total land area of about 113,000,000 hectares, out of total land area more than
50% regard to be sustainable for cultivation. The country has a substantial potential for irrigated
agriculture. The traditional irrigation is very old in the countries. The traditional small-scale
scheme consists in general, simple river diversion structures that subjected to frequent damage
by flood. Modern irrigation is the most recent phenomenon in the country and it was started at
the begging of 1960s by private investor in the middle of awash valley where big sugar canes,
fruit and cotton firms are found (Knife, 2001).

Ethiopia has an estimated potential irrigable land of 3.5 million hectares of land. Out of which
up to 400 hectares can be developed for small scale irrigation scale. Estimated actual irrigation
land area is only about 3% of the potential whatever the development is almost 74% of the
irrigated land areas served by the medium and large scheme were located in the Awash valley.
Annual potential of water resource is about 110-billion-meter cube of which about 2.6-billion-
meter cube from underground water which may be used for irrigation too (Habtamu ,1990).
9
Currently there are three types of irrigation development scheme in Ethiopia. There are: Small-
scale scheme: the size extends up to 200 hectares and involves about 35,900 beneficiary
farmers in area of 63,851hectares. It is use for production of food crop and vegetables.

Medium-scale scheme; it exists with the size of41,917 hectares and 2,920 hectares under
constructio1n in 1990.The size of the scheme ranges between 200 hectares and 300 hectares
extends beyond one peasant association, requiring a greater degree of government in
(WRDAS). At first it is intended as a self-help low-cost development, it later modified include
commercial production such as coffee, sugarcane, and cotton.

Large-scale scheme; (46:328 hectares existing and 34,810 hectares were under construction in
19901: centrally managed state farm for commercial production and coving 3000 hectares or
more to be designed by water resource development authority and constructed under its
supervision (Habtamu,1990).

10
 CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY

3.1 Description Of The Area

This study will be conducted in the area of North Showa Zone Yaya Gulele District which is
situated about 150 km far from Addis Ababa and 26 km from zonal town. The astronomical
location of the district is 9.50 or 9030’N latitude and 38.60or 38036’E longitude with an
elevation of 1,551 meters above sea level. The annual rain falls of 1000mm and the average
temperature of 250 c and the soil are characterized by verity of soil. wheat is the dominant crop
cultivated in the district. Based on figures published by the central statistical Agency in 2005,
Yaya Gulele has an estimated total population of 113,150 of whom 56,071 are men and 57,079
are women, there two largest ethnic groups reported in Yaya Gulele were the Oromo (83.75%),
and the Amhara (16.1%); all other ethnic groups made up 0.15% of the population. The
majority of the inhabitants professed Ethiopian Orthodox Christianity, with 98.53% of the
population reporting they practiced that belief, while 1.08% said they were protestant, the
remaining is Muslim and others (Tolosa, 2019)

3.2 Data Source and Type

Both primary and secondary data source will be used by which all concerned bodies such as
local administrators, extension and development agent, and with bureau of agricultural natural
resource development experts at district level as well as the population of the district are
participates. Primary data has been also collected directly from respondents using
questionnaires-based interviews and through direct discussion with focus groups; whereas
secondary data has been collected through Review of related literatures.

3.3 Method Of Data Collection

In data collection method different types of data collection method was used in the study. To
collect Primary data two different types of data collection tools was used. These are interviews
and questionnaires. Through interviews the data has been collected from the manager of Yaya
Gulele District irrigation development office and questionnaires making with sample
11
beneficiary and non-beneficiary groups of the irrigation participant of Yaya Gulele District.
Secondary data has been collected from book recorded by the manager of irrigation office.

For detail information about the irrigation system the manager of irrigation development office
will be the main concern of participant of this study.

3.4 Sampling Design And Sample Size Determination Technique

Yaya Gulele District consists 17 kebeles, among this three kebeles (Kebele Lami, Chamari and
Goto) are dominant kebeles those have large number of irrigation practice.

The total number of participants in those three kebeles will be choose

by using Yamane formula [1967] can select the sample from target population

n=

Where; n=sample size, N=target of population=2922 and e=error term (0.08)

N=2922 this number indicates that the combination of users and non-users of irrigation dam in
the three Kebele.

2922
n=
1+2922(0.08)2

n=148

Table 1Name of selected target population size in each Kebeles

No Name of Kebele No of population

1 Lami 1082
2 Chamari 1026
3 Goto 814

In order to take sample from each strata the researcher will use proportional allocation
technique of stratified sampling which will be given by n=n*pi but pi=Ni/NT

Where Ni=population from each stratum, Pi=proportion for strata, n=sample size in each
stratum and n =total sample size
12
 P1=1082/2922=0.37 n1=0.37*148=54.76

P2=1026/2922=0.35 n2=0.35*148=51.8

P3=814/2922=0.28 n3=0.28*148=41.44

Therefore n=n1+ n2+ n3 =54.76+51.8+41.44=148

n=148

3.5 Methods Of Data Analysis

To analyze the collecting data, the researcher will use descriptive statistics, such as percentage,
and tables has been used to present the data, while Qualitative data analysis will be used for
organizing, describing and systematic interpreting the collecting data.

13
 CHAPTER FOUR

RESULT AND ANALYSIS

4.1. Demographic Profile

To understand the socio-economic profile of the residents around the project area, some
demographic features which are expected to have significant implications in the production
process of the sample population such as sex and age of households. Marital status, literacy
level, total family size and dependency ratio has been assessed. The sample households
described as beneficiary and non-beneficiary groups hold 148 households each.

Table 2 Sex Distribution Of Respondents

Sex distribution Beneficiary group Non-beneficiary group

Number Percent (%) Number Percent (%)
Male 56 76 60 81
Female 18 24 14 19
Total 74 100% 74 100%

Source: - On survey, 2022

The above table 4.2, indicates that from the total sample household, 76% were male headed
were as the remaining 24% are female headed household from beneficiary group. While non-
beneficiary group from the total sample household 81% were male headed and the remaining
19% female headed house hold from non-beneficiary group. These shown, highest numbers of
the sample households are male or men were highly participated on the irrigation activity from
both beneficiary and non-beneficiary group. Less number of sample households is females or
women it means low participant on the irrigation processes from beneficiary and non-
beneficiary group.

14
Table 3 Age Of The Respondent
Age Age of respondents
Beneficiary group Non beneficiary group
Number Percent (%) Number Percent (%)
15-25 years 30 40 29 39
26-40 years 21 28 22 30
41-60 years 15 20 15 21
Above 60 years 8 12 8 10

Total 74 100% 74 100%

Source: -On survey, 2022

Form the above table, 40% of the respondent were 15-25 years, 28% respondents are were 26-
40 years, 20%of the respondents are were 41-60 and the remaining were 12% of the
respondents are above 60 years from beneficiary groups. While the non-beneficiary groups 39%
of the respondent were 15-25 years, 30% of the respondent were 26-40 years, 21%of the
respondent were 41-60 years and the remaining 10% above 60 years. From the above table the
researchers Conclude that majority of the respondents were 15-25 from both beneficiary and
non-beneficiary groups.

Table 4 The Composition Of The Respondents By Their Marital Status

Beneficiary groups Non-beneficiary groups
Marital status No of the respondents Percentage (%) No of respondents Percentage (%)
Single 15 20 14 19
Divorce 22 30 23 31
Married 30 40 29 39
Widow 7 10 8 11
Total 74 100% 74 100%

Source: - On survey, 2022

As shown on the above table 4.4, that from the total of the 148 respondents each of the category
shares different percentage. The table shows that 20% of the respondents are single and30% of
the respondents are divorced. On the other hand, 40% of the respondents are married and 10%
of the respondents are widowed from the two groups. From the table, that the highest
15
 percentage of the participants of the respondent is married from both beneficiary and non-
beneficiary groups. Because of this, they are the manager of the household, and they know
about the problem in their household members.

Table 5Educational Level Of The Respondents

Literacy level Study group
Beneficiary group Non beneficiary group
Number Percent (%) Number Percent (%)

Illiterate 29 39 34 46
Read and write 22 30 15 20
High school 14 19 13 18
College level 5 7 7 9
Others 4 5 5 7
Total 74 100% 74 100%
Source; - On survey, 2022
As the table 4.5, shows that 39% the sample households were not getting educational
opportunity or illiterate and 30% of the sample households was read and write education
opportunity, 19% were gets high school or secondary educated of the sample households,7%
were gets college educated of the sample households and others of sample households from
beneficiary group. While non-beneficiary group 46% of the sample size households was
illiterate, 20% of the sample house hold were read and write, 18% of the sample size were high
school, 9% were college level educated and remaining others 7%. As we can see the above table
the irrigation production was affected by educational level because 39%and 46% of the
irrigation activities are led by uneducated household head respectively from both beneficiary
and non-beneficiary groups.

From the above table the researcher conclude that majority of the respondent participate in the
irrigation activity was illiterate from both groups.

16
 Family Size Of The Respondent
Table 6
Family size Study groups
Beneficiary group Non beneficiary group
Number Percent (%) Number Percent (%)
Children 29 39 27 36
Adult 35 48 36 50
Above60 10 13 11 14
years
Total 74 100% 74 100%

Source: -On survey, 2022

Form the above table, 39% of the respondent were children, 48% respondents are adult, and the
remaining were 13% of the respondents are above 60 years from beneficiary groups. While the
non-beneficiary groups 36% of the respondent were children, 50% of the respondents were
adult, and the remaining 14% above 60 years. Both children and old are dependent. Or
economically inactive.

From the table the researcher summarized that majority of the family size of respondents was
dependent of the two groups.

The Working Activity Of The Respondent

Table 7
No Description Beneficiary group Non beneficiary group
What is your working No of Percentage Number of Percentage
activity? respondent (%) respondents (%)
1 Agriculture 37 50 29 39
2 Trade 15 20 13 18
3 Industrial 8 10 6 8
4 Service 11 15 22 30
5 Others 3 5 4 5
Total 74 100% 74 100%

Source: - On survey, 2022

The above table, regarding to the activity of the respondents the majority of the respondent are
responded in agricultural sector 37(50%), the next, respondents participate in trade sector
15(20%) the third respondents participated in industrial sector 8(10%), the fourth 11(15%)

17
participate in service sector and the last 3(5%) participate other activity from beneficiary group.
While non-beneficiary groups respondents participated in agricultural sector 29(39%), the
second participated in trade sectors 13(18%), the third participated in industrial sector which
was 6(8%), the fourth participate in service 22(30%) sector and the last respondents was
responded in others activity which was 4(5%).

From the above table, the researcher conclude that the majority of the respondents were
responded (participated) in agricultural sector in both groups the fewer of the respondent were
participated in industrial sectors in both beneficiary and non-beneficiary groups so that the
economic activity of the majority of the respondent in the study area was agricultural sectors.

Table 8 Land Holding Pattern Of The Respondents

No Description Beneficiary group Non-beneficiary group
How many irrigated lands Number of Percentage Number of Percentage
do you have? respondents (%) respondents (%)
1 <1hectors 8 10 22 30
2 1-2 hectors 22 30 30 40
3 2-4 hectors 33 45 15 20
4 Above 4 hectors 11 15 7 10
Total 74 100% 74 100%

Sources: - On survey, 2022

In the above table 4.8, the respondents some of them responded less than one hectors of land
8(10%), some of them 22(30%) one- two hectors of land holding, the majority of them 33(45%)
two- four hectors of land holding and the remaining are 11(15%) of the land holding above four
hectors from beneficiary group. While non-beneficiary group the respondent answered that
most of the respondent are holding less than one hectors of land 22(30%), 30(40%) of them one
–two hectors, 15(20%) of them holding two- four hectors and the remaining of them 7(10%) of
the land holding from non-beneficiary groups respectively.

From the above table, the researcher conclude that majority of the respondents are holding one-
two hectors of the land in the study area from the two groups.

18
Table 9 Application And Usage Of Inputs

No Description Beneficiary group Non beneficiary group

Do you use modern No of Percentage Number of Percentage
agricultural input? households (%) households (%)
1 Yes 52 70 54 72
2 No 22 30 20 28
3 Total 74 100% 74 100%

Source: - On survey, 2022

From the above table, 52(70%) of the respondents were answered yes response and the others
respondents responded No responses 22(30%) on the usage of inputs from beneficiary groups of
the respondents. While non-beneficiary groups 54(72%) of them responses Yes, and the
remaining of them answered No response on the usage of inputs. In the above table the
researcher summarized that majority of the respondents are responses “yes “on the usage of the
inputs from both beneficiary and non-beneficiary groups.

Table 10 Analysis About Fertilizers

No Description Beneficiary group Non-beneficiary group
If you answer above table yes No of Percentage No of Percentage
what type of fertilizer you respondents (%) respondent (%)
used?
1 Traditional fertilizers 29 39 28 38
2 Modern fertilizers only 22 30 21 28
3 Both traditional and modern 15 20 16 22
fertilizers
4 Others 8 11 9 12
Total 74 100% 74 100%

Source: - on survey, 2022

Table 4.10, shows the 29(39%) of the households in the study area uses traditional fertilizers for
their agricultural crop production, and 22(30%) of households uses modern fertilizers, 15(20%)
of the households uses both traditional and modern fertilizers and remaining 8(11%) other
fertilizers. While non-beneficiary group 28(38%) of the respondents uses traditional fertilizers,
21(28%) of the respondent uses modern fertilizers, 16(22%) of the respondents use both

19
modern and traditional fertilizers and the remaining of 9(12%) are others. From the above table,
the researcher conclude that majority of the respondent uses the traditional fertilizers in study
area the two groups.

4.2 Irrigable Land Utilization By Different Crop Varieties

In the beneficiary group out of the total 30.5 hectors of the land is held by the sample
households, 16.25 hectors or 53.27% of it was cultivated in the dry season. This gives rise to
cropping intensification of 1.82 or it means that the land was producing at a capacity of 182%
compared with the counterpart rain fed system. For the same group, the average irrigable land
in hector per household was found to be 0.54 hector, which was above twice of the household’s
manageable land holding size in the rest of the micro dam irrigation development scheme in the
region. The reason for such phenomena was due to the delay in land distribution after
construction work was completed.

All part of the Yaya Gulele woredas comes within sub-tropical climatic zone. Cereal crops
account about 28%, pulse crop covers 5.9% and vegetable 3.5% from the total land cultivated.
According, to the Woreda agricultural and natural resource office as it was obviously known,
irrigation agriculture demands intensive application of labor and other input. Given the
availability of the limited household labor and financial resource, excessive availability of
irrigable land, would force farmers to choose crop variety which demand less of labor and other
resource irrespective of their expected financial of return.

Generally, farmers lend to or inclined to produce crop variety such as: which is less costly and
risk or less prone to crop failure for them and accordingly share of crops out of the total land
was found to be 9.75 hectors for maize crop, 1.81 hectors for onion crop, 1.13 for pepper crop,
0.63 hectors for tomato, 0.19 hectors for cabbage. The yield performance of the scheme for
about five years from the woreda agricultural and natural resource development office that is
Yaya Gulele irrigation development scheme provides the yield or performance yield per hectors
shows how irrigation development scheme is very important and increases the yield of the
farmer per hector.

20
 Table 11 The Average Yield Performance Of The Project The Selected Crops
Crops type Yield per hector i.e., quintal per hectors
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Onion 60 65.5 71 75 80.5
Garlic 39 42 45 47.5 50
Tomato 30 32 36.5 38 41
Potato 42 45 49 53.5 55.5
Pepper 10 12 12.5 14 15.5
Cabbage 8 9.5 11 12.5 15
Total 189 206 225 240.5 257.5

Source: - computed from survey data of irrigation and natural resource development
planning and programing office of the Yaya Gulele woreda

Despite the fact that they were applying modern input and supported by extension services, the
productivity performance in terms of average yield was found to be small. As shown the above
table, the selected crops have almost constant yield per hector growth for the year explained. If
they couldn’t use irrigation as an intervention technology their productivity may decline.
Therefore, irrigation keeps them almost to yield at constant level. Even though determination of
actual annual yield growth rate was dependent on agronomic, social, economic, administrative
and other determinant factors, it was analyzed according to the given data.

4.3 Valuation Of Agricultural Input And Products

4.3.1 Valuation Of Benefit
In calculating the value of the benefit of the year, the farmer get prices for various crops were
applied. Cereal crop prices were similar to that which was used in the cost of cereal seeds. For
vegetable crops the farmer get price was as follows.

Table 12 The Valuation Of Benefit

Onion 3000 birr per quintal

Tomato 1500 birr per quintal

Pepper 1200 birr per quintal

Cabbage 1000 birr per quintal

Source: - on survey, 2022

21
As the above table shows, one per quintal of onion is 3000 birrs, one per quintal of tomato is
1500birr, one per quintal of paper is 1200birr and one per quintal of cabbage is 1000 birr.

The prices of the first two crops were taken from a farm get price used by natural resource and
development in household centered irrigation development package. And the rest two crops
were taken from the farm get price reported by farmers.

Table 13The Analysis Of Internal Drought In The Study Area

No Description Beneficiary groups Non-beneficiary groups
Is there is internal drought in No of Percentage No of Percentage
your village or kebele? respondents (%) respondents (%)
1 Yes 42 56 40 54
2 No 32 44 34 46
Total 74 100% 74 100%

Source: - on survey, 2022

The above table shows, 42(56%) of the respondent gives Yes response and 32(44%) of the
respondents responded No response from beneficiary group. While the non-beneficiary group
answered the same as beneficiary groups.i.e.,40(54%), and 34(46%) given response yes and no
respectively from non-beneficiary groups. The researcher concluded that majority of the
respondent given yes response on the analysis of drought form the two groups. So there is
internal drought in the study area of the village in both groups.

Table 14Basic Cause Of Drought In The Study Area Responses Given By Respondent.
No Description Beneficiary group Non-beneficiary groups
What are basic causes of No of Percentage No of Percentage
drought in your kebele? respondents (%) respondent (%)
A Deforestation 27 36 25 34
B Unsuitability agricultural 15 20 15 20
sector
C Overexploitation of water 22 30 23 31
resources
D Others 10 14 11 15
Total 74 100% 74 100%

Source: - on survey, 2022

22
As the above table, shows the respondent responded that the basic cause of drought in the study
area was 27(36%) responded as deforestation, 15(20%) of the respondents responded unsuitable
agricultural sector 22(30%) of the respondents responded overexploitation of water resource
and there is 10(14%) is other cause in the study area from beneficiary groups. While non-
beneficiary groups respondents responded that the basic cause of drought in the study area are
25(34%) of respondents responded the deforestation, 15(20%) of the respondent responded
unsuitable water resource, 23(31%) of the respondents responded overexploitation of water
resource and the remaining 11(15%) of the respondents responded the other cause of drought.

From the above table, the researcher summarized that majority of the users failed under
temporary irrigation and the few of them under other cause of the drought from both.

Table 15Source Of Household Income From Economic Activities

No Description Beneficiary group Non-beneficiary group

What are your sources of No of respondents Percent No of Percent (%)

family income? (%) respondents
1 Crop production 22 30 30 40
2 Cattle production 15 20 15 20

3 Irrigation with other 27 36 12 17

activities
4 Others 10 14 17 23

Total 74 100% 74 100%

Source: - computed from survey data, 2022

From the above table, 30% and 40% sample household were crop production,20% and 20% was
cattle production, 36% and 17% were irrigation with other activity, 14% and 23% were over all
household average economic activities from beneficiary and non-beneficiary groups
respectively. From the above table, the researcher conclude that majority of the respondent
income was crop production. The least income of the respondents was cattle production for the
beneficiary groups. While the non- production the least income was irrigation with other
activities.

23
 4.4.2 Marketing Problems
Looking at the sales of vegetables, crops, even with the low level of productivity and small
proportion coverage in coping mix, the farm get price offered to the farmer was found to
discourage them. In spite of this, however the extension package seam to focus on and
encourage vegetable cultivation, without due concern for the issue of marketing.

Table 16 Analysis Factors Of Irrigation Schemes.

No Description Beneficiary groups Non beneficiary groups
Is there is factors of No of Percentage No of Percentage
irrigation scheme? respondents (%) respondents (%)
1 Yes 38 52 40 54
2 No 36 48 34 46
Total 74 100% 148 100%

Source: - on survey 2022

Table 4.16, in the above respondents answered yes that is house hold income generate from
different activity has been did a role in ensuring irrigation development which is 52% and 48%
respondents say no which is out of factor of irrigation schemes. While non-beneficiary groups
54% answered yes response and 46% response no out of factor of irrigation schemes.

Generally, the researcher concluded that household factors are generated from different
activities for both beneficiary and non-beneficiary groups.

Table 17 Response Of Household In Factors Of Irrigation Schemes.

No Description Beneficiary groups Non-beneficiary groups
What are the factors of No of Percent No of Percentage (%)
irrigation schemes? respondents (%) respondents

1 Lack of irrigable land 27 36 29 39

2 Land degradation 23 31 22 30
3 Backward technology 17 23 15 20
4 Others factors 7 10 8 11
Total 74 100% 74 100%

Source: -From household’s data 2022

In the above table 4.17, 36% of the households indicate lack of irrigable land, 31% of

24
households of land degradation, 23% of back ward technology and other factors 10%
respectively. While non-beneficiary groups 39% of the households indicate lack of irrigable
land, 30% of the households of land degradation, 20% of back ward technology and remaining
of other factors. From the above table, the researcher concludes that majority of household
factors of irrigation schemes for beneficiary and non-beneficiary groups are lack of irrigable
land and land degradation respectively.

Table 18 Analysis Level Of Employment In Your Farmer Before Using Irrigation

No How many workers employed No of respondent Percentage (%)
before you use irrigation
1 0-10 8 10
2 10-30 11 16
3 30-50 22 30
4 above 50 33 44
Total 74 100%

Source: - computed from survey data, 2022

According, to the above table, 10% of respondent suggested that their level of employment
before the used irrigation is" 0-10 workers ",16% of respondents suggested that" 10-30", 30%
of respondent suggested that 30-50”, and 44% of respondents suggested that above"50"
workers.

Table 19Analysis Level Of Employment In Your Farmer After Using Irrigation

No How many workers employed No of Percentage
after using irrigation respondent (%)
1 0—10 9 12
2 10—30 12 16
3 30—50 24 32
4 Above 50 29 40
Total 74 100%

Source; -computed from survey data, 2022

According, to the above table shows, 12%of respondent suggested that their level of
employment after the used irrigations is"0-10" workers,16%of respondent suggested that"10-30
"workers,32%of respondent suggested that 30-50"workers and 40%of respondent suggested that
25
above 50"workers. This shows that the number of workers is increase after the farmers used
irrigation. Therefore, from the above the two tables (4.18 and 4.19) the researchers concluded
that of irrigation.

26
27
 CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1 Conclusion

To solves the problems of food insecurity at household level. The introduction and intervention
of irrigation development schemes expansion has been identified as one the best alternative
means. For these reasons, massive investment has been launched in the past 10 years and this
development endeavor was expected to contribute more in the future. These results of
questionnaires in two groups have shown that the non-irrigators were better off in the
possession of land than the irrigator groups.

However, the irrigators have been able to intensify their land holdings through double cropping
and thus, they get higher level of agricultural income on yield through the intervention of
irrigation scheme. In addition, the intervention has resulted in better employment opportunity
for the beneficiaries at household levels. However, there was no significant difference between
the two groups with regard to the demand for hired labor from the market.

The intervention has also resulted in the improved availability of marketable surplus than their
counter parts. Similarly, the qualitative questionnaires made to look at household level food
security situation of the target, house or beneficiary group shows encouraging improvements, in
the availability and consumption pattern of food terms. In general, it could be concluded that
the beneficiary of the scheme was better off in food security and household yield and income
than their counter parts and just such improvements were the result of the opportunity created
by the availability of irrigation facility which gave rise to double cropping.

Turning to the production performance the scheme, it increases the yield of irrigators
(beneficiary groups) from the year to year. The average yields performance also increases
though it was not considerable. By analyzing the yield up build growth rate pattern for the past
4 years data was 3.76% every year.

The projections show that the expected yield performance of the last four years was low. In
28
short, the scheme was found to be less productive in the irrigated groups (vegetables).

Based on facts and believes of the researcher, the following problems were identified as the
main cases the poor performance of the schemes. The gap in the knowhow of the farmers about
the requirements of the irrigated crops such as water applications interval, weeding intensity,
etc.

5.2 Recommendations
 Based on the resulting or findings of the study the following recommendations are
forwarded.
 The government should encourage organizations that employed on improving irrigation.
 The local households of Yaya Gulele Woreda should aware of increases of irrigation
development.
 The government should stand with side of irrigation participants and development
associations. It is better if the supporters continuous with government to increase of
irrigation productivity.
 The irrigation development office must give attention on house irrigation participant by
supporting modern equipment.
 Household to benefit from helpers should have motive of supporting these supports.
 The irrigation participant also should have focused on modern productive techniques.
 General establishment of strong cooperatives should be speeded up as the organized
action.

29
REFERENCES
A.M Michael, (1997). The Irrigation theory and practice.

Ababaw A. and Mesfin T. (2016). The challenges and opportunity of small-scale irrigation

utilization.

D.K Majumadar, (2002). Irrigation water management.

Habtamu Gessese, (1990). Problems and Constraints in the study, Construction and
Management

of small-scale Irrigation Projects. A paper presented at the National policy and strategy

Workshop.

Hamda. T. (2014). The Effects of Small-scale Irrigation on Rural Households Income: The case

of Adami Tulu JidoKombolicha District, Oromia National Regional State.

Hassen Beshir, (2018). The Impact of Irrigation on poverty Reduction and Security at the Level

Household in South wollo, Ethiopia. Research in Eastern and southern Africa.

Knife Abraham, (2001). The dynamics of economic reforms.

Mekuria Tafesse, (2003). Food security in sub-Sahara Africa report and recommendations of a

CTA study visit Ethiopia, 20-29 January, (2003) CTA working document number 3031

Mengistu, (2000); Destabeyere, (2004). Impact on community managed irrigation on farm

production efficiency and house hold income: the case of weliso and wenchi Districts
of

Oromia regional state. University of Alemaya.

Sesen Hadush G/kidan, (2013). The Impact of Community Managed Irrigation on household

Income and Poverty Reduction: The Case of Sehrtisamre woreda, Tigray, Ethiopia.

30
Tekle Yohannes, (2011). The role of small-scale Irrigation in improving household income.

TerefeTadesse, (2019). Impact of Irrigation Development on poverty Reduction in Northern

Ethiopia. University of Wollo.

Tesfa A. (2011). Impact of Small-Scale Irrigation on Socio-Economic Development in

DewaChefa Woreda Oromia Zone of the Amhara National Regional States. Addis Ababa

Ethiopia.

Tesfaye Abebe, (2004). Potential modernizing agriculture and a way out of food insecurity.

Tolosa Haile, (2019). The predictors of child stunting: the case of YayaGulele District, Fital
town.

African journal of food, Agriculture, Nutrition and development. University of Gonder.

Woldegebrial, Z, Guido, V, Assefa, and Stun. (2015). Adoption of small-scale irrigation and its

livelihood impact in Northern Ethiopia.

World Bank, (2012). Ethiopia Economic Update I: Overcoming inflation, raising

competitiveness

World Bank, (2013). Ethiopia Economic Update II: Laying the foundation for achieving
middle-

income status.

World Bank, (2000). Ethiopia: country Assistance Evaluation. Report No. 21450 Washington.

World Bank, Fact Book (2000). https: www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-

world factbook/geos/ et. Htm l# people

31
 APPENDIX
SALALE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS

DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

Dear Respondent,

The questionnaire is designed to collect the necessary information to undertake research on; the
effect of irrigation in poverty reduction in Yaya Gulele Woreda. The study will conduct for the
partial fulfilment of the B.A degree in Economics at Salale University. The final paper based up
on which you provided information and it’s used for academic research purposes and also the
result of study analysis, aggregate and average manner. Therefore, you are kindly requested to
fill all question carefully and the information you give will remain strictly confident. In this
regard, I would like to thank you my advice with your willingness to fill the questions.

Instruction

 No need to write your name.

 Make a circle for your answer.
 Thank you for your time and cooperation!!!!!

PART ONE: S OCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC

1) Sex A) male B) Female

2) Age A) 15-25 B) 26-40

C) 41-60 D) Above 60 years

3) Marital status A. Single B. Divorce

C. Married D. Widow

32
4) Educational level

A) Illiterate B) Read and write C) High school

D) College level E) Other

5) Family size

A) Children B) Adult C) Above 60 years

6) What is your work? A) Agriculture B) Trade C) Industrial sector

D) Service sector E) other

PART TWO: PRODUCTIVITY HABITS

7) How many irrigated of land do you have?

A) Less than one hector B) 1–2-hectare C) 2–4-hectare D) Above 4 hectors

8) Do you use modern agricultural input? A) Yes B) No

9) If your answer to question "8 "is yes, what do you use modern agricultural input?

A. traditional fertilizer B. modern fertilizer

C. both traditional and modern fertilizer D) others

10) Is there a drought in your village or (kebele)?

A) Yes B) No

11) If your answer to question “10” is yes, what is the cause of drought in your kebeles?

A) Deforestation B) Unsuitable agricultural practice

c) overexploitation of water resource D) Others

33
12) What are your sources of family income?

A. Crop production B. Cattle production

C. Irrigation with other activities D. others

13) Is there are factors of irrigation scheme?

A. yes B. No

14) If your answer to question 13 is yes, what are the factors?

A. Lack of irrigable water B. land degradation

C. Backward technology D. other factors

15) How many workers were employed in your farm before using irrigation?

A) 0—10 B) 10—30 C) 30—50 D) Above 50

16) How many workers are employed in your farm after using irrigation?

A) 0—10 B) 10—30 C) 30—50 D) Above 50

34