Abonesh Tesfaye Agri. Economics - Jan. 2007

THE IMPACT OF SMALL SCALE IRRIGATION ON HOUSEHOLD
FOOD SECURITYAND ASSESSMENT OF ITS MANAGEMENT

SYSTEMS: THE CASE OF FILTINO AND GODINO IRRIGATION
SCHEMES IN ADA LIBEN DISTRICT, EAST SHOA, ETHIOPIA Deleted: ,
M.Sc. Thesis
Abonesh Tesfaye
December 2006 Deleted: November
Haramaya University
SCHEMES IN ADA LIBEN DISTRICT, EAST SHOA, ETHIOPIA
A Thesis Submitted to the Department of

Agricultural Economics, School of Graduate Studies
HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURE
(AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS)
BY
Abonesh Tesfaye
December 2006
Haramaya University
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
i
Deleted: THE IMPACT OF SMALL
SCALE IRRIGATION ON
SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES HOUSEHOLD FOOD
HARAMAYA University SECURITYAND ASSESSMENT OF
ITS MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS:
THE CASE OF FILTINO AND
As Thesis Research advisor, I here by certify that I have read and evaluated this thesis GODINO IRRIGATION SCHEMES,
IN ADA LIBEN DISTRICT, EAST
SHOA¶
prepared under my guidance, by Abonesh Tesfaye Tulu, entitled The Impact of Small Scale ¶
¶
Irrigation on Household Food Security and Assessment of Its Management Systems: ¶
¶
The Case of Filtino and Godino Irrigation Schemes in Ada Liben District, East Shoa, A Thesis Submitted to the Department
of¶
Ethiopia. I recommend that it be submitted as fulfilling the Thesis requirement. Agricultural Economics, School of
Graduate Studies¶
HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY¶
¶
¶
Ayalneh Bogale (PhD) ____________________ _______________ ¶
Major Advisor Signature Date ¶
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of¶
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN
AGRICULTURE¶ ... [1]
Formatted: Font: 14 pt, Bold, No
Regassa Ensermu Namara (PhD) ____________________ _______________ underline
Co- Advisor Signature Date Formatted: Font: 14 pt, Bold, No
underline
As member of the Board of Examiners of the M. Sc. Thesis Open Defense Examination, we underline
certify that we have read, evaluated the Thesis prepared by Abonesh Tesfaye Tulu and Formatted: Heading 1, Tabs: Not at
2.83"
examined the candidate. We recommended that the Thesis be accepted as fulfilling the Thesis Formatted: Font: 14 pt, Bold, No
underline
requirement for the degree of Master of Science in Agriculture (Agricultural Economics).
underline
_______________________ ____________________ _______________ underline
Chairperson Signature Date Formatted: Font: 14 pt, Bold, No
underline
_______________________ ____________________ _______________ underline
Internal Examiner Signature Date Formatted: Font: 14 pt, Bold, No
underline
_______________________ ____________________ _______________ underline
External Examiner Signature Date Formatted: Font: 14 pt, Bold, No
underline
underline, Not All caps
Deleted: ,
Formatted: English (U.S.)
Formatted: Right
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
ii
DEDICATION Formatted: Font: 14 pt, Bold, No
underline
Formatted: Heading 1
I dedicate this thesis manuscript to my father TESFAYE TULU, and my mother MULU
BEKELE, for nursing me with affection and love and for their dedicated partnership in the
success of my life.
Deleted: DEDICATION¶
¶
¶
I dedicate this thesis manuscript to my
father TESFAYE TULU, and my
mother MULU BEKELE, for nursing
me with affection and love and for their
dedicated partnership in the success of
my life.¶
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
iii
STATEMENT OF THE AUTHOR Deleted: Page Break
First, I declare that this thesis is my bonafide work and that all sources of materials used for
this thesis have been duly acknowledged. This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfilment
of the requirements for an advanced M.Sc. degree at the Haramaya University and deposited
at the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library.
Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission provided that
accurate acknowledgement of the source is made. Requests for permission for extended
quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the
head of the major department or the Dean of the School of Graduate Studies when in his or
her judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other
instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author.
Deleted: Tulu
Name: Abonesh Tesfaye Signature _______________
Place: Haramaya University
Submission Date: December 2006
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
iv
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ADLI Agricultural Development Led Industrialization

CSI Coping Strategy Index
DESFED Department of East Shoa Zone Finance and Economic Development
DPPA Disaster Prevention and Preparedness Authority
DPPC Disaster Prevention and Preparedness Commission
FDRE Federal Democratic Republic
FAO Food and Agricultural Organization
GDP Gross Domestic Product
HA Hectare
Deleted: i
IWMI International Water Management Institute
KM Kilometer
LIMDEP Limited Dependent Variable
MAX Maximum
MT Metric Ton
MIN Minimum
MoA Ministry of Agriculture
MoFED Ministry of Finance and Economic Development
MoWR Ministry of Water Resources
NGOs Non Governmental Organizations
O&M Operation and Maintenance
OLS Ordinary Least Square
OIDA Oromiy Irrigation Development Authority
Deleted: s
OESO Oromiya Economic Study Office
RDA Recommended Daily Allowance
RRC Relief and Rehabilitation Commission
STD Standard Deviation
STATA Statistical Data Analysis
TLU Tropical Livestock Unit
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
v
LIST OF ACRONYMS (Continued)
UN United Nations
Deleted: n
UNDP United Nations development Program
UNFPA United Nation Fund for Population Activities
USAID United States Agency for International Development
USD United States Dollar
VIF Variance Inflation Factor
WSDP Water Sector Development Program
WUA Water Users Association
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
vi
BIOGRAPHY
The author was born from her father Ato Tesfaye Tulu and her mother W/ro Mulu Bekele in
Addis Ababa in 1973. After she completed her primary and secondary school, she joined
Alemaya University of Agriculture in 1991 and graduated with B. sc. degree in Agriculture
Economics in 1994. Thereafter she was employed in the Oromiya Water, Mineral and Energy
Resource Development Department in Nekemt in 1995, as a project monitoring and
evaluation expert, In 1997 the author joined Tea Production and Marketing Enterprise in
Deleted: Currently she
Addis Ababa as a market research expert. The author is currently working for the Ministry of
Water Resources as an Economist.
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all I would like to praise GOD almighty for giving me strength to finalize my thesis.
My heart felt appreciation and gratitude goes to my major advisor Dr. Ayalneh Bogale for his
valuable comments and assistance for the development of my questionnaire, proposal and
Deleted: co
thesis. I am highly indebted to my Co advisor Dr. Regassa Ensermu Namara for his valuable
comments on my questionnaire, proposal and thesis development. I would like to appreciate
the International Water Management Institute, the Austrian government and Ministry of
Water Resources for their financial support.
Deleted: thanks also go

My special appreciation also goes to Dr. Fikru Tesfaye who generously provided me with
Deleted: thesis
Laptop throughout my research work and for his moral and financial support. I am grateful to
Deleted: encouragement
Dr. Teklu Tesfaye for his valuable comments on my thesis and for his encouragement. Deleted:
Haramaya University also deserves appreciation for its cooperation through out my thesis Deleted: for the smooth functioning
offacilitating
work. Ato Feresenbet Zeleke also deserves my special thanks for editing my thesis.
Deleted: also deserves my special

A special word of thanks goes to Ato Fekahmed Negash and W/ro Tigist Deneke for their thanks
generosity and kindness in providing me with the necessary logistics. I am grateful to Ato
Goshu Kebede, Ato Getachew Hayiso and W/ro Ferihiwot Belachew for their willingness to
handle my personal stuff on my behalf.
Deleted: Finally I would like to thank

Finally, I take this opportunity to thank my whole family and friends for their support.
Deleted: kindness,
Deleted: and patience for the
finalization of my thesis work.
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS Deleted: ¶
¶
DEDICATION ii¶
STATEMENT OF THE AUTHOR iii¶
STATEMENT OF THE AUTHOR iv LIST OF ACRONYMS iv¶
BIOGRAPHY v¶
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT vi¶
LIST OF TABLES ix¶
LIST OF ACRONYMS v LIST OF APPENDIX x¶
LIST OF FIGURE xi¶
ABSTRACT xii¶
1. INTRODUCTION 1¶
LIST OF ACRONYMS (Continued) vi 1.1. Background 1¶
1.2. Statement of the Problem 4¶
1.3. Objectives of the Study 7¶
1.4 Scope of the Study 8¶
BIOGRAPHY vii 1.5. Significance of the Study 8¶
2. LITERATURE REVIEW 10¶
2.1. Definition of Terminologies 10¶
2.1.1. Definition of a household 10¶
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT viii 2.1.2. Definition of food security 10¶
2.2. Core Concepts in Household Food
Security 12¶
2.2.1. Sufficiency: What is
LIST OF TABLES xii “Enough”? 12¶
2.2.2. Access and entitlement 13¶
2.2.3. Security 14¶
2.2.4. Time 15¶
LIST OF APPENDIX xiii 2.3. Indicators of Household Food
Security 15¶
2.3.1. Process indicators 16¶
2.3.2. Outcome indicators 17¶
2.4. Famine and Food Security 18¶
LIST OF FIGURE xiv 2.5. Measuring Household Food
Security 19¶
2.6. World Food Security Situation 23¶
2.7. Food Security Situation in
ABSTRACT xv Ethiopia 24¶
2.8. Definition and History of
Irrigation Development 27¶
2.8.1. Definition 27¶
1. INTRODUCTION 1 2.8.2. History of irrigation
development 27¶ ... [2]
Formatted: Line spacing: Double
1.1. Background 1 Deleted: 9
1.2. Statement of the Problem 4 Deleted: 9
1.3. Objectives of the Study 7 Formatted: Font: Bold
1.4. Scope of the Study 8
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"
1.5. Significance of the Study 8
Deleted: 10
Deleted: 10
2. LITERATURE REVIEW 9 Formatted: Font: Bold
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"
2.1. Definition of Terminologies 9 Deleted: 12
2.1.1. Definition of a household 9 Deleted: 12

2.1.2. Definition of food security 10 Deleted: 13
2.2. Core Concepts in Household Food Security 12 Deleted: 13
2.2.1. Sufficiency: What is “Enough?” 12 Formatted: Centered
2.2.2. Access and entitlement 13 Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
ix
Formatted ... [3]
Deleted: 14
Formatted ... [4]
Deleted:
Formatted ... [5]
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Deleted: 14
Deleted: 14
2.2.3. Security 14
Deleted: 14
2.2.4. Time 14
Deleted: 16
2.3. Indicators of Household Food Security 15
2.3.1. Process indicators 16 Formatted ... [6]
2.3.2. Outcome indicators 17 Formatted ... [7]
2. 4. Measuring Household Food Security 17 Deleted: 16
2. 5. World Food Security Situation 22 Deleted: 17
2. 6. Food Security Situation in Ethiopia 23 Deleted: 17
2.7. Definition and History of Irrigation Development 25 Formatted ... [8]
2. 7.1. Definition 25 Formatted ... [9]
2. 7.2. History of irrigation development 25
Deleted: 25
2. 7.3. Status and potential of small scale irrigation in Ethiopia 27
Deleted: 25
2. 7.4. Small scale irrigation management 28
Deleted: 25
2.7.5. Environmental impact of small scale irrigation schemes 30
2.8. Water harvesting for food security in Ethiopia 31 Deleted: 25
2. 9. Empirical Evidence of Irrigation for Household Food Security 32 Deleted:

Deleted: 27
3. METHODOLOGY 34 Deleted: 27
Deleted: 28
Deleted: 28
3.1 Description of the Study Area 34 Deleted:
3.1.1. Location 34 Deleted: 30
3.1.2. Climate 34 Deleted: 30
3.1.3. Population 35
Formatted ... [10]
3.1.4. Agriculture 35
Formatted ... [11]
3.2. Description of the irrigation schemes 35
Deleted: 34
3.3. Source and Methods of Data Collection 37
3.4. Sample Size and Sampling Technique 37 Deleted: 34
3.5. Data Analysis Techniques 38 Formatted ... [12]

3.5.1. Descriptive statistics 38 Formatted ... [13]
3.5.2. Econometric analysis 38 Deleted: 35
3.6. Variables of the Model 42 Deleted: 35
3.7. Measuring Household Food Security 47 Formatted ... [14]
Deleted: 35
4. RESULT AND DISCUSSION 48 Deleted: 35
Formatted ... [15]
Formatted ... [16]
4.1. Description of Small Scale Irrigation Management Systems 48
Deleted: 38
4.2. Descriptive Statistical Results of the Model Variables 50
4. 2.1. Household size 50 Deleted: 38
4. 2.2. Dependency ratio 50 Deleted: 38

Deleted: 38
Formatted ... [17]
Formatted ... [18]
Formatted ... [19]
Deleted:
x
Deleted: 50
Deleted: 50
Deleted: 50
Formatted ... [20]
Formatted ... [21]

Formatted ... [22]
Formatted ... [23]
Deleted: 51
Deleted: 51
Formatted ... [24]
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Deleted:
Formatted ... [25]
Deleted: 51
4. 2.3. Age of the household head 51
Deleted: 51
4. 2.4. Sex of the household head 51
4. 2.5. Level of education of the household head 51 Formatted ... [26]
4. 2.6. Size of cultivated land 52 Deleted:
4. 2.7. Livestock holding 52 Deleted: 51

4. 2.8. Total production 52 Deleted: 51
4. 2.9. Total consumption expenditure 53 Deleted:
4. 2.10. Distance from market center 53 Deleted: 52
4. 2.11. Access to extension service 53 Deleted: 52
4. 2.12. Access to credit service 54
Deleted:
4. 2.13. Farmers perception of soil fertility status 54
Deleted: 52
4.2.14. Nearness of the households to water source 55
Deleted: 52
4. 2.15. Descriptive statistics of households by peasant association 57
4. 2.16. Means of transportation of agricultural produce to the market 58 Deleted:
4. 2.17. Food shortage months of the households 59 Deleted: 52

4. 2.18. Coping strategies of households 60 Deleted: 52
4. 2.19. Food security status of households by access to irrigation 60 Deleted:
4. 3.Econometric Analysis 61 Deleted: 53
4. 3.1. Detecting multicollinearity and outliers 61 Deleted: 53
4. 3.2. Model results 62 Deleted:
Deleted: 53
5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 71 Deleted: 53
Deleted: 53
Deleted: 53
5.1. Summary 71
Deleted:
5.2. Conclusions and Recommendations 73
Deleted: 54
Deleted: 54
6. REFERENCE 77 Deleted: 54
Deleted: 54
7. APPENDICES 87 Deleted:
Deleted: 55
Deleted: 55
Appendix I 88 Deleted: 57
Deleted: 57
Appendix II 90 Deleted:
Deleted: 58
Deleted: 58
Appendix III 93 Deleted: 59
Deleted: 59
Deleted: 60
Deleted: 60
Deleted:
Deleted: 60
xi
Deleted: 60
Formatted ... [27]
Formatted ... [28]
Field Code Changed ... [29]
Formatted ... [30]

Formatted ... [31]
Formatted ... [32]
Formatted ... [33]

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
LIST OF TABLES
underline
Table Page Deleted: Page
Deleted:
1. Beneficiaries and emergency food requirements 2005(ton) 24
Deleted:
2. Potential and status of small scale irrigation in the different regions (as of 2004) 28
3. Summary of definition of model variables 46 Deleted: ¶
¶
4. Summary of descriptive statistics of households by access to irrigation 55 ¶
5. Summary of descriptive statistics of households by access to irrigation 56 ¶
¶
6. Summary of descriptive statistics of households by Peasant associations 57 1. Beneficiaries and emergency food
7. Summary of descriptive statistics of households by Peasant associations 58 requirements 2005(ton) 25¶
2. Potential and status of small scale
8. Food shortage months of the households 59 irrigation in the different regions (as of
9. Coping strategies of the households 60 2004) 28¶
3. Definition of model variables 47¶
10. Estimation result of the Binary Probit model and its Marginal Effect 65 4. Descriptive statistics of socio
11. Estimation Result of the Selection Equation and its Marginal Effect 69 demographic characteristics of total
sample households 52¶
12. Ordinary Least Square estimation of model variables 70 5. Descriptive statistics of socio
demographic characteristics of sample
households by access to irrigation 52¶
6. Distribution of sample households by
education category of the household
head 52¶
7. Descriptive statistics of socio
demographic characteristics of sample
households by access to
irrigation 53¶
sex 53¶
9. Distribution of sex of the households
by access to irrigation 53¶
10. Cultivated land size of total sample
household 54¶
11. Descriptive statistics of cultivated
land size by access to irrigation 54¶
12. Descriptive statistics of livestock
holding of the total sample household 54¶
13. Descriptive statistics of livestock
holding of household by access to
irrigation 55¶
14. Descriptive statistics of annual
agricultural production, annual farm and
off farm income and annual expenditure
of total sample households 56¶
15. Descriptive statistics of annual
agricultural production, annual farm and
off farm income and annual expenditure
of households by access to irrigation 56¶
16. Descriptive statistics of distance from
market center of the total sample
households 57¶
17. Descriptive statistics of distance from
market center by access to irrigation 57¶
extension service 58¶
19. Distribution of extension service by
access to irrigation 58¶
20. Distribution of credit service of
sample households 59¶ ... [37]
Formatted: Heading 1
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
xii
LIST OF APPENDIX Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
underline
Appendix Table Page Deleted:

Formatted: Font: Not Bold
1. KCalories per gram of different food types 90 Formatted: Normal, Tabs: Not at
2. Conversion Factor for Adult- Equivalent (AE) 91 6.29"
3. Conversion Factor for Tropical livestock unit (TLU) 91 Deleted:
4. Multicollinearity test for continuous variables 91 Page
5. Multicollinearity test for discrete variables 92

Deleted: ¶
¶
¶
1. KCalories per gram of different food
types 99¶
2. Conversion Factor for Adult-
Equivalent 100¶
3. Conversion Factor for Tropical
livestock unit 100¶
4. Multicollinearity test for continuous
variables 100¶
5. Multicollinearity test for discrete
variables 101¶
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
xiii
LIST OF FIGURE
Figure Page
Deleted: Pag
1. Location of the study area and the irrigation schemes 36 Deleted: e
Formatted: Font: Bold, Check
spelling and grammar
Deleted: ¶
¶
¶
1. Location of the study area and the
irrigation schemes
34¶
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
xiv
SCHEMES IN ADA LIBEN DISTRICT, EAST SHOA, ETHIOPIA Deleted: ,
ABSTRACT
Ethiopian agriculture is largely small scale subsistence oriented and crucially dependent on
rainfall. Although irrigation is one means by which agricultural production can be increased,
irrigated production is far from satisfactory in the country. The aim of this study is to analyze
the impact of small scale irrigation on household food security and also to describe the
management systems of the schemes. The study was conducted in Ada Liben district on two
peasant associations namely Godino and Quftu. Data was collected on 200 household heads, Deleted: the logistic regression model
and the Heckman two stage analysis. T
100 households were interviewed from each peasant association. A two stage random
Deleted:
sampling technique was employed to select the sample respondents. Both descriptive and
Deleted: stage
econometric data analysis techniques were applied. In the econometric analysis the impact of
small scale irrigation on household food security is analyzed using the Heckman two-step Deleted: analyses
procedures. The descriptive statistics revealed that 70 percent of the irrigation users and 20 Deleted: is employed in order to
correct for the self selectivity bias.
percent of non users are found to be food secure while 30 percent of the users and 80 percent
Deleted: activity
of the non users found to be food insecure. The descriptive statistics also indicated that there
is poor management system of the irrigation schemes with regard to water use, control Deleted: activity
structure and organizational activities. In the first stage of the Heckman two-step procedure Deleted: activity
the variables that are found to determine participation in irrigation are: nearness to the water Deleted: In the econometric analysis,
out of 12 explanatory variables in the
source, household size, household size square, size of cultivated land, livestock holding, logistic model five were found out to be
farmers perception of soil fertility status and access to credit service. After the selectivity bias significant determinants of household
food security, these are: access to
is controlled by the model in the second stage the following variables were found to irrigation, livestock holding, education,
significantly determine household food security: access to irrigation, household size, access to credit and sex of the household
head.
household size square, sex of the household head, size of cultivated land, access to extension
service and nearness to the water source. For comparison purpose the study also runs Deleted: stage
ordinary least square model and it is identified that the coefficient of access to irrigation in Deleted:
the Heckman two- step procedure is twice the coefficient of the ordinary least square model Deleted: in adult equivalent
implying that ordinary least square model underestimates the impact of small scale irrigation Deleted: ,
on household food security. The study concluded that small scale irrigation is one of the Deleted: in adult equivalent
viable solutions to secure household food needs in the study area. The study also suggested Deleted: securit
the proper management system of the irrigation schemes in order to sustainably use them. Deleted: y,
Deleted: irrigation schemes
Deleted: stage
Deleted: analysis
Deleted: a
Deleted: in ¶
order
Deleted:
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
xv
Formatted: Different first page
1. INTRODUCTION Deleted: ¶
¶
Section Break (Next Page)
Formatted: No underline
This part comprises of four sections. Section 1.1 is the background in which facts about Formatted: Font: 14 pt, Bold, No
underline
agricultural production, food security and small scale irrigation in the country are discussed.
Section 1.2 addresses the statement of the problem, which describes the problem the country underline
in general and the study area in particular are facing and the intention of the study. Section 1.3
deals with the objectives of the study. In section 1.4 the scope of the study, that is, the extent
of the study with regard to subject matter and geographical coverage is dealt with. The last
section, significance of the study, deals with how this study contributes to sustainable
improvement of household food security and better management of small scale irrigation
systems and also addressing the government strategy of poverty reduction.
Formatted: Font: (Default) Times

New Roman, 12 pt, Not Italic
1.1. Background
Ethiopia is a land of contrast (MoFED, 2002). It is the second most populous country in Sub- Formatted: Space Before: 12 pt,
After: 3 pt, Line spacing: single
Saharan Africa with a population of 77.4 million in 2005 (UNFPA, 2005). The country has a
long history, mosaic of people and diverse culture. Ethiopia has reasonably good resource
potential for development–agriculture, biodiversity, water resource, minerals etc. Yet, it is
faced with complex poverty, which is broad, deep and structural (MoFED, 2002). Ethiopia is
among least–developed countries and ranked 170 out of 177 countries in the UNDP human
development index for 2003 (UNDP, 2005).
Ethiopian agriculture is largely small scale, subsistence oriented, and crucially dependent on
rainfall. The highlands of Ethiopia, which house most of the country’s agricultural potential,
suffer from massive land degradation due to soil erosion caused by heavy runoff and
deforestation and the low productivity of peasant agriculture (Grepperud, 1996). The
increasing loss of soil and other natural resources have resulted in steady decline in land and
Deleted: steadily rising population and
labor productivity (Shiferaw and Holden, 1999). These trends, combined with repeated
drought over the years, have substantially eroded the productive assets of communities and
households. A loss of community assets (e.g. pasture and forest) has in turn led to increasing
environmental degradation and it also increased the pressure on–farm, leading to declining
investment in soil and water conservation practices. More importantly, households have
become less capable to cope with shocks because they cannot accumulate saving (e.g.
livestock holdings and food stores) (MoFED, 2002).
The country continues to face difficulty in meeting the food consumption needs of its
increasing population (Lire, 2005). Farmers in Ethiopia have to work an ever-smaller plot of
over worked land to produce their food. Per capita cultivated land for food grain has declined
from 0.4 hectare in the early 1960s to 0.1 hectares in the mid 1990s (Debebe, 2000).
Agricultural growth averaged 2.2 percent during the 1960s, but dropped to 0.7 percent in the
Deleted: .
1970s and a mere 0.5 percent in the 1980s (Corppenstedt and Abbi, 1996). Currently the
Deleted: Crop yields have stagnated at
average annual agricultural growth rate is 2.4 percent while the average annual population about 1 ton per hectare since the early
1970s. With the doubling of the
population between 1970 and 1990, the
growth rate is 2.8 percent. This increases the country’s annual food deficit (FAO, 2003). per capita food production has sharply
declined and the country has become
increasingly dependent on food aid in
recent years (Corppenstedt and Abbi,
Irrigation is one means by which agricultural production can be increased to meet the growing 1996).
food demand in Ethiopia. Increasing food demand can be met in one or a combination of three
ways: increasing agricultural yield, increasing the area of arable land and increasing cropping
intensity (number of crops per year). Expansion of the area under cultivation is a finite option,
especially in view of the marginal and vulnerable characteristics of large parts of the
country’s land and also increasing population. Increasing yields in both rain-fed and irrigated
agriculture and cropping intensity in irrigated areas through various methods and technologies
are therefore the most viable options for achieving food security in Ethiopia (IWMI, 2005).
However, in Ethiopia irrigated production is far from satisfactory (Woldeab, 2003). While the
country’s irrigation potential is about 3.7 million hectares (WSDP, 2002), the total irrigated
Deleted: 160 000
area is 190,000 hectares in 2004 that is only 4.3 percent of the potential (FAO, 2005).
Deleted: hectares This
Deleted: WSDP
In response to this situation, as well as based on previous development objectives, the country Deleted: 2002
Deleted: ¶
has developed a rural development policy and strategy and a comprehensive food security
strategy. Both of the strategies target chronically food insecure segments of the population,
Deleted: MoWR
especially in highly vulnerable areas (FDRE, 2002).
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
2
The government of Ethiopia, as stated in the sustainable development and poverty reduction
program, has recognized the importance of water and increased its focus on water resource
development and utilization to achieve food security (MoFED, 2002). The water policy of the
country also stresses increased use of small scale irrigation through diversion of rivers and
building of small dams to fill multiple gaps in social and economic development endeavors of
the country (MoWR, 1999).
The development of small-scale irrigation is one of the major intervention areas to boost
agricultural production in the rural parts of the country. Small scale irrigation schemes enable
greater agricultural production than is achieved with rain fed agriculture, help poor farmers
overcome rainfall and water constraint by providing a sustainable supply of water for
cultivation and livestock, strengthen the base for sustainable agriculture, provide increased
food security to poor communities through irrigated agriculture, contribute to the
improvement of poor nutrition level, provides a source of household income. Moreover, small
scale irrigation schemes are simple enough to be managed at community level (FAO, 2003).
However, to achieve sustainable production from irrigated agriculture, it is obvious that the
management of the irrigation system must be taken in to account (Byrnes, 1992). Uphoff
Deleted: ,
(1986) identifies three categories of irrigation management activities namely water use
activities, control structure activities and organizational activities. The first involves water
acquisition, allocation, distribution and drainage. The second focuses on design, construction,
operation and maintenance. The third focuses on conflict management, communication,
resource mobilizations and decision-making.
The management aspect of irrigation is often neglected while priorities are given to the
construction of irrigation infrastructure although both the physical and human aspects interact
Deleted: ,
in irrigation domain (Woldeab, 2003). Uphoff (1986) also argues that the social dimension of
irrigation management have been too often neglected, handled badly, assumed not to require
any special knowledge or expertise.
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
3
Well-managed irrigation systems are those that control the spatial and temporal supply of
water so as to promote growth and yield and to enhance the economic efficiency of crop
production. Such systems apply water in amounts and at frequencies calibrated to answer the
time variable crop needs. The aim is not merely to optimize growing conditions in a specific
plot or season, but also to protect the field environment as a whole against degradation in the
long term. Only thus can water and land resource be utilized efficiently and sustainably. On
the other hand poorly managed irrigation systems are those which waste water and energy,
deplete or pollute water resource, fail to produce good crops and/or pose the danger of soil
degradation (FAO, 1997).
Improved irrigation management leads to improved irrigation efficiency, farming practice

changes, higher production, and higher yield, lower risk of crop failure and high value market
oriented production. Increased production makes food available and affordable for the poor
(Byrnes, 1992).

1.2. Statement of the Problem
With the per capita gross domestic product (GDP) of USD 97 in 2003, Ethiopia has still
remained to be one of the poorest countries in the world (UNDP, 2005). The majority (83
percent) of people in Ethiopia are living in rural areas where poverty is more widespread than
in urban areas. About 44 percent of the population was below the nationally defined poverty
line in 1999/2000. When disaggregated, the figure is 45 percent for rural population and 37
percent for urban population. Poverty is also deeper and severe in rural areas than in urban
Deleted: far from
areas. On the average, the income of the rural poor is 12.1 percent below the poverty line,
while it is 10.1 percent for the urban poor (Tassew, 2004).
The critical role of agriculture in the Ethiopian economy is well known. However,
Deleted: &
development policies and strategies pursued by pervious regimes had not given agriculture the
emphasis that it deserves. During the time of the Derg, preoccupation with the socialization of
agriculture had geared every effort towards state farms that accounted for about 2 percent of
Deleted: ¶
agricultural output. Agricultural extension service, credit services, allocation of foreign
Formatted: Centered
4
exchange, distribution of fertilizer and improved seeds had been deliberately lopsided to state
farms while all available studies indicated that productivity of state farms had been
consistently lower than productivity of private smallholder farmers that accounted for well
over 95 percent of agricultural production. The extensive marginalization of small holders in
the allocation of farming land coupled with the misguided grain pricing and marketing
policies of the Derg were factors behind small holders’ encroachments in to marginal lands,
which in turn has resulted in degradation of natural resources which has had implications on
vulnerability to a variety of shocks (Tassew, 2004).
Poverty reduction has been and still is the overriding development agenda of the current
government since it assumed power in 1991. Poverty reduction has been embedded within the
Deleted: .
overall development agenda of the country such as Agricultural Development Led
Industrialization (ADLI) strategy, reform measures (the liberalization and stabilization efforts
and prudence exhibited in macro economic management) and development programs (sector
Deleted: have all been geared towards
development programs) that have been pursued by the government (MoFED, 2002). poverty alleviation
Despite the importance of agriculture in its economy, Ethiopia has been a food deficit country
for several decades, with cereal food aid averaging 14 percent of total cereal production
Deleted: Commission's
(FAO, 2001). Data obtained from Disaster Prevention and Preparedness Agency (DPPA’s)
Deleted: DPPC’s
food security profile shows that the share of draught affected population in Ethiopia rose from
slightly over 8 percent in 1975 to 16 percent in 2003. For three decades, there has never been
a year in which some portion of the population was not affected. The growth rate of the share
of population affected by draught was 2.6 percent until 1991, and increased to 4.6 percent per
annum there after. Food aid requirement to mitigate the impacts of drought and famine
increased to 1.4 million MT in 2003 from 0.4 million MT in 1990 (DPPC, 2003).
Deleted: traditional
The country’s economy is dominated by small holder and rain fed agriculture. Small scale
irrigation development has been slow, in spite of long history of irrigation in this country that
probably pre-dates the Axum Empire of more than 2000 years ago (Kloos, 1991). The poor
state of the economy and low investment by both the government and private farmers,
unsatisfactory community participation in the operation of schemes and an unstable humid to Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
5
sub-humid mountain environment have particularly been implicated as constraints on
irrigation development (Kloos, 1991).
Ethiopia can not assure food security for its population with rain fed agriculture without a
substantive contribution of irrigation. The government of Ethiopia has prepared and is
undertaking a water sector development program to be implemented in 15 years between 2002
and 2016. This program provides a prominent part to the development of irrigation in the
Deleted: 2000
country for food production (MoWR, 2001).
Ethiopia indeed has significant irrigation potential assessed both from available land and
water resources potential, irrespective of the lack of accurate estimates of potentially irrigable
land and developed area under irrigation. Despite efforts of the government to expand
irrigation, the country has not achieved sufficient irrigated agriculture to overcome the
problem of food insecurity and extreme rural poverty, as well as to create economic
Deleted: MoWR, 2000
dynamism in the country (ibid).
In the National Regional State of Oromia, where this study focuses, food insecurity is a
Deleted: becom
crosscutting issue that is becoming worse. Drought in this region is attributed predominantly
Deleted: es
to land degradation, high deforestation rate, change in the pattern, occurrence and distribution
of rainfall, high population pressure, which increase the demand for more cultivable land and
fuel wood, in turn leading to the destruction of forest and other resources. These have strong
cause and effect interplay, and reinforce one another, consequently forming vicious circle in
which population pressure intensifies land degradation and deforestation, which in turn
disturb the amount and distribution of rain fall; this on its part causes a serious short fall in
production resulting in shortage of food in the region (OIDA, 2006).
Deleted: Irrigation Authority
According to a study conducted by Oromiya Economic Study Office (OESO) (2000) there is Deleted: ,
Deleted: . Out of the potential irrigable
1.7 million hectares of land suitable for surface irrigation in the region that can benefit about land, only 206,337 (12 percent) hectares
have been developed in the region.
6.8 million household heads. The amount of water potential to be utilized for the purpose of Despite the potential of the region, recent
data indicates that about 1,378,876 people
are in food shortage in the region by the
irrigation in Oromia is estimated to be 58 billion cubic meter of mean annual run off year 2006 (OIDA, 2006). ¶
generated in the region and 2.1 billion cubic meter of under ground water. Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
6
Deleted: eastern
The specific study area, Ada Liben district which is located in the central part of the Oromia
Deleted: (Prioritized)
Regional State has 3,645 hectares of land identified as potential priority development area for
Deleted: already
irrigation. In the woreda 2,800 ha is under irrigation with a total beneficiary of 5,600
Deleted: by farmers
households. Out of this 410 ha is being developed by Godino and Fitino irrigation schemes.
Deleted: Onion
The major horticultural crops produced in the irrigation schemes are onion, chickpea and
Deleted: Chickpea
tomatoes. However, productivity and sustainability of these schemes are low, characterized by Deleted: Tomatoes
lack of access to modern technology, low productivity, and lack of irrigation experience Deleted: practice
(OIDA, 2000).
Therefore, this study is intended to examine the impact of these two irrigation schemes on
Deleted: the
household food security and assesses their management system to enhance agricultural
Deleted: of these schemes
productivity and the living standard of rural households.
Deleted: ¶

1.3. Objectives of the Study
Cognizant of the fact that Ethiopia can not hope to meet its large food deficits through rain fed Formatted: Left, Space Before: 12
pt, After: 3 pt, Line spacing: single
production alone, the government has already taken initiatives towards developing irrigation
Deleted: of various scales
schemes in different parts of the country.
Ada Liben district is one of the places where small scale irrigation is being practiced.
However, there is no adequate study to scrutinize the extent to which these small scale
irrigation schemes are contributing towards household food security. Besides, their
management system towards sustainable development is not fully assessed.
Deleted: is intended with

Therefore, this study has two specific objectives:
1) To describe the management of Godino and Filtino small scale irrigation schemes
2) To assess the impact of Godino and Filtino small scale irrigation schemes on household
food security
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
7
1.4. Scope of the Study Formatted: Font: (Default) Times
Formatted: Space Before: 12 pt,
The study focuses on the impact of small-scale irrigation on household food security and its
management system. This study is limited to only one district because of the limited time and
resource. The district where the study was conducted is Ada Liben. It is found in the Eastern
Shoa zone of Oromia Region. This district is selected because of its accessibility and
relatively better irrigation practice.

New Roman, 12 pt
1.5. Significance of the Study
The national development plan of the country is based on a strategy called “ Agricultural
Deleted: development
Development-Led industrialization and aims at reducing the country’s dependence on rain-fed
Deleted: led
agriculture and associated food insecurity by boosting agricultural productivity and improving Deleted:
the rural standard of living, which in turn will increase the demand for goods and services and
further lead to industrial development. Central to achieving the agricultural development
policy objective is the promotion of irrigated agriculture (MoFED, 2002).
Deleted: ¶
Ensuring an adequate and reliable supply of irrigation water increases yields of most crops.
Along with higher yields irrigation increases incomes and reduces hunger and poverty. Where
irrigation is widely available under nourishment and poverty are less prevalent. Even landless
laborers and small holder farmers who lack the resource to employ irrigation themselves often
benefit through higher wages, lower food prices and a more varied diet (FAO, 2003).
To this end, identifying, analyzing and understanding the impact of small scale irrigation on
household food security and assessing the management of small scale irrigation schemes
would contribute to the sustainable improvement of household food security, better
management of small scale irrigation systems and executing the government strategy of
poverty reduction.
Formatted: Font: 14 pt, Bold
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
8
2. LITERATURE REVIEW Formatted: Font: 14 pt, Bold, No
underline
Deleted:
This review provides the theoretical framework for the research on household food security
Deleted: eight
and small scale irrigation. It has eight Sections. Section 2.1 presents definitions of
Deleted: sections
terminologies. Section 2.2 discusses the various core concepts in household food security. In Deleted: household food security
Section 2.3, indicators of household food security are described. Section 2.4 is about the Deleted: given by different
organizations
different household food security measurements. Sections 2.5 and 2.6 reviews World and Deleted: section
Deleted: 2.4
Ethiopian food security situations respectively. Under Section 2.7 definition and history of
Deleted: 5
small scale irrigation development in the World, Africa and Ethiopia is presented. This Deleted: 6
Section also discusses irrigation management activities, the country’s potential, environmental Deleted: section
Deleted: 7
impact of small scale irrigation schemes and water harvesting in Ethiopia. Section 2.8 is about
Deleted: section
empirical evidence of the contribution of small scale irrigation for household food security. Deleted: and
Deleted: 8

2.1. Definition of Terminologies
2.1.1. Definition of a household
New Roman, 12 pt
Callens and Seiffert (2003) defined a household as a unit of people living together headed by Formatted: Space Before: 12 pt,
a household head. This is often a man or a woman, in case there is no man. Increasingly, Formatted: Font: (Default) Times
New Roman, 12 pt
grand parents are taking up this role, as well as adolescents, in those households where both Deleted: H
parents have deceased. Apart from the head of the household, there may be a spouse, children Deleted:
and permanent dependants like elderly parents or temporary dependants like a divorced
daughter or son.
Ellis (1993) defines a farm household as an individual or a group of people living together
under one hearth deriving food from a common resource, obtained mainly from farming
activities.
In this study a household is considered as a unit of people living together headed by a

household head. This may be a man or a woman incase there is no man. Increasingly, grand
Deleted: ¶
parents are taking up this role, as well as adolescents, in those households where both parents Formatted: Centered
9
have deceased. Apart from the household head, there may be a spouse, children and
permanent dependants like elderly parents or temporary dependants like a divorced daughter
Deleted: son who derive
or son who derives food from a common resource, obtained mainly from farming activities.

New Roman, 12 pt
2.1.2. Definition of food security
Food security is defined by different agencies and organizations differently without much Formatted: Font: (Default) Times
New Roman, 12 pt
change in the basic concept.
UN (1990) defines household food security as “The ability of household members to assure
themselves sustained access to sufficient quantity and quality of food to live active healthy
life.” Food security can be described as status in which production, markets and social
systems work in such a way that food consumption needs of a country and its people are
always met.
FAO (1992) defines food security not only in terms of access to, and availability of food, but
also in terms of resource distribution to produce food and purchasing power to buy food,
where it is produced.
USAID (1992) defines food security as: “when all people at all times have both physical and
economic access to sufficient food to meet their dietary needs for a productive and healthy
life.” Here food security includes at a minimum the availability of nutritionally adequate and
safe food, and assured ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways (e.g.,
without resorting to emergency food supplies, scavenging, stealing, or other coping
strategies).
One of the most influential definitions of food security is that of the World Bank (1986). The
Deleted: the
Bank defines it as “access by all people at all times to enough food for an active and healthy
life.” This definition encompasses many issues. It deals with production in relation to food
availability; it addresses distribution in that the produce should be accessed by all; it covers
Deleted: ¶
consumption in the sense that individual food needs are met in order for that individual to be
Formatted: Centered
10
active and healthy. The availability and accessibility of food to meet individual food needs
should also be sustainable. This implies that early warning systems of food insecurity should
monitor indicators related to food production, distribution, and consumption.
Among the various definitions of household food security, this study adopted the definition
given by the World Bank.
Often, the term household food security and ‘food security’ are intermingled. Food security is
defined in its basic form as access by all people at all times to the food needed for a healthy
life. The focus in ‘household’ food security is on the household as the most basic social unit
in a society. The distinction between food security and household food security is important
because activities directed towards improving household food security may be quite different
from those aimed at improving national level food security. The latter often being more
related to macro-level production, marketing, distribution and acquisition of food by the
population as a whole (FAO, 2003).
The focus in household food security is on how members of a household produce or acquire
food through out the year, how they store, process and preserve their food to overcome
seasonal shortages or improve the quality and safety of their food supply. Household food
security is also concerned with food distribution within the household and priorities related to
Deleted: .
food production, acquisition, utilization and consumption (ibid).
Deleted: It is clear that the focus is not
just on food but also on people and
households and how they give shape to
the food chain
The generation of household food security is dependent on the physical availability of food at
Deleted: FAO, 2003
the market or community level, the ability of household to access the available food, the
ability of individuals-particularly those especially susceptible to food deficits such as women,
infants and children-to eat the food, and finally the body’s ability to process the nutrients
consumed (Bouis and Hunt, 1999). The assessment of food security extends to consider the
health of those eating the food-the objective is a healthy and active life. Here nutritional
consideration begins to come to the fore (Benson, 2004).
Nutrition security is defined as the appropriate quantity and combination of inputs such as
food, nutrition, health service and caretaker's time needed to ensure an active and healthy life Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
11
at all times for all people (Haddada et al., 1994). The quality of food to which an individual
or household has access must be considered. To enjoy a productive, healthy and active life, all
people require sufficient and balanced level of carbohydrate, protein, fat, vitamin and
minerals in their diets. Households or individuals facing deficiencies or other imbalances in
diet because they lack access to the necessary food for balanced diets are not food secure
(Benson, 2004).

2.2. Core Concepts in Household Food Security
The many definitions and conceptual models all agree that the key defining characteristic of
household food security is secure access at all times to sufficient food.
Deleted: ¶
2.2.1. Sufficiency: What is “Enough?” Formatted: Font: (Default) Times
New Roman, 12 pt
The concept of “enough food” is presented in different ways in the literature: as a minimal New Roman, 12 pt
Deleted: ?
level of food consumption, as the food adequate to meet nutritional needs. In more descriptive
Deleted:
formulations, it refers to enough (food) for life, health and growth of the young and for
productive effort, enough food for an active, healthy life and enough food to supply the
energy needed for all family members to live healthy active and productive lives. From these
Deleted: Frankenberger
definitions, four aspects of the question can be distinguished (Maxwell and Frankenberger,
Deleted: (
1992).
Deleted: ¶
First the unit of analysis in these definitions is the individual, not the household. Where the
household refers to an aggregation of individuals whose food needs must be satisfied.
Deleted: ¶
Secondly, although the definitions mostly refer to “food’’ the main concern is with calories ¶
not with protein, micro-nutrients, food quality and safety. This is mainly because analysts
operate on the principle that other needs are usually satisfied when calorie intake is
satisfactory. Because it is difficult to estimate precise calorie needs for different groups in the
population, it is concluded that all estimates of nutritional requirements have to be treated as Deleted: (Maxwell and Frankenberger,
1992).¶
¶
value judgments. Finally, although the difficulty of measurement, an important aspect of
Deleted: ¶
assessing whether people have access to “enough” food is to ask how far they fall below the Formatted: Centered
12
threshold. In the earlier literature on malnutrition and in the current literature on poverty, the
Deleted: Maxwell and Frankenberger,
size of the gap is an important theme (ibid). 1992
Deleted: The concept of enough food is

problematic. Nevertheless, it appears to
2.2.2. Access and entitlement make sense (a) to concentrate initially on
calorie (b) to define needs not just for
survival, but also for “an active and
healthy life’’ (c) to assess not just the fact
Access to food is necessary but not a sufficient condition for a healthy life. A number of other of a short fall but also its gravity and (d)
to begin with individual needs and build
factors such as health, sanitation and household and public capacity to care for vulnerable up to the household (Maxwell and
Frankenberger, 1992). ¶
members of society also come in to play (Von Broun et al., 1992). ¶
Food access is ensured when households and all individuals within them have adequate Formatted: Font: (Default) Times
New Roman, 12 pt
resources to obtain appropriate food for a nutritional diet. Access depends up on income Deleted: The second core concept is
“access,” the question of whether
available to the household, on the distribution of income within the household and on the individuals and households (and nations)
are able to acquire sufficient food. An
individual’s entitlement is rooted in
price of food. Accordingly, household food access is defined as the ability to acquire her/his endowment, which is transformed
via production and trade into food
sufficient quality and quantity of food to meet all household members’ nutritional (Maxwell and Frankenberger, 1992). ¶
¶
requirements for productive lives. Food access depends on the ability of households to obtain An important extension to entitlement
theory focuses on the role of investments,
food from their own production, stocks, purchases, and gathering or through food transfers stores and social claims in determining
household vulnerability to famine. When
households are able to generate a surplus
from relatives, members of the community, the government, or donors (FAO, 2003). over and above their basic food
requirements, the excess resources are
diverted in to assets of these three kinds
which can be drawn down when
households faces a crises (Maxwell and
Frankenberger, 1992).
A household’s access to food also depends on the resources available to individual household Deleted: quality
members and the steps they must take to obtain those resources, particularly exchange of
other goods and services (Bilinsky and Swindale, 2005).
Access to different resources and the pattern of social support have greater impact on the
procurement strategies of food supplies. The basic resources like cash, labor, land, markets
and public services determine the possibility of increasing entitlement to food. These are the
key factors for either promoting food security or increasing vulnerability to food insecurity
(Debebe, 1995).
Sen (1981) also argued that mere presence of food in the economy or in the market does not Deleted: to Sen (1981)
Deleted: ¶
entitle a household or a person to consume it. According to the same study people usually
Formatted: Centered
13
starved mainly because of lack of the ability to access food rather than because of its
availability. In a sense, income or purchasing power is the most limiting factor for food
security.
In many ways the antithesis of food security is famine. The key elements that determine
successful food security, food availability, access and use are the outcome of multiple
processes of food supply, marketing and demand operating at both national and household
level. By contrast, the major symptoms of famine-resource base depletion, social and
economic dislocation (community break up, market and institutional failure), and human
mortality-derive from the failure of many of the processes and events (Webb and Braun,
1994).
Deleted: ¶
2.2.3. Security Formatted: Font: (Default) Times
New Roman, 12 pt
The third main concept is that of "security", that is, secure access to enough food. This builds After: 3 pt, Line spacing: single
on the idea of vulnerability to entitlement failure, focusing more clearly on risk. It is New Roman, 12 pt
necessary to identify the risks to food entitlements. These can originate from many sources Deleted:
Deleted: (Maxwell and Frankenberger,
and include variability in crop production and food supply, market and price variability, risks 1992)
Deleted:
in employment and wages and risks in health and morbidity. Conflict is also an increasingly
Deleted:
common source of risk to food entitlements (Maxwell and Frankenberger, 1992). Deleted: Frankenberger
Deleted: The most food secure

According to Sen (1981) risks to food entitlement could originate from a number of sources households are those which achieve
adequate access to food while using only
such as: weather variability, food production and supply variability, variability in price and a small proportion of available resources.
Where as the most food insecure are
market, health hazard and morbidity causing risks, employment and wage variability. In those most at risk and fail to achieve
adequate access even by devoting a large
proportion of available resources to food.
general, it could be environmental, natural, political, social, cultural and economic risks. The food insecure have lost, or are at risk
of losing, availability of and access to
food or the ability to utilize it (Maxwell
and Frankenberger, 1992).
2.2.4. Time New Roman, 12 pt
Finally we come to “time", that is, secure access to enough food at all times. The topic is not
much discussed in the literature. However, following the lead of the World Bank (1986) it Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
14
has become conventional to draw distinction between chronic and transitory food insecurity.
Chronic food insecurity means that a household runs a continually high risk of inability to
meet the food needs of household members. In contrast, transitory food insecurity occurs
when a household faces temporary decline in the security of its entitlement and the risk of
failure to meet food needs is of short duration. Transitory food insecurity focuses on intra and
inter-annual variations in household food access. This category can be further divided in to
cyclical and temporary food insecurity. Temporary food insecurity occurs for a limited time
because of unforeseen and unpredictable circumstances. Cyclical or seasonal food insecurity
occurs when there is a regular pattern in the periodicity of inadequate access to food. This
may be due to logistical difficulties or prohibitive costs in storing food or borrowing
Deleted: Frankenberger
(Maxwell and Frankenberger, 1992).
Deleted: ¶
Food security in general is a concept, which integrates a number of important issues the
magnitude of which ranges from micro to macroeconomics. Its attainment involves overall
considerations in terms of policy and program development in all aspects of the food system.
Hence, the success in production and distribution plays an important role in influencing the
food security status of an individual or a society at large (Debebe, 1995).

2.3. Indicators of Household Food Security
Along with the development of the concept of food security, a number of indicators have been Deleted: Household food security is
emerging as an organizing principle for
development thinking and an objective of
identified to make monitoring of food situation possible. Their utilization varies between the development initiative. To reduce and
monitor household food insecurity we
characteristics of the investigations, procedures and level of aggregation. In most cases, the must determine who is food insecure,
why and how they became vulnerable and
purpose and depth of investigations highly influence the use of indicators, in some early where they reside? Government policy
makers, donor agencies and non-
warning systems, for example, three sets of indicators are often used to identify possible governmental organizations (NGOs) have
all attempted to operationalize this
concept by deriving a series of indicators
collapses in food security. These include food supply indicators (rainfall, area planted, yield (Frankenberger, 1992). ¶
¶
forecasts and estimates of production); social stress indicators (market prices, availability of
produce in the market, labor patterns, wages and migration) and individual stress indicators
(which indicate nutritional status, diseases and mortality) (RRC, 1990). These indicators are
important to make decisions on the possible interventions and timely response (Debebe,
Deleted: ¶
1995).
Formatted: Centered
15
Chung et al. (1997) identified and proposed two types of indicators at individual and
household level. First, generic indicators are those that can be collected in a number of
different settings and are derived from a well-defined conceptual framework of food security.
Second, location specific indicators are those indicators typically carried only within a
particular study area because of unique agro climatic, cultural, or socioeconomic factors.
Location-specific indicators can be identified only from a detailed understanding of local
condition by using qualitative data collection methods, while the generic indicators are drawn
from the food security literature and tested using statistical methods.
Deleted: ¶
The different types of indicators, however, are classified into two main categories; 'process'
and ' out come' indicators. The former provides an estimate of food supply and food access
situation and the latter serves as proxies for food consumption (Frankenberger, 1992).

New Roman, 12 pt
2.3.1. Process indicators
Process indicators are divided in to two: indicators that reflect food supply and indicators that Formatted: Font: (Default) Times
New Roman, 12 pt
reflect food access.
Indicators that reflect food supply: One critical dimension of household food security is the
availability of food in the area for the households to obtain. Regional food shortages have a
strong influence on household food availability. A number of factors play a role in limiting
food availability and the options households have for food access. These are indicators that
provide information on the likelihood of a shock or disaster event that will adversely affect
household food security. They include such things as inputs and measures of agricultural
production, food balance sheet information, and access to natural resources, institutional
development, market infrastructure and exposure to regional conflicts or its consequences.
These types of indicators are not mutually exclusive of food access indicators, and
considerable overlap and interaction between the two categories may exist (Frankenberger,
1992).
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
16
Deleted: The importance of indicators
Indicators that reflect food access: unlike supply indicators, food access indicators are that measure food access became
apparent when governments and
relatively quite effective to monitor food security situation at a household level. Their use development agencies realized that
household food insecurity and famine
varies between regions, seasons and social strata reflecting various strategies in the process of conditions were occurring despite the
availability of food (Frankenberger,
1992).¶
managing the diversified source of food that shift to sideline activities, diversification of ¶
U
enterprises and disposal of productive and non productive assets (Debebe, 1995).
New Roman, 12 pt
2.3.2. Outcome indicators After: 3 pt, Line spacing: single
New Roman, 12 pt
Outcome indicators are used to measure the status of food security at a given point in time. Deleted: ¶
2.4. Famine and Food Security¶
Household food security outcome indicators can be grouped into direct and indirect ¶
Famine is defined as a catastrophic
indicators. Direct indicators of food consumption include those indicators which are closest to disruption of society as manifested in a
cumulative failure of production,
actual food consumption rather than to marketing channel information or medical status. distribution and consumption systems
(Webb and Braun, 1994). According to
this definition famine has three principal
Indirect indicators are generally used when direct indicators are either unavailable or too manifestations:¶
¶
costly in terms of time and money to collect. Some of the direct indicators include: household <#>Extreme geographically concentrated
short falls in food consumption that
budget and consumption surveys, household perception of food security and food frequency results in chronic loss of body weight and
a rise in excess mortality (a net increase
assessment. The indirect indicators include storage estimates, subsistence potential ration and above the average rates).¶
<#> Massive social disruption, including
community dislocation (increased distress
nutritional status assessment (Frankerberger, 1992) migration and out-migration of entire
families), and abnormal behavior
(increased reliance on foraged food
foods, conflict among neighbors,
increased begging).¶
<#> Long term resource depletion,
2. 4. Measuring Household Food Security including the degradation of productive
material assets, of the natural resource
base, and of human capital.¶
¶
At the household level, food security is measured by actual dietary intake of all household Famine can occur with out a significant
decline in entitlements among vulnerable
groups of the population (Webb and
members using household income and expenditure surveys (Saad, 1999). Using a survey data Braun, 1994). ¶ ... [38]
the minimal standard of living is proxy by the level of consumption expenditure that will Formatted: Space Before: 12 pt,
After: 3 pt
enable the household or individual to attain the basic needs. This usually refers the ability of Formatted: Font: (Default) Times
the household to purchase a basket of goods containing the minimum quantity of calories and
Deleted: 5
non-food commodities. Households who are not able to achieve this critical level of Formatted: Font: (Default) Times
consumption expenditure or income can be described as poor (Nsemukila, 2001).
Deleted: Maxwell and Frankberger
(1992) suggested that food security is
such a complex notion that it is virtually
impossible to measure it directly and a
Bickel et al. (1998) suggests that household food security can be measured by food poverty variety of proxy measures have been ... [39]
indicators and by anthropometric data. A food poverty indicator shows the number of Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
17
individuals living in a household whose access to food is sufficient to provide a dietary intake
adequate for growth, activity and good health. The anthropometric measure refers to
nutritional status at individual level. Thus, individual food security implies an intake of food
and food absorption of nutrients sufficient to meet an individual's needs for activity, health,
growth and development. The individual's age, gender, body size, health status and level of
physical activity determine the level of need.
Hoddinott (2002) discusses four ways of measuring household food security: individual
intakes (either directly measured or 24-hour recall), household caloric acquisition, dietary
diversity and indices of household coping strategies.
Deleted: Individual
According to Hoddinot (2002) individual food intake is a measure of the amount of calorie or
nutrients consumed by an individual in a given time period, usually 24 hours. To collect the
data an enumerator resides in the household throughout the entire day, measuring the amount
of food served to each person and the amount of food prepared but not consumed ("plate
waste") is also measured. In addition, the enumerator notes the type and quantity of food
eaten as snacks between meals as well as food consumed outside the household. The second
method is recall. The enumerator interviews each household member regarding the food they
consumed in the previous 24-hour period. This covers the type of food consumed, the amount
consumed, food eaten as snack and meals outsides the household.
Deleted: Hoddinot (2002),

According to the same study the individual food intake method has two principal advantages:
Deleted: this
implemented correctly, it produces the most accurate measures of individual caloric intake
(and other nutrients) and therefore the most accurate measure of food security status of an
individual. Second, because the data are collected on an individual basis, it is possible to
determine whether food security status differs with in the household. Set against these
significant advantages are a large number of disadvantages. These are measures of intakes
need to be made repeatedly ideally for seven non-consecutive days. It requires highly skilled
enumerators who can observe and measure quantities quickly and accurately. The recall
method requires enumerators to interview carefully every household member until they have
established the exact make up. Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
18
Deleted: ¶
The second way of measuring household food security proposed by Hoddinot (2002) is
household calorie acquisition. This is the number of calories, or nutrients, available for
consumption by household members over a defined period of time. Here the principal person
responsible for preparing meals is asked how much food, she prepared over a period of time.
After accounting for processing, this is turned into a measure of the calories available for
Deleted: ¶
consumption by the household. A set of questions regarding food prepared for meals over a ¶
specified period of time, usually either 7 or 14 days is asked to the person in the household
most knowledgeable about this activity. Hoddinott (2002) states the advantages and
disadvantages of the method as follows: the advantage is that, this measure produces a crude
estimate of the number of calorie available for consumption in the household. Therefore, the
level of skill required by enumerators is less than that needed to obtain information on
Deleted: since
individual intake. The disadvantage of the method is that, the method generates a large
quantity of numerical data that needs to be carefully checked both in the field and during data
entry.
Deleted: study by Hoddinot (2002)

The third way of measuring household food security in the same study is dietary diversity.
This is the sum of the number of different foods consumed by an individual over a specified
time period. It may be a simple arithmetic sum, the sum of the number of different food
groups consumed. To collect data, one or more persons with in the household are asked about
different items that they have consumed in a specified period. These questions can be asked
to different household members where it is suspected that they may be differences in food
consumption among household members. The advantage of this method is that, it is easy to
train enumerators to ask these questions and individuals generally found them easy questions
to answer. The disadvantage of this measure is that the simple form of this measure doesn't
record quantities. If it is not possible to ask about frequency of consumption of particular
quantities, it is not possible to estimate the extent to which diets are inadequate in terms of
caloric availability.
Deleted: ¶
Deleted: are
Indices of household coping strategies is the fourth way of measuring household food security
in Hoddinott (2002). This is an index based on how households adapt to the presence or threat
of food shortages. To generate the data, the most knowledgeable woman in the household Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
19
regarding food preparation and distribution within the household is asked a series of
questions. According to the study there are three attractive features of this measure. First, it
is easy to implement, typically taking less than three minutes per household. Second, it
directly captures notions of adequacy and vulnerability. Third, the questions asked are easy to
understand both by respondents and by analysts.
Deleted: .
Some disadvantages of this measure are also identified by the same study: as it is a subjective
Deleted: As
measure, different people have different ideas as to what is meant by “eating smaller portions"
comparison across households or localities is problematic. Second, its simplicity makes it
relatively straightforward to misreport a household's circumstances. For example, households
might perceive that they are more likely to receive assistance when they report greater use of
these coping strategies.
Maxwell et al. (2002) states that coping strategy is people’s response to conditions under
which they do not have enough to eat. The more people have to cope, the less food secure
they are. There are two basic types of coping strategies. One includes the immediate and short
term alternation of consumption pattern. The other includes the alternation of income earning
or food production. Coping strategy index (CSI) is defined as a numeric measure of household
food security status. In order to construct the index it is important to know how severe each
strategy is and to do this, information is collected from community level focus group
discussion. To give a quantitative value to the relative frequency, the mid point of the range of
days for each category will be taken.
The study by Maxwell et al. (2002) also discussed that the CSI clearly declines with calorie
intake, as households become more food secure. Change in the index provides a rapid
indication of whether food security is improving or deteriorating. Maxwell et al. (2002)
concluded that, the CSI is a good proxy for food intake (calorie adequacy), as well as food
share (the proportion of income that households devote to food purchased), food frequency,
income status and presence or absence of a malnourished child in the household.
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
20
According to a study by Greer and Thorbecke (1986) household food security can be
measured by the food poverty line. This is the minimum amount of food an individual must
consume to stay healthy. It can be measured in terms of the nutritional characteristics of the
foods (eg calorie), the quantity of the food stuffs themselves or the monetary value of the
foods. In this method, the minimum food expenditure refers to the expenditure necessary for a
person with the accepted and typical regional food consumption pattern to consume a
nutritionally adequate diet. Focusing on food poverty allows use of the nutrient recommended
daily allowances (RDAs)1 as the basis for setting the food poverty line.
Deleted: stated
Greer and Thorbecke (1986) states that setting the poverty line using the cost of calorie
approach is conceptually and computationally simple, does not require an excessive sample
size, and does not pre-impose a researcher’s or bureaucrat’s subjective notion of what
constitutes a palatable, but inexpensive diet. In essence, it requires only two-piece of
information: calorie consumption Cj and food expenditure variable, Xj. The latter variable
measures both purchased food and the imputed value of food consumption out of own
Deleted: ¶
production.
Deleted:
lnXj = a+bCj (1)
The food poverty line Z is the estimated cost of acquiring the calorie RDA, R.
Deleted:
Z = e(a+Rb) (2)
Where a and b are the coefficient estimates of a and b, respectively from equation (1)
This estimation is based on two fundamental assumptions (1) all individuals face identical
price (2) there is a common dietary taste pattern
This study applied the above method in order to measure household food security and to Deleted: ¶
calculate the cut off point (food poverty line) beyond which a household is food secure or not. After: 3 pt, Line spacing: single
Deleted: ¶
1
This recommended daily allowance for Ethiopia is 2200Kcal per adult equivalent per day (MoFED, 2002). Formatted: Centered
21
Deleted: 2.
2. 5. World Food Security Situation Formatted: Font: (Default) Times
Deleted: 6
FAO estimates that 852 million people worldwide were undernourished in 2000-2002. This
figure includes 815 million in developing countries, 28 million in the countries in transition
and 9 million in the industrialized countries. The number of under nourished people in
developing countries decreased by only 9 million during the decade following the world food
summit base-line period of 1990-1992. During the second half of the decade, the number of
chronically hungry in developing countries increased at a rate of almost 4 million per year,
wiping out two third of the reduction of 27 million achieved during the previous five years
(FAO, 2004).
World wide, per capital food availability is projected to increase around 7 percent between
1993 and 2020, from about 2,700 calories per person per day in 1993 to about 2,900 calories.
Increases in average per capital food availability are expected in all major regions. China and
Deleted: West
East Asia are projected to experience the largest increase and west Asia and North Africa the
smallest. The projected average availability of about 2300 calories per person per day in Sub
Saharan Africa is just barely above the minimum required for healthy and productive life.
Since available food is not equally distributed to all, a large proportion of the region’s
population is likely to have access to less food than needed (Andersen, 2001).
In Sub-Sahara Africa, slow growth of the agricultural sector has led to the poor performance
of cash crops, which are the main sources of exports to finance food imports. Sub-Saharan
Africa's share of global agricultural exports declined form 13 percent in 1970 to about 2
percent in 2000. If the region had maintained its global market share, the value of its
agricultural export would have been $44 billion higher in 2000. In other words, the region's
agricultural exports would have been five times their actual level if Sub-Saharan Africa's
share of global exports had remained at 13 percent, thus increasing the regions food import
capacity and perhaps improving food security (Shapouri and Rosen, 2003). Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Font: Italic
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
22
Deleted: 2.
2. 6. Food Security Situation in Ethiopia Formatted: Font: (Default) Times
New Roman, 12 pt
Deleted: 7
Ethiopian history is punctuated by famine. Although most of the occurrences fall with in the
past 200 years, food related crises can be traced as far back as 250 BC. Several incidences of
famines were reported since then. The most recent tragic famines were experienced in
1984/85 (Webb and Braun, 1994).
Deleted: ¶
Currently nearly about 14 million people are food insecure in Ethiopia. Therefore, there is a
pressing and urgent needs to assist farmers to be able achieve food security through rapid
increase in food productivity and production on an economically and environmentally
sustainable basis (Gezahegn et al., 2004).
Because of the primary dependence on crop production in Ethiopia, harvest failure leads to
household food deficits which in the absence of off farm income opportunities and/or timely
food aid assistance, leads to asset depletion and increasing level of destitution at the
household level. The effect is mirrored at the national level, resulting in overall declining food
availability and increased reliance on food aid import to prevent wide spread mortality. Over
Deleted: ,
the last fifteen years this situation has resulted in Ethiopia importing average of 700,000
metric ton food aid per annum to meet food needs among others, demonstrating the scale of
Deleted: FDRE
the problem in Ethiopia (MoFED, 2002).
Deleted: recent
A report from DPPC (2004) discloses that the people in need of relief food assistance are
Deleted: 2006
highly vulnerable crop-dependent farmers or livestock-dependent pastoralists and agro- Deleted: ,
pastoralists affected by acute shocks such as adverse weather conditions, below normal or
erratic rainfall and extended dry spells during critical periods of the cropping cycle. The
lingering effect of the multiple shocks they have sustained in recent years, leading to a
gradual depletion of their household asset-base and limited income options have further
exacerbated the food situation of these acutely affected populations (Table 1).
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
23
Table 1. Beneficiaries and emergency food requirements 2005(ton) Deleted: Tab
Deleted: le 1
Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Not Bold
Region Emergency Beneficiary Food Requirement
Afar 20,7025 50,808
Amhara 114,610 15,560
Benishangul Gumu 49,500 -
Dire Dawa 38,454 4,987
Formatted: Swedish (Sweden)
Gambella 50,200 6,461
Harari - - Deleted: ,
Oromiya 500,004 67,131 Deleted: ,

Deleted: ,
SNNP 325,998 39,016
Deleted: ,
Somali 557,861 137,916 Deleted: ,
Tigray 388,646 66,563 Deleted: C

Deleted: .
Total 2,182,098 387,482
Deleted: For example, in the drought
Source DPPC (2004) prone areas of the Amhara national
regional state, it is indicated that 51
weredas out of the total 105 weredas
suffer from frequent food shortage. These
areas are dominantly prevalent in North
To achieve food security and reduce poverty, the logical and paramount goal of the Shoa, Oromiya, South and North Wollo,
Wag-Hamera, South and North Gonder
government of Ethiopia is to pursue objectives of sustainable development. Sustainable administrative Regions. Most rural people
living in such areas of the region depend
development entails the harmonization of population growth with utilization and exploitation on small-scale dry land agriculture.
However, in many areas the fertility of
the farmland has fallen as the pressure of
of the natural resource. This requires redirection and reorientation of research and human population has increased. Farm
productivity has declined substantially
development as well as institutional change. The basic requirement in this harmonization and farmers have found themselves
sliding in to poverty (Gezahegn et al.,
process is to address change posed by negative synergy arising from rapid population growth, 2004).
Deleted: ¶
environmental degradation and low agricultural production, leading to food insecurity In many parts of Ethiopia most
households are only able to produce
(Gezahegn et al., 2004). sufficient food to meet their food
requirement for less than six months of
the year. This is particularly true in the
dry land areas where rainfall is generally
low, extremely variable and
Thus, there is an urgent need to harness soil and climate resources in an agro ecological unpredictable. This leads to low yield and
frequent crop failures. For instance, there
balance sense for sustained and increased crop production in the country. Effective has been no single year since 1950 where
there was no drought in the eastern part
technologies are needed to sustain dry land agriculture. The primary socioeconomic concern of the country. On the other hand much of
the western half of the region has good
which should be taken into account is that rain fed agriculture particularly in the dry land is soil and adequate rainfall and produce
agricultural surpluses (Gezahegn et al.,
2004).¶
very complex and a high – risk enterprise. Thus, a system approach and risk management is
Deleted: Gezahegn et al., 2004
key issue (ibid). Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
24
2.7. Definition and History of Irrigation Development Formatted: Font: (Default) Times
2. 7.1. Definition Formatted: Line spacing: single

Deleted: .¶
¶
Irrigation is much discussed but seldom clearly defined. It may mean frequent and regular Deleted: 2.
application of water, to others as little as one annual watering. A wide definition such as the New Roman, 12 pt
following is, therefore, more useful. Irrigation is the practice of applying water to the soil to Formatted: Indent: First line: 0",
Space Before: 12 pt, After: 3 pt,
supplement the natural rainfall and provide moisture for plant growth (Uphoff, 1986). Line spacing: single
Deleted: 8
New Roman, 12 pt
2. 7.2. History of irrigation development Deleted: To some

Deleted: it
Deleted: 2.
Irrigation is a very old practice in the world. It is an old human activity and been practiced in some
parts of the world for several thousand years. Rice has been grown under irrigation in India and Far After: 3 pt, Line spacing: single
Deleted: 8
East for nearly 5000 years. The Nile valley in Egypt and the plain of Tigris and Euphrates in Iraq Formatted: Font: (Default) Times
New Roman, 12 pt
were under irrigation for 4000 years (Peter, 1979).
Irrigation has formed the foundation of civilization in numerous regions for millennia. Egyptians
have depended on the Nile's flooding of the delta for years, this may well be the longest period of
continuous irrigation on a large scale. Mesopotamia, the land between the Tigris and Euphrates,
was the bread basket for the Sumerian Empire. This civilization managed a highly developed,
centrally controlled irrigation system. In that same time frame, irrigation apparently developed in
present day China and in Indus basin (Schilfgaarde, 1994).
Irrigation has long played a key role in feeding expanding populations and is undoubtedly destined
to play a still greater role in the future. It not only raises the yields of specific crops, but also
prolongs the effective crop- growing period in area with dry seasons, thus permitting multiple
Deleted: otherwise.
cropping ( two or three and some times four crops per year ) where only a single crop could be
Deleted: With
grown. Moreover, with the security provided by irrigation, additional inputs needed to intensify Deleted: further
production such as pest control, fertilizer, improved varieties and better tillage become Deleted: (
Deleted: )
economically feasible. Irrigation reduces the risk of these expensive inputs being wasted by crop
Deleted: ¶
failure resulting from lack of water (FAO, 1997). Formatted: Centered
25
Deleted: ¶
According to FAO (1997) 30-40 percent of world food production comes from an estimated
Deleted: b
260 million ha of irrigated land or one–sixth of the world’s farmlands. Irrigated farms produce
higher yield for most crops. FAO (2001) also reports that the role of irrigation in addressing
food insecurity problem and in achieving agricultural growth at global level is well
established. Cleary irrigation can and should play an important role in raising and stabilizing
Deleted: south
food production especially in the less developed parts of Africa South of the Sahara.
Traditional irrigation in Ethiopia is a complement to rain fed agriculture, and the crops grown
are often horticultural crops and fruit trees. Peasants have a keen awareness of the benefits of
irrigation and are willing to invest their labor in the construction and maintenance of the
schemes. In parts of north Shoa, north wollo, east Gojjam and the highlands of Harrarge, the
traditional systems still being utilized by peasants date back to the last century. Many of these
schemes are managed by elected elders known as “water fathers” or “water judges” and this
traditional management system has proved effective in many instances. In some cases, the
irrigation schemes are managed by peasant associations. It is thus evident that peasants have
proven ability to organize themselves and to manage traditional small scale irrigation systems
(Dessalegn, 1999).
The development of modern irrigation has relatively recent history in Ethiopia, where as
traditional irrigation has been in existence for long periods. Private concessionaires who
operated farms for commercial cotton, sugar cane and horticultural crops started the first
Deleted: valley
formal large and medium irrigation schemes in the Awash Valley (MoA, 1993).
In Ethiopian context, irrigation systems are classified on the basis of size. Small scale systems
cover an irrigated area of less than 200 hectare, growing primarily subsistence crops.
Irrigation systems between 200 and 3,000 hectares are medium and large irrigation systems
Deleted: MoWR
cover an area of 3000 hectares or more (WSDP, 2002). Small-scale irrigation is widespread
and has a vital role to play in Ethiopia. The success of small scale systems is due to the fact
that they are self managed and dedicated to the felt needs of local communities. In deed,
small-scale schemes are defined as schemes that are controlled and managed by users
themselves (Taffa, 2002). Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
26
Deleted: ¶
According to Taffa (2002) the main advantages of small-scale irrigation schemes are:
Deleted: ,
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering

Much lower investment costs, and in a majority of cases these costs are borne by
the community
Do not involve dams or storage reservoirs, hence no population displacement is
involved
Less demanding in terms of management, operation and maintenance
No land tenure or resettlement implications
No serious adverse environmental impact
Allow a wider diffusion of irrigation benefits and permit farmers to learn irrigation
techniques at their own pace and in their own way.
Deleted: 2.
2. 7.3. Status and potential of small scale irrigation in Ethiopia Deleted: 8
Deleted: 3
The estimates of the irrigation potential of Ethiopia vary from one source to the other, due to New Roman, 12 pt
lack of standard or agreed criteria for estimating irrigation potential in the country (IWMI, Formatted: Font: (Default) Times
New Roman, 12 pt
2005). According to MoWR (1999) the irrigation potential of the country is one of the most Deleted: WSDP
Deleted: 2002
underutilized opportunities. The country has an irrigable land of about 3.7 million hectare
Deleted: 160
whereas the total irrigated area is 190,000 hectare. The size of area cultivated under small
scale irrigation system is about 70,000 hectare (WSDP, 2002). In addition to the government,
several organizations are involved in the planning, designing and construction of small scale
Deleted: schemes
irrigation schemes (IWMI, 2005). The current situation and potential of small scale irrigation
Deleted: (
schemes in all the regions are summarized in Table 2.
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
27
Table 2. Potential and status of small scale irrigation in the different regions (as of 2004) Deleted: Tab
Deleted: 2
Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Not Bold
Name of Schemes under
Completed schemes Planned schemes Deleted: 22
the constriction
Deleted: le 2
region
Numbe Area Benefic Area Benefic Area Benefic
Number Number
r (ha) iary (ha) iary (ha) iary
Amhara 71 5,224 20,580 11 1,033 4,002 19 1,446 6,257

Oromiya 161 13,161 39,611 NA 7,856 31,400
SNNP 49 6,509 23,349 25 2,542 8,878
Tigray 86 4,989 NA
Source: IWMI (2005)
NA = not available or Not applicable
Deleted: 2.
2. 7.4. Small scale irrigation management Formatted: Font: (Default) Times
New Roman, 12 pt
According to Byrnes (1992) irrigation management activities include three dimensions. After: 3 pt, Line spacing: single
Deleted: 8
These are (1) water use activities (2) control structure activities and (3) organizational
activities New Roman, 12 pt
Deleted: ¶
Water use activities: management activities focusing on the provision of water to crops in an
Deleted: Management
adequate and timely manner includes acquisition, allocation, distribution and drainage.
Acquisition is the fist management activity concerning the acquisition of water from surface
or subsurface sources, either by creating and operating physical structure such as dams’ weirs
or wells or by actions to obtain some share of an existing supply.
Deleted: ¶
Allocation refers to the assignment of rights to users thereby determining who shall have
access to water. Distribution refers to the physical process of taking the water from a source
and dividing it among users at certain places, in certain amounts, and at certain times.
Drainage is important where excess water must be removed (Byrnes, 1992).
Deleted: Management
Control structure activities: management activities focusing on the structures required for
water control include design, construction, operation and maintenance. Design involves the
Deleted: ¶
design of dams’ diversions or well to acquire water, of systems of rules to allocate it, of
Formatted: Centered
28
channels and gates to distribute it and of drains to remove it. Construction involves the
construction of the structures to acquire, distribute and remove water, or implementation of
rules that allocate it. Operation refers to the operation of the structures that acquire, allocate,
distribute or remove water according to some determined plan of allocation. Maintenances is
the final control structure activity. This provides for the continued and efficient acquisition,
Deleted: Byrnes, 1992
allocation, distribution and drainage (ibid).
Deleted: Management
Organizational activities: management activities focusing on the organization of efforts to
manage the structures that control irrigation water include resource mobilization conflict
resolution communication and decision-making. The activity of resource mobilization entails
marshalling management and utilization of funds manpower, materials, information or other
inputs needed to control water through structures or to undertake various organizational tasks.
Deleted: ¶
The activity of communication entails conveying information about decisions made, resource
requirements etc. to farmer or any other persons involved in irrigation managements. The
activity of decision making entails the processes including planning involved in making
decision about the design, construction, operation or maintenance of structures; acquisition,
allocation, distribution or drainage of water or the organization deals with these activities
Deleted: Byrnes, 1992
(ibid).
Deleted: ¶
It was assumed that devolving management responsibility with or without some form of
scheme ownership to the irrigating farmers, improves scheme performance water distribution
and productivity, while saving public resources for agencies to carry out such tasks (IWMI,
2005).
Deleted: ¶
Merrey et al. (2002) also indicate that irrigation management transfer helps reduce the
government’s recurrent expenditures for irrigation. Irrigation systems in many developing
countries were established with substantial financial contribution from international donors. It
was assumed that the government and or water users would be able to incur the cost of
operation and maintenance (O & M) of the systems made possible by enhanced financial
gains from improvement in productivity levels of irrigated agriculture.
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
29
Deleted:
Groenfeldt (1997) quoting Ostrom (1995) states that,the reason that reasonable observers
Deleted: has
view irrigation management transfer as necessary have to do with both empirical assessment
and institutional theory. On the empirical side, irrigation infrastructure in many countries is
deteriorating due to the proximate causes of budget constraint in the administering agency,
demoralized staff, corruption which leads to inferior quality construction and inappropriate
initial designs. Theory suggests that it could hardly be other wise. The incentives facing
irrigation agency staff as well as aid professionals in international donor agencies are
perverse.

New Roman, 12 pt
2.7.5. Environmental impact of small scale irrigation schemes
Formatted: Heading 3, Left, Line
spacing: single
Irrigation development may have both positive and negative impacts on the environment Formatted: Font: Not Bold

(FAO, 1997). To a large extent environmental and health issues associated with irrigation and
water development in Ethiopia are not to be linked to the limited knowledge of the issue, lack
of capacity and resource to invest and mitigate the constraints and limited knowledge of
indigenous practices used to protect human health or the environment (Manoncourt and
Murray, 1996).
Negative environmental impacts of irrigation development occur off-site as well as on site.

The effects take place upstream of the land to be developed, where a river is to be dammed for
the purpose of supplying irrigation. Another set of problem is generated down stream from the
irrigated area by the disposal of excess water that may contain harmful concentration of salts,
organic waste, pathogenic organisms, agrochemical residues, and causing siltation, water
logging and erosion. Sometimes full utilization of the water creates water shortage to down
stream affecting the ecosystem negatively (Wagnew, 2004).

A study by Lire et al. (2004) states that small scale irrigation dam creation in Tigray is
Formatted: Font: Not Italic
associated with important health side effects. There are concerns that these new sources of
water may have increased the prevalence of water borne diseases such as malaria and
schistosomiasis. According to the same study, malaria and schistosomiasis have historically
Deleted: ¶
been present in Tigray, but only seasonally during the rainy months. The presence of micro
Formatted: Centered
30
dams has increased the prevalence of these ailments during the other seasons, as standing
water provides a favorable environment for disease transmission (MUC, 1994).
To be sustainable, irrigation must avoid the negative impacts (FAO, 1997). Carefully
designed irrigation dams could significantly improve agricultural production and food
security (Lire et al., 2004). Construction of small scale irrigation schemes with proper
management results in improved livelihood with positive impacts on microclimatic and
environmental conditions (Mintesinot et al., 2002).

2.8. Water harvesting for food security in Ethiopia
Formatted: Heading 2, Left, Line
spacing: single
The history of water harvesting in Ethiopia dated back as early as the pre Axumit period (560 Formatted: Font: Not Bold
BC). It was a time when rain water was harvested and stored in ponds for agricultural and
water supply purposes (Getachew, 1999). Rain water harvesting is when the precipitation is
collected from a small or large surface area (catchments) and directed through channels to a
storage facility or to a nearby field or retained at the site itself. The rainwater harvesting most
commonly practiced in Ethiopia today are run-off irrigation (run-off farming), flood spreading
(spate irrigation), in-situ water harvesting (ridges, micro basins, etc) and roof water harvesting
(Getachew, 1999).
In Ethiopia the intensity and duration of rainfall is highly erratic and variable, resulting in
significant reduction in agricultural production and in some cases total crop failure. To avert
or reduce the threat of complete crop failure and promote food security, effective planning
and development of water resource becomes critically important. To curb the food insecurity
problem of the people and also satisfy the policy of the government (Agricultural
Development Led Industrialization), attempts are being made to increase the productivity of
the agricultural sector of the economy. This can be achieved through tackling the major
factors affecting its productivity, namely shortage of water (Mintesinot and Kifle, 2002).

Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
31
Deleted: ¶
¶
2. 9. Empirical Evidence of Irrigation for Household Food Security ¶
2.
Chamber (1994) based on some empirical studies confirms that reliable and adequate Formatted: Font: (Default) Times
irrigation increases employment. Landless laborers as well as small and marginal farmers
Deleted: 9
have more work on more days of the year. A study conducted in 10 Indian villages in Formatted: Font: (Default) Times
different agro-climatic regions shows that increasing irrigation by 40 percent was equally
Deleted: land
effective in reducing poverty as providing a pair of bullocks, increasing educational level and Deleted: d
increasing wage rates (Singh et al., 1993). Kumar (2003) also stated that irrigation has
contributed significantly in boosting India's food production and creating grain surpluses used
as drought buffer.
Deleted: ¶
A study by Hussain et al. (2004) confirms that, access to reliable irrigation water can enable
farmers to adopt new technologies and intensify cultivation, leading to increased productivity,
overall higher production, and greater returns from farming. This in turn opens up new
Deleted:
employment opportunities, both on farm and off-farm, and can improve incomes, livelihood,
Deleted: The study
and the quality of life in rural areas. Hussain et al. (2004) identified five key dimensions of
how access to good irrigation water contributes to socioeconomic uplift of rural communities.
These are production, income and consumption, employment, food security, and other social
impacts contributing to overall improved welfare.
Deleted: Another study by Hussain et

According to a study carried out on five irrigation schemes in Zimbabwe, the schemes were al. (2004) reported that in Sri Lanka
irrigation development has been a major
found to act as sources of food security for the participants and the surrounding community instrument used by the government in its
attempt to enhance food security and
through increased productivity, stable production and incomes. The farmers participating in eradicate poverty for over 5 decades. ¶
¶
the irrigation schemes never run out of food unlike their counterparts that depend on rain-fed
agriculture (Mudima, 1998).
Ngigi (2002) disclosed that for the two decades in Kenya agricultural production has not been
able to keep pace with the increasing population. To address this challenge the biggest
potential for increasing agricultural production lies in the development of irrigation.
According to the same study, irrigation can assist in agricultural diversification, enhance food
Deleted: ¶
self sufficiency, increase rural incomes, generate foreign exchange and provide employment
Formatted: Centered
32
opportunity when and where water is a constraint. The major contributions of irrigation to the
Deleted: settlements
National economy are food security, employment creation, and foreign exchange.
In Ethiopia a study conducted by Woldeab (2003) identified that in Tigray irrigated

agriculture has benefited some households by providing an opportunity to increase
agricultural production through double cropping and by taking advantage of modern
Deleted:
technologies and high yielding crops that called for intensive farming.
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
33
3. METHODOLOGY Formatted: Font: 14 pt, Bold, No
underline
Under the methodology part: section 3.1 deals with description of the study area, section 3.2 underline
is description of the irrigation schemes. Section 3.3 describes source and method of data
Deleted: 3
collection, section 3.4 is about sample size and sampling techniques. In section 3.5 descriptive
Deleted: 4
and econometric analytical methods are discussed. In section 3.6 model variables are defined.
Section 3.7 discusses about measuring household food security.

3.1 Description of the Study Area
3.1.1. Location
Ada Liben is located between 8°22-8°56'N latitudes and 38°58’-39°22' E longitudes. It is Formatted: Heading 2, Line spacing:
single
bordered by Akaki district in the west, Gimibichu district in the north, Lume district in the
Deleted: -
east and Dugda and Bora districts in the south and by Nation and Nationalities peoples'
Deleted: Bishoftu
regional state in the southwest. It also enclaves the town of Bishoftu and has an estimated
Deleted: district town Administration
area of 33.77 km2. The larger of the district boundaries are demarcated by rivers namely Deleted: (area of
Awash, Dukem and Mojo rivers. There are 45 peasant associations in the district (DESFED, Deleted: )
2004).

New Roman, 12 pt
3.1.2. Climate
The largest proportion of Ada Liben district (about 95 percent of its surface areas) belongs to
Deleted: (about 95 percent of its
Woinadega2 agro-climate and the remaining small proportion of land (about 5 percent of its surface areas)
surface area) is classified as Dega3 agro-climate (DESFED, 2004). Deleted:

Deleted: categories to
Deleted: (about 5 percent of its surface
area)
2 Deleted: ¶
Woinadega refers to a weather condition which is moderate ( temperate)
3
Dega refers to highland Formatted: Centered
34
New Roman, 12 pt
3.1.3. Population
New Roman, 12 pt
Currently, the district has a total population of 205,301 out of which 105,875 (51.6 percent)
are male and 99426 (48.4 percent) are female. In terms of age category 41.8 percent of the
population is under the age of 15 and 3.9 percent of the population are above the age of 64,
while 50.4 percent of the population is categorized to the age group of 15-64. In terms of
Deleted: Adulala
spatial distribution 1.3 percent live in the urban center (Bishoftu town) while the remaining
98.7 percent live in rural area (DESFED, 2004).
Deleted: Livelihood
3.1.4. Agriculture New Roman, 12 pt
After: 3 pt
Agriculture is the main stay of the district and hence it provides the largest share of the Formatted: Font: (Default) Times
New Roman, 12 pt
livelihood for the population. However, it is characterized by lack of access to modern
technology, market, low productivity, dependency on rainfall and lack of irrigation practice.
As a result, the sector remains subsistence in its nature (DESFED, 2004).

3.2. Description of the irrigation schemes
This study is conducted on two small scale irrigation schemes that are found in Ada Liben Formatted: Font: (Default) Times
district. These are Godino and Filtino small scale irrigation schemes. Godino and Filtion small
scale irrigation schemes are constructed by Oromiya Irrigation Development Authority in
1996 and 1998 respectively (OIDA, 2000).
Deleted:
Deleted: is
Wedecha and Belbela are the two dams that supply water to Godino and Filtino schemes
Deleted: ande
respectively. Godino scheme has the capacity to develop 310 ha while Filtino scheme has a Formatted: Font: Not Italic
capacity to develop 100 ha of land. The irrigable land in the command area was distributed to Deleted: 4
Deleted: The major types of crops

farmers by the government. Except few farmers who lease in additional irrigable land almost grown¶
by irrigation are onion, tomato, potato
all farmers in the area own quarter of a hectare (one qeret5). and chick pea among others.
Deleted: languge
5 Deleted: ¶
One qerete means quarter of a hectare in the local language
Formatted: Centered
35
Wadecha_Belbela

Watershed
N
N

Wadecha_Belbela

Watershed
N
a
Awash Basin
Argob

d to

R oa
ba
h cn h
o
a
C
J la o
Argo
Adaa Liben Wadecha R.
d to
R oa
Belbela R.
LEGEND d
d
Wadecha R.
Adaa_wereda
Belbela Dam
Awash basin eya
Rob Geb
Belbela R. Road to
Ethiopia
no Lake haro Kilole
Ro d
Godi Lakes
ad to
To Lake Bishoftu Gudo oad Highways
Ad R
Belbela Dam Debre Zeit
dis
eya
ab Rob Geb Belbela Da
ab
a Lake Haro Road to
d strea Outle
no Lake haro Kilole
Ro Bishoftu Town Godi Lakes Stream net
ad o t
To Lake Bishoftu Lake Gudo
Bishoftuad Highways
Watershed
Ad Ro
dis la Debre Zeit
la
ab
Adu Belbela Da
ab LaketoHaro
a strea Outle
d d
oa Stream net
R Bishoftu Town
10 0 Lake Bishoftu 10 Kilometers Watershed
ala
u l
Ad
to
d
oa
R
10 0 10 Kilometers
Fig. 1. Location of the study area and the irrigation schemes.
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
36
3.3. Source and Methods of Data Collection
The data required for this study was collected from sample respondents using a semi
structured questionnaire. The enumerators for the data collection were selected on the basis of
their educational back ground and their ability of the local language. One week training was
given to the enumerators about method of data collection and the contents of the
questionnaire. After pretest was conducted and modification was made based on the feedback
from the pretest, data collection proper was started in mid March for one month with the day
to day supervision of the researcher.
Secondary information that could supplement the primary data were collected from published
and unpublished documents obtained from, Eastern Shoa Irrigation Development Authority,
Ministry of Agricultural and Rural Development, Ministry of Water Resources, Ministry of
Finance and Economic Development, Oromiya Irrigation Development Authority.
3.4. Sample Size and Sampling Technique
Out of the 45 peasant associations that are found in the Ada Liben district, two peasant
associations namely Godino and Quftu were purposely selected because of availability of
irrigation schemes and their accessibility.
To select sample respondents from the two peasant associations, first the household heads in
the two peasant associations were identified6 and stratified in to two strata: irrigation user and
non user. Then the sample respondents from each stratum were selected randomly using
simple random sampling technique. Since the number of household heads in the two groups
was proportional, equal number of sample is drawn from each group, that is, 100 household
heads were selected from each group and a total of 200 household heads were interviewed.
6 Deleted: ¶
List of the peasant associations was obtained from Ada Liben wereda Agricultural and Rural Development
office Formatted: Centered
37
3.5. Data Analysis Techniques
The study employed both descriptive and econometric data analysis techniques. The
descriptive analysis is applied to discuss the management of small scale irrigation systems in
the study area while the econometric analysis is used to identify the impact of small scale
irrigation on household food security.
3.5.1. Descriptive statistics
To describe the irrigation management system of the schemes, the following data were
collected: users’ participation, water distribution, conflict management and operation and
maintenance. The descriptive analysis was performed using frequencies, means, and
maximum and minimum values.
3.5.2. Econometric analysis
Formatted: Font: Bold

Heckman two-step procedure: Evaluating the impact of an institution or a program on an
Formatted: Font: Bold
outcome variable using regression analysis can lead to biased estimate if the underlying
process which governs “selection in to the institution or a program is not incorporated in the
empirical framework. The reason for this is that, the effect of the program may be over
(under) estimated if program participants are more (less) able due to certain unobservable
characteristics, to derive these benefits compared to eligible non-participants (Zaman, 2001).
To evaluate the benefit from a program, a model commonly employed is the following
Y = Xβ + α I + U (3)
Where Y is the outcome, X is a vector of personal exogenous characteristics and I is a dummy

variable (I=1 if the individual participates in the program and 0 otherwise). For this model,
Deleted: ¶
the effect of the program is measured by the estimate of α . However, the dummy variable ‘I’ Formatted: Centered
38
can not be treated as exogenous if the decision of an individual to participate or not to
participate in the program is based on an individual self selection (Maddala, 1983).
One solution to this problem in econometrics is the application of Heckman two-step

procedures. The Heckman model is a response to sample selection bias. It is the appropriate
tool to test and control sample selection biases (Wooldrige, 2002).
The first stage models a ‘participation equation’, attempts to capture the factors governing
membership in a program. This equation is used to construct a selectivity term known as the
‘Mills ratio’ which is added to the second stage ‘outcome’ equation. If the coefficient of the
‘selectivity’ term is significant then the hypothesis that the participation equation is governed
by an unobserved selection process is confirmed. Moreover, with the inclusion of extra term,
the coefficient in the second stage ‘selectivity corrected’ equation is unbiased (Zaman, 2001).
Some studies show that classical linear regression methodology is applied to the analysis of
samples with self selectivity component which are not with out limitations. A study by Dardis
et al. (1994) discusses that in the application of classical linear regression model on tourism
expenditure the large number of nil observation assigned to individuals who do not take a
holiday in the period analyzed leads to a situation in which the application of the classical
linear regression model does not guarantee consistent and unbiased estimates of the
parameter. The correct method would be to model the decisions which cause zeros along with
the expenditure decisions (Maddala, 1992). This implies the decomposition of the tourist
choice process in to two stages: decision to take a holiday and expenditure incurred on a
holiday through the estimation of Heckman tow-step procedure (Heckman, 1979).
A study by Sigelman and Zeng (1999) specified a model with self selection (selectivity bias)
as follows:
Zi *= wi γ + µi (4)
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
39
*
Yi = x i β + ε i observed only if zi > 0 (5)
Deleted: ¶
Where the error terms ( µi andε i ) are assumed to follow a bivariate normal distribution with
mean 0, variances σ µ and σ ε , and correlation coefficient ρ . The application of ordinary least
square estimation using the observed y is biased and the estimates will be inconsistent. Hence,
Heckman’s (1979) two-step procedure is usually employed instead.
In Bangladish, a study conducted by Zaman (2001) estimates the impact of micro credit
program on poverty and vulnerability using Heckman two- step procedure. The study argues
that, in estimating the selection process in to a micro credit program, there may be a
systematic unobserved process that governs both the ‘participation’ equation and the
‘Expenditure equation.’ This would lead to the error terms in the two equations being
correlated and conventional estimation methods such as ordinary least square would produce
biased and inconsistent result (Reilly, 1990).
Cho et al. (2005) in studying rural homeowners’ willingness to pay for land conservation
easement applied the Heckman two- step procedure to measure willingness to pay. Hence
Heckman two- step procedure is usually appropriate in such circumstances.
A study by Dardis et al. (1994) applied the censored regression (Tobit) model in the analysis
of tourism expenditure, as it allows for inclusion of all expenditure observations zero and
positive, thus minimizing the problem of bias and inconsistency. However, the Tobit model
also presents problems. Firstly, this model is based on the assumption of censored data; which
means that it is assumed that only realization above a certain value are observed, which would
be seen as a data defect (Greene, 2003). Moreover, the application of the Tobit model for a
data with no censorial problem gives a poor fit and produce significant bias in the estimation.
Therefore, to study the impact of small scale irrigation on household food security, we should
incorporate the underlying process which governs self selection in to the irrigation scheme.
This is because the impact of small scale irrigation on household food security is a compound
of its impact on participation and the outcome equations. If household food security of the Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
40
irrigation participants is significantly higher than that of non participants we can not
necessarily attribute this difference to the impact of the irrigation program because of the self
selectivity component that should be taken care of.
In view of the need to estimate the selection process in to the irrigation program we use the
Heckman two- step procedure which first estimates the participation equation (the probability
of participating in irrigation) and derives maximum likelihood estimates from the coefficient
of the participation equation. Using these estimates a variable known as the Mills ratio is
constructed. The Mills ratio is the tool for controlling bias due to sample selection (Heckman,
1979). The second stage involves including the Mills ratio to the food security equation and
estimating the equation using ordinary least square technique.
Deleted: stage
Specification of the Heckman two-step procedure: let Z i k be a group of variables K which
represent the characteristics of household i which determine the decision to participate in the
irrigation scheme measured by a latent variable Di* and γ k are the coefficients which reflect the
effect of these variables on participation; and X is is a group of variables S which represent
the characteristics of household i which determine household food security Ci and β s are the
coefficients which reflect the effect of these variables on Household food security.
Deleted: model (1979)

Thus, the Heckman two-step procedure takes the following form:
Deleted:
K
Di * = ∑γ k Z ik + ui (6)
k =1
Deleted:
S
*
Ci = ∑ β s X is + ε i observed only if Di > 0 (7)
s =1
Where the disturbances ui and ε i follow a bivariate normal distribution with a zero mean,
variance σ u and σ ε respectively, and covariance σ εu . Therefore, we define a dichotomous

Deleted: ¶
variable Di which takes a value 1 when the latent variable Di* > 0 and 0 otherwise. In this way
Formatted: Centered
41
Di = 1 indicates the participation in the irrigation scheme and Di = 0 that of not participating
in the irrigation scheme.
The estimator is based on the conditional expectation of the observed variable, household
food security Ci :
Deleted:
( *
)
E Ci / di > 0 = xβ + σ εu σ ε λ (− γz ) (8)
Where λ is the inverse Mills ratio defined as λ (− γZ ) = φ (− γZ ) ÷ (1 − ϕ (− γZ ) ); β and γ are
the vectors of parameters which measure the effect of variables x and z; φ and ϕ are the
functions of density and distribution of a normal, respectively. The expression of conditional

expectation shows that Ci equals xβ only when the errors ui and ε i are non correlated, σ εu = 0;
otherwise, the expectation of Ci is affected by the variable of equation (6)
Thus, from expression (8), we find that
*
( *
)
Ci / d i > 0 = E Ci / di > 0 + ν i = xβ + σ εu σ ε λ (− γz ) + νi (9)
Deleted:
Where vi is the distributed error term N (0, σ ε (1 − σ εu (λ (λ − γz ))))
Therefore, in our two stage choice context we simultaneously model participate in irrigation
and the impact of the irrigation schemes on household’s food security.
3.6. Variables of the Model
The dependent variable for the first stage of the Heckman two-step procedure is participation
in irrigation. This variable is a dummy variable (given a value of 1 if the household
participates in the irrigation scheme and 0 otherwise) for the second stage of the model
household food security is a continuous variable measured in Birr (annual food expenditure of
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
42
the household per adult equivalent). The independent variables of the model are as presented
below.
Irrigation (ACCIRRIG): it is hypothesized that access to irrigation increases production,

Deleted: hopusehold
and consumption of a household. Abebaw (2003) indicated that irrigation reduces the risk of
food insecurity. Therefore, it is assumed that access to irrigation and household food security
have a positive relationship. The variable is entered the model as a dummy variable (takes a
value of 1 if the household has access to irrigation and 0 otherwise).
Distance from market center (DISMARKE): this variable is a continuous variable

measured in kilometer. It is hypothesized that the farther the market center is the lesser the
Deleted: The
income from the sell of farm produce. Especially for perishable commodities if the market
place is located far away from the farm, the commodity may perish before reaching the
market and to avoid such incidences the farmer sells his output for cheaper price thus
reducing the income and bringing negative impact on household food security.
Deleted:
Socio-demographic factors
Age of the household head (AGEHEAD): a study conducted by Abebaw (2003) indicated
that age has significant effect on household food security. That is, the older the household
head, the more experience he has in farming and weather forecasting. As a result, the chance
for such household to be food secure is high. Therefore, it is hypothesized that age of
household head has positive impact on household food security. This variable is a continuous
variable measured in number of years.
Dependency ratio (DEPRATIO): this is a continuous variable and defined as the number of
Deleted: is
household members whose age are less than 15 plus household members whose age are
greater than 64, divided by the total family members. This ratio tells us the proportion of
household members who are dependent on the active members of the family. It is
hypothesized that the more the dependency ratio in a household the less food secure the
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
43
Deleted: hypothesized
household would be. It is expected that this variable negatively affects household food
security.
Household size: (HHSIZEAE): this variable refers to the size of household members
converted in to adult equivalent. The existence of a large household size negatively influences
household food security (Mulugeta, 2002). Therefore, it is expected that household size and
food security are negatively related. It is a continuous variable measured in the number of
adult equivalent.
Sex of household head (SEXHEAD): it is hypothesized that male-headed households are in

a better position to pull labor force than the female headed ones. Christina et al., (2001) states
that women farmers may need a long adjustment period to diversify their income sources fully
and become food secure. Belayneh (2005) identified that male headed households are more
food secure than female headed households. This variable is entered the model as dummy
variable (takes a value of 1 if the household head is male and 0 otherwise) and expected to
have a positive relation ship with household food security.
Level of education of the household head (EDUCATAGORY): this variable entered the
model in five categories: illiterate, read and write, grade1-4, grade 5-8 and grade >8. It is
hypothesized that household heads that are literate have a better knowledge of how to make a
living. Abebaw (2003) indicated that literate household heads contribute to household food
security positively. This variable is a categorical variable and expected to have a positive
relationship with household food security.
Size of cultivated land (CUTLAND): Mulugeta (2002) and Ayalew (2003) identified that
size of cultivated land has positive impact on household food security. This variable
represents the total cultivated land size (both irrigated and rain fed) of a household measured
in hectare. It is hypothesized that farmers who have larger cultivated land are more likely to
be food secure than those with smaller area. A positive relationship is expected between
household food security and cultivated land size.
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
44
Livestock holding (LIVESTOC): increased livestock holding leads to improved food
Deleted: this
security status Belayneh (2005). This variable is expected to have a positive relationship with
household food security and entered the model as a continuous variable measured in Tropical
Deleted: Increased livestock holding
Livestock Unit. leads to improved food security status
Belayneh (2005).¶
Farmers’ perception of soil fertility status (SOILFERT): if the farm land is fertile the
household can produce more and if the land is infertile less will be produced affecting the
household food security (Yilma, 2005). Thus, it is expected that households with fertile land
are more food secure than households with infertile land indicating a positive relationship
with household food security. This variable is entered the model as a dummy variable (it takes
a value 1 if the household has fertile land and 0 otherwise).
Access to credit service (CREDIT): it is hypothesized that accesses to credit and food
security have positive relationship. The variable is entered the model as a dummy variable (it
takes a value 1 if the household has access to credit service and 0 otherwise).
Access to extension service (SUPPEX): it is expected that extension service widens the
household’s knowledge with regard to the use of improved variety and agricultural
technologies and has positive impact on household food security. This variable entered the
model as a dummy variable (takes a value of 1 if the household has access to extension
service and 0 otherwise).
Nearness of the household to the water source (NEARNESS): nearness of the households
to the water source is expected to determine both the household’s participation in irrigation
scheme and improving household food security status. This variable is a continuous variable
measured in kilometer.
Summary of the definition of independent variables are presented on Table 3.
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
45
Table 3. Summary of definition of model variables
Variable Definition
ACCIRRIG Access to irrigation of the household/It is a dummy variable that
takes a value of 1 if the household has access to irrigation, 0 other
wise
HEADAGE Age of household head measured in years/It is a continuous variable/
HEADAGE2 Age of the household head square/ It is a continuous variable/
HHSIZEAE Household size in adult equivalent/ It is a continuous variable/
HHSIZEAE2 Household size in adult equivalent square/ It is a continuous variable/
EDUCATAGORY Education of the household head in category/illiterate, read and
write, grade 1-4, grade 5-8 and grade >8/
SEXHEAD Sex of the household head/ This is a dummy variable which takes a
value of 1 if the household head is male and 0 otherwise
CUTLAND Cultivated land size (both irrigated and rain fed) in hectare/ It is a
continuous variable/
LIVESTOC Total livestock holding measured in Tropical Livestock Unit/ It is a
DISMARKE Distance from the market place in kilometer/It is a continuous
variable/
SOILFERT Farmers’ perception of soil fertility status / it is a dummy variable
(takes a value 1 if the household has fertile land and 0 otherwise).
SUPPEX Access to extension service of the household/ It is a dummy
variable, takes a value of 1 if the household gets access to extension
service and 0 otherwise
CREDIT Access to credit/ It is a dummy variable, takes a value of 1 if
the household takes credit and 0 otherwise
NEARNESS Nearness of households to water source in kilometer/It is a continuous
variable/
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
46
3.7. Measuring Household Food Security
Using the available data, food security measurement can be estimated through several feasible
methods. In this study the food energy intake method by Greer and Thorbecke (1986) was
employed for ease of computation. What the food energy intake method is aiming to do is find
a monetary value of the poverty line at which “basic needs” are met. Food energy intake will
naturally vary at a given expenditure level. Recognizing this fact the method typically
calculates an expected value of intake. To obtain the estimated cost of acquiring the calorie
recommended daily allowance (RDA) that is, 2200 kcal per adult equivalent per day, this
method regresses food energy intake (calorie) against total food expenditure per adult
equivalent per annum. Accordingly, birr 990 was found to be the minimum food expenditure
per adult equivalent per annum required to meet basic needs (calorie recommended daily
allowance). In this study food expenditure data was collected on a monthly basis, however, in
order to calculate the food expenditure the data was scaled up to yearly basis. The detail steps
followed is indicated in appendix I.
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
47
4. RESULT AND DISCUSSION
This part deals with the result of descriptive statistics and regression output of the empirical
model. The analysis was made in the light of the objective of the study. Section 4.1 is about
the descriptive analysis of the assessment of small scale irrigation management activities in
Deleted: s
the two schemes. Section 4.2 deals with descriptive analysis of model variables. In Section
4.3 the result of the econometric analysis is presented.
Deleted: .
4.1. Description of Small Scale Irrigation Management Systems
In the study area small scale irrigation management activities include water use activities such
as acquisition, allocation, and distribution, control structure activities which refer to design,
construction and operation and maintenance and organizational activity which includes
activities like resource mobilization, conflict resolution and decision making.
Water use activities: the study identified that each scheme has a water users association
(WUA). The WUA is responsible for coordinating the water distribution. The WUA has
nominated an individual who is responsible to open gate as per the program of each of the
villages. Each village gets water on a weekly basis. A significant number of respondents (86
percent) said that they have no problem of water shortage, they said that they get enough
water for their farm activities when they need. Out of the 14 percent respondents who
complained not to get enough water 6 percent said that the shortage is due to water theft, 3
percent of them said that it is because head end traditional users misuse the water, the rest
responded that it is due to water shortage.
The study also tried to identify if there is any relationship between water distribution and
Deleted: family size
household size, location of the household to the schemes, sex of the household head and
financial status of household. Accordingly, 83 percent of the respondents disclosed that head
end users get enough water, 3 percent of them said that rich farmers get enough water and the
rest said that households with large families get much water. The survey showed that location
Deleted: ¶
plays a significant role with regard to water distribution that is, those farmers that are located
Formatted: Centered
48
in the upper part of the scheme benefit more. Female headed household have equal
opportunity to use water as men provided that they are heading a family. However, they do
not participate in the WUA committee.
Regarding administrative problems related to water distribution the study disclosed that
absence of sanction and poor coordination of water users association are the main
administrative problems in relation with water distribution. About 82 percent of the farmers
indicated that absence of sanction is the major administrative problem that encourages water
theft and illegal water use. Some of the illegal water use activities in the area include: letting
cattle drink the irrigation water, diverting the water course to ones farm land etc.
Control Structure Activities: the design and construction of the Godino and Filtino schemes
were undertaken by the Oromiya Irrigation Development Authority with the participation of
Deleted: s
the users (beneficiaries). The community participated in the construction of the schemes
through provision of labor for excavation of canals and head work, supply of locally available
construction materials such as stone and sand. The survey disclosed that there is maintenance
of the schemes two times a year. Maintenance here refers to cleaning of canals when filled
with grass and mud.
The survey also revealed that almost all the farmers are willing to pay for operation and
maintenance of the schemes, 97 percent of the respondents confirmed their willingness. The
farmers’ willingness may arise from the sense of belongingness. Almost all the farmers (96
percent) responded that the scheme belongs to them. In Ethiopia farmers do not pay for
irrigation water use, according to OIDA (2000) this is not because of the failure to recognize
the economic value and the real cost of service provision, rather the government wants to
subsidies the cost of developing small scale irrigation projects.
Organizational Activities: resource mobilization as stated previously is poorly undertaken

since irrigation users do not pay for the service they are being offered. This implies that in the
study area there are no activities like fund raising and utilization. Manpower and information
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
49
management and utilization is under taken through water users association, although the only
activity is cleaning of the canals using hand tools like shovel.
In the study area the main reason for conflict is water theft. Both peasant associations do not
Deleted:
have a documented bylaws to rule the proper functioning of water distribution and penalize
illegal water users. They responded that whenever there is conflict because of water theft they
Deleted:
resolve the issue not by referring to bylaws but through the elderly in the villages and through
water users association. A person who is accused of water theft is taken to the water users’
association committee members to be given advice. This weak system of penalizing illegal
water users encourages them to behave illegally.
4.2. Descriptive Statistical Results of the Model Variables
4. 2.1. Household size
According to the study, the average household size of the total sample households in adult
equivalent was 4.7 persons, with 1 and 9.3 being the minimum and the maximum household
Deleted: family
sizes respectively. When we compare the average household sizes between irrigation users
Deleted: with access to
and non users, the study revealed that households that use irrigation have smaller household
Deleted: family
size than households that do not use irrigation. Average household size for users is 4.3 Deleted: with no access to
persons and 5.1 persons for non users. The mean comparison of household size between the Deleted: family size
two groups showed that there was a statistically significant difference in the mean household
Deleted: family
size at 1 percent probability level between users and non users. Deleted: less than
4. 2.2. Dependency ratio
The survey result showed that the average dependency ratio for the sample households is 0.4
implying that every 100 person within the economically active population groups supported
not only themselves but also additional 40 economically dependent persons with all basic
Deleted: ¶
necessities. The mean dependency ratio for irrigation users is 0.4 the corresponding figure for Formatted: Centered
50
Deleted: which is significantly higher
non users is, 0.5. The t-test revealed that the mean difference between the two groups is
statistically significant.
4. 2.3. Age of the household head
Deleted: s
The average age of the sample household head is 48 years where the minimum is 22 and the
maximum is 90. The average household age of irrigation users is 46 and the corresponding
figure for non users 49. From the statistical analysis performed, it is found out that the mean
age difference between users and non users is not statistically significance.
4. 2.4. Sex of the household head
According to the survey result, 8 percent of the sample households are headed by females and
the rest 92 percent are headed by male. When we see the comparison by access to irrigation,
out of the 100 irrigation user households 7 are headed by female and the corresponding figure
for non users is 9. The chi square test showed that there is no relation ship between sex of the
household head and access to irrigation.
4. 2.5. Level of education of the household head
In the study area, 63.5 percent of the sample household heads are found to be illiterate, where
as 9.5 percent of the sample household heads have attained education level greater than grade
8. The comparison by access to irrigation reveals that 69 users and 58 non users are found to
be illiterate. 12 user household heads have attained grade greater than 8 the corresponding
number for non user household heads is 7. The chi square test shows that there is relationship
between access to irrigation and level of education.
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
51
4. 2.6. Size of cultivated land
The land holding of the sample household varies from 0.1 ha to 12.2 ha. the average land
holding being 1.5 ha. The mean land holding for users is 1.5 ha the corresponding figure for
non users is 1.4 ha. The t-test revealed that mean difference between the two groups is not
statistically significant.
4. 2.7. Livestock holding
The study showed that out of the 200 sample households 137 own livestock. The mean
livestock holding in Tropical Livestock Unit (TLU) for the sample households is 6.7, where
Deleted: Households with access to i
the minimum is 0.7 and the maximum is 15.9. Irrigation user households have a better
Deleted: those
livestock holding than nonuser households. According to the study, out of the 137 households
Deleted: with no access to irrigation
with livestock holding 99 are users and the rest 38 are non users. The mean livestock holding
for user households is 7.3 TLU and 5.0 TLU for non users. The mean comparison for the two
groups showed that the difference between the groups with regard to livestock holding is
statistically significant at 1percent probability level.
4. 2.8. Total production

The major crops grown in the study area are teff, wheat, chickpea, beans and horticultural
crops such as onion, tomato and potato. The mean annual production of the sample
households is 7,972.2 kg, though the range varies between 80 kg and 183,400.0 kg. The
average annual production for irrigation user households is 13,689.1 kg while the annual
average for non users is 2,255.4 kg. The mean comparison between the two groups in relation
to annual crop production showed that the difference between the two groups is statistically
significant at 1 percent probability level.
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
52
4. 2.9. Total consumption expenditure
The average consumption expenditure per adult equivalent per annum for sample households
is found to be Birr7 1,368. The average spending for irrigation users is Birr 1,780.3 and for the
non user households it is Birr 955.6. The mean difference between the two groups was found
to be statistically significant at 1 percent probability level.
4. 2.10. Distance from market center
The mean distance to the market place in kilometer for the sample households is found to be
6.7 km with a minimum of 3 km and a maximum of 13 km. The average for households with
access to irrigation is 7.3 km while the non user households have a better access to the market
place which is 6.1 km. The mean difference between the two groups with regard to distance
Deleted: less than
from the market place is statistically significant at 1 percent probability level.
4. 2.11. Access to extension service
The study result showed that 56 percent of the sample households get extension service.
Deleted: households
When we compare irrigation user and non user households’ majority of the user households
get support from extension agents when compared to non users. According to the survey 67
users and 45 non users get extension service. Extension service here refers to advice, training,
demonstration and distribution of input. 54 users and 41 non users consult extension agents
when ever they need technical advice related with farming activity. Some farmers (7 users and
4 non users) have also disclosed that they got training from extension agents with regard to
agricultural practices. The chi square test indicated that there is significant relationship
between access to irrigation and access to extension service.
Deleted: ¶
7
1 US$ = Birr 8.7015 as of Sept. 25, 2006 (CBE, 2006). Formatted: Centered
53
4. 2.12. Access to credit service
The main source of credit in the study area is micro finance institute (Egeza Tequam)8. From
the sample households 39.5 percent get credit while 60.5 do not take credit due to various
reasons. The comparison by access to irrigation disclosed that 31 users and 48 non users take
credit. From users 50 percent of the sample respondents and from the non user 31 percent
households said that they don’t want credit and the rest complained about high interest rate.
The chi square test result revealed that the relationship between access to credit and access to
irrigation is statistically significant. Sample respondents from both users and non user groups
have different opinion regarding the prevailing credit situation: 34 percent users and 66
percent non users reported that it is good to take credit, 9 percent users and 19 percent non
users expressed their worry saying that credit is dangerous if not properly handled, 13 percent
of users and 6 percent of non users said that credit is not necessary and 31 percent of users
and 6 percent of non users complained that the interest rate is high.
4. 2.13. Farmers perception of soil fertility status
In the study area soil infertility is not a major problem. Majority of the respondents said that
Deleted: land fertile
they do not have soil fertility problem, 80 percent of them stated that they consider their land
fertile. The comparison between user and non user households showed that 93 users and 67
non users have fertile land (according to their opinion). The chi square test revealed that there
is a statistically significant relation ship between soil fertility status and access to irrigation at
1 percent probability level.
Deleted: ¶
8
Egeza tequam is a local name for micro finance institutes Formatted: Centered
54
4.2.14. Nearness of the households to water source
The average distance between the villages9 and the water source in kilometer for the sample
households is found to be 13 km with a minimum of 2 km and a maximum distance of 25 km.
The average distance for irrigation user villages is 12.5 kilometer, the corresponding figure
for non users is 13.5 km. The t-test for the two groups with regard to nearness to the water
Deleted: ¶
source is not statistically significant. The summary of the descriptive statistics for both
continuous and discrete variables are displayed in Table 4 and Table 5 respectively.
Table 4. Summary of descriptive statistics of sample households by access to irrigation

/continuous variables/
User Non user t-value

Variable
Mean Std. Mean Std MD
HEADAGE 46.8 14.4 49.5 12.5 2.7 1.4
HHSIZEAE 4.3 1.7 5.1 1.8 0.7 3.0***
DEPRATIO 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.0 3.1***
CUTLAND 1.5 1.5 1.4 0.7 0.1 0.9
LIVESTOC 7.3 3.4 5.0 2.6 2.2 3.6***
TOTPRODUC 13,689.1 21,706.8 2,255.4 3,487.0 11,433.7 5.2***
TOTEXPEN 1,780.3 946.4 955.6 434.5 824.7 7.9***
DISMARKE 7.3 2.2 6.1 1.9 1.2 4.0***
NEARNESS 12.5 7.5 13.5 11.5 1.0 0.4
Source: Survey result (2006)
*** indicates significance level at 1 percent.
9 Deleted: ¶
Here nearness is measured based on the nearness of each village to the water source because data for each
household was unavailable Formatted: Centered
55
Table 5. Summary of descriptive statistics of sample households by access to irrigation
/discrete variables/
Variable User Non user Total χ2

(P value)
EDUCATAGORY 0.007***
Illiterate 69 58 127
Read and write 1 13 14
Grade 1-4 3 7 10
Grade 5-8 15 15 30
Grade >8 12 7 19
SEXHEAD 0.6
Female 7 9 16
Male 93 91 184
SUPPEX 0.002***
Access to extension 67 45 112
No access to extension 33 55 88
CREDIT 0.01***
Access to credit 31 48 79
No access to credit 69 52 121
SOILFERT 0.001***
Fertile 93 67 160
Infertile 7 33 40
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
56
4. 2.15. Descriptive statistics of households by peasant association
The study performed descriptive statistics of variables by peasant associations to identify

whether there is a significant difference between the two peasant associations with regard to
household characteristics, consumption expenditure, extension and credit services, distance
from the market and the water source and farmers perception of soil fertility status. From the
statistical analysis performed, the mean difference between the two peasant associations with
regard to variables such as: household characteristics, consumption expenditure, livestock
holding, distance from the market and extension services are not statistically significant. The
output of the descriptive analysis for both continuous and discrete variables are presented in
Table 6 and 7 respectively.
Deleted:
Table 6. Summary of descriptive statistics of sample households by Peasant Associations
Deleted: a
/continuous variables/
Peasant association 1 Peasant association 2 t-value
Variable
Mean Std. Mean Std MD
HEADAGE 47.0 15.1 49.0 12.1 1.8 0.94
HHSIZEAE 4.8 1.88 4.6 1.7 0.1 0.5
DEPRATIO 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.06 2.56***
CUTLAND 1.6 1.6 1.3 0.6 0.3 2.0***
LIVESTOC 4.8 3.4 4.3 4.8 0.5 0.9
TOTPRODUC 4,464.9 7,714.1 11,493.6 21,559.2 7,028.6 3.0***
TOTEXPEN 1,375.6 647.5 1,564.7 1,009.8 189.0 1.5
DISMARKE 6.8 1.5 6.5 2.6 0.35 1.1
NEARNESS 3.5 1.5 22.5 2.5 19 64.8***

*** indicates significant level at 1 percent.
Peasant association 1 refers to Quftu peasant association and peasant association 2 refers to Godino peasant
association.
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
57
Table 7. Summary of descriptive statistics of sample households by Peasant Associations Deleted: a
/ discrete variables/
Variable Peasant association 1 Peasant association 2 Total χ2

(P value)
EDUCATAGORY 0.56
Illiterate 63 65 128
Read and write 4 9 13
Grade 1-4 6 4 10
Grade 5-8 16 14 30
Grade >8 11 8 19
SEXHEAD 0.42
Female 6 9 15
Male 94 91 185
SUPPEX 0.19
Access to extension 52 61 113
No access to extension 48 39 87
CREDIT 0.000***
Access to credit 37 10 47
No access to credit 63 90 153
SOILFERT 0.000 ***
Fertile 90 69 159
Infertile 10 31 41
Peasant association 1 refers to Quftu peasant association and peasant association 2 refers to Godino peasant
association.
4. 2.16. Means of transportation of agricultural produce to the market
Deleted: agricultural
Households in the study area use different ways of transporting their produce to the market
Deleted: majority of them,
place. Among the users, 45 percent of the households transport their produce on horse back
Deleted: ¶
and 23 percent of the households use both vehicle and horse back for transporting agricultural Formatted: Centered
58
produce, carrying on human back and using donkey are also means of transportations for few
of the households. The common means of transportation for non users is loading on horse and
donkey backs. The survey showed that 33.5 percent of the non users transport their produce
on horse back and 15.5 percent of them load on donkeys. This may be due to two reasons: the
non user villages are located near the Bishoftu town so they may not need to pay for transport,
the second reason may be non users may not afford the transportation cost to use vehicle.
Deleted:
Deleted: ¶
4. 2.17. Food shortage months of the households
Deleted: From t
The survey result disclosed that irrigation users are better than non users with regard to
Deleted: we can see
securing the household with sufficient food. The survey showed that almost all the non users
face food shortage during some months of the year. Specially, September is the most serious
food shortage month for non users, 49.5 percent of the non users face the problem in
September. August, October and July are also identified to be months of insufficient food
with 36.5 percent, 31.5 percent and 12 percent of households respectively facing the problem.
This may be because non users are producing once a year and if they run out of food before
the next harvesting season they may not have other alternative food source. In the case of
Deleted: ¶
users, they can produce more than once a year to supplement the rain fed agriculture. Some of ¶
the users also face food shortage problem that is, 17.5 percent of them reported food shortage
in October, 7 percent in August and 7.5 percent of them in September (Table 8).
Deleted: ¶
Table 8. Food shortage months of the households Formatted: Normal
Food shortage Months User Non user

Formatted Table
June - 0.5
July 4.0 12.0
August 7.0 36.5
September 7.5 49.5
October 17.5 31.5
November 1.5 4.0
Deleted: ¶
Source: survey result (2006)
Formatted: Centered
59
4. 2.18. Coping strategies of households
Deleted: Page Break
Deleted: 4. 2.18. Coping strategies of

Households in the study area have various coping mechanisms during crop failure. households¶
¶
The survey showed that user households have a better coping strategy than the non users.
None of the users search for off farm employment as a coping strategy. On the other hand 6.5
Deleted: irrigators
percent of non users join off farm employment during bad times as a coping mechanism.
Sales of small animals are the major coping strategy in the study area, 44.5 percent of the
users and 48 percent of the non users sell animals to pass bad years. Taking credit is also the
other way of coping mechanism, 15.5 percent of non users and 8 percent of users employ this
strategy. Cattle selling is also a coping strategy in the study area, 12.5 percent of the non users
and 5.5 percent of users apply this strategy (Table 9).
Table 9. Coping strategies of the households
Copping strategies Users Non users

Cattle selling 5.5 12.5
Reducing meal - -
Sales of ruminants and poultry 44.5 24.0
Off farm employment - 6.5
Deleted:
Taking credit 8.0 15.5
Source: survey result (2006)
4. 2.19. Food security status of households by access to irrigation
The study grouped households into food secure and insecure based on their access to
irrigation. Accordingly, 80 percent of the non users and 30 percent of users are found to be
food insecure respectively and 20 percent of non users and 70 percent of the users are food
secure. Generally out of the 200 sample households 45 percent of them are food secure and 55
percent of them are food insecure. This classification is made on the basis of the calculation
done to measure household food security (Section 3.7). Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
60
Formatted: Justified
However, access to irrigation is only one of the many other variables that influence the food
security status of households. For this reason the result of the multivariate analyses are
presented in the following section.
4. 3. Econometric Analysis
4. 3.1. Detecting multicollinearity and outliers
One of the assumptions of the multiple regression models is that there is no exact linear
relationship between any of the independent variables in the model. If such a linear
relationship does exist, we say that the independent variables are perfectly collinear, or that
perfect collinearity exists. Perfect collinearity is easy to discover because it will be impossible
to calculate the estimates of the parameters. In practice the more difficult problem is having a
high degree of multicollinearity. The variance inflation factor (VIF), the condition index (CI)
and contingency coefficient are the most important tests to detect multicollinearity (Pindyck
and Rubinfeld, 1991).
The study used the variance inflation factor to check for multicollinearity among continuous
variables and contingency coefficient was used to check multicollinearity among discrete
Deleted: result of the test
variables. According to the test result, multicollinearity was not a serious problem both among
the continuous and discreet variables. (see appendix II). The study also checked for outliers.
An outlier is an observation that lies at an abnormal distance from other values in a random
sample from a population. Since there are many ways to identify outliers, this study used a
scatter plot diagram to identify outliers. Accordingly 7 observations were found to be outliers,
not representative of the sample, and removed from the model analysis.
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
61
Deleted: ¶
4. 3.2. Model results Page Break
Formatted: Normal, Line spacing:

The econometric analysis for the Heckman two-step procedure was performed using LIMDEP single
Deleted: ¶
version 7. Data were collected on 200 observations, however, the model was analyzed using
Deleted: ¶
only 193 observations because 7 observations were found to be outliers. The Heckman two-
step procedure was employed in order to control the selectivity bias and endogenity problem
and obtain consistent and unbiased estimates. The Heckman model in the first stage predicts
the probability of participating in the irrigation scheme of each household, in the second stage
it analyses the determinants of household food security.
Deleted: p
The output for the Probit /participation/ equation shows that seven variables determine the
probability of using irrigation. These are Nearness to the water source (NEARNESS),
household size in adult equivalent (HHSIZEAE), size of cultivated land in hectare
(CUTLAND), farmers perception of soil fertility status (SOILFERT), household size square
(HHSIZE2), access to credit service (CREDIT) and livestock ownership (LIVESTOC).
Nearness to the water source: nearness of the household to the water source has a positive
sign as expected and significant at 1 percent probability level. The positive relationship tells
us that the nearer the household to the water source, the higher the probability of participating
in the irrigation scheme. The marginal effect also indicates that, when the household is closer
to the water source by one kilometer, the probability of participating in the irrigation scheme
increases by 16 percent. From the result we can see that those households who are situated in
near by places to the water source know that they can easily access the irrigation scheme with
minimum cost so they quickly decide to participate in the irrigation schemes.
Household size: the second variable which negatively affects participation in irrigation is
household size. This variable is significant at 5 percent probability level. The reason for the
negative relationship between family size and participation in irrigation might be that large
family size is associated with poor households and the poor households have little bargaining
power in negotiating for instance the placement of irrigation schemes. The better off farmers
might have influenced the irrigation layout process. The marginal effect indicates that when Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
62
the household size increases by one adult equivalent the probability of participating in
irrigation decreases by 30 percent.
Household size square: the result of the regression estimate shows that household size square
has a significant and U-shaped relationship with participate in irrigation. The variable is
significant at 5 percent probability level. The significant relationship might be due to two
reasons: first larger family size contributes family labor which is required to participate in
irrigation. Second larger family size is sometimes related with rich household heads
(household heads with more than one wife and many children) who could contribute big sum
of money to influence the layout process. The marginal effect result tells us that as household
size increases the probability of participation in irrigation increases by 27 percent.
Size of cultivated land: this variable showed a negative relationship with participation in
irrigation. It is significant at 1 percent probability level. The possible justification for the
negative relationship could be households with larger farm size may not be interested to
participate in irrigation suspecting land redistribution. The other reason for the negative
relationship could be those households with larger farm size may be able to produce more and
secure the family’s food need so they may ignore the importance of irrigation for food
security. In the study area, according to information obtained during data collection, most of
the households in Quftu peasant association refused the proposal by the government for the
implementation of irrigation schemes suspecting that the implementation of the scheme may
require redistribution of land among the people in the peasant association. The marginal effect
indicates that a one hectare increase in cultivated land size reduces the probability of
participating in irrigation by 24 percent.
Livestock holding: this variable is statistically significant at 1 percent probability level. The
positive relationship indicates that households with larger livestock holding may have money
to spend on any possible cost to participate in irrigation. The marginal effect indicates that as
Deleted: by one
the households’ livestock holding increases by one TLU the probability of participating in
irrigation increases by 14 percent.
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
63
Farmers’ perception of soil fertility status: this variable is significant at 1 percent
probability level. It has a positive relationship with participate in irrigation. The regression
analysis shows that soil fertility status has an influence on participation in irrigation.
Households with fertile land could successfully produce much, in addition to this opportunity,
when the households are given access to use irrigation, the output may increase by a
significant amount both for household consumption and for sale. This situation encourages
them to participate in irrigation. The marginal effect also confirms that better fertility status
increases the household’s chance of participation in irrigation by 33 percent.
Access to credit service: this variable negatively influences irrigation participation of

households. It is significant at 5 percent probability level. The negative relation ship indicates
that households might invest the credit they get on other activities other than irrigation. More
credit may imply more deviation from participation in irrigation such as: rearing of livestock
or spending on consumption. The marginal effect shows that for households with access to
credit the probability of being an irrigation beneficiary decreases by 24 percent. In the study
area, the descriptive statistics reveals that 15.5 percent of non users and 8 percent of users use
Deleted: ¶
credit as a coping strategy during bad years. The model output is depicted on Table 10.
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
64
Table 10. Estimation result of the Binary Probit model and its Marginal Effect Deleted: ¶
Page Break
Variable Coefficient Marginal effect

CONSTANT 2.634 1.050
(0.203) (0.203)
AGEHEAD -0.861 -0.343
(0.248) (0.248)
HHSIZEAE -0.764 -0.304
(0.021)** (0.021)
SEXHEAD 0.414 0.165
(0.438) (0.438)
EDUCATAGORY -0.293 -0.117
(0.764) (0.764)
DISMARKE -0.324 -0.129
(0.673) (0.673)
CUTLAND -0.604 -0.241
(0.004)*** (0.004)
LIVESTOC 0.362 0.144
(0.000)*** (0.000)
SOILFERT 0.838 0.334
(0.019)*** (0.019)
SUPPEX -0.427 -0.170
(0.169) (0.169)
CREDIT -0.615 -0.245
(0.024)** (0.024)
NEARNESS 0.403 0.160
(0.008)*** (0.008)
AGEHEAD2 0.722 0.288
(0.302) (0.302)
HHSIZEAE2 0.687 0.274
(0.034)** (0.034)
Formatted: Line spacing: 1.5 lines
Dependent variable Partdec (participation decision)
Weighting variable one
Number of Observations 193
Logliklihood function -69.13501
Restricted log likelihood -133.6504
Chi squared 129.0309
Degree of freedom 13
Significance level 0.0000
Source: Model out put (2006)
*** and** are level of significance at 1 percent and 5 percent respectively Deleted: ¶
Values in parenthesis are p values Formatted: Centered
65
Deleted: ¶
In the selection /outcome/ equation of the model, eight variables are found to be a significant
determinant of household food security. These are: access to irrigation (ACCIRRIG),
household size (HHSIZEAE), sex of the household head (SEXHEAD) access to extension
service (SUPPEX), size of cultivated land (CUTLAND), household size square
(HHSIZEAE2) nearness of the household to the water body (NEARNESS) and the inverse
Mills ratio (LAMBDA).
According to the model output, the Lambda (inverse Mills ratio) term is significant at 5
percent probability level indicating the presence of selectivity bias. The negative sign suggests
that the error terms in the participation and outcome equations are negatively correlated. This
shows that those unobserved factors that make the household participate in irrigation are
likely to be negatively associated with household food security also.
Access to irrigation: although the lambda term confirms that there are some unobservable
factors that contributed to improved household food security status, access to irrigation is also
positively related to household food security. It is significant at 1 percent probability level.
The result shows that in the study area irrigation enable households to grow crops more than
once a year to insure increased and stable production, income and consumption thereby
improving food security status of the household. The coefficient of the variable confirms that
the food consumption expenditure for irrigation user households is greater that the food
consumption expenditure of non user households by Birr 576 indicating a better food security
status of irrigation users. This result is consistent with the finding of Abebaw (2003).
Household size: household size is negatively related with household food security. The
variable is significant at 1 percent probability level. The negative and significant coefficient
of household size reveals that larger household size leads to food insecurity. This means, as
household size increases there are many dependants in the household to share a plate of food.
The coefficient of the variable indicates that as the household size increases by one adult
equivalent the food consumption expenditure of the household decreases by Birr 391.9. In
other words as the household size increases by one adult equivalent, to keep the household
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
66
food secure the income should increase by Birr 391.9 This result is consistent with the finding
of Mulugeta (2002) and Yilma (2005).
Household size square: the study hypothesized that the relationship between household food
security and household size may not be linear through out. It was assumed that at some point
the relationship may become non linear. As hypothesized the regression coefficient is found
out to be positive and the non linear relationship (U-shaped) is found out to be significant at 1
percent probability level. We might assume that there are two extreme cases where the
household size becomes large, the first extreme is very poor household heads tend to have
larger household size since poor people have the incentive for high fertility to increase the
number of potential income earners in the household and to provide for old age security
(Smith, 1997).
On the other extreme rich farmers tend to marry more than one wife and increase the number
Deleted: family
of children. If the household size is increased because of the later case, there would be a direct
relationship between household food security and household size because they can afford to
produce or purchase enough food and keep the household food secure. Moreover, larger
Deleted: family
household size might benefit from economies of scale such as bulk purchase, cooking fuel and
labor availability during peak labor demand in agriculture. However, the U-shape relationship
obtained in this study might need further investigation.
Sex of the household head: this variable shows negative relationship with household food
security. It is significant at 1 percent probability level. The coefficient of the variable shows
that when the head of the household is male, food consumption expenditure of the household
decreases by Birr 331.1. The possible justification for this inverse relationship could be,
Deleted: have a better
though male headed households are in a better position to pull resource to increase
Deleted: such as drinks
production, they might spent more money on nonfood expenses rather than spending on food
items to meet the household’s food needs. According to the model output, female headed
Deleted: maintain
households are wiser on financial resource allocation to keep their family food secure despite
Deleted: ’s
the smaller amount of resource and less experience they have to produce when compared to Deleted: need
male headed households. This finding is contrary to the finding of Belayneh (2005) where he Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
67
identified that male headed households are able to keep their family food secure than female
headed households.
Size of cultivated land: the regression result shows that this variable has the expected
positive sign and it is significant at 10 percent probability level. As the cultivated land size
increases, the household becomes able to increase and diversify the quantity and type of crop
produced on the cultivated land, this may in turn imply increased consumption insuring
household food security. The coefficient of the variable shows that as the household gets one
more hectare of land food consumption expenditure of the household increases by Birr 85 and
this may lead to improved household food security status. This result is consistent with the
finding of Mulugeta (2002) Ayalew (2003), Abebaw (2003), and Yilma (2005).
Access to extension service: this variable is statistically significant at 10 percent probability

level and has the expected positive sign. The positive relation ship may indicate that in the
study area, those households who get technical advice, training or those who participated on
field demonstrations are well aware of the advantage of agricultural technologies and willing
to adopt new technologies and produce more, thereby improving the household food security
status. The coefficient of the variable indicates that households with access to extension
service increase their food consumption expenditure by Birr 117 than those households that
do not have access to extension service.
Nearness to water source: as hypothesized this variable is found to be a significant

determinant of household food security. It is positively related to household food security and
significant at 1 percent probability level. This positive and significant relationship tells us that
as households become closer to the irrigation scheme, food security status improves
significantly. The possible justification could be households who are closer to the irrigation
scheme do not incur much cost to access their farm so they can follow up the farm activity
closely and frequently and may get a better yield. The coefficient of the variable also confirms
that when a household is closer to the scheme by one kilometer, the food consumption
Deleted: ¶
expenditure increases by Birr 9.6. The model output is depicted on Table 11.
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
68
Table 11. Estimation Result of the Selection Equation and its Marginal Effect
Variable Coefficient Marginal Effect

CONSTANT 1553.936 1553.936
(0.000)*** (0.000)
ACCIRRIG 576.882 576.882
(0.000)*** (0.000)
AGEHEAD 14.918 14.918
(0.348) (0.348)
HHSIZEAE -391.676 -391.676
(0.000)*** (0.000)
SEXHEAD - 331.133 -331.133
(0.001)*** (0.001)
EDUCATAGORY 1.736 1.736
(0.930) (0.930)
DISMARKE 13.567 13.567
(0.378) (0.378)
CUTLAND 85.751 85.751
(0.058)* (0.058)
LIVESTOC -5.063 -5.063
(0.717) (0.717)
SOILFERT -47.613 -47.613
(0.534) (0.534)
SUPPEX 117.729 117.729
(0.069)* (0.069)
CREDIT -44.539 -44.539
(0.429) (0.429)
(0.009)*** (0.009)
AGEHEAD2 -0.112 -0.112
(0.441) (0.441)
HHSIZEAE2 25.607 25.607
(0.001)*** (0.001)
LAMBDA -243.448
(0.041)**
Dependent variable Total food (Total Food expenditure per adult eq per annum)
Selection rule is: User=1
Log-L = -1395.691
Restricted (b=0) Log -L = -1489.707
R-squared = 0.588
Correlation of disturbance in regression and selection criteria (Rho) -0.669
Prob value = 0.000
Source: model out put (2006)
*** ** and * show level of significance at 1percent, 5 percent and 10 percent probability level.
Deleted: ¶
Values in parenthesis are p values
Formatted: Centered
69
The study also runs the Ordinary Least Square (OLS) model to compare the result of the
estimate with the Heckman two- step procedure. As expected the model result identified that
access to irrigation is a significant determinant of household food security. But the size of the
Deleted: Heckit model
coefficient for the Heckman two-step procedure is about twice that of the OLS regression
result. Thus, using OLS regression model underestimates the food security impact of access to
Deleted: ¶
irrigation (Table 12).
Table 12. Ordinary Least Square estimation of model variables
Variable Coefficient P value

CONSTANT 1815.69 0.000***
ACCIRRIG 368.34 0.000***
HEADAGE 4.39 0.776
HHSIZEAE -419.85 0.000***
SEXHEAD -330.07 0.002***
EDUCATAGORY -0.52 0.979
DISMARKE 16.46 0.296
CUTLAND 61.83 0.169
SOILFERT -7.95 0.916
SUPPEX 98.42 0.136
CREDIT -57.40 0.318
NEARNESS 13.67 0.000***
HEADAGE2 -0.22 0.876
HHSIZEAE2 28.53 0.000***
Ordinary least squares regression Weighting variable = none
Dep. var. = TOTALFOO Mean= 1038.475544 , S.D.= 545.8532263
Model size: Observations = 193, Parameters = 15, Deg.Fr.= 178
Source: Model output (2006)
***, ** and * indicates significance level at 1percent, 5 percent and 10 percent. Deleted: %
Deleted: %
Deleted: %
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
70
5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
This section summarizes the major findings of the study and proposes recommendations for
policy purpose. Section 5.1 is Summary and Section 5.2 is Conclusion and Policy
Implications.
5.1. Summary
The aim of this study is to identify the impact of small scale irrigation on household food
security and also to assess the management systems of the schemes. Out of the 200 sample
households 100 of them are irrigation users and the rest 100 are non users. From the 100 users
70 percent of them are food secure and the rest 30 percent are food insecure. Out of the 100
non users 80 percent are found to be food insecure and the rest 20 percent food secure.
Generally, out of the 200 sample households 45 percent are food secure and the rest 55
percent are food insecure. This descriptive statistics clearly indicates that those households
who have access to irrigation are by far better in securing their food need than non users.
The descriptive analysis also compares the mean of the two groups by using different
determinants of household food security. The result revealed that irrigation user households
Deleted: with access to irrigation
are in a better position when compared to those that are non users. For example, users have
small household size, higher level of education of the household head, large size of livestock
Deleted: status of
holding, better consumption expenditure and all these contributed significantly to a better
food security status.
A t- test was also performed to statistically compare the mean difference between the two
groups with regard to these variables and a statistically significant result is obtained.
The chi square test also reveals that variables like access to extension service, access to credit
Deleted: of soil
and farmers perception of soil fertility status have significant relation ship with access to
irrigation. Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
71
Deleted: ¶
The descriptive statistics reveals that households with access to irrigation face food shortage
in only few months of the year while non users suffer from critical food shortage in August
September and October. The survey revealed that households in the study area have various
coping strategies during months of food shortage. Sales of small animals, sales of cattle, off
farm employment and credit are some of the strategies.
In the study area the common means of transportation of agricultural produce to the market
Deleted: users
for non users is loading on horse back and for users’ vehicles and loading on horse back. This
may be due to two reasons: the non user villages are located near to the Bishoftu town so they
may not need to pay for transport, the second reason may be non users may not afford the
transportation cost to use vehicle.
According to the study, small scale irrigation management activities include water use,
control structure and organizational activities. The survey disclosed that there is sense of
belongingness among the users, almost all the users are well aware of the fact that the
irrigation schemes belong to them. The study also identified that location plays a key role in
water distribution, head end framers benefit more from irrigation water than tail end users.
The absence of bylaws and lack of finance are the major reasons for the poor performance of
the irrigation systems.
Deleted: stage
Multivariate analysis is performed using the Heckman two- step procedure. The Heckman two
Deleted: analysis
-step procedure is implemented in order to capture the selectivity bias and get the impact of Deleted: stage
small scale irrigation on household food security. Moreover, the first stage of the model Deleted: analyses
removes the problem of endogenity since it considers participation in irrigation as a dependent

variable.
Deleted: stage
In the first stage of the Heckman two-step procedure the following variables determined
participation in irrigation: nearness to the water source, household size, household size square,
size of cultivated land, livestock holding, farmers perception of soil fertility status and access
Deleted: stage analyses
to credit. In the second stage of the Heckman two-step procedure the lambda term which
confirms the presence of self selection was significant indicating the presence of selectivity Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
72
Deleted: ed
bias. After the model corrects for the bias due to some unobservable factors, access to
irrigation, household size, sex of the household head, support from extension agents, size of
cultivated land, household size square and nearness to the water source are found to determine
household food security.
Formatted: Justified
Ordinary least square estimation is also performed to compare the coefficients of the variable
Deleted: model
access to irrigation with the Heckman two-step procedure and it is found out that the size of
the coefficient of the variable access to irrigation is twice that of the coefficient of the OLS
estimate indicating that the OLS model under estimates the impact of small scale irrigation on
household food security.
5.2. Conclusions and Recommendations
In the study area irrigation systems are poorly managed. That is, the components of water use,
control structure and organizational activities are not functioning well. This may be due to
lack of finance, absence of bylaws that could insure the proper functioning of the various
activities and absence of training. On the other hand all users are willing to pay for the
irrigation water use. Therefore, by conducting similar studies and investigating farmers’
willingness it may be possible to set tariff for irrigation water use. Besides, by giving training
to water users association committees it is possible to strengthen the capacity of the members
as to how to lead the users community and issuing of bylaws may insure proper management
and sustainable use of the schemes.
Deleted: stage
In the first stage of the Heckman two-step procedure the following variables are found to
Deleted: many
determine participation in irrigation: household size, size of cultivated land, livestock holding, Deleted: . These are
farmers’ perception of soil fertility status, access to credit, nearness to the water source and
household size square.
Deleted: ¶
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
73
Since participation in irrigation is the first step towards improving household food security
from the use of small scale irrigation, those factors that determine participation in irrigation
should be treated accordingly.
Household size affects participation in irrigation negatively. So the introduction of family

planning is one way in order to limit the number of children in a household to get a healthy
and productive family member that are both physically and financially strong to make
decision.
Larger size of cultivated land is the second variable that negatively affects participation in
irrigation. Size of cultivated land alone may not help a household to keep its family food
secure. Therefore, households in the study area should be introduced the advantage of new
technologies such as the use of small scale irrigation to produce more than once a year and
increase yield.
Access to credit is also negatively determine participation in irrigation. This indicates that
households in the study area use credit as a coping strategy during bad years. But it is better
to invest the credit rather than consume it. Therefore, households should be given training on
financial resource management (allocation).
Livestock holding is positively related to participation in irrigation. The positive relationship

indicates that in the study area livestock holding contributes to participation in irrigation. This
could be through sales of livestock and income generation for any possible spending in the
participation. Therefore, by giving training on modern livestock management system
households could generate more income and improve their financial status.
Deleted: S
Farmers perception of soil fertility status positively determines participation in irrigation.
Households that have fertile land are willing to participate in irrigation because they are
encouraged to produce more with the given opportunity. Thus, training households about soil
conservation practices help maintain the soil fertility.
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
74
Nearness to the water source is also positively related to participation in irrigation. Those
households that are situated near the water source are willing to participate. Therefore, the
construction of small scale irrigation should consider the distance between the water source
and villages for a better use of the schemes by households.
Deleted: stage analysis

In the second stage of the Heckman two-step procedure the following variables significantly
Deleted: in adult equivalent
determine household food security: access to irrigation, household size, sex of the household
head, size of cultivated land, access to extension service and nearness to the water source.
Access to irrigation is found to be a significant determinant of household food security

Therefore, implementing small scale irrigation schemes with out ignoring the proper
management leads to sustainable production that could change the life of the rural poor.
Household size is found to negatively determine household food security. Households with
larger household size are unable to meet the minimum daily requirement. Therefore, the
introduction of appropriate family planning strategy would be indispensable to have healthy
and productive family.
Sex of the household head has a negative relationship with household food security. The
Deleted: families
negative relationship tells us that households headed by male are food insecure than
households headed by female. Therefore, to keep male headed households food secure they
should be given training on financial resource management. Moreover, female headed
households should be empowered and given equal access to resource since they have a better
capacity of allocating the financial resource to meet the household’s food needs.
Size of cultivated land and household food security are positively related indicating larger
farm size improves household food security. Households with large farm size are found to be
food secure, however, there may not be a possibility of expanding cultivated land size any
more because of increasing family size and degradation of the existing farm land. Therefore,
household must be trained as to how to increase production per unit area (productivity).
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
75
Access to extension service is also positively related to household food security. Extension
workers could play a key role in transferring knowledge to the rural people easily there by
improving production and consumption. Capacity building of the existing ones and training
more extension workers might help address the issue.
Nearness to the water source: this variable is positively related to household food security.
The positive relationship may tell us that as households become closer to the water source,
food security status improves significantly. Therefore, the construction of small scale
irrigation schemes should consider the villages’ nearness to the water source for a frequent
follow up by household members and a better benefit.
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
76
6. REFERENCE Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
Abebaw, Shimeles, 2003. Dimensions and determinants of food security among rural
households in Dire Dawa, Eastern Ethiopia. An MSc Thesis Presented to the School of
Graduate Studies of Alemaya University. 152p.
Andersen, P., 2001. The future world food situation and the role of plant diseases. pp. 1-10.
Reviewed feature article. International Food Policy Research Institute. Washington, DC.
Ayalew, Y., 2003. Identification and intensifying of food insecurity and coping strategies of
rural household in North Shoa: The case of lalomama. An MSc Thesis Presented to the
School of Graduate Studies of Alemaya University. 221p.
Benson, T., 2004. Africa’s food and nutrition security situation. Where are we and how did
we get here? pp. 7-11. International Food Policy Research Institute. Discussion paper 37.
Washington D.C.
Belayneh Belete, 2005. Analysis of food insecurity causes: the case of rural farm households
in Metta woreda, eastern Ethiopia. An MSc Thesis Presented to the School of Graduate
Studies of Alemaya University. 130p
Bickel, G., A. Margaret and C. Steven, 1998. The magnitude of hunger: A new national
measure of food security. Topics in clinical nutrition 13(4): 15-30. Aspen Publication Inc.
Bilinky, P. and A. Swindal, 2005. Months of inadequate household food provisioning for
measurement of household food access. pp. 1-2. Indicator guide. FANTA Publication.
Washington, D.C.
Bouis, H., and J. Hunt, 1999. Linking food and nutrition security: past lesson and future
opportunities. Asian Development Review, 17 (2): 168-213.
Byrnes, K., 1992. Water users association in World Bank assisted irrigation projects in
Pakistan. pp. 31-39. World Bank Technical paper 173. Washington, D.C.
Callens, K. and B, Seiffert, 2003. Participatory appraisal of nutrition and household food
security situations and planning of interventions from a livelihoods perspective.
Methodological guide. Rome, Italy. Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
77
Chamber, R., 1994. Irrigation against Rural Poverty. pp. 32-33. In Socio- Economic
Dimension and Irrigation, ed., R.K. Gujar. Jaipur. India: Printwell.
Cho, S., D. Newman and J. Bowker, 2005. Measuring rural homeowners’ willingness to pay
for land conservation easements. Forest policy economics 7, 757-770
Christina, H., M. Thomson, S. Jennifer, S. Anderson, 2001. Addressing food security in

Africa via Multiple livelihood strategies of women farmers. Journal of food policy 26
(2001):177-207
Chung, K., L. Haddad, J. Ramakrishna, F. Riely and F. Eiely, 1997. Identifying the food
insecure: The application of mixed-method approaches in India. International Food Policy
Research Institute. Washington, D.C.
Corppenstedt, A., and Abbi, M., 1996. An analysis of the extent and cause of the technical
efficiency of farmers growing cereals in Ethiopia: evidence from three regions. Ethiopian
Journal of Economics 5 (1): 39-61
Dardis, H., Soberon and D. Patro, 1994. Analysis of leisure expenditure in the United States.
The Proceeding of the American Council on Consumer Interest 39,194-200.
Debebe, Habtewold, 1995. Food Security: A brief review of concepts and indicators. pp. 1-18.
Proceedings of the Inaugural and First Annual Conference of the Agricultural Economics
Society of Ethiopia. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 8-9 June 1995, Agricultural Economics Society.
Debebe, H., 2000. Food situation in Ethiopia: problems and prospects. A paper presented to a
symposium for reviewing Ethiopia’s socioeconomic performance, 1991-99.
Dessalegn Rahmato, 1999. Water resource development in Ethiopia: Issues of sustainability

and participation. Forum for social studies. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
DESFED (Department of East Shoa Zone Finance and Economic Development), 2004.
Oromia Regional State. Compiled report.
DPPA (Disaster Prevention and Preparedness Agency), 2003. Humanitarian appeal for
Ethiopia, a joint government and humanitarian partners appeal. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
78
DPPA (Disaster Prevention and Preparedness Agency), 2004. pp. 11-12. Humanitarian appeal
for Ethiopia. A joint government and humanitarian partners appeal. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Ellis, F., 1993. Farm Household and Agrarian Development. Cambridge University Press 2nd
ed.
FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations), 1992. Assessing, analyzing
and monitoring nutrition situations. International conference on nutrition. Rome, Italy
FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations), 1997. Fact sheets of the
world food summit: irrigation and food security. Food and Agriculture organization of the
United nations, Rome. http://www.fao.org/news
FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations), 1997. Small scale irrigation
for Arid Zones. Principle and options. Rome, Italy.
FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations), 2001. The state of food and
agriculture. pp. 18-20. World Review Part I. Rome. Italy.
FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations), 2003. Agricultural
extension, rural development and the food security challenge. pp. 31-36. Extension, education
and communication service research, extension and training division. Rome, Italy.
FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations), 2003. Food crises in parts
of Ethiopia. Italy, Rome. http://www.fao.org/news
FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations), 2003. The state of food
insecurity in the World. pp. 24-26. Monitoring progress towards the food summit and
millennium development goals. Rome, Italy.
FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations), 2004. The state of food
insecurity in the World. pp. 6-10. Monitoring progress towards the World food summit and
millennium development goals. Rome, Italy.
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
79
FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations), 2005. Global information
and early warning system on food and agriculture. World food program. Special report. Italy,
Rome.
FDRE (Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia), 2002. Food Security Strategy. pp. 8-22. An
update. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Frankenberger, T., 1992. Indicators and data collection methods for assessing household food
security. pp. 84-123. A technical review. UNICEF, IFAD. Rome, Italy.
Getachew Alem, 1999. Rain water harvesting in Ethiopia. Integrated development for water
supply and sanitation. 25th WEDC conference. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Gezhagne, Ayele, S. Omamo and Eleni, Gebremedhin, 2004. The state of food security and
agricultural marketing in Ethiopia. pp. 3-5. Proceeding of a Policy Forum Jointly Sponsored
by the Ethiopian Development Research Institute (EDRI) and the East African Food Policy
Network of the International Food Policy Research Institute. Addis Ababa. Ethiopia.
Green, W., 2003. Econometric Analysis. pp. 780-789. 5th ed. Prentice Hall. Inc, New York.
Greer, J. and E. Thorbecke, 1986. A methodology for measuring food poverty applied to
Kenya. Journal of development Economics, 24:59-74
Grepperuds, S., 1996. Population pressure and land degradation: The case of Ethiopia. Journal
of Environmental Economics and Management, 30: 18-33
Haddad, L., E. Kennedy and J. Sullivan, 1994. Choices of indicators for food security and
nutrition monitoring. Journal of Food Policy.19(3):329-343
Heckman, J., 1979. Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica. 47(1):153-
162.
Hoddinott, J., 2002. Food security in practice. pp. 31-43. Methods for rural development
projects. International Food Policy Research Institute. Washington, D.C.
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
80
Hussain, I., Regassa, Namara, and S. Madar, 2004. Water for food security for the poor. pp.
85-86. A collection of thematic papers. Asian Development Bank. Colombo, Sri lanka.
IWMI (International Water Management Institute), 2005. Experiences and opportunities for
promoting small scale micro irrigation and rain water harvesting for food security in Ethiopia.
pp. 7-10. Working paper 98. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Kumar, D. 2003. Food security and sustainable agriculture in India. pp. 1-2. The water
management challenge. Working paper 60. International Water Management Institute.
Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Kloos, H., 1991. Peasant irrigation development and food production in Ethiopia.
Geographical Journal. 157(3): 295-306.
Lire, Eersado, 2005. Small scale irrigation dams, agricultural production, and health: Theory
and evidence from Ethiopia, Working paper 3494. The World Bank, Washington DC.
Lire Ersado, G.S. Amacher and J. Alwang, 2004. Productivity and land enhancing
technologies in the northern Ethiopia: Health, public investment and sequential adoption,
American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 86(2):321-331.
Madalla, G.S., 1983. Limited Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. pp. 260-
285. Cambridge University Press. United Kingdom.
Madalla, G.S., 1992. Introduction to Econometrics. pp. 341. 2nded. Cambridge University
Press. United Kingdom.
Manoncourt, S. and J. Murray, 1996. Ethiopian health facility assessment: Using local
planning to improve the quality of child care at health facilities in the southern nations,
nationalities and peoples region. Regional health bureau, SNNPR/BASICS/ESHE, Awasa
Ethiopia.
Maxwell, D., B. Watkins, R. Wheeler and D. Sheikh, 2002. The coping strategy index. pp . 3-
15. A tool for rapidly measuring food security and the impact of food and programs in
emergencies. Field methods manual. World Food Program.
Maxwell, S., and F. Frankenberger, 1992. Household Food Security. pp. 1-52. Conceptual
indicators and measurements. A technical review. UNICEF, New York and IFAD, Rome.
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
81
Merrey, D., T. Shah, B. Koppen, M. Lange, and M. Samad, 2002. Can irrigation management
transfer revitalize? pp. 95-96. African and international experiences. International Water
Management Institute. Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Mintesinot Behailu, Kifle W. and Leulseged T., 2002. Fighting famine and poverty through
water harvesting in northern Ethiopia. Comprehensive assessment bright spot project final
report. Mekelle University, Ethiopia
MoA (Ministry of Agriculture), 1993. Information regarding activities of small scale

irrigation. Irrigation development department. Ethiopia, Addis Ababa.
MoFED (Ministry of Finance and Economic Development), 2002. Sustainable development

and poverty reduction program. pp. 1-87. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
MoWR (Ministry of Water Resources), 2001. Irrigation development strategy (Component of

the water sector development program). Draft report. Ethiopia, Addis Ababa.
MoWR (Ministry of Water Resources), 1999. Ethiopian water resources management policy.
pp. 29-32. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
MUC (Mekele University College), 1994. The impact of land use change on socio economic
status and incidence of malaria and schistosomiasis in Tigray, A collaborative project
proposal by mekele University College and Tigray Regional Health Bureau.
Mudima, K., 1998. Socio economic impact of smallholder irrigation development in

Zimbabwe: A case study of five successful irrigation schemes. Private irrigation in Sub
Saharan Africa. International Water Management Institute. Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Mulugeta Tefera, 2002. Determinants of household food security in Eastern Oromiya,

Ethiopia: The case of Boke District of Western Hararge Zone. An MSc Thesis Presented to
the School of Graduate Studies of Alemaya University. 151p.
Ngigi, S., 2002. Review of irrigation development in Kenya. pp. 35-37. International Water
Management Institute. Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Nsemukila, B., 2001. Poverty and food security indicators in Zambia: Analysis of household
survey data. Paper Presented at the Workshop on Strengthening Food and Agricultural Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
82
Statistics in Africa in Support of Food Security and Poverty Reduction Policies and
Programmers. Pretoria, South Africa, 22-26 November 2001.
OESO (Oromiya Economic Study Office), 2000. Oromiya economic study office. Annual
report. Finfine
OIDA (Oromiya Irrigation Development Authority), 2000. Stakeholders’ modern irrigation

schemes evaluation report. Finfine.
OIDA (Oromiya Irrigation Development Authority), 2006. Strategic planning and

management document. Finfinnee.
Peter, S., 1997. Small scale irrigation. Intermediate technology publication Ltd., Irrigation
information center, Nottingham. Deleted: ¶
Pindyck, R. and D. Rubinfeld, 1991. Econometric models and Econometric Forcast. Pp. 249-
250. 3rd edition, Mc Graw-Hill New York. Formatted: Superscript
Reilly, B., 1990. Occupational endogeneity and gender wage differentials for young workers:
An empirical analysis using Irish data. The economic and social review. 21(3): 311-328
Relief and Rehabilitation Commission, 1990. Guidelines on nutritional status data and food
relief, early warning and planning services, RRC. Addis Ababa. Ethiopia.
Saad, M., 1999. Food security for the food insecure. pp. 1-5. New challenges and renewed
commitments. CSD NGO Womens’ Caucus Position Paper for CSD-8. University College
Dublin, Ireland, 2000. Center for Development studies.
Schilfgaarde, J., 1994. Irrigation, a blessing or a curse. Agricultural water management,

25:203-219.
Sen, A., 1981. Poverty and famines: an essay on entitlement and deprivation. Oxford: Oxford
University press.
Shapouri, S., and S. Rosen, 2003. Global food security assessment overview. pp. 7-24.
Agriculture and trade report GFA-14. Economic research service Washington.
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
83
Shiferaw, Bekele and S. Holden., 1999. Soil erosion and smallholders conservation decisions
in the highlands of Ethiopia. World development 27(4) 739-752.
Sigelman, L., and L. Zeng, 1999. Analyzing censored and sample selected data with Tobit and
Heckit models. Political analysis 8:167-182
Singh, B., B. N. Singh, and A. Singh, 1996. Effect of mulch and irrigation on yield of Indian
mustard on dry terraces in Alfisols. Indian Journal of Agricultural Science 60 (7):477-479
Smith, S., 1997. Case Studies in Economic Development. 2nd edition, Addison Wesley
publishing Company.
Storck, H., Bezabih Emana, Berhanu Adnew. Borowiccki and Shimeles Woldhawariat, 1991.
Farming system and farm management practices of small holders in the Hararghe highland.
Farming systems and resource economics in the tropics, vol. II, Wissehschaftsverlag Vauk,
Kiel, Germany.
Taffa Tulu, 2002. Small scale irrigation development in the wetlands of South West Ethiopia.
Integrated water and land management research and capacity building priorities for Ethiopia.
International Livestock Research Institute, Ethiopia.
Tassew, Woldehana, 2004. The experiences of measuring and monitoring poverty in Ethiopia.
A Paper Presented for the Inaugural Meeting of the Poverty Analysis and Data
Initiative(PADI). Mombassa, Kenya.
Tesfaye Kumbi, 2005. Household food insecurity in Dodota-Sire districkt, Arsi zone: coping
strategies and policy options. An MSc Thesis Presented to the School of Graduate Studies of
Alemaya University. 115p.
UN (United Nations), 1990. Nutrition-relevant actions in the eighties: some experience and
lessons from developing countries. Background Paper for the Acc\SCN Adhoc Group
Meeting on Polices to Alleviate under Consumption and Malnutrition in Deprived Areas.
London, England, 12-14 November 1990.
UNDP (United Nations Development Program), 2005. pp. 234 – 235. Human development
report, New York, USA.
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
84
UNFPA (United Nations Fund for Population Activities), 2005. United nations fund for
population activities.
Uphoff, N., 1986. Improving International Irrigation Management with Farmer Participation.
Getting the Process Right. Studies in Water Policy and Management. .Boulder:Westview
Press.
USAID (United States Agency for International Development), 1992. Definition of food
security. Policy determination PNAV468. Washington, D.C.
Von Braun, J., H. Bouis, S. Kumar and R. Pandya-Lorch, 1992. Improving food security of
the poor: concept, policy and programs. International Food Policy Research Institute,
Washington, D.C., USA.
Wagnew Ayalneh, 2004. Socio economic and environmental impact assessment of

community based small scale irrigation in the upper Awash basin: A case study of four
community based irrigation schemes. An MSc Thesis Presented to the School of graduate
Studies of Addis Ababa University.134p.
Webb, P. and J. Braun, 1994. Famine and Food Security in Ethiopia. pp. 10-30. Lessons for
Africa. John Wiley and Sons Ltd, England.
Woldeab, Teshome, 2003. Irrigation practices, state intervention and farmers Life-Worlds in
drought-prone Tigray. pp. 2-53. Phd Dissertation, Wageningen University, the Netherlands.
Wooldridge, M., 2002. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. pp. 551-565.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. London, England.
World Bank, 1986. Poverty and hunger. Issues and options for food security in developing
countries. A World Bank policy study. Washington, DC.
WSDP (Water sector Development Program), 2002. Water sector development program
2002-2016, Volume II: Main report. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Yilma, Muluken, 2005. Measuring rural household food security status and its determinants in
the Benishangul Gumuze Region: The case of Asosa Woreda. An MSc Thesis Presented to
the School of Graduate Studies of Alemaya University. pp. 134.
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
85
Zaman, H., 2001. Assessing the poverty and vulnerablity impact of micro credit in
Bangladish. pp. 34-36. A case study of BRAC. Office of the chief economist and senior vice
president (DECVP). The World Bank.
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
86
7. APPENDICES
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
87
Appendix I
Steps followed to measure household food Security using Food Energy intake method
According to Greer and Thorbecke (1986), Food energy intake method is one means of
measuring household food security. The following specific steps were followed in order to
calculate the threshold (cut off) point.
a) Total value of food consumed (Xj) by each household, which is equal to the sum of the
value of purchased food (Vj) and the value of own production consumed (Kj),was
determined: hence, X j = Vj+Kj
The value of purchased food consumed (Vj) by each household was established by
multiplying the quantities of different food types purchased (Dij) by the prices per unit(Pij):
Vj = ΣDijPij
Where: Vj = Value of purchased food consumed by the jth Household
Dij = the quantity of the ith food items purchased by the jth household
Pij = the local price paid by the jth household for the ith item
The value of the own out put or donated food consumed by the household Kj is the product of
own production including donation (Mij) and the local price (Pij).
The quantity Mij is the computed value of consumption.
Kj = ΣMijPij
b) The adult equivalent (Hj) for each household (The conversion scale is indicated in the
appendix)
c) Total value of food consumed per adult equivalent was derived by dividing the total value
of food by household adult equivalent
Kj = Xj/Hj
Where Xj = Total value of food consumed by jth household
Hj = Adult equivalent for jth household
Kj = Total value of food consumed per adult equivalent units
d) The different types and quantities of food consumed by the different households were
converted to calories Cj (The conversion method is presented in the appendix).
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
88
e) A regression model was fitted to estimate parameters to be used in determining food
poverty line (threshold point):
LnXj = a+bCj
Where: Xj = Total food expenditure per adult equivalent by household J
Cj = Total calorie consumption per adult equivalent by household J
a and b are parameters to be estimated.
f) The food poverty line, Z which is the estimated cost of acquiring the calorie recommended
daily allowance (RDA) was estimated as
Z = e(a+bR)
Where Z = Food poverty line
R = Recommended daily allowance (RDA) of calories per adult equivalent of
2,200
Accordingly, birr 990 was found to be the minimum expenditure level to fulfill the
recommended daily allowance.
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
89
Appendix II
1. Kilocalories per gram of different food types Deleted: C
Food Group Mean kcal per gram
Cereals
Teff
3.41
Wheat
Pulses
Beans
Chick pea 3.45
Cowpea(Guaya)
Salt/Sugar
Salt
1.78
Sugar
Oils and fats
Oil
8.12
Butter
Vegetables
Onion
Tomato
Potato
Cabbage 0.37
Black Pepper
Carrot
Beet root
Coffee/Tea
Coffee 1.19
Tea
Spices 2.97
Source: Ethiopian Health and Nutrition Research Institute
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
90
2. Conversion Factor for Adult- Equivalent (AE)
Age Group Male Female

<10 0.60 0.60
10-13 0.90 0.80
14-16 1.00 0.75
17-50 1.00 0.75
>50 1.00 0.75
Source: Storck, et al. (1991)s
3. Conversion Factor for Tropical Livestock Unit (TLU) Deleted: l

Deleted: u
Animal Category Tropical Livestock unit
Calf 0.25
Weaned Calf 0.34
Heifer 0.75
Cow and Ox 1.00
Horse 1.10
Donkey (adult) 0.70
Donkey (Young) 0.35
Camel 1.25
Sheep and Goat (adult) 0.13
Sheep and Goat (young) 0.06
Chicken 0.013
4. Multicollinearity test for continuous variables
Variable VIF
AGEHEAD 1.045
HHSIZEAE 1.218
DISMARKE 1.415
CUTLAND 1.430
LIVESTOC 1.765
TOTINCOM 3.412
NEARNESS 1.16
Deleted: ¶
Source: survey result
Formatted: Centered
91
5. Multicollinearity test for discrete variables
Variable ACCIRRIG SEXHEAD SOILFER ACCESS TO CREDIT SUPPEX EDUCATAGORY
ACCIRRIG 1.00
SEXHEAD 0.04 1.00
SOILFER 0.30 0.04 1.00
CREDIT 0.16 0.00 0.13 1.00
SUPPEX 0.22 0.01 0.16 0.06 1.00
EDUCATAGORY 0.26 0.21 0.11 0.09 0.25 1.00
Source: Survey result
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
92
Appendix III
Questionnaire for Household Interview
S The Impact of Small Scale Irrigation on Household Food Security and Assessment of Its
Management System: The Case of Filtino and Godino Irrigation Schemes, in Ada Liben
District, East Shoa Comment [F1]:
1. Identification Information Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
1.1 Name of the irrigation Scheme ---------------------------------------------

1.2. Peasant Association-----------------------------------------------------------
1.3. Irrigation typology (put √ mark) 1. Modern------ 2. Traditional----------- Comment [Ayalneh2]: Give space
for reply
2. Household Socio-economic Characteristics (Household information) Comment [Ayalneh3]: 05 Marital

status required only for the respondent
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08
No Name of the House Age Sex Relation Religion Level of Occupation
Hold head and family (years) to the Educ. Other than
members household farming
Codes for 05:1. = wife 2.= son 3.= Dauter 4.= Grand Fathrer 5= 8 3Grand mother 6= others
Codes for 06: 1=Orthodox 2= Protestant 3=Muslim 4= Other
Codes for 07: 1=Literate(read and write) 2=Grade 1-4 3= Grade 5-4=Above 8 5=Illiterate
Codes for 08 1=no occupation 2=wavering 3=tannery 4=carpentry 5=daily laborer 6=other
3. Infrastructure/access to road and irrigation
3.1 Distance from the main asphalt road (in km) ------------ Comment [Ayalneh4]: One way and
use one unit of measurements. Because
3.2 Distance from the market place (in km) ----------- different enumerators may use different
3.3. How do you transport agricultural produce to the market place? units.
1. On back --------- 3. Horse cart -----------
2. Vehicle----------- 4. Other specify---------
3.4.access to irrigation (Put √ mark)
1.User------------ 2.Non user------------
3.5 Reason for not using irrigation
1. No access
2. There is enough rain and moisture
3. No information about irrigation
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
93
4. Contribution towards household food security
4.1 Do you think that irrigation has a positive impact on household food security?
(Put √ mark)
1. Yes------------ 2. No------------
4.2 If your answer is yes, what are the positive impacts of irrigation that you have
seen? (Put √ mark)
1.Diversification of crops grown---

2.Increased agricultural production-------
3. Increased household income-----
4.Other specify-----
4.3.What is the contribution of diversification to your family (Put √ mark)

1.Maintained high income level------------
2. Decreased fluctuation in level of food production------------ Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
3. increased production per unit area------------
4.4. How many times do you produce within a year?

1. before adoption of irrigation technology------
2. after adoption of irrigation technology -------
4.5. What change (s) did you see as a result of double or triple cropping?
4.6. The household income Source before the implementation of Irrigation (put √ mark)
1. Sales of vegetables------ 2. Wage ---------
3. Rent of own land ------ 4. Sales of cereals------
5. Others, Specify-------
4.7. During which month (s) are food shortages severing? Choose according to
their severity level? (give rank ie for the most severe month put 1 then 2etc )
October---- November---- December---- January---- February---- March----
April---- May---- June---- July---- August---- September----
4.8. How do your households used to cope during crop failures? (put √ mark)
1) Sale of livestock----- 3) Sale of Animals-----
2) Reduce the number of meals---- 4) Wage employment----
5) Other specify----
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
94
4.9. Household expenditure during 2005
4.9.1. Consumption expenditure
Food type Consumed from purchased
Amount (kg) Value (birr)
Cereals
Fruits and vegetables
Animal source (Butter cheese etc )
Other
Salt
Oil
Sugar
4.9.2. Non Food Expenditure

Item Expense
Clothing (dress and foot wear)
House rent
Water expense
Transport and communication
Entertainment (visit of relatives)
Education
Health care
Religious& cultural expense
Animal health expense
Gas and Other fuel
Beverages and cigarette
Government tax
Social expenses
5. Livestock production
5.1 Do you rear livestock? (Put √ mark)
1. Yes----- 2. No-------- Deleted: ¶

Formatted: Centered
95
5.2. What domestic animals do you rear?
:
Type of animal Number
Ox
Cow
Calf
Heifer
Sheep (young)
Sheep (adult)
Goat (young)
Goat (adult)
Donkey (adult)
Donkey (young)
Mule
Horse
Chicken (poultry)
Bull
5.3 If you don’t have enough oxen what do you use for your farm operation? (put √ mark)
1. Use Mekenajo----- 3. Hire oxen-----

2. Exchange with labor------ 4. Others (specify) -----
6. Land Ownership
6.1. Do you possess your own land? (Put √ mark)
1. Yes----- 2. No----- Comment [Ayalneh5]: Go to 5.7
6.2. If yes, its total area in hectare ----------------
6.2.1. Area of grazing land -------------

6.2.2 Area of fallow land ----------------
6.2.3. Area covered by trees -------------
6.2.4. Total area of cropland -------------
Area under irrigation --------------
Area under rain- fed----------------
6.3 How do you perceive the condition of your land? (Put √ mark)
1. Fertile------
2. Moderately fertile------
3. Less fertile-------
4. Infertile-----------
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
96
6.4 If you don’t have your own land, what is the source of land for your farm operation
(explain)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.5. How did you get your irrigation land?(put √ mark)
1. Inherited from family--------- 3. Purchase----------

2. Gift from relatives/on kinship basis------ 4. Government redistribution -------
5. Others, specify: ---------------------------------------------------
6.6. Do you lease-out irrigable land (for sharecropping)?(put √ mark)
1. Yes------ 2. No-------
6.7. If yes, Area leased out (out of the total plot) ------------ (in hectare)
6.8. If yes, reasons for leasing-out your irrigation land? (Put √ mark) Comment [Ayalneh6]: Rank
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.9. Sharecropping arrangement /output share (land owner to partner)? (put √ mark)
A. Equal ----------------------- Formatted: Bullets and Numbering

B. One-third for the land owner and two-third for the share holder (Siso/local name)---
C. One-fourth to the land owner and three-fourth for the share holder-------
D. Other type of arrangement, specify----------------------------------------------------
7. Marketing Issue
7.1. Do you produce for market using irrigation? (Put √ mark)

1. Yes------------- 2. No------------
7.2. If you don’t produce for market, which of the following is important reasons for you?
(Put √ mark)
A. No enough water is received for surplus production----------

B. No enough land for surplus production-------------------------
C. No enough market demand---------------------------------------
D. Others specify, ----------------------------------------------------
7.3. What are the problems in marketing your produce? (Put √ mark)
A. Transportation problem -------- D. Low bargaining power--------------

B. Too far from market place ------ E. others (specify) ---------------
C. Low price of agricultural produce------
7.4. Where do you sell your farm products? (Put √ mark) Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
97
A. On farm (local assembler---------- C. Through service cooperatives --------
B. Taking to the local market----------- D. Other specify-----------
7.5. Do you get reasonable price for your produce in 2005? (Put √ mark)
1. Yes----------- 2. No----------------
7.6. If no, what are the reasons? (Put √ mark)
1. No demand for the produce----- 2. More supply of the produce------

3. Others (specify)--------------------
8. Extension issues
8.1. Do you receive support from DAs? (Put √ mark)

1. Yes-------------- 2. No---------------
8.2. If yes, what are the supports given? (Put √ mark)

1. Advice------------ 4. Conflict resolution
2. Training------------- 5. controlling water distribution-----------
3. Demonstration------------ 6. Other specify--------------
9. Access to credit Issues
9.1. Have you ever used Access to credit for your agricultural activities? (Put √ mark)
1. Yes-------------- 2. No--------------
9.2. If yes what are the sources? (Put √ mark)
1. Cooperatives--------------- 4. Neighbors and relatives-----------
2. Local lenders--------------- 5. Micro finance institutes-----------
3. The irrigation office------- 6. Other specify----------------------------
9.3. If no why? (Put √ mark)
1. No collateral------- 3.No Access to credit supply-------------
2. No need------------- 4.High cost of Access to credit-----------
5. Other, specify--------------------------
10. Irrigation practices
10.1. When did you start using irrigation? -------------
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
98
10.2. Have you ever faced a problem of crop failure when using irrigation?
1. Yes-------- 2. No-----------
10.3. If Yes, why? (put √ mark)

1. Water shortage---------- 3. Weed problem----------
2. Crop disease ------------ 4. Water logging -----------
5. Other, specify-----
11. Irrigation Management
User participation
11.1. Did you participate in the implementation of the scheme? (put √ mark)
1. Yes---------- 2. No---------
11.2. If yes, indicate aspects of your participation: (put √ mark)
1. Land for construction-------------

2. Management being as member of WUAs-----------
3. Labor-----------
4. Maintenance of the scheme--------------
5. Election of WUAs committee members------------
6. Formulation of by-laws-------------
7. Others, specify-------------
11.3. In your opinion, who is the owner of the scheme? (put √ mark)
1. The Community------------
2. The irrigation office--------------
3. Department of agriculture---------------
4. 1 & 2----------------------
5. 1, 2 &3-----------------
Water Distribution
11.4. Who is responsible for coordination of water distribution in the scheme?

(Put √ mark)
1. WUAs committee-----------
2. Sub-committees ----------
3. Development agents-----------
4. Others, Specify---------------------------------------------
11.5. Do you get enough water for irrigation when required? (Put √ mark)
1. Yes--------- 2. No----------
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
99
11.6.If no, what do you think are the reasons?(put √ mark)
1.Water scarcity--------------
2.Diversion by upstream traditional irrigators---------------
3.Seepage loss----------------
4.Illegal users in the scheme/water theft---------------------
5.I am tail-end irrigator-----------------------------------------
6.Others, specify: ------------------------------------------------
11.7. Which socio-economic groups get more water?(put √ mark)

1.Farmers with large family size------------
2.Head-end farmers---------------------------
3.Rich farmers---------------------------------
4.Others, specify------------------------------
11.8. Which group benefits more from irrigation users? (put √ mark)
1. Head end------ 2. Tail- end ------- 3. Middle end--------
11.9. Which of the following are important administrative problems in relation

with water distribution? (Put √ mark)
1.No sanction on illegal water users----------------
2.Distribution is not fair------
3.the coordination of the committee is poor----------------
4. Others, specify --------
Conflict management
11.10. Have you ever faced any conflict in irrigation water use? (Put √ mark)
1. Yes--------- 2. No------------
11.11. If yes, what are the causes? (Put √ mark)

1. Water theft/taking water out of turn---------
2. Water scarcity because of declining supply from the source---------
3. Water scarcity due to increasing number of users---------------------
4. Others, specify--------------------------------------------------------------
11.12. Again, if your answer to 11.10 is yes, how did you solve the problem?
____________________________________________________________
Operation and Maintenance
11.13. Are there any maintenance activities in the scheme (put √ mark)
1. Yes---------------- 2. No------------
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
100
11.14. If yes, how frequent it is? Schemes? (Put √ mark)
A. Once a year----------------
B. Twice a year---------------
C. Thrice a year---------------
11.15. Are you willing to pay for operation and maintenance cost of the Schemes? (Put √
mark)
1. Yes-------------- 2. No----------------
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
101
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
102
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
103
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Centered
104
Formatted
Deleted: ¶
¶
Deleted: 34
Deleted: ¶
Deleted: <sp><sp>
Deleted: Figur.e 1. Location of the

study area and the irrigation
schemes
Formatted
Deleted: (as sited by Wakena,
2006)
Deleted: 34
Deleted: ¶
Deleted: 3.3. Source and Methods
of Data Collection¶
¶
The data necessary for this study
was collected from sample
respondents using a well
structured questionnaire. The
enumerators for the data collection
were selected on the basis of their
educational back ground and their
ability of the local language. Aone
week training was given to the
enumerators about method of data
collection and the contents of the
questionnaire. After pretest was
... [40]
conducted and modification was
Formatted ... [41]
Formatted ... [42]
Formatted
Formatted ... [43]
Formatted ... [44]
Formatted ... [45]
Formatted ... [46]
Formatted ... [47]
Formatted Table
Formatted ... [48]
Formatted ... [49]
Formatted ... [50]
Formatted Table
Formatted ... [51]
Formatted ... [52]
Formatted ... [53]
Formatted ... [54]
Formatted ... [55]
Formatted Table
Formatted: Font: 14 pt, Bold
Formatted ... [56]
Comment [F7]:
Comment [Ayalneh8]: Give space
... [57]
Comment [Ayalneh9]: 05 Marital
... [58]
Comment [Ayalneh10]: One ...
way [59]
Comment [Ayalneh11]: The ...
first[60]
Comment [Ayalneh12]: Go to 5.7
Comment [Ayalneh13]: Rank
Comment [Ayalneh14]: In most of
... [61]
Deleted: 34
Deleted: ¶
Page ii: [1] Deleted Unknown
SCHEMES, IN ADA LIBEN DISTRICT, EAST SHOA
A Thesis Submitted to the Department of

Agricultural Economics, School of Graduate Studies
HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURE
(AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS)
BY
Abonesh Tesfaye Tulu
November 2006
Haramaya University
Page ix: [2] Deleted Unknown

DEDICATION ii
STATEMENT OF THE AUTHOR iii
LIST OF ACRONYMS iv
BIOGRAPHY v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT vi
LIST OF TABLES ix
LIST OF APPENDIX x
LIST OF FIGURE xi
ABSTRACT xii
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. Background 1
1.2. Statement of the Problem 4
1.3. Objectives of the Study 7
1.4 Scope of the Study 8
1.5. Significance of the Study 8
2. LITERATURE REVIEW 10
2.1. Definition of Terminologies 10

2.1.1. Definition of a household 10
2.1.2. Definition of food security 10
2.2. Core Concepts in Household Food Security 12
2.2.1. Sufficiency: What is “Enough”? 12
2.2.2. Access and entitlement 13
2.2.3. Security 14
2.2.4. Time 15
2.3. Indicators of Household Food Security 15
2.3.1. Process indicators 16
2.3.2. Outcome indicators 17
2.4. Famine and Food Security 18
2.5. Measuring Household Food Security 19
2.6. World Food Security Situation 23
2.7. Food Security Situation in Ethiopia 24
2.8. Definition and History of Irrigation Development 27
2.8.1. Definition 27
2.8.2. History of irrigation development 27
2.8.3. Status and potential of small scale irrigation in Ethiopia 29
2.8.4. Small scale irrigation management 29
2.9. Empirical Evidence of Irrigation for Household Food Security 31
3. METHODOLOGY 34
3.1 Description of the Study Area 34

3.1.1. Location 34
3.1.2. Climate 34
3.1.3. Population 34
3.1.4. Livelihood 35
3.2. Description of the irrigation schemes 35
3.4. Sample Size and Sampling Technique 43
3.5. Data Analysis Techniques 44
3.5.1. Qualitative analysis 44
3.5.2. Econometric analysis 44
3.5.2.1. Binary logit model 44
3.5.2.2. Heckman two stage analysis 46
3.6. Variables of the Model 51
4. RESULT AND DISCUSSION 56
4.1. Description of Small Scale Irrigation Management Systems. 56

4.2. Measuring Household Food Security 58
4.3. Descriptive Statistics of the Model Variables 59
4.3.1. Family size 59
4.3.2. Dependency ratio 59
4.3.3. Age of the household head 59
4.3.4. Sex of the household head 60
4.3.5. Level of Education 60
4.3.6. Size of cultivated land 62
4.3.7. Livestock holding 62
4.3.8. Total annual farm and off farm income 63
4.3.9. Total annual crop production 63
4.3.10. Total annual expenditure 64
4.3.10. Distance from market center 65
4.3.11. Access to extension service 66
4.3.12. Access to credit service 66
4.3.13. Soil fertility status 67
4.3.14. Means of transportation of agricultural produce to the market 68
4.3.15. Food shortage months of the household 69
4.3.16. Coping strategies of households 69
4.3.17. Food security status of households by access to irrigation 70
4.4. Econometric Analysis 71
4.4.1. Detecting multicollinearity and outliers 71
4.4.2. Model results 73
5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 86
5.1. Summary 86
5.2. Conclusions and Recommendations 88
6. REFERENCE 91
APPENDIX I 100
APPENDIX II 102
APPENDIX III 104
Page x: [3] Formatted user 2/8/2007 5:20:00 AM

Font: 14 pt, Bold
Font: 14 pt, Bold, Italic
Font: 14 pt, Bold
Font: Bold
Indent: First line: 0.5"
Font: Bold
Font: Bold
Page x: [10] Formatted Unknown 2/4/1999 4:37:00 PM
Line spacing: Double
No underline
Font: Bold
No underline
Font: Bold
No underline
Font: Bold
Font: Bold
Page x: [17] Formatted Unknown 2/4/1999 4:37:00 PM
Line spacing: Double
Font: Bold
Centered
Page i: [21] Formatted Unknown 2/2/2007 10:05:00 PM
Centered
Page xi: [22] Formatted user 2/8/2007 5:22:00 AM
Font: 14 pt, Bold
Font: Bold
Indent: Left: 0.5"
No underline
Left, Indent: Left: 0", Tabs: 0.25", Left
Page ix: [29] Change Unknown
Field Code Changed
No underline
Indent: Left: 0.5"
Font: Bold
Font: Bold
No underline
Indent: First line: 0.5", Line spacing: Double
Page i: [36] Formatted Unknown 2/2/2007 10:05:00 PM
Centered
Page xii: [37] Deleted Unknown
1. Beneficiaries and emergency food requirements 2005(ton) 25

2. Potential and status of small scale irrigation in the different regions (as of 2004) 28
3. Definition of model variables 47
4. Descriptive statistics of socio demographic characteristics of total sample households 52
5. Descriptive statistics of socio demographic characteristics of sample households by
access to irrigation 52
6. Distribution of sample households by education category of the household head 52
7. Descriptive statistics of socio demographic characteristics of sample households
by access to irrigation 53
8. Distribution of sample households by sex 53
9. Distribution of sex of the households by access to irrigation 53
10. Cultivated land size of total sample household 54
11. Descriptive statistics of cultivated land size by access to irrigation 54
12. Descriptive statistics of livestock holding of the total sample household 54
13. Descriptive statistics of livestock holding of household by access to irrigation 55
14. Descriptive statistics of annual agricultural production, annual farm and off farm income
and annual expenditure of total sample households 56
15. Descriptive statistics of annual agricultural production, annual farm and off farm income
and annual expenditure of households by access to irrigation 56
16. Descriptive statistics of distance from market center of the total sample households 57
17. Descriptive statistics of distance from market center by access to irrigation 57
18. Distribution of sample households by extension service 58
19. Distribution of extension service by access to irrigation 58
20. Distribution of credit service of sample households 59
21. Distribution of credit service by access to irrigation 59
22. Distribution of soil fertility status of sample households 59
23. Distribution of soil fertility status by access to irrigation 60
24. Descriptive statistics of nearness to the water source of total sample households 60
25. Descriptive statistics of nearness to the water source of households by access to 60
26. Summary of descriptive statistics of households by access to irrigation 61
27. Summary of descriptive statistics of households by Peasant associations 62
28. Descriptive statistics of education category of the household head of sample households
by peasant associations 62
29. Descriptive statistics of sex of the household head of sample households by peasant
associations 63
30. Descriptive statistics of access to extension service of the household head of sample
households by peasant associations 63
31. Descriptive statistics of access to credit service of the household head of sample
households by peasant associations 63
32. Descriptive statistics of farmers’ perception of soil fertility status by peasant
associations 64
33. Food shortage months of the households 65
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
34. Coping strategies of the households 66
35. Household food security status by access to irrigation 66
36. Binary Logit Model: Estimation of Maximum Likelihood and Marginal effect 71
37. The regression out put of the Binary Probit model and its Marginal Effect 75
38. Estimation Result of the Selection Equation and its Marginal Effect 79
39. Ordinary Least Square estimation of model variables 80
Page 17: [38] Deleted Unknown
2.4. Famine and Food Security
Famine is defined as a catastrophic disruption of society as manifested in a cumulative failure

of production, distribution and consumption systems (Webb and Braun, 1994). According to
this definition famine has three principal manifestations:
Extreme geographically concentrated short falls in food consumption that results in

chronic loss of body weight and a rise in excess mortality (a net increase above the
average rates).
Massive social disruption, including community dislocation (increased distress migration
and out-migration of entire families), and abnormal behavior (increased reliance on
foraged food foods, conflict among neighbors, increased begging).
Long term resource depletion, including the degradation of productive material assets, of
the natural resource base, and of human capital.
Famine can occur with out a significant decline in entitlements among vulnerable groups of
the population (Webb and Braun, 1994).
In many ways famine is the antithesis of food security. In a simplified sense food security
represents the absence of conditions necessary for famine. Conversely, food insecurity, an
endogenous outcome of resource availability and of policies and potentials dictating resource
use, can be seen as one of the roots of famine (Webb and Braun, 1994).
The key elements that determine successful food security, food availability, access and use are
the outcome of multiple processes of food supply, marketing and demand operating at both
national and household level. By contrast, the major symptoms of famine-resource base
depletion, social and economic dislocation (community break up, market and institutional
failure), and human mortality-derive from the failure of many of the processes and events
(Webb and Braun, 1994).
2.

Maxwell and Frankberger (1992) suggested that food security is such a complex notion that it
is virtually impossible to measure it directly and a variety of proxy measures have been
suggested. The most frequently used measures include consumption and expenditure,
nutritional status, dietary diversity and coping strategies. Each of these measures described
above are valid indicators of different dimensions of food security.

3.3. Source and Methods of Data Collection
The data necessary for this study was collected from sample
respondents using a well structured questionnaire. The
enumerators for the data collection were selected on the basis of
their educational back ground and their ability of the local
language. Aone week training was given to the enumerators about
method of data collection and the contents of the questionnaire.
After pretest was conducted and modification was made based on
the feedback from the pretest, data collection proper was started in
mid March for one month with the day to day supervision of the
researcher.
Secondary information that could supplement the primary data

were collected from published and unpublished documents,
Eastern Shoa Irrigation Development Authority, Ministry of Rural
and Agricultural Development, Ministry of Water Resources,
Ministry of Finance and Economic Development, Oromiya Irrigation
Development Authority
3.4. Sample Size and Sampling Technique
Out of the 45 peasant associations that are found in the Ada Liben
district, two peasant associations namely Godino and Quftu were
purposely selected because of availability of irrigation schemes and
their accessibility.
A twoTo select sample respondents from the two peasant

associations, first the household heads in the two peasant
associations were identified1 and stratified in to two strata:
1
List of the peasant associations was obtained from Ada Liben wereda Agricultural and Rural Development
office
irrigation user and non user. Then the sample respondents from
each stratum were selected randomly using simple random
sampling technique. Since the number of household heads in the
two groups was proportional, equal number of sample is drawn
from each group, that is, 100 household heads were selected from
each group and a total of 200 household heads were interviewed.
Page Break
3.5. Data Analysis Techniques
The study employed both qualitative and econometric data analysis

techniques. The qualitative analysis is applied to discuss the
management of small scale irrigation systems in the study area
while the econometric analysis is used to identify the impact of
small scale irrigation on household food security.
3.5.1. Qualitative analysis
To describe the irrigation management system of the schemes, the

following data were collected: users’ participation, water
distribution, conflict management and operation and maintenance.
The descriptive analysis was performed using frequencies, means,
and maximum and minimum values.
3.5.2. Econometric analysis
3.5.2.1. Binary logit model

The application of linear regression model when the dependent
variable is binary is more complex. Thus a qualitative choice model
is used to determine the probability that an individual with a given
set of attributes will make one choice rather than the alternative.
Binary choice models assume that individuals are faced with a
choice between two alternatives and that their choice depends on
their characteristics (Pindyck and Rubinfeld, 1991).
Three models are common in social science for the analysis of

binary dependent variables. These are the linear probability model,
the binary probit model and the binary logit model
The linear probability model assumes that the probability of an

individual making a given choice is a linear function of the
individual attributes. But this model has some econometric
problems associated with it such as non normality of the
disturbance term, hetroscedastic variance of the disturbance, lower
value of R2 and nonsensical predictions (nonfulfillment of
0<E(Yi/Xi)<1) (Long, 1997).
Given the difficulties associated with the linear probability model, it

is natural to transform the original model in such a way that
predictions will lie in the (0,1) interval for all X. The logit and probit
models guarantee that the estimated probabilities will lie between
the logical limit of 0 and 1.These two binary outcome models have
an s- shaped relationship between the independent variables and
the probability of an event which addresses the problem with
functional form in the linear probability model (Long, 1997).
Because the cumulative normal distribution (probit) and the logistic

distribution are very close to each other, except at the tails, we are
not likely to get very different results using the logit or the probit
model. The choice between the logit and the probit models is
largely one of convenience because the substantive results are
generally indistinguishable (.Maddala, 1983).
Therefore, given the similarity between the two models, this study
applied the logit model for the analysis of the impact of small scale
irrigation on household food security.
The impact of small scale irrigation on household food security was

analyzed by applying the logit model. The dependent variable in the
model was the logarithm of the odds that a given household is food
secure that is
П (X) = 1/ 1+e-(βo+βi xi )
(1)
This equation can be written as:
П (X) = 1/ 1+e-zi
(2)
where: П (X) is the probability of being food secure and
1- П (X) = 1/ 1+e zi is the probability of being food insecure
Then, the odds ratio in favor of food security is given by
П (X)/ 1- П (X)
(3)
By taking the natural log of equation (5) we get the following
Li = ln [П (X)/ 1- П (X)] =Zi

(4)
With the error term incorporated, the logit model will have the
following form
Zi = βo + β1 D1 + β2X2 + β3X3 +… βn Xn + Ui
(5)
Where X2 , X3 ….Xn are the explanatory variables of the model , D1 =

1 if the household has access to irrigation and 0 Otherwise ( no
access)
β0 is the intercept
β1 , β2 …… βn are the coefficient to be estimated in the model and Ui is
the error term.
3.5.2.2. Heckman two stage analysis
Evaluating the impact of an institution or a program on an outcome

variable using regression analysis can lead to biased estimate if the
underlying process which governs “selection in to the institution or
a program is not incorporated in the empirical frame work. The
reason for this is that, the effect of the program may be over (under)
estimated if program participants are more (less) able due to certain
unobservable characteristics, to derive these benefits compared to
eligible non participants (Zaman, 2001).
To evaluate the benefit from a program, a model commonly

employed is the following
Y = Xβ + α I + U
(1)
Where Y is the outcome, X is a vector of personal exogenous
characteristics and I is a dummy variable (I=1 if the individual
participates in the program and 0 otherwise). For this model, the
effect of the program is measured by the estimate of α . However,
the dummy variable ‘I’ can not be treated as exogenous if the
decision of an individual to participate or not to participate in the
program is based on an individual self selection (Maddala, 1983).
One solution to this problem in econometrics is the application of

Heckman two stage procedures. The Heckman model is a response
to sample selection bias. It is the appropriate tool to test and
control sample selection biases (Wooldrige, 2002).
The first stage models a ‘participation equation’, which attempts to

capture the factors governing membership in a program. This
equation is used to construct a selectivity term known as the ‘Mills
ratio’ which is added to the second stage ‘outcome’ equation. If the
coefficient of the ‘selectivity’ term is significant then the hypothesis
that the participation equation is governed by an unobserved
selection process is confirmed. Moreover, with the inclusion of
extra term, the coefficient in the second stage ‘selectivity corrected’
equation is unbiased (Zaman, 2001).
Some studies show that classical linear regression methodology is

applied to the analysis of samples with self selectivity component
which is not with out limitations. A study by Dardis et al. (1994)
discusses that in the application of classical linear regression
model on tourism expenditure the large number of nil observation
assigned to individuals who do not take a holiday in the period
analyzed leads to a situation in which the application of the
classical linear regression model does not guarantee consistent
unbiased estimates of the parameter. The correct method would be
to model the decisions which cause zeros along with the
expenditure decisions (Maddala, 1992). This implies the
decomposition of the tourist choice process in to two stages:
decision to take a holiday and expenditure incurred on a holiday
through the estimation of Heckit model (Heckman, 1979).
A study by Sigelman and Zeng (1999) represents a model with self

selection like this:
Zi *= wi γ + µi
(9)
*
Yi = xi β + ε i observed only if zi > 0
(10)
Where the error terms ( µi andε i ) are assumed to follow a bivariate

normal distribution with mean 0, variances σ µ and σ ε , and
correlation coefficient ρ . The application of ordinary least square
estimation using the observed y is biased and the estimates will be
inconsistent. Hence, Heckman’s (1979) two-step estimator is
usually employed instead.
In Bangladish, a study conducted by Zaman (2001) estimates the

impact of micro credit program on poverty and vulnerability using
Heckman two stage analyses. The study argues that, in estimating
the selection process in to a micro credit program, there may be a
systematic unobserved process that governs both the
‘participation’ equation and the ‘consumption equation.’ This would
lead to the error terms in the two equations being correlated and
conventional estimation methods such as ordinary least square
would produce biased and inconsistent result (Reilly, 1990).
Cho et al. (2005) in studying rural homeowners’ willingness to pay
for land conservation easement applied the Heckman two stage
analysis to measure willingness to pay.
Thus, the model:
zi *= wi γ + µ i …………………………………………………….. ………. (4)
WTPi= xi β + εi observed only if zi * > 0 ………………………………

(5)
The error terms are assumed to follow a bivariate normal

distribution with mean 0, variances σ µ and σ ε , and correlation
coefficient ρ . Hence, Heckman’s two step estimator is usually
appropriate in such circumstance.
A study by Dardis et al. (1994) also identifies that an application of

the censored regression (Tobit) model in the analysis of tourism
expenditure, as it allows for inclusion of all expenditure
observations -nil and positive-, thus minimizing the problem of bias
and inconsistency. However, the Tobit model also presents
problems. Firstly, this model is based on the assumption of
censured data; which means that it is assumed that only realization
above a certain value are observed, which would be seen as a data
defect (Greene, 2003).
This treatment of data as censored in the context of tourism implies

assigning a nil value to households which do not provide their
tourism expenditure in a questionnaire. Obviously, this approach is
not correct. The existence of numerous households with nil tourism
expenditures is not due to a censorial problem (unobservable
values), but to the very nature of the data, given that the value zero
is observable and has the qualitative meaning that an individual
decides not to go on holiday. Because of this problem the
application of Tobit model would be conceptually inappropriate
(Sigelman and Zeng, 1999), and the correct method would be to
model the decision which causes zeros along with the expenditure
decision (Maddala, 1992). This implies a decomposition of the
tourist choice process in to stages: taking a holiday and tourism
expenditure.
Though it is possible to analyze the impact of small scale irrigation

on household food security using the logit model, this model does
not take care of the selection bias that may arise due to self
selectivity of households to the irrigation scheme. To study the
impact of small scale irrigation on household food security, we
should incorporate the underlying process which governs self
selection in to the irrigation scheme. This is because the impact of
small scale irrigation on household food security is a compound of
its impact on participation and the outcome equations. If
household food security of the irrigation participants is significantly
higher than that of non participants we can not necessarily attribute
this difference to the impact of the irrigation program because of
the self selectivity component that should be taken care of.
In view of the need to estimate the selection process in to the

irrigation program we use the Heckman two step technique which
first estimates the decision equation (the probability of participating
in irrigation) and derives maximum likelihood estimates from the
coefficient of the decision equation, using these estimates a
variable known as the Mills ratio is constructed. The Mills ratio is
the tool for controlling bias due to sample selection (Heckman
1979). The second stage involves including the Mills ratio to the
food security equation and estimating the equation using ordinary
least square technique.
Let Zi k be a group of variables K which represent the characteristics
of household i which determine the decision to participate in the
irrigation scheme measured by a latent variable Di* and γ k are the
coefficients which reflect the effect of these variables on this
decision; and X is is a group of variables s which represent the
characteristics of household i which determine household food
security Ci and β s are the coefficients which reflect the effect of
these variables on Household food security.
Thus, the Heckman model (1979) takes the following form:
K
Di * = ∑γ k Z ik + ui
k =1
(6)
S
*
Ci = ∑ β s X is + ε i observed only if Di > 0
s =1
(7)
Where the disturbances ui and ε i follow a bivariate normal

distribution with a zero mean, variance σ u and σ ε respectively, and
covariance σ εu . Therefore, we define a dichotomous variable Di
which takes a value 1 when the latent variable Di* > 0 and 0
otherwise. In this way Di = 1 indicates the decision to participate in
the irrigation scheme and Di = 0 that of not to participate in the
irrigation scheme.
The estimator is based on the conditional expectation of the

observed variable, household food security Ci :
( *
)
E Ci / di > 0 = xβ + σ εu σ ε λ (− γz )
(8)
Where λ is the inverse Mills ratio defined

as λ (− γZ ) = φ (− γZ ) ÷ (1 − ϕ (− γZ ) ) ;
β and γ are the vectors of parameters which measure the effect of

variables x and z;
φ and ϕ are the functions of density and distribution of a normal,

respectively.
The expression of conditional expectation shows that Ci

equals xβ only when the errors ui and ε i are non correlated, σ εu = 0;
otherwise, the expectation of Ci is affected by the variable of
equation (11)
Thus, from expression (13), we find that
*
( *
)
Ci / di > 0 = E Ci / di > 0 + ν i = xβ + σ εu σ ε λ (− γz ) + νi
(9)
Where vi is the distributed error term N (0, σ ε (1 − σ εu (λ (λ − γz ))))
Therefore, in our two stage choice context we simultaneously

model the decision to participate in irrigation and the impact of the
irrigation schemes on the food security of households.
3.6. Variables of the Model

Dependent variables
The study has three dependent variables: For the Logit model
household food security is a dummy dependent variable (takes a
value of 1 if the household is food secure and 0 otherwise). For the
Heckman two stage analysis household food security is a
continuous variable measured in Birr (annual food expenditure of
the household per adult equivalent). The dependent variable for the
firs stage of the Heckman model is participation decision. This
variable is given a value of 1 if the household participates in the
irrigation scheme and 0 otherwise.
Independent variables
Irrigation (ACCIRRIG): irrigation enable farmers to diversify their

production, practice multiple cropping, and supplement moisture
deficiency. In doing so, it helps the farmer to increase production,
income and consumption. It is assumed to have a positive
relationship with household food security and entered the model as
a dummy variable (takes a value of 1 if the household has access to
irrigation and 0 otherwise ).
Distance from market center (DISMARKE): this variable is a

continuous variable measured in kilometer. The farther the market
center is the lesser the income from the sell of farm produce.
Especially for perishable commodities if the market place is located
far way from the farm, the commodity may perish before arriving
the market and to avoid such incidences the farmer sells his output
for cheaper price reducing the income and bringing negative impact
on household food security.
Socio demographic factors

Age of the household head (AGEHEAD): a study conducted by
Abebaw (2003) indicates that age has significant effect on
household food security. That is, the older the household head, the
more experience he has in farming and weather forecasting.
Moreover, older persons are more risk averters, and mostly they
intensify and diversify their production activities. As a result, the
chance for such household to be food secure is high. This shows
that age of household head has positive impact on household food
security. This variable is a continuous variable measured in number
of years.
Dependency ratio (DEPRATIO): this is a continuous variable and

defined as the number of household members whose age are less
than 15 plus household members whose age are greater than 64,
divided by the total family members. This ratio tells us the
proportion of household members who are dependent on the active
members of the family. It is hypothesized that the more the
dependency ratio in a household the less food secure the
household would be. It is hypothesized that this variable negatively
affect household food security.
Family size (HHSIZEAE): this variable refers to the size of

household members converted in to adult equivalent. The existence
of a large family size negatively influences household food security
(Mulugeta, 2002). Therefore, it is expected that family size and food
security are negatively related. It is a continuous variable
measured in the number of adult equivalent.
Sex of household head (SEXHEAD): it is hypothesized that male-

headed households are in a better position to pull labor force than
the female headed ones. Moreover, with regard to farming
experience males are better than the female farmers. Yilma (2005)
states that women farmers may need a long adjustment period to
diversify their income sources fully and become food secure.
Therefore, it is expected that male headed households are more
food secure than female headed households. This variable is
entered the model as Dummy and expected to have a negative
relation ship with household food security.
Level of Education of the household head (EDUCATAGORY): this

variable entered the model in five categories: illiterate, read and
write, grade1-4, grade 5-8 and grade >8. Household heads that are
literate are expected to have a better knowledge of how to make a
living. Literate household heads are very ambitious to get
information and use it. Thus, it was hypothesized that household
heads who are literate are more likely to use and benefit from
irrigation. This variable is a categorical variable and expected to
have a positive relationship with household food security.
Size of cultivated land (CUTLAND): as the cultivated land size

increases provided other associated production factors remain
constant, the likelihood that the holder gets more output is high.
This variable represents the total cultivated land size (both irrigated
and rain fed) of a household measured in hectare. It is hypothesized
that farmers who have larger cultivated land are more likely to be
food secure than those with smaller area. A positive relationship is
expected between household food security and cultivated land size.
Livestock holding (LIVESTOC): it is often used as a strategic

resource, in that it plays a double role in the household economy.
One is that it can be kept as a hedge against food insecurity during
bad years. During normal years it is used as an alternative income
source of the household. During crises it is the first asset at the
disposal of the farmer that can bring cash money to purchase food
as a coping mechanism. Therefore, the household’s livestock
holding expressed in tropical livestock unit has positive relation
ship during normal years and negative during food shortage and it
is measured in Tropical Livestock Unit.
Soil fertility status (SOILFERT): fertility of land has direct
relationship with productivity. If the farm land is fertile the
household can produce more and if the land is infertile less will be
produced affecting the household food security. Thus, it is
expected that households with fertile land are more food secure
than households with infertile land indicating a positive relationship
with household food security. This variable is entered the model as
dummy.
Access to credit service (CREDIT): access to credit is an important

source of investment. Those households who have access to credit
have a better possibility of getting farm inputs.. Therefore, it is
hypothesized that access to credit and food security have positive
relationship.
The variable is dummy.
Access to extension service (SUPPEX): Access to eextension

service widens the household’s knowledge with regard to the use of
improved variety and agricultural technologies and has positive
impact on household food security. This variable entered the model
as dummy.
Total annual farm and off farm income (TOTINCOM): it is expected

that households who earn more cash income including off-farm
(non farm) income have high chance of securing food than those
who have not. Therefore, it is expected that total annual farm and
off farm income and food security are positively related. It is a
continuous variable measured in Birr.
Nearness of the household to the water source (NEARNESS):

nearness of the households to irrigation scheme was expected to
determine the household’s participation decision in irrigation
scheme. This variable is continuous and measured in kilometer.
Page Break
Table 3. Definition of model variables
Variable Definition
ACCIRRIG Access to irrigation of the household/It is a
dummy variable that
takes a value of 1 if the household has
access to irrigation, 0 other wise
AGEHEAD Age of household head/It is a continuous

variable/
AGEHEAD2 Age of the household head square/ It is a

HHSIZEAE Household size in adult equivalent/ It is a

HHSIZEAE2 Household size in adult equivalent square/ It

is a continuous variable/
EDUCATAGORY Education of the household head in category

SEXHEAD Sex of the household head/ This is a dummy
variable which takes a
value of 1 if the household head is male and
0 if the household head
is female
CUTLAND Cultivated land size in hectare/ It is a
LIVESTOC Total livestock holding measured in tropical

livestock unit/ It is a
DISMARKE Distance from the market place in kilometer/It

is a continuous Page Break
4. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

This part deals with the result of descriptive statistics and
regression output of the two empirical models. The analysis was
made in the light of the objective of the study. Section 4.1 is about
the descriptive analysis of the assessment of small scale irrigation
management activities in the two schemes. Section 4.2 deals with
descriptive analysis of model variables. In section 4.3 the result of
the econometric analysis is presented
4.1. Description of Small Scale Irrigation Management Systems.
The study focuses on Godino and Filtino small scale irrigation

schemes which are found in the Ada Liben district. Both schemes
are modern irrigation schemes constructed by the government.
In the study area small scale irrigation management activities

include water use activities such as acquisition, allocation, and
distribution. The second activity is control structure activities which
refer to design, construction and operation and maintenance. The
third activity is organizational activity which includes activities like
resource mobilization, conflict resolution and decision making.
Water use activities: the study identified that each scheme has a
water users association (WUA). The WUA is responsible for
coordinating the water distribution. The WUA has nominated an
individual who is responsible to open gate as per the program of
each of the villages. Each village gets water on a weekly basis. A
significant number of respondents (86 percent) said that they have
no problem of water shortage, they said that they get enough water
for their farm activities when they need. Out of the 14 percent
respondents who complained not to get enough water 6 percent
said that the shortage is due to water theft, 3 percent of them said
that it is because head end traditional users misuse the water, the
rest responded that it is due to water shortage.
Page Break
The study also tried to identify if there is any relationship between

water distribution and family size, location of the household to the
schemes, sex of the household head and financial status of
household, 83 percent of the respondents disclosed that head end
users get enough water, 3 percent of them said that rich farmers get
enough water and the rest said that households with large families
get much water. The survey showed that location plays a significant
role with regard to water distribution that is, those farmers that are
located in the upper part of the scheme benefit more. Female
headed household have equal opportunity to use water as men
provided that they are heading a family. However, they do not
participate in the WUA committee.
Regarding administrative problems related to water distribution the

study disclosed that absence of sanction, unequal water
distribution and poor coordination of water users association are
the main administrative problems in relation with water distribution.
82 percent of the farmers indicated that absence of sanction is the
major administrative problem that encourages water theft and
illegal water use. Some of the illegal water use activities in the area
include: letting cattle drink the irrigation water, diverting the water
course to ones farm land etc.
Control Structure Activities: the design and construction of the

Godino and Filtino schemes were undertaken by the Oromiya
Irrigation Development Authority with the participation of the users
(beneficiaries). The community participates in the construction of
the schemes through provision of labor for excavation of canals
and head work, supply of locally available construction materials
such as stone and sand. The survey disclosed that there is
maintenance of the schemes two times a year. Maintenance here
refers to cleaning of canals when filled with grass and mud.
The survey also revealed that almost all the farmers are willing to
pay for operation and maintenance of the schemes, 97 percent of
the respondents confirmed their willingness. The farmers
willingness may arise from the sense of belongingness. Almost all
the farmers (96 percent) responded that the scheme belongs to
them. In Ethiopia farmers do not pay for irrigation water use,
according to OIDA (2000) this is not because of the failure to
recognize the economic value and the real cost of service
provision, rather the government wants to subsidies the cost of
developing small scale irrigation projects.
Organizational Activities: resource mobilization as stated

previously is poorly undertaken since irrigation users do not pay
for the service they are being offered. This implies that in the study
area there are no activities like fund raising and utilization.
Manpower and information management and utilization is under
taken through water users association, although the only activity is
cleaning of the canals using hand tools like shovel.
In the study area the main reason for conflict is water theft. Both
peasant associations do not have a documented by laws to rule the
proper functioning of water distribution and penalize illegal water
users. They responded that whenever there is conflict because of
water theft they resolve the issue not by referring to by laws but
through the elderly in the villages and through water users
association. A person who is accused of water theft is taken to the
water users’ association committee members to be given advice.
This weak system of penalizing illegal water users encourages them
to behave illegally.
4.2. Measuring Household Food Security

As stated previously, there are many definitions of household food
security given by different organizations. This study employed the
definition given by the World Bank.
Using the available data, food security measurement can be

estimated through several feasible methods. In this study the food
energy intake method by Greer and Thorbecke (1986) was employed
for ease of computation. What the food energy intake method is
aiming to do is find a monetary value of the poverty line at which
“basic needs” are met. Food energy intake will naturally vary at a
given expenditure level. Recognizing this fact the method typically
calculates an expected value of intake. To obtain the estimated cost
of acquiring the calorie recommended daily allowance (RDA) that is,
2200 kcal per adult equivalent per day, this method regresses food
energy intake (calorie) against total food expenditure per adult
equivalent per annum. Accordingly, birr 990 was found to be the
minimum food expenditure per adult equivalent per annum required
to meet basic needs (calorie recommended daily allowance). In this
study food expenditure data was collected on a monthly basis,
however, in order to calculate the food expenditure the data was
scaled up to yearly basis.
The detail steps followed is indicated in the appendix.
4.3. Descriptive Statistics of the Model Variables
4.4. 3.1. Family size
According to the study, the average family size of the total sample
households in adult equivalent was 4.75 persons, with 1 and 9.35
being the minimum and the maximum family sizes respectively.
When we compare the average family sizes between irrigation users
and non users, the study revealed that households with access to
irrigation have smaller family size than households with no access
to irrigation. Average family size for users is 4.37 persons and 5.13
persons for non users. The mean comparison of family size
between the two groups showed that there was a statistically
significant difference in the mean family size at less than 1 percent
probability level between users and non users.
4.4. 3.2. Dependency ratio
The survey result showed that the average dependency ratio for the
sample households is 0.47 implying that every 100 person within
the economically active population groups supported not only
themselves but also additional 47 economically dependent persons
with all basic necessities. The mean dependency ratio for users is
0.4 the corresponding for non users is found to be higher that is,
0.5.
4.4. 3.3. Age of the household head
The average age of the sample household heads is 48 years where

the minimum is 22 and the maximum is 90. Between users and non
users the average age of household heads is 46 and 49
respectively. From the statistical analysis performed, it is found out
that there was no significance difference in the mean age of the
household heads between users and non users.
4.4. 3.4. Sex of the household head
According to the survey result, 8 percent of the sample households

are headed by females and the rest 92 percent are headed by male.
When we see the comparison by access to irrigation, out of the 100
irrigation user households 7 are headed by female and the
corresponding figure for non users is 9. The chi square test showed
that there is no relation ship between sex of the household head
and access to irrigation.
4.4. 3.5. Level of Education
In the study area, 63.5 percent of the sample household heads are
found to be illiterate, where as 9.5 percent of the sample household
heads have attained education level greater than grade 8. The
comparison by access to irrigation reveals that 69 users and 58 non
users are found to be illiterate. 12 user household heads have
attained grade greater than 8 the corresponding number for non
user household heads is 7. The chi square test shows that there is
relationship between access to irrigation and level of education.
Table 4. Descriptive statistics of socio demographic characteristics

of total sample households
Mean Std Min Max
HEADAGE 48 13.6 22 90
HHSIZEAE 4.7 1.8 1 9.3
DEPRATIO 0.4 0.2 0 1

Table 5. Descriptive statistics of socio demographic characteristics
of sample households by access to irrigation
User Non user

Variable Mean Std Dev Min Max Mean Std
Dev Min Max
AGEHEAD 46.8 14.4 22.0 90 49.5 12.5

24 82.0
HHSIZEAE 4.3 1.7 1.0 9..3 5.1 1.8
. Distribution of sample households by education category of the
household head
EDUCATAGO
RY Number Percent
Illiterate 127 63.5
Read and
write 14 7
Grade 1-4 10 5
Grade 5-8 30 15
Grade >8 19 9.5

Page Break

Table 7. Distribution of education category of the household head
by access to irrigation
Table
Table 8. Distribution of sample households by sex of the household
head
SEXHEAD Number Percent
Female 16 8
Male 184 92
Table 9. 4.4Distribution of sex of the households by access to

irrigation
Page Break
4.4. 3.6. Size of cultivated land
The land holding of the sample households varies from 0.1 ha to

12.2 ha .The average land holding being 1.5 ha. The mean land
holding for users is 1.5 ha the corresponding figure for non users
is 1.4 ha. The t-test revealed that the mean difference between the
two groups is not statistically significant.
Table 10. Cultivated land size of total sample households
Variable Mean Std Min Max
CUTLAND 1.5 1.2 0.1 12.2
Table 11. Descriptive statistics of cultivated land size by access to

irrigation
4. 3.7. Livestock holding
The study showed that out of the 200 sample households 137 own
(rear) livestock. The mean livestock holding in Tropical Livestock
Unit (TLU) for the sample households is 6.71, where the minimum is
0.73 and the maximum is 15.95. Households with access to
irrigation have a better livestock holding than those households
with no access to irrigation. According to the study, out of the 137
households with livestock holding 99 are users and the rest 38 are
non users. The mean livestock holding for user households is 7.3
TLU and 5.05 TLU for non users. The mean comparison for the two
groups showed that the difference between the groups with regard
to livestock holding is statistically significant at less than 1percent
probability level.
Page Break
Table 12. Descriptive statistics of livestock holding of the total

sample households
LIVESTOC 6.7 4.2 0.7 15.9

Page Break
Table 13. Descriptive statistics of livestock holding of household by

access to irrigation
4.4. 3.8. Total income
Farmers in the study area reported that they earn income both from
farm and off farm activities. The farm income includes the sale of
rain fed crops, irrigated crops and sales of livestock and its
products. The off farm activities include working as a guard, trader,
sale of Tela2, and cart driving. The mean annual income of sample
households is found to be Birr 8908.7 with a minimum of Birr 185
and a maximum income of Birr 80,407. There is much difference in
mean annual income between irrigation users and non users.
Households with access to irrigation have mean annual income of
Birr 13,669.94 and the average for the non users is Birr 4,147.46.
The t test analysis revealed that the mean annual farm and off farm
income of the two groups are statistically different from each other
at less than 1 percent probability level.
2
Tela is alcoholic drink prepared locally (at a household level)
4.4. 3.9. Total production
The major crops grown in the study area are teff, wheat, check pea,
beans and horticultural crops such as onion, tomato and potato.
The mean annual production of the sample households is 7,972.27
kg, though the range varies between 8o kg and 183,400 kg. The
average annual production for irrigation user households is
13,689.15 kg while the annual average for non users is 2255.4 kg.
The mean comparison between the two groups in relation to annual
crop production showed that the difference between the two groups
is statistically significant at less than 1 percent probability level.
4. 3.10. Total annual expenditure
The average food and non food expenditure per adult equivalent per
annum for sample households is found to be Birr 1368. The average
spending for users is Birr 1780.3 and for the non user households it
is Birr 955.6. The mean difference between the two groups was
found to be statistically significant at less than 1percent probability
level.
Table 14. Descriptive statistics of annual agricultural production,

annual farm and off farm income and annual expenditure of total
sample households
TOTPRODU
C 7,972.2 16,532.0 80.0 183,400.0
TOTINCOM 8,908.7 10,611.4 185.0 80,407.0
TOTEXPEN 1,368.0 842.8 302.3 7,032.3

Page Break
Table 15. Descriptive statistics of annual agricultural production,

annual farm and off farm income and annual expenditure of
households by access to irrigation
4. 3.10. Distance from market center
Access to market is a determinant of profitability and sustainability

of agricultural produce. The mean distance between the villages
and the market place in kilometer for the sample households is
found to be 6.7 km with a minimum of 3 km and a maximum of 13
km. The average for households with access to irrigation is 7.3 km
while the non user households have a better access to the market
place which is 6.1 km. The mean difference between the two groups
with regard to distance from the market place is statistically
significant at less than 1percent probability level.
Table 16. Descriptive statistics of distance from market center of

the total sample households
DISMARKE 6.7 2.1 3.0 13.0

Table 17. Descriptive statistics of distance from market center by
4.4. 3.11. Access to extension service
The study result showed that 56 percent of the sample households

get extension service. When we compare irrigation user and non
user households majority of the user households get support from
extension agents when compared to non irrigators. According to
the survey 67 users and 45 non users get extension service.
Extension service here refers to advice, training, demonstration and
distribution of input. Majority of the farmers (54 users and (41) non
users consult extension agents when ever they face any problem
related with farming activity. Some farmers (7 users and 4 non
users) have also disclosed that they get training from extension
agents with regard to agricultural practices. The chi square test
indicated that there is significant relation ship between access to
irrigation and access to extension service.
Page Break
Table 18. Distribution of sample households by extension service
SUPPEX Number Percent
Yes/those who get

service/ 112 56
No/ those who do not get

service/ 88 44

Table 19. 4.4Distribution of extension service by access to irrigation
4.3.12. Access to credit service
The main source of credit in the study area is micro finance

institute (Egeza Tequam)3. 39.5 percent of the sample households
get credit while 60.5 percent of the sample households do not take
credit due to various reasons. The comparison by access to
irrigation disclosed that 31 users and 48 non users take credit. 50
percent of the sample respondents from users and 31 percent from
the non user households said that they don’t want credit and 15
percent of the users and 5 percent of the non users complained
about the high interest rate, 13 percent of the non user households
said that even if they want to take credit they don’t have collateral.
The chi square test result revealed that the relation ship between
access to credit and access to irrigation is statistically significant at
less than 1 percent probability level. Sample respondents from both
users and non user groups have different opinion regarding the
prevailing credit situation: 34 percent users and 66 percent non
users reported that it is good to take credit, 9 percent users and 19
percent non users expressed their worry saying that credit is
dangerous if not properly handled, 13 percent of users and 6
percent of non users said that credit is not necessary and 31
percent of users and 6 percent of non users complained that the
interest rate is high.
Table 20. 4.4Distribution of credit service of sample households
3
Egeza tequam is a local name for micro finance institutes
CREDIT Number Percent
Yes/those who take

credit/ 79 39.5
No/those who do not

take credit/ 121 60.5
Table 21. Distribution of credit service by access to irrigation
4.4. 3.13. Soil fertility status
In the study area soil infertility is not a major problem. Majority of

the respondents said that they do not have soil fertility problem,
only 780 percent of them reported that their land is not fertile. The
comparison between user and non user households showed that 93
users and 67 non users have fertile land (according to their
opinion). The chi square test revealed that there is a statistically
significant relation ship between soil fertility status and access to
irrigation at less than 1% probability level.
Table 22. 4.4Distribution of sample households by soil fertility
status
SOILFERT Number Percent
Fertile 160 80
Infertile 40 20

Page Break
Table 23. Distribution of soil fertility status by access to irrigation
,for
SOILFERT User Non user χ2
Percent Number Number Percent
Yes 186.0 93.0 134.0 67.0 0.00
No 14.0 7.0 66.0 33.0
Table
24.Variable Mean Std Min Max
NEARNESS 13 9.7 2 25
Table 25
Page Break
Table 26. Summary of descriptive statistics of households by

User Non user t-value
Variable
Mean StD. Mean Std MD
HEADAGE 46.81 14.48 49.59 12.57 2.75 1.434
HHSIZEAE 4.37 1.72 5.13 1.84 0.76 3.036
DEPRATIO 0.43 0.16 0.5 0.16 0.07 3.154
CUTLAND 1.58 1.57 1.42 0.74 0.16 0.96
LIVESTOC 7.35 3.49 5.05 2.69 2.29 3.65
13,669. 12,709. 9,522.4

TOTINCOM 94 36 4,147.46 4,361 7 7.087
TOTPRODU 13,689. 21,706. 11,433.

C 15 87 2,255.40 3,487 75 5.201
1,780.3
TOTEXPEN 9 946.41 955.61 434.52 824.77 7.92
DISMARKE 7.30 2.21 6.10 1.95 1.20 4.0***6

*** indicates significance level at less than 1 percent.
4.2.16. Descriptive statistics of households by peasant association
The study performed descriptive statistics of variables by peasant

associations to identify whether there is a significant difference
between the two peasant associations with regard to household
characteristics, income, expenditure, extension and credit services,
distance from the market and the water source and farmers
perception of soil fertility status. From the statistical analysis
performed, the mean difference between the two peasant
associations with regard to variables such as: household
characteristics, expenditure, livestock holding, distance from the
market and extension services are not statistically significant. The
output of the descriptive analysis is presented in the following
tables.
Page Break
Table 27. Summary of descriptive statistics of households by

Peasant associations
Peasant Peasant
association 1 association 2 t-value
Variable
Mean StD. Mean Std MD
HEADAGE 47.0 15.1 49.0 12.1 1.8 0.94
HHSIZEAE 4.8 1.88 4.6 1.7 0.1 0.5
DEPRATIO 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.06 2.56***
CUTLAND 1.6 1.6 1.3 0.6 0.3 2.0***
LIVESTOC 4.8 3.4 4.3 4.8 0.5 0.9
12,193
TOTINCOM 6,872.5 8,292.2 10,968.5 .3 4,095.9 2.7***
TOTPRODU 21,559
C 4,464.9 7,714.1 11,493.6 .2 7,028.6 3.0***
1,009.
TOTEXPEN 1,375.6 647.5 1,564.7 8 189.0 1.5
DISMARKE 6.8 1.5 6.5 2.6 0.35 1.1

3.51.522.52.51964.8****** indicates significant level at less than 1 percent.
Peasant association 1 refers to Quftu peasant association and peasant association 2 refers to
Godino peasant association.
Table 28. Descriptive statistics of education category of the

household head of sample households by peasant associations
Peasant association 1 refers to Quftu peasant association and

peasant association 2 refers to Godino peasant association.
Page Break
Table 29. Descriptive statistics of sex of the household head of

sample households by peasant associations
Table 30. Descriptive statistics of access to extension service of the

Table 31. Descriptive statistics of access to credit service of the
Page Break
Table 32. Descriptive statistics of farmers’ perception of soil fertility

status by peasant associations
Peasant association
1 Peasant association 2 χ2
SOILFERT
(p
Number Number value)
Yes 90 69 0.000
No 10 31
Peasant association 1 refers to Quftu peasant association and

peasant association 2 refers to Godino peasant association.
4.3.147. Means of transportation of agricultural produce to the

market
Households in the study area use different ways of transporting

their agricultural produce to the market place. Among users
majority of them, 45 percent of the households transport their
produce on horse back and 23 percent of the households use both
vehicle and horse back for transporting agricultural produce,
carrying on human back and using donkey are also means of
transportations for few of the households. The common means of
transportation for non users is loading on horse and donkey backs.
The survey showed that 33.5 percent of the non users transport
their produce on horse back and 15.5 percent of them load on
donkeys.
4.3.158. Food shortage months of the household
From the survey result we can see that irrigation users are better
than non users with regard to securing the household with
sufficient food. The survey showed that almost all the non users
face food shortage during some months of the year. Specially,
September is the most serious food shortage month for non users,
49.5 percent of the non users face the problem in September. July,
August and October are also identified to be months of insufficient
food with 12 percent, 36.5 percent and 31.5 percent of households
respectively facing the problem. This may be because non users
are producing once a year and if they run out of food before the
next harvesting season they may not have other alternative food
source. In the case of users, they can produce more than once a
year to supplement the rain fed agriculture.
Some of the users also face food shortage problem that is, 17.5
percent of them reported food shortage in October, 7 percent in
August and 7.5 percent of them in September.
Table 33. Food shortage months of the households

Food shortage Months Users
Non users
June -
0.5
July 4
12
August 7
36.5
September 7.5
49.5
October 17.5
31.5
November 1.5
4
4.3.169. Coping strategies of households
Households in the study area have various coping mechanisms

during crop failure.
The survey showed that user households have a better coping

strategy than the non users. None of the users go hungry or search
for off farm employment as a coping strategy. On the other hand 6.5
percent of non irrigators join off farm employment during bad times
as a coping mechanism. Sales of small animals is the major coping
strategy in the study area, 44.5 percent of the users and 48 percent
of the non users sell animals to pass bad years. Taking credit is
also the other way of coping mechanism, 15.5 percent of non users
and 8 percent of users employ this strategy. Cattle selling is also a
coping strategy in the study area, 12.5 percent of the non users and
5.5 percent of users apply this strategy.
Page Break
TaTable 34ble 20. Coping strategies of the households
Copping strategies Users Non

users
Cattle selling 5.5 12.5

Reducing meal - -
Sales of small animals 44.5 24.0

Off farm employment - 6.5
Taking credit 8.0 15.5
4.3.1720. Food security status of households by access to irrigation
The study grouped households in to food secure and insecure

based on their access to irrigation. Accordingly, 80 percent of the
non users and 30 percent of users are found out to be food
insecure respectively and 20 percent of non users and 70 percent of
the users are food secure.
Generally out of the 200 sample households 45 percent of them are
food secure and 55 percent of them are food insecure. This
classification is made on the basis of the calculation done to
measure household food security.
Page Break
TablTable 36e 21. Household food security status by access to

irrigation
Household food security User Non user

Total
status
Food secure /1/ 70 20

90
Food insecure /0/ 30 80

110
Source: Survey Result
Page Break
4.4. 4. Econometric Analysis
4.4. 4.1. Detecting multicollinearity and outliers
One of the assumptions of the multiple regression model is that

there is no exact linear relation ship between any of the
independent variables in the model. If such a linear relationship
does exist, we say that the independent variables are perfectly
collinear, or that perfect collinearity exists. Perfect collinearity is
easy to discover because it will be impossible to calculate the
estimates of the parameters. In practice the more difficult problem
is having a high degree of multicollinearity. The variance inflation
factor (VIF), the condition index (CI) and contingency coefficent are
the most important tests to detect multicollinearity (Pindyck and
Rubinfeld, 1991).
Bearing this fact in mind, the study used the variance inflation
factor to check for multicollinearity among continuous variables
and contingency coefficient is used to check multicollinearity
among discrete variables. According to the result of the test,
multicollinearity was not a serious problem both among the
continuous and discreet variables. The results of the test are
displayed in the following tables.
Page Break
Table 22. Multicollinearity test for continuous variables
Variable VIF
AGEHEAD 1.045
HHSIZEAE 1.218
DISMARKE 1.415
CUTLAND 1.430
LIVESTOC 1.765
TOTINCOM 3.412
NEARNESS 1.16
Table 23. Multicollinearity test for discrete variables
Variable ACCIRRIG SEXHEAD SOILFER ACCESS TO CREDIT

SUPPEX EDUCATAGORY
ACCIRRIG 1.00
SEXHEAD 0.04 1.00
SOILFER 0.30 0.04 1.00

CREDIT 0.16 0.00 0.13 1.00
SUPPEX 0.22 0.01 0.16 0.06

1.00
EDUCATAGORY 0.26 0.21 0.11 0.09

0.25 1.00
The study also checked for outliers. An outlier is an observation

that lies at an abnormal distance from other values in a random
sample from a population. Since there are many ways to identify
outliers, this study used a scatter plot diagram to identify outliers.
Accordingly 7 observations were found to be outliers, not
representative of the sample, and removed from the model analysis.
Page Break
4.4.4.2. Model results
Logistic regression and Heckman two stage analyses have been

estimated to see the impact of small scale irrigation on household
food security.
The econometric analysis for the logistic model was performed

using statistical software called STATA version 8.2. The Heckman
two stage analysis was performed using LIMDEP version 7. Though
data was collected on 200 observations the model was analyzed
using 193 observations because 7 observations were found to be
outliers.
The coefficients obtained in Logit models are not directly
interpreted as the change in the probability of occurrence caused
by a unit change in the independent variables. But the signs of
these coefficients, as usual, indicate the directions of association
between the explanatory variables and the probability of
occurrence. Hence odds ratios are calculated. An odds ratio greater
than one indicates the increase in the probability of being food
secure compared for not being food secure, while the reverse holds
when the ratio is less than one.
Taking the value of the pseudo R2 to be similar to R2 in the

regression analysis, 42 percent of the variation in the probability of
being food secure is explained by the explanatory variables
included in the specified regression analysis. Moreover, the
likelihood ratio statistics of 109.75 (estimated by a chi square test
with 16 degrees of freedom) shows that the result obtained by the
regression analysis using the specified model is significantly
different from the intercept-only model.
The variables that were found to be the significant determinant of

household food security in the logistic regression were sex of the
household head, (SEXHEAD) livestock ownership (LIVESTOCK),
access to irrigation (ACCIRRIG), access to credit (ACCESS TO
CREDIT) and level of education of the household head
(EDUCATAGORY). Family size and cultivated land size have the
expected signs but they were not significant determinants of
household food security. According to the model result, these
variables showed the expected relation due to chance only.
Access to irrigation: as expected there was a positive and

significant relationship between access to irrigation and household
food security at less than 1 percent probability level. The odds ratio
of 10.09 indicates that keeping other things constant, when the
household gets access to irrigation, the odds in favor of being food
secure increases by a factor of 10.09. The marginal effect of 0.49
indicates that household food security improves by 0.49 percent
when the household gets access to irrigation. The result shows that
using irrigation has a favorable positive impact on improving
household food security. Households with access to irrigation
have the opportunity to produce more than once a year and
increase production. This enables them to generate more income
and also to diversify consumption thereby improving household
food security. This result is consistent with the finding of Abebaw
(2003).
Level of education of the household head: is entered the model in

five categories. STATA gives the out put for four of the categories.
Hence category 2 (read and write) is found to be positively related
and significant at 1 percent probability level. The model result
revealed that if the household head is literate, the odds of being
food secure increases by a factor of 8.33 if other things are kept
constant. The marginal effect of 0.47 shows that when the
household head is literate, the food security status of the
household increases by 47 percent. The significant and positive
relation ship could be explained as, household heads that are
literate may have knowledge in agricultural production, and make
appropriate decision in production, consumption and income
generation. Besides, literate household heads may be willing to
accept new technologies easily than illiterate household heads so
that they could increase production and keep their household food
secure. This result is consistent with the finding of Abebaw (2003 ).
Access to credit service: the study identified that there is a positive

relation ship between access to credit and household food security.
The variable is significant at less than 5 percent probability level.
The odds ratio tells us that the household food security status
improves by a factor of 2.59 as the household gets access to credit,
other things kept constant. The marginal effect of 0.22 showed that
as the household gets access to credit household food security
increases by 22 percent. The positive relationship could be
explained as households that have access to irrigation may invest
the money to buy input for agricultural production thereby increase
yield, the other explanation could be households directly consume
the credit they receive to cop with bad times. From the descriptive
statistics also it is identified that 23.5 percent of the households
use credit as a coping strategy. This result is inconformity with
Abebaw (2003) .
Sex of the household head: according to the model output, the sex
of household head shows negative relationship with household
food security, indicating inverse relationship between the
probability of being food secure and sex of the household head.
This variable is significant at less than 10 percent probability level.
From the odds ratio we can see that when the sex of the household
head is female, the odds of being food secure decreases by a factor
of 0.19. The marginal effect also indicates that when a household is
headed by a female, the probability of being food secure decreases
by 39 percent.
The possible explanation for the negative relationship between

female headed households and food security is, female headed
households are resource poor, lack human, land and financial
resource to produce. In the study area women own the minimum
hectare of land to cultivate. This may be due to unfair allocation of
the resource such as, land between male and female. However, out
of the 193 sample households the number of female headed
households was only 15. Therefore, this sample size may be too
small to make any meaningful conclusion.
Livestock holding: livestock ownership has the expected sign and

found to be significant at 10 percent probability level. The odds in
favor of being food secure increases by a factor of 1.15 when the
household increases the livestock holding by one more tropical
livestock unit. The marginal effect of 0.03 indicates that
household’s food security status increases by 3 percent as the
household increases the livestock holding by one TLU.
The positive contribution of livestock ownership to food security in
the study area can be seen from two sides: livestock may be used
as source of food supply since animal products are important
source of high quality protein, mineral, vitamin and micronutrients.
On the other side when households face crop failure livestock
resource could be used as source of income to purchase food and
feed the household members.
Page Break
TaTable 40ble 24. Binary Logit model: Estimation of Maximum

Likelihood and Marginal effect /Access to irrigation = 1, No access
to irrigation = 0/
Variables Coefficients Odds ratio P>/z/

HHSIZEAE 2 -0.008 0.991 0.913

-0.001
HEADAGE 2 0.000 1.000 0.380

0.000
HEADAGE -0.079 0.923 0.485

-0.018
HHSIZEAE -0.703 0.495 0.342

-0.160
SEXHEAD -1.642 0.193 0.076*
-0.388
DISMARKE 0.019 1.019 0.869
0.004
CUTLAND 0.433 1.542 0.190
0.098
LIVESTOC 0.147 1.158 0.077*
0.033
SOILFERT -0.388 0.678 0.547

-0.091
CREDIT 0.959 2.610 0.039**

0.221
*** ** * indicates significant level at 1percent 5 percent and 10 percent
Source: model out put
Regression output of the Heckman two stage analysis: As stated in

the methodology section, analyzing the impact of small scale
irrigation on household food security with out considering the
selectivity bias may lead to biased estimate since the sample
available does not randomly represent the underlying population.
Therefore, the analysis made using the logistic regression may not
show the impact of small scale irrigation on household food
security because of some unobservable factors that could
contribute to increased household food security. Besides, the
variable, access to irrigation is considered in the logistic regression
model as exogeneous variable. But there may be some variables
that simultaneously affect household food security and access to
irrigation and this cause endogenity.
Taking in to account the above facts, this study employed Heckman

two stage analysis in order to control the selectivity bias and
endogenity problem and obtain consistent and unbiased estimates.
The Heckit model in the first stage predicts the probability of
participating in the irrigation scheme of each household, in the
second stage it analyses the determinants of household food
security.
The output for the probit /participation/ equation shows that seven
variables determine the probability of using irrigation. These are
Nearness to the irrigation scheme (NEARNESS), household size in
adult equivalent (HHSIZEAE), size of cultivated land in hectare
(CUTLAND), soil fertility problem of the household (SOILFERT),
household size square (HHSIZE2), access to credit (CREDIT) and
livestock ownership (LIVESTOC).
Nearness to the water source: Nearness of the household to the

irrigation scheme has a positive sign as expected and significant at
less than 1 percent probability level. The positive relationship tells
us that the nearer the household to the irrigation scheme, the
higher the probability of participating in the irrigation scheme. The
marginal effect also indicates that, when the household is closer to
the irrigation scheme by one kilometer, the probability of
participating in the irrigation scheme increases by 16 percent. From
the result we can conclude that those households who are situated
in near by places do not incur much cost to access the irrigation
scheme, therefore, they quickly decide to participate in the scheme.
Household size in adult equivalent: The second variable which

negatively affects the decisionto participate in irrigation is
household size. This variable is significant at less than 5 percent
probability level with a negative relation ship with the decision to
join irrigation activity. The reason for the negative relationship
could be seen from two sides: a household with larger family size
may have off farm employment and sufficient off farm income to
secure the family’s food need so ignores the benefit from irrigation.
The other side of the negative relationship could be households
with larger family size have higher cost of leaving so they may not
be willing to participate in irrigation activity in order to avoid any
more spending which may arise due to participating in irrigation.
The marginal effect shows that when the household size increases
by one adult equivalent the probability of participating in irrigation
decreases by 30 percent. This finding is consistent with (Abebaw,
2003) participation in
Household size in adult equivalent square: The result of the

regression estimate shows that household size square has a
significant and positive relationship with the decision to participate
in irrigation activity. The variable is significant at less than 5
percent probability level. The household size square indicates that
as the household size increases, there is positive contribution to
the participation decision. This may be through contributing family
labor which is required to participate in irrigation. The marginal
effect of 0.27 tells us that as family size increases the probability of
participation decision increases by 27 percent.
Size of cultivated land: This variable showed a significant and

negative relationship with participation decision. It is significant at
less than 1 percent probability level. The possible justification for
the negative relationship could be households with larger farm size
may not be interested to participate in irrigation suspecting land
redistribution. The other reason for the negative relation ship could
be those households with larger farm size may be able to produce
more and secure the family’s food need so they may ignore the
importance of irrigation for food security.
In the study area, according to information obtained during data

collection, most of the households in Quftu peasant association
refused the proposal by the government for the implementation of
irrigation schemes suspecting that the implementation of the
scheme may require redistribution of land among the people in the
peasant association. The marginal effect indicates that a one
hectare increase in cultivated land size reduces the probability of
participating in irrigation by 24 percent.
Livestock Holding: This variable is statistically significant at less

than one percent probability level. The positive relationship
indicates that households with larger livestock holding may have
money to spend on any possible cost to participate in the irrigation
activity. The marginal effect of 0.14 indicates that as the household
increases the livestock holding by one TLU the probability of
participating in irrigation increases by 14 percent.
Soil fertility status: his variable is significant at 1 percent

probability level. It has a direct relationship with the decision to
participate in irrigation. The regression analysis shows that fertility
status of soil has a role in decision of participating in irrigation.
Households with fertile land could successfully produce much, in
addition to this opportunity when the households are allowed to
use irrigation, the output may increase by a significant amount both
for household consumption and for sale. This situation encourages
them to participate in irrigation. The marginal effect of 0.33 also
confirms that better fertility status increases the household’s
participation decision by 33 percent.
Access to credit service: this variable negatively influences
irrigation participation decision of households. It is significant at
less than 5 percent probability level. The negative relation ship
could be because households invest the credit they get on other
activities other than irrigation. More credit may imply more
deviation from irrigation such as rearing of livestock or spending
on consumption. The marginal effect shows that for as the
household gets access to creditthe the probability of decreases by
24 percentparticipating in irrigation decreases by 24 percent.
In the study area, the descriptive statistics reveals that 15.5 percent
of non users and 8 percent of users use credit as a coping strategy
during bad years.
Page Break
TablTable 42e 25. The regression out put of the Binary Probit model
and its Marginal Effect
Variable Coefficient Marginal

Effect
(0.203) (0.203)
AGEHEAD -0.861 -0.343
(0.248) (0.248)
HHSIZEAE -0.764 -0.304
(0.021)** (0.021)
SEXHEAD 0.414 0.165

(0.438) (0.438)
EDUCATAGORY -0.293 -0.117
(0.764) (0.764)
DISMARKE -0.324 -0.129
(0.673) (0.673)
CUTLAND -0.604 -0.241
(0.004)*** (0.004)
(0.000)*** (0.000)
SOILFERT 0.838 0.334
(0.019)*** (0.019)
SUPPEX -0.427 -0.170
(0.169) (0.169)
CREDIT -0.615 -0.245

(0.024)** (0.024)
(0.008)*** (0.008)
AGEHEAD2 0.722 0.288
(0.302) (0.302)
HHSIZEAE2 0.687 0.274
(0.034)** (0.034)
Dependent variable Partdec
(participation decision)
Weighting variable one

Logliklihood function -69.13501
Restricted log likelihood -133.6504
Chi squared 129.0309
Degree of freedom 13
Significance level 0.0000
Source: Model out put
*** ** and * are level of significance at 1 percent, 5 percent and 10 percent respectively
Values in parenthesis are p values
In the selection /outcome/ equation of the model, eight variables are

found to be a significant determinant of household food security.
These are access to irrigation (ACCIRRIG), household size in adult
equivalent (HHSIZEAE), sex of the household head (SEXHEAD)
access to extension service (SUPPEX), size of cultivated land
(CUTLAND), Household Size in Adult Equivalent2 (HHSIZEAE2)
Nearness of the household to the water body (NEARNESS) and the
inverse Mills ratio (LAMBDA).
According to the model output, the Lambda (inverse Mills ratio)

term is significant at less than 5 percent probability level indicating
the presence of selectivity bias. The negative sign suggests that the
error terms in the participation and outcome equations are
negatively correlated. This shows that those unobserved factors
that make the household participate in irrigation are likely to be
negatively associated with household food security also.
Access to irrigation: access to irrigation is positively related to
household food security. It is significant at less than 1 percent
probability level. The result shows that, in the study area irrigation
enables households to grow crops more than once a year to insure
increased and stable production income and consumption thereby
improving food security status of the household. The coefficient of
the variableof 576 confirms the existence of strong and positive
relationship between access to irrigation and household food
security of irrigation users. This result is consistent with the finding
of Abebaw (2003).
Household size in adult equivalent: Household size is negatively

related with household food security. The variable is significant at
less than 1 percent probability level. The negative and significant
coefficient of household size reveals that larger household size
leads to food insecurity. This means, as household size increases
there are many dependants in the household to share a plate of
food. The coefficient of the variable indicates a very strong inverse
relation ship, that is, as the household size increases by one adult
equivalent the household food security status deteriorates highly
and significantly. In other words as the household size increases by
one adult equivalent, to keep the household food secure the income
should increase by Birr 391.9 This result is consistent with the
finding of Mulugeta (2002) and Yilma (2005).
Household size in adult equivalent square: The study hypothesized

that the relationship between household food security and
household size may not be linear through out. It was assumed that
at some point the relationship may become non linear. As
hypothesized the regression coefficient is found out to be positive
and the non linear relationship is found out to be significant at less
than 1 percent probability level. ,to marry there would be a direct
relationship between household food security and family size
because larger family size in the study area benefit from economies
of scale such as bulk purchase, cooking fuel and labor availability
during peak labor demand in agriculture.
Sex of the household head: Sex this variable is significant at less

than 1percent probability level. The coefficient of the variable also
shows a strong inverse relationship between sex of the household
head and household food security. It tells us that when the head of
the household is female, household food security decreases
significantly. 31.1.
The possible explanation for the negative relationship between

female headed households and household food security is, female
headed households are resource poor, lack human, land and
financial resource to produce . Besides, they do not have sufficient
experience on farming since their major duty in the household is to
take care of children and to perform the household stuff.
Size of cultivated land: The regression result shows that this

variable has the expected positive sign and it is significant at less
than 10 percent probability level. The result discloses that, as the
cultivated land size increases, the household is able to increase
and diversify the quantity and type of crop produced on the
cultivated land this may in turn imply increased income and
increase consumption insuring household food security. The
coefficient of the variable also shows that as the household gets
one more hectare of land household food security increases by 85
percent. This result is consistent with the finding of Mulugeta (2002)
Ayalew (2003), Abebaw (2003), and Yilma (2005).
Access to extension service: This variable is statistically significant

at less than 10 percent probability level and has the expected
positive sign. The positive relation ship may indicate that in the
study area, those households who get technical advice, training or
those who participated on field demonstrations are well aware of
the advantage of agricultural technologies and willing to adopt new
technologies and produce more, thereby improving the household
food security status. The coefficient of the variable of 117 indicates
that households with access to extension agents increase their
food security status significantly.
Nearness to irrigation scheme: This variable is found to be a

significant determinant of household food security. It is positively
related to household food security and significant at less than 1
percent probability level. This positive and significant relationship
tells us that as households become closer to the irrigation scheme,
food security status improves significantly. The possible
justification could be households who are closer to the irrigation
scheme do not have much cost to access their farm so they can
follow up the farm activity closely and frequently and may get a
better yield. The coefficient of the variable also confirms that when
a household is closer to the scheme by one kilometer, food security
status improves highly and significantly.
Page Break
TablTable 44e 26. Estimation Result of the Selection Equation and

its Marginal Effect
Variable Coefficient
CONSTANT 1553.936
1553.936
(0.000)***
(0.000)
ACCIRRIG 576.882
576.882
(0.000)***
(0.000)
AGEHEAD 14.918
14.918
(0.348)
(0.348)
HHSIZEAE -391.676 -
391.676
(0.000)***
(0.000)
SEXHEAD - 331.133 -
331.133
(0.001)***
(0.001)
EDUCATAGORY 1.736
1.736
(0.930)
(0.930)
DISMARKE 13.567
13.567
(0.378)
(0.378)
CUTLAND 85.751
85.751
(0.058)*
(0.058)
LIVESTOC -5.063 -
5.063
(0.717)
(0.717)
SOILFERT -47.613 -
47.613
(0.534)
(0.534)
SUPPEX 117.729
117.729
(0.069)*
(0.069)
CREDIT -44.539 -
44.539
(0.429)
(0.429)
NEARNESS 9.602
9.602
(0.009)***
(0.009)
AGEHEAD2 -0.112 -
0.112
(0.441)
(0.441)
HHSIZEAE2 25.607
25.607
(0.001)***
(0.001)
LAMBDA -243.448
(0.041)**
Dependent variable Total food (Total Food expenditure per
adult eq per annum)
Number of Observations
193
Selection rule is:

User=1
Log-L = -
1395.6914
Restricted (b=0) Log -L = -

1489.7074
R-squared =
0.588
Correlation of disturbance in regression and selection criteria (Rho)
-0.669
Prob value =
0.0000
Source: model out put
*** ** and * show level of significance at 1%, 5% and 10% probability level. Values in
parenthesis are p
values
The study also runs the Ordinary Least Square (OLS) model to
compare the result of the estimate with the Heckman two stage
analyses. As expected the model result identified that access to
irrigation is a significant determinant of household food security.
But the size of the coefficient for the Heckit model is about twice
that of the OLS regression result. Thus, using OLS regression
model underestimates the food security impact of access to
irrigation.
TabTable 46le 27. Ordinary Least Square estimation of model

variables
Variable Coefficient P value
CONSTANT 1815.69 0.000

ACCIRRIG 368.34 0.000
HEADAGE 4.39 0.776
HHSIZEAE -419.85 0.000

SEXHEAD -330.07 0.002
EDUCATAGORY -0.52 0.979
DISMARKE 16.46 0.296
CUTLAND 61.83 0.169
SOILFERT -7.95 0.916
SUPPEX 98.42 0.136
CREDIT -57.40 0.318
HEADAGE2 -0.22 0.876
HHSIZEAE2 28.53 0.000
Ordinary least squares regression Weighting variable = none

Dep. var. = TOTALFOO Mean= 1038.475544 , S.D.= 545.8532263
Model size: Observations = 193, Parameters = 15, Deg.Fr.= 178
Model output
***, ** and * indicates significance level at 1%, 5 % and 10 %.

Page Break
5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

This section summarizes the major findings of the study and
proposes recommendations for policy purpose. Section 5.1 is
Summary and section 5.2 is Conclusion and Policy Implications.
5.1. Summary
The aim of this study is to identify the impact of small scale

irrigation on household food security and also to assess the
management systems of the schemes. Out of the 200 sample
households 100 of them are irrigation users and the rest 100 are
non users. From the 100 users 70 percent of them are food secure
and the rest 30 percent are food insecure. Out of the 100 non users
80 percent are found to be food insecure and the rest 20 percent
food secure. Generally, out of the 200 sample households 45
percent are food secure and the rest 55 percent are food insecure.
This descriptive statistics clearly indicates that those households
who have access to irrigation are by far better in securing their food
need than non users.
The descriptive analysis also compares the mean of the two groups
by using different determinants of household food security. The
result revealed that households with access to irrigation are in a
better position when compared to those with non users. For
example, users have small family size, higher level of education of
the household head, large size of livestock holding, higher farm and
non farm income and better expenditure and all these contributed
significantly to better status of food security.
A t- test was also performed to statistically compare the mean

difference between the two groups with regard to these variables
and a statistically significant result is obtained.
The chi square test also reveals that variables like access to
extension service, access to credit and soil fertility status have
significant relation ship with access to irrigation.
The descriptive statistics reveals that households with access to

irrigation face food shortage in only few months of the year while
non users suffer from critical food shortage in August September
and October. The survey revealed that households in the study area
have various coping strategies during months of food shortage.
Sales of small animals, sales of cattle, off farm employment and
credit are some of the strategies.
In the study area the common means of transportation of

agricultural produce to the market for non users is loading on horse
back and for users vehicles and loading on horse back. This may
because due to two reasons reasons: the non user villages are
located near to the Bishoftu town so they may not need to pay for
transport, the second reason may be non users may not afford the
transportation cost to use vehicle.
According to the study, small scale irrigation management activities

include water use activities, control structure activities and
organizational activities. The survey disclosed that there is sense of
belongingness among the users, almost all the users are well aware
of the fact that the irrigation schemes belong to them. The study
also identified that location plays a key role in water distribution,
head end framers benefit more from irrigation water than tail end
users. The absence of bylaws and lack of finance are the major
reasons for the poor performance of the irrigation systems.
Multivariate analysis is performed using the logistic regression

model and the Heckman two stage analysis. The Heckman two
stage analyses is implemented in order to capture the selectivity
bias and get the impact of small scale irrigation on household food
security. Moreover, the first stage of the model removes the
problem of endogenity since it considers participation in irrigation
as a dependent variable.
In the logistic model access to irrigation, sex of the household

head, livestock holding, access to credit and education level of the
household head are found to be significant determinants of
household food security. In the first stage of the Heckman two
stage procedure the following variables determined participation in
irrigation: nearness to the water source, household size in adult
equivalent, household size in adult equivalent square, size of
cultivated land, livestock holding, farmers perception of soil fertility
status and access to credit. In the second stage of the Heckman
two stage analyses the lambda term which confirms the presence of
self selection was significant indicating the presence of selectivity
bias. After the model corrected for the bias due to some
unobservable factors, access to irrigation, household size, sex of
the household head, support from extension agents, size of
cultivated land, household size square and nearness to the
irrigation scheme are found to determine household food security.
Ordinary least square estimation is also performed to compare the

coefficients of the variable access to irrigation with the Heckit
model and it is found out that the size of the coefficient of the
variable access to irrigation is twice that of the coefficient of the
OLS estimate indicating that the OLS model under estimates the
impact of small scale irrigation on household food security.
5.2. Conclusions and Recommendations
In the study area irrigation systems are poorly managed. That is,
the components of water use activities, control structure activities
and organizational activities are not functioning well. This may be
due to lack of finance, absence of by laws that could insure the
proper functioning of the various activities and absence of training.
On the other hand all users are willing to pay for the irrigation water
use. Therefore, by conducting similar studies and investigating
farmers’ willingness it may be possible to set tariff for irrigation
water use. Besides, by giving training to water users association
committees it is possible to strengthen the capacity of the members
as to how to lead the users community and insure proper
management and sustainable use of the schemes.
In the first stage of the Heckman two stage procedure many

variables are found to significantly determine participation in
irrigation. These are: household size in adult equivalent, size of
cultivated land, livestock holding, farmers’ perception of soil
fertility status, access to credit, nearness to the water source and
household size square.
Since participation in irrigation is the first step towards improving

household food security from the use of small scale irrigation,
those factors that determine participation in irrigation should be
treated accordingly.
Household size affects participation in irrigation negatively. So the

introduction of family planning is one way in order to limit the
number of children in a household to get a healthy and productive
family member that are both physically and financially strong to
make decision.
Larger size of cultivated land is the second variable that negatively

affects participation in irrigation
Size of cultivated land alone may not help a household to keep its
family food secure. Therefore, households in the study area should
be introduced the advantage of new technologies such as the use
of small scale irrigation to produce more than once a year and
increase yield.
Access to credit is also negatively determine participation in

irrigation. This indicates that households in the study area use
credit as a coping strategy during bad years. But it is better to
invest the credit rather than consume it. Therefore, households
should be given training on financial resource management
(allocation).
Livestock holding is positively related to participation in irrigation.

The positive relationship indicates that in the study area livestock
holding contributes to participation in irrigation. This could be
through sales of livestock and income generation for any possible
spending in the participation. Therefore, by giving training on
modern livestock management system households could generate
more income and improve their financial status.
Soil fertility positively determines participation in irrigation.

Households that have fertile land are willing to participate in
irrigation because they are encouraged to produce more with the
given opportunity. Thus, training households about soil
conservation practices help maintain the soil fertility.
Nearness to the water source is also positively related to

participation in irrigation. Those households that are situated near
the water source are willing to participate. Therefore, the
construction of small scale irrigation should consider the distance
between the water source and villages for a better use of the
schemes by households.
In the second stage of the Heckman two stage analysis the

following variables significantly determine household food security:
access to irrigation, household size in adult equivalent, sex of the
household head, size of cultivated land, access to extension service
and nearness to the water source.
Access to irrigation is found to be a significant determinant of

household food security. In the study area, the comparison between
the two groups showed that user households are better than non
users with regard to income, consumption expenditure, and hence
improved food security. Therefore, implementing small scale
irrigation schemes with out ignoring the proper management leads
to sustainable production that could change the life of the rural
poor.
Household size in adult equivalent is found to negatively determine

household food security. Households with larger family size are
unable to meet the minimum daily requirement. Therefore, the
introduction of appropriate family planning strategy would be
indispensable to have healthy and productive family.
Sex of the household head has a significant and negative

relationship with household food security. The negative
relationship tells us that families headed by female are food
insecure. This inverse relation ship may not be because women are
poor at household management rather this could be due to the
unfair distribution of resource between male and female household
heads. In the study area the maximum hectare of land is owned by
male headed households besides, most of the male headed
households are literate. In order to improve the food security
status of female headed households it is important to empower
them and have a fair distribution of resource between male and
female and give them the opportunity to get access to education.
Size of cultivated land and household food security are positively

and significantly related indicating larger farm size improves
household food security. Households with large farm size are found
to be food secure however, there may not be a possibility of
expanding cultivated land size any more because of increasing
family size and degradation of the existing farm land. Therefore,
household must be trained as to how to increase production per
unit area (productivity).
Access to extension service is also positively related to household

food security. Extension workers could play a key role in
transferring new technologies to the rural people easily there by
improving production, income and consumption. Capacity building
of the existing ones and training more extension workers might
help address the issue.
Page Break
6. REFERENCE
Abebaw S., (2003). Dimensions and determinants of food fsecurity

among rural households in Dire Dawa, Eastern Ethiopia. An M. Sc.
Thesis Presented to the School of Graduate Studies of Alemaya
University. Ethiopia, Alemaya,. 152p.
Andersen.P., (2001). The future world food situation and the role of
plant diseases. Reviewed feature article. International Food Policy
Research Institute. Washington, DC.
1-10p
Ayalew Y., (2003). Identification and intensifying of food insecurity

and coping strategies of rural household in North Shoa: The case of
lalomama. A M. Sc. Thesis Presented to The School of Graduate
Studies of Alemaya University. Ethiopia, Alemaya,. 221p.
fnsswhdwgh p
Bickel, G., A. Margaret, and C. Steven, (1998). The magnitude of
hunger: A new national measure of food security. Topics in clinical
nutrition,13(4): 15-30. Aspen Publication Inc.
Bilinky P., and A. Swindale, (2005). Months of inadequate household

food provisioning (MIHFP) for measurement of household food
access .: Indicator guide. FANTA Publication. Washington, D.C.1-
2p
fnsplfo):
Byrnes, K.,(1992). Water users association in World Bank assisted

irrigation projects in Pakistan, World Bank Technical paper 173.
Wshington,DC, USA.31-39p
anhfsspilpMgChamber, R., (1994). Irrigation against Rural Poverty.p

In Socio- Economic Dimension and Irrigation, ed., R.K. Gujar.
Jaipur. India: Printwell. 32-33p
Callens, K., and B, Seiffert, (2003). Participatory Appraisal of

Nutrition and Household Food Security Situations and Planning of
Interventions from a Livelihoods Perspective. Methodological
Guide. Rome, Italy.6p
Cho, S., D. Newman and J. Bowker, (2005). Measuring rural

homeowners’ willingness to payfor land conservation easements.
Forest policy economics 7, 757-770
fiamma
Corppenstedt, A., and Abbi M,(1996). An analysis of the extent and

cause of the technical efficiency of farmers growing cereals cin
Ethiopia: evidence from three regions, Ethiopian Journal of
Economics,5(1): 39-61
Dardis, H., Soberon and D. Patro, (1994). Analysisof leisure
expenditure in the United States. The Proceeding of the American
Council on Consumer Interest 39,194-200.
Debebe,H., (1995). Food Security: A brief review of concepts and

indicators. Proceedings of the Inaugural and First Annual
Conference of the Agricultural Economics Society of Ethiopia. June
8-9, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Agricultural Economics Society of
Ethiopia 1-18p
Debebe,H., (2000). Food situation in Ethiopia: problems and

prospects, A paper presented to a symposium for reviewing
Ethiopia’ s Socioeconomic performance, 1991-99.
DESFED(2004). Oromia Regional State. Compiled report, Ziway.

ah
DPPC, (2004).Humanitarian appeal for Ethiopia. A joint government

and humanitarian partners appeal. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Ellis, F., 1993. Farm Household and Agrarian Development.

Cambridge University Press 2nd ed.11p
FAO , (1992) . Assessing, analyzing and monitoring nutrition

situations. International conference on nutrition. Rome, Italy
FAO, (1997b). Fact sheets of the world food summit: irrigation and
food security. Food and Agriculture organization of the United
nations, Rome. http://www.fao.org/news
FAO,(1997). Small scale irrigation for Arid Zones. Principle and
options. Rome, Italy.
FAO, (2001). The state sof food and agriculture. World Review Part I.
Rome. Italy.18-20p.
FAO, (2003). Agricultural extension, rural development and the food
security challenge.pp. Extension, education and communication
service research, extension and training division. Rome, Italy 31p
cp
FAO,(2003). The state of food insecurity in the World. Monitoring

progress towards the food summit and millennium development
goals. Rome, Italy.24-26p
FAO, (2004). The state of food insecurity in the World. Monitoring

progress towards the World food summit and millennium
development goals. Rome, Italy. 6p
iewsfafpr
FDRE, (2001). Food Security Strategy. An update. Addis Ababa,

Ethiopia. 8-22p
Frankenberger, T.,(1992). Indicators and data collection methods

for assessing household food security. A technical review. UNICEF,
IFAD. Rome, Italy.84-123p
Gezhagne,A., S. Omamoand Eleni,G., (2004). The state of food

security and agricultural marketing in Ethiopia. Proceeding of a
Policy Forum Jointly Sponsored by the Ethiopian Development
Research Institute (EDRI) and the East African Food Policy Network
of the International Food Policy Research Institute. Addis Ababa.
Ethiopia.3-5p
Green, W., (2003). Econometric Analysis. 5th ed. New York.780-789p
Greer, J., and E. Thorbecke, (1986). A methodology for measuring

food poverty applied to Kenya. Journal of development Economics,
24:59-74
Grepperuds, S., (1996). Population pressure and land degradation:

The case cof Ethiopia, Journal of Environmental Economics and
Management,(30: 18-33
ifsnm.
Heckman, J., (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error.

Econometrica. 47(1):153-162.
Hoddinott, J.,(2002). Food security in practicep. Methods for rural

development projects. International Food Policy Research Institute.
Washington, D.C.31-43p
Hussain, I., N. Regassa, and S. Madar, (2004). Water for food

security for the poor. A collection of thematic papers. Asian
Development Bank. Colombo,.85-86p
IWMI (2005). 2005.Experiences and opportunities for promoting
small scale micro irrigation and rain water harvesting for food
security in Ethiopia. Working paper 98. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.7p
Kumar, D., (2003). Food security and sustainable agriculture in
India: The water Mangementm challenge. Working paper 60. .IWMI.
Colombo, Sri Lanka.1-2p
Kloos, H., (1991). Peasant irrigation development and food

production in Ethiopia. Geographical Journal. 157(3): 295-306.
Lire, E.,(2005). Small scale irrigation dams, agricultural production,

and health: Theory and evidence from Ethiopia, Working paper
3494. The world Bank, Washington DC.2p
Long, S., (1997). Regression models for Catagoricalc and limited

dependent Varaiablesv. Sage Publications, Inc. London. 35-83p
Madalla, G.S., (1983). Limited Dependent and Qualitative Variables

in Econometrics. 85Cambridge University Press. United
Kingdom.260-261p
Madalla, G.S., (1992). Introduction to Econometrics,2nded. New

York.341p
Maxwell, D., Watkins, B., Wheeler, R and D. Sheikh,. (2002). The

coping strategy index.p A tool for rapidly measuring food security
and the impact of food and programs in emergencies. Field
methods manual. World Food Program. 3-15p
Maxwell,S., and M.,Smith (1992).Household Food Security:

Conceptual indicators and measurements. A technical review.
UNICEF, New York and IFAD, Rome.1-52p
Merrey, D., Shah, T., Koppen, B., Lange, M., and Samad, M., (2002).
Can irrigation Ma nagmentm transfer trevitalize rAfrican and
international iexperiences. IWMI. Colombo, Sri Lanka.95-96p
MOA, (1993). Information regarding activities of small scale

irrigation. Irrigation development department. Ethiopia, Addis
Ababa.
MoFED, (2002). Sustainable development and poverty reduction

program. Addis Ababa Ethiopia.1-87p
MoWR, (2001). Irrigation development strategy (Component of the

water sector development program). Draft report. Ethiopia, Addis
Ababa.
WSDP, (2002). Water sector development program 2002-2016,

Volume II: Main report. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 3p
MoWR,(1999). Ethiopian water resources management policy. Addis

Ababa, Ethiopia. 29p
Mudima, K., (1998). Socio economic impact of smallholder irrigation

development in Zimbabwe: A case study of five successful
irrigation schemes. Private irrigation in Sub Saharan Africa. IWMI.
Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Mulugeta T., (2002). Determinants of household food security in

Eastern Oromiya, Ethiopia: The case of Boke District of Western
Hararge Zone. An M. Sc. Thesis Presented to the School of
Graduate Studies od Alemaya University. 151p.Alemaya, Ethiopia.
151p
Ngigi, S., (2002). Review of irrigation development in Kenya. IWMI.
Colombo, Sri Lanka. 35-37p
Nsemukila,B.,(2001). Poverty and food security indicators in

Zambia: Analysis of household survey data. Paper Presented at the
Workshop on Strengthening Food and Agricultural Statistics in
Africa in Support of Food Security and Poverty Reduction Policies
and Programmers: 22-26November 2001, Pretoria, South Africa.
esor
OIDA,(2000).Stakeholders’ modern irrigation schemes evaluation

report. Finfine.
OIDA,(2006). Strategic planning and management document.

Finfinnee.
Peter, S., (1997). Small scale irrigation. Intermediate technology

publication Ltd., Irrigation information center, Nottingham. 27p
Pindyck, R. and D. Rubinfeld,, 1991. Econometric Models ans

Econometric forcast. 3rd edition, Mc Graw-Hill New york. 249p
Reilly, B., (1990). Occupational endogeneity and gender wage

differentials for young workers: An Empericale analysis using Irish
data. The economic and social review. 21(3); 311-328
Relief and Rehabilitation Commission,,1990. Guidelines on
nutritional status data and food relief, early warning and planning
services, RRC. Addis Ababa. Ethiopia.
Saad, M.,(1999). Food security for the food insecure: New
challenges and renewed commitments. CSD NGO Women’s’
Caucus Position Paper for CSD-8, 2000 center for Development
studies, University College Dublin, Ireland.1-5p
Schilfgaarde,J., (1994). Irrigation, a blessing or a curse. Agricultural

water management. 25:203-219.
Sen A., (1981). Poverty and famines: an essay on entitlement and

deprivation. Oxford: Oxford University press.166p.
Shapouri, S., and S. Rosen, (2003). Global food security assessment

overview. Agriculture and trade report GFA-14. Economic research
service Washington. DC 7-24p
Shiferaw, B.,and S. Holden., (1999). Soil erosion and smallholders

conservation decisions in the highlands of Ethiopia. World
development 27(4) 739-752.
Sigelman, L., and L. Zeng, (1999). Analysing censored and

sampleselected data with Tobit and Heckit models. Political
analysis 8,167-182
Singh, B., B. N. Singh, and A. Singh, (1996). Effect of mulch and

irrigation on yield of Indian mustard mon dry terraces in Alfisols.
Indian Journal of Agricultural Science 60 (7):477-479
Smith, S. (1997).Case Studies in Economic Development, 2nd
edition, Addisonwesley publishing Company. 39-40p.
Storck, H., Bezabih, E. Berhanu, A. Borowiccki and Shimeles, W.,

(1991). Farming system and farm management practices of small
holders in the Hararghe highland. Farming systems and resource
economics in thr tropicst, vol. II, Wissehschaftsverlag Vauk, Kiel,
Germany.
sidwwlmrcbp
Tassew,W.,(2004). The experiences eof measuring mand monitoring

mpoverty pin Ethiopia. A paper presented for the Inaugural Meeting
of the Poverty Analysis and Data Initiative(PADI). MombassaKenya.
UN,(1990). Nutrition-relevant actions in the eighties: some

sexperience and lessons from developing countries. Background
paper Pfor the Acc\SCN Adhoc Group Meeting on Polices to
alleviate Auundetr consumption Cand malnutrition Min deprived
DAreas, 12-14 November, London.
UNDP (2005). Human development report, New York, USA . 251p
UNFPA (2005). United nations fund for population and activities.
Uphoff,N., (1986). Improving International Irrigation Management

with Farmer Participation. Getting the Process Right. Studies in
Water Policy and Management, No:11.Boulder:Westview Press. 42p
fsdfspcppFS
Woldeab, T., (2003). Irrigation practices, state intervention and
farmers Life-Worlds in drought-prone Tigray. Phd Dissertation,
Wageningen University, the Netherlands. 2-53p
Wooldridge, M., (2002). Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and

Panel Data. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. London,
England. 551-565p
World Bank, (1986). Poverty and hunger. Issues and options for
food fsecurity sin developing dcountriesc. A World Bank policy
study. Washington, DC.1p
Yilma M., (2005). Measuring rural household food security status

and its determinants in the Benishangul Gumuze Region: The case
of Asosa Woreda.An M.Sc. Thesis Presented to the School of
Graduate Studies of Alemaya University. Ethiopia Alemaya,.62-97p
pp. 134.
Zaman, H., (2001). Assessing the poverty and vulnerablity impact of

micro credit cin Bangladish: A case study of BRAC. Office of the
chief economist and senior vice president (DECVP). The World
Bank. 34-36p
Page Break
7. APPENDICES
Page Break
Appendix I
Steps followed to measure household food Security using Food

Energy intake method
According to Greer and Thorbecke (1986), Food energy intake

method is one means of measuring household food security. The
following specific steps were followed in order to calculate the
threshold (cut off) point.
a) Total value of food consumed (Xj) by each household, which is
equal to the sum of the value of purchased food (Vj) and the value
of own production consumed (Kj),was determined: hence, X j =
Vj+Kj
The value of purchased food consumed (Vj) by each household was

established by multiplying the quantities of different food types
purchased (Dij) by the prices per unit(Pij): Vj = ΣDijPij
Where: Vj = Value of purchased food consumed by the jth
Household
Dij = the quantity of the ith food items purchased by the jth
household
Pij = the local price paid by the jth household for the ith item
The value of the own out put or donated food consumed by the
household Kj is the product of own production including donation
(Mij) and the local price (Pij).
The quantity Mij is the computed value of consumption.

Kj = ΣMijPij
b) The adult equivalent (Hj) for each household (The conversion

scale is indicated in the appendix)
c) Total value of food consumed per adult equivalent was derived

by dividing the total value of food by household adult equivalent
Kj = Xj/Hj
Where Xj = Total value of food consumed by jth household
Hj = Adult equivalent for jth household

Kj = Total value of food consumed per adult equivalent units
d) The different types and quantities of food consumed by the

different households were converted to calories Cj (The conversion
method is presented in the appendix).
e) A regression model was fitted to estimate parameters to be used
in determining food poverty line (threshold point):
LnXj = a+bCj
Where: Xj = Total food expenditure per adult equivalent by
household J
Cj = Total calorie consumption per adult equivalent by

household J
a and b are parameters to be estimated.
f) The food poverty line, Z which is the estimated cost of acquiring

the calorie recommended daily allowance (RDA) was estimated as
Z = e(a+bR)
Where Z = Food poverty line
R = Recommended daily allowance (RDA) of calories per

adult equivalent of
2,200
Accordingly, birr 990 was found to be the minimum expenditure
level to fulfill the recommended daily allowance.
Page Break
Appendix II
Appendix Table 1. KCalories per gram of different food types
Food Group Mean kcal per gram
Cereals
Teff
3.41
Wheat
Pulses
Beans
Chick pea 3.45
Cowpea(Guaya)
Salt/Sugar
Salt
1.78
Sugar
Oils and fats
Oil
8.12
Butter
Vegetables
Onion
Tomato
Potato
Cabbage 0.37
Black Pepper
Carrot
Beet root
Coffee/Tea
Coffee
1.19
Tea
Spices 2.97
Source: Ethiopian Health and Nutrition Research Institute

Page Break
Appendix Table 2. Conversion Factor for Adult- Equivalent (AE)
Age Group Male

Female
<10 0.60
0.60
10-13 0.90
0.80
14-16 1.00
Appendix Table 3. Conversion Factor for Tropical livestock unit

(TLU)
Animal Category Tropical Livestock unit

Calf 0.25
Weaned Calf 0.34

Heifer 0.75
Cow and Ox 1.00
Horse 1.10
Donkey (adult) 0.70

Appendix Table 5
Page Break
Appendix III
Questionnaire for Household Interview
S The Impact of Small Scale Irrigation on Household Food

Security and Assessment of Its Management System: The Case of
Filtino and Godino Irrigation Schemes, in Ada Liben District, East
Shoa[F1]
Identification Information
1.1 Name of the irrigation Scheme ---------------------------------------------
1.2. Peasant Association-----------------------------------------------------------

1.3. Irrigation typology (put √ mark) 1. Modern------ 2. Traditional----
-------
2. Household Socio-economic Characteristics (Household
information)
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08
No Name of the House Age

Sex Relatio Religi Level Occupati
n to the on of on
Hold head and family (year househ Educ.
members s) old Other
Codes for 05:1. = wife 2.= son 3.= Dauter 4.= Grand Fathrer 5= 8 3Grand mother 6= others
Codes for 06: 1=Orthodox 2= Protestant 3=Muslim 4= Other
Codes for 07: 1=Literate(read and write) 2=Grade 1-4 3= Grade 5-4=Above 8 5=Illiterate
Codes for 08 1=no occupation 2=wavering 3=tannery 4=carpentry 5=daily laborer 6=other
3. Infrastructure/access to road and irrigation
3.1 Distance from the main asphalt road (in km) ------------
3.2 Distance from the market place (in km) -----------
3.3. How do you transport agricultural produce to the market place?
1. On back --------- 3. Horse cart -----------

2. Vehicle----------- 4. Other specify---------
3.4.access to irrigation (Put √ mark)

1.User------------ 2.Non user------------
3.5 Reason for not using irrigation
1. No access
2. There is enough rain and moisture
3. No information about irrigation

Page Break
4. Contribution towards household food security
4.1 Do you think that irrigation has a positive impact on household

food security?
(Put √ mark)
1. Yes------------ 2. No------------
4.2 If your answer is yes, what are the positive impacts of irrigation
that you have seen? (Put √ mark)

1.Diversification of crops grown---
2.Increased agricultural production-------
3. Increased household income-----
4.Other specify-----
4.3.What is the contribution of diversification to your family (Put √

mark)
1.Maintained high income level------------

Decreased fluctuation in level of food production------------
increased production per unit area------------
4.4. How many times do you produce within a year?

1. before adoption of irrigation technology------
2. after adoption of irrigation technology -------
4.5. What change (s) did you see as a result of double or triple
cropping?
4.6. The household income Source before the implementation of

Irrigation (put √ mark)
1. Sales of vegetables------ 2. Wage ---------
3. Rent of own land ------ 4. Sales of cereals------
5. Others, Specify-------
4.7. During which month (s) are food shortages severing? Choose
according to their severity level? (give rank ie for the most severe
month put 1 then 2etc )
October---- November---- December---- January---- February----

March---- April---- May---- June---- July---- August---- September----
4.8. How do your households used to cope during crop failures?

(put √ mark)
1) Sale of livestock----- 3) Sale of Animals-----
2) Reduce the number of meals---- 4) Wage employment----
5) Other specify----
Page Break
4.9. Household net income

4.9.1. From using irrigation in 2005 (if applicable)
Operations Irrigation fields owned plus

leased-in
Field 1 Field Field Field

2 3 4
Area in ha
Whether the field is own or leased-

in (Yes/NO)
How many times did you grow

crops on the field
Name of first crop harvested from

the field
Name of second crop harvested

from the field
Name of third crop harvested from
the field
Area of first crop
Area of second crop
Area of third crop
Variety of first crop*
Variety of second crop*
Variety of third crop*
Cost of seed for first crop
Cost of seed for second crop
Cost of seed for third crop
Cost of fertilizer for first crop
Cost of fertilizer for third crop
Total labor involved in man-days

first crop

second crop

third crop
Total oxen days for first crop
Total oxen days for second crop
Total oxen days for third crop

Total cost of pesticides for first crop
Total cost of pesticides for second

crop
Total cost of pesticides for third

crop
Total cost of harvesting first crop
Total cost of harvesting second

crop
Total cost harvesting third crop
Output of first crop
Output of second crop
Output of third crop
Amount sold in birr of the first crop
Operations Irrigation fields owned plus

leased-in
Field 1 Field Field Field
2 3 4
Amount sold in birr of the second

crop
Amount sold in birr of the third crop
The market where the first crop is

sold
The market where the second crop

is sold
The market where the third crop is

sold
Amount consumed at home of the

first crop

second crop

third crop
*1= Improved, 2=Local
4.9.2. Household net income from using rain-fed in 2005
Operations Rain-fed fields owned plus leased-in
Field 1 Field 2 Field Field Field

3 4 5
Area in ha
Whether the field was own or

leased-in (yes/No)
Name of rain-fed crop harvested

from the field
Variety of rain-fed crop*
Cost of seed
Cost of fertilizer for rain-fed crop
Total oxen days
Total cost of pesticides
Total cost of harvesting
Output in quintals
Amount sold in birr
The market where the crop is sold
Amount consumed at home

*1= Improved, 2= Local
4.9.3. Household Income from sales of livestock in 2005
Livestock type Number sold Amount in Birr

Page Break
4.9.4 Household off farm income in 2005
N Name of the family member Type of job Annual income in

birr
o
4.10. Household expenditure during 2005
4.10.1. Consumption expenditure
Food type Consumed from

purchased
Amount (kg) Value (birr)
Cereals
Fruits and vegetables

Animal source (Butter
cheese etc )
Other
Salt
Oil
Sugar
4.10.2. Non Food Expenditure
Item Expense
Clothing (dress and foot wear)
House rent
Water expense
Transport and communication
Entertainment (visit of relatives)
Education
Health care
Religious& cultural expense
Animal health expense
Gas and Other fuel
Beverages and cigarette
Government tax
Social expenses
5. Livestock production
5.1 Do you rear livestock? (Put √ mark)
1. Yes----- 2. No--------
5.2. What domestic animals do you rear?
Type of animal Number
Ox
Cow
Calf
Heifer
Sheep (young)
Sheep (adult)
Goat (young)
Goat (adult)
Donkey (adult)
Donkey (young)
Mule
Horse
Chicken (poultry)
Bull
5.3 If you don’t have enough oxen what do you use for your farm
operation? (put √ mark)
1. Use Mekenajo----- 3. Hire oxen-----
2. Exchange with labor------ 4. Others (specify) -----
6. Land Ownership
6.1. Do you possess your own land? (Put √ mark)

1. Yes----- 2. No-----
Page Break
6.2. If yes, its total area in hectare ----------------
6.2.1. Area of grazing land -------------
6.2.2 Area of fallow land ----------------

6.2.3. Area covered by trees -------------
6.2.4. Total area of cropland -------------
Area under irrigation --------------
Area under rain- fed----------------
6.3 How do you perceive the condition of your land? (Put √ mark)
1. Fertile------
2. Moderately fertile------
3. Less fertile-------
4. Infertile-----------
6.4 If you don’t have your own land, what is the source of land for
your farm operation (explain)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
6.5. How did you get your irrigation land?(put √ mark)
1. Inherited from family--------- 3. Purchase----------
2. Gift from relatives/on kinship basis------ 4. Government

redistribution -------
5. Others, specify: ---------------------------------------------------
6.6. Do you lease-out irrigable land (for sharecropping)?(put √

mark)
1. Yes------ 2. No-------
6.7. If yes, Area leased out (out of the total plot) ------------ (in
hectare)
6.8. If yes, reasons for leasing-out your irrigation land? (Put √

mark)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
6.9. Sharecropping arrangement /output share (land owner to

partner)? (put √ mark)
Equal -----------------------
One-third for the land owner and two-third for the share holder
(Siso/local name)---
One-fourth to the land owner and three-fourth for the share
holder-------
Other type of arrangement, specify------------------------------------------
----------
7. Marketing Issue
7.1. Do you produce for market using irrigation? (Put √ mark)
1. Yes------------- 2. No------------
7.2. If you don’t produce for market, which of the following is

important reasons for you?
(Put √ mark)
A. No enough water is received for surplus production----------

B. No enough land for surplus production---------------------
----
C. No enough market demand--------------------------------------

-
D. Others specify, ----------------------------------------------------
7.3. What are the problems in marketing your produce? (Put √

mark)
A. Transportation problem -------- D. Low bargaining

power-------------- B. Too far from market place ------
E. others (specify) ---------------
C. Low price of agricultural produce------
7.4. Where do you sell your farm products? (Put √ mark)
A. On farm (local assembler---------- C. Through service

cooperatives -------- B. Taking to the local market-----------
D. Other specify-----------
7.5. Do you get reasonable price for your produce in 2005? (Put
√ mark)
1. Yes----------- 2. No----------------
7.6. If no, what are the reasons? (Put √ mark)
1. No demand for the produce----- 2. More supply of the

produce------
3. Others (specify)--------------------
8. Extension issues
8.1. Do you receive support from DAs? (Put √ mark)
1. Yes-------------- 2. No---------------
8.2. If yes, what are the supports given? (Put √ mark)

1. Advice------------ 4. Conflict resolution
2. Training------------- 5. controlling water distribution--

---------
3. Demonstration------------ 6. Other specify--------------
9. Access to credit Issues
9.1. Have you ever used Access to credit for your agricultural
activities? (Put √ mark)
1. Yes-------------- 2. No--------------
9.2. If yes what are the sources? (Put √ mark)

1. Cooperatives--------------- 4. Neighbors and relatives---
--------
2. Local lenders--------------- 5. Micro finance institutes----

-------
3. The irrigation office------- 6. Other specify------------------

----------
9.3. If no why? (Put √ mark)
1. No collateral------- 3.No Access to credit supply--------

-----
2. No need------------- 4.High cost of Access to credit-----

------
5. Other, specify-------------------------
-
10. Irrigation practices
10.1. When did you start using irrigation? -------------

Page Break
10.2. Have you ever faced a problem of crop failure when using
irrigation?
1. Yes-------- 2. No-----------
10.3. If Yes, why? (put √ mark)
1. Water shortage---------- 3. Weed problem-----

-----
2. Crop disease ------------ 4. Water logging ------

-----
5. Other, specify-----
11. Irrigation Management
User participation
11.1. Did you participate in the implementation of the scheme?

(put √ mark)
1. Yes---------- 2. No---------
11.2. If yes, indicate aspects of your participation: (put √ mark)
1. Land for construction-------------
2. Management being as member of WUAs-----------
3. Labor-----------
4. Maintenance of the scheme--------------
5. Election of WUAs committee members------------
6. Formulation of by-laws-------------
7. Others, specify-------------
11.3. In your opinion, who is the owner of the scheme? (put √
mark)
1. The Community------------
2. The irrigation office--------------
3. Department of agriculture---------------
4. 1 & 2----------------------
5. 1, 2 &3-----------------
Water Distribution
11.4. Who is responsible for coordination of water distribution in

the scheme?
(Put √ mark)
1. WUAs committee-----------
2. Sub-committees ----------
3. Development agents-----------
4. Others, Specify---------------------------------------------
11.5. Do you get enough water for irrigation when required? (Put
√ mark)
1. Yes--------- 2. No----------
Page Break
11.6.If no, what do you think are the reasons?(put √ mark)
1.Water scarcity--------------
2.Diversion by upstream traditional irrigators---------------
3.Seepage loss----------------
4.Illegal users in the scheme/water theft---------------------
5.I am tail-end irrigator-----------------------------------------
6.Others, specify: ------------------------------------------------
11.7. Which socio-economic groups get more water?(put √ mark)
1.Farmers with large family size------------
2.Head-end farmers---------------------------
3.Rich farmers---------------------------------
4.Others, specify------------------------------
11.8. Which group benefits more from irrigation users? (put √

mark)
1. Head end------ 2. Tail- end ------- 3. Middle end--------
11.9. Which of the following are important administrative

problems in relation with water distribution? (Put √ mark)
1.No sanction on illegal water users----------------
2.Distribution is not fair------
3.the coordination of the committee is poor----------------

4. Others, specify --------
Conflict management
11.10. Have you ever faced any conflict in irrigation water use?
(Put √ mark)
1. Yes--------- 2. No------------
11.11. If yes, what are the causes? (Put √ mark)
1. Water theft/taking water out of turn---------
2. Water scarcity because of declining supply from the source----

-----
3. Water scarcity due to increasing number of users------------------
---
4. Others, specify--------------------------------------------------------------
11.12. Again, if your answer to 11.10 is yes, how did you solve
the problem?
_______________________________________________________
_____
Operation and Maintenance
11.13. Are there any maintenance activities in the scheme (put √

mark)
1. Yes---------------- 2. No------------
Page Break
11.14. If yes, how frequent it is? Schemes? (Put √ mark)
A. Once a year----------------
B. Twice a year---------------
C. Thrice a year---------------
11.15. Are you willing to pay for operation and maintenance cost
of the Schemes? (Put √ mark)
1. Yes-------------- 2. No----------------
12. Core Food Security Module Questions and Answer
Categories
12.1 Have you ever worried whether food would run out before
you reach on next harvest?
(Put √ mark)
Often true---------- 3) Never true--------
Sometimes true--------- 4) Refused ---------
12.2. The food that you harvested just didn’t last, and you didn’t
have money to get more.
Was that often true, sometimes true, or never true for your
household in the last 12 months?
(Put √ mark)
1) Often true----- 2) Sometimes true------- 3) Never true--------
12.3. Have you relied on only a few kinds of low cost food
because you were running out of
money to buy food ? How often in the last 12 Months. Was

that often true, sometimes
true, or never true for your household? (put √ mark)
1) Often true---------- 2) Sometimes true------- 3) Never

true-----------
12.4. Could you afford to eat balanced meals?
. Was that often true, sometimes true, or never true for your
household in the last 12
months? (Put √ mark)
1) Often true------ 2) Sometimes true--------- 3) Never true----------

-
12.5. Did (you\you or other adults in your household) ever cut

the size of your meals or skip
meals because there wasn’t enough money for food? How

often in the last 12 Months.
1) Yes ---------- 2) No-------------
12.6. If yes, how often did this happen? (Put √ mark)
1. Almost every month----------- 3. Only one or two

month --------
2. Some months but not every month ------ 4. Refused -------

-----
12.7. Did you ever eat less than you felt you should because
there wasn’t enough money?
How often in the last 12 Months? (Put √ mark)

1) Yes----------- 2) No---------------
12.8. How often did (you/you or other adults in your household)

cut the size of your meals or skip meals because there
wasn’t enough money for food? How often in the last 12 Months.
(Put √ mark)
1) Only 1-2 months----------- 2) Some but not every

month------------
3) Almost every month------------------
12.9 Couldn’t you feed your children enough food because you
couldn’t afford enough food? How often in the last 12 months?
(Put √ mark)
1) Often true------------ 2) Some times true-------- 3)
Never true---------------
12.10 Were you ever hungry but didn’t eat because you couldn’t
afford enough food? How often
In the last 12 months? (Put √ mark)
1) Yes------------ 2) No------------------
12.11 Did you lose weight because you didn’t have enough
money for food? How often in the last 12 months? (Put √ mark)
1) Yes------------ 2) No------------------
12.12 Did you ever cut the size of (your child’s/any of the
children’s) meals because there wasn’t enough money for food)
How often in the last 12 Months. (Put √ mark)
1) Yes----------------- 2) No-----------------
12.13 Did (you/you or other adults in your household) ever not

eat for a whole day because there wasn’t enough money for
food? How often in the last 12 Months. (Put √ mark)
1) Yes---------------- 2) No----------------
12.14 (Was your child/were the children) ever hungry but you
just couldn’t afford more food? How often in the last 12
Months. (Put √ mark)
1) Yes-------------- 2) No------------------
Page 39: [41] Formatted Unknown 2/2/2007 3:31:00 PM

Formatted
Font: (Default) Arial, 14 pt, Italic
Formatted
Font: (Default) Arial, 14 pt
Formatted
Formatted
Formatted
Formatted
Font: 14 pt
Formatted
Font: Bold, Italic
Formatted
Formatted
English (U.S.)
Formatted
English (U.S.)
Formatted
English (U.S.)
Formatted
English (U.S.)
Formatted
English (U.S.)
Formatted
English (U.S.)
Formatted
English (U.S.)
Formatted
English (U.S.)
Formatted
English (U.S.)
Formatted
Font: 14 pt
Page 39: [41] Formatted Unknown 1/30/2007 2:10:00 AM
English (U.S.)
English (U.S.)
Formatted
Font: 14 pt, Bold
Formatted
Formatted
Formatted
Formatted
Formatted
Formatted
Formatted
Formatted
Formatted
Formatted
Font: 14 pt
Formatted
Font: 14 pt, Bold
Formatted
Font: 14 pt
Formatted
Font: 14 pt
Font: 14 pt, Bold
Formatted
Font: 14 pt
Formatted
Font: Arial, 14 pt
Formatted
Formatted
Formatted
Formatted
Font: 14 pt
Formatted
Font: 14 pt, Bold
Formatted
Font: 14 pt
Formatted
Formatted
Formatted
Formatted
Font: 14 pt
Formatted
Font: 14 pt, Bold
Formatted
Font: 14 pt
Formatted
Formatted
Font: 14 pt, Bold
Font: 14 pt, Bold
Font: 14 pt
Formatted
Formatted
Formatted
Font: 14 pt, Bold
Font: 14 pt, Bold
Formatted
Formatted
Formatted
Formatted
Formatted
Formatted
Formatted
Font: 14 pt, Bold
English (U.S.)
Formatted
Formatted
English (U.S.)
Formatted
Formatted
Formatted
English (U.S.)
Page 39: [57] Comment [Ayalneh8] Ayalneh Bogale
Give space for reply
05 Marital status required only for the respondent
One way and use one unit of measurements. Because different enumerators may use different units.
The first column may refer to crop type
In most of the questions below, food availability should be used rather than money. Because most
households lack the food and do not involve in the purchase of food

Abonesh Tesfaye Agri. Economics - Jan. 2007

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Abonesh Tesfaye Agri. Economics - Jan. 2007

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Abonesh Tesfaye Agri. Economics - Jan. 2007

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE IMPACT OF SMALL SCALE IRRIGATION ON HOUSEHOLD

FOOD SECURITYAND ASSESSMENT OF ITS MANAGEMENT

December 2006 Deleted: November

A Thesis Submitted to the Department of

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

ADLI Agricultural Development Led Industrialization

Deleted: thanks also go

Deleted: also deserves my special

Deleted: Finally I would like to thank

2.1. Definition of Terminologies 9 Deleted: 12

2.1.1. Definition of a household 9 Deleted: 12

2. 9. Empirical Evidence of Irrigation for Household Food Security 32 Deleted:

3.5. Data Analysis Techniques 38 Formatted ... [12]

4. 2.2. Dependency ratio 50 Deleted: 38

Formatted ... [20]

Formatted ... [21]

4. 2.7. Livestock holding 52 Deleted: 51

4. 2.17. Food shortage months of the households 59 Deleted: 52

Formatted ... [30]

Formatted ... [33]

Appendix Table Page Deleted:

5. Multicollinearity test for discrete variables 92

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times

Improved irrigation management leads to improved irrigation efficiency, farming practice

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times

Deleted: is intended with

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times

In this study a household is considered as a unit of people living together headed by a

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times

Formatted: Space Before: 12 pt,

Deleted: The concept of enough food is

Deleted: The most food secure

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times

Deleted: Hoddinot (2002),

Deleted: study by Hoddinot (2002)

Oromiya 500,004 67,131 Deleted: ,

Tigray 388,646 66,563 Deleted: C

2. 7.1. Definition Formatted: Line spacing: single

2. 7.2. History of irrigation development Deleted: To some

Formatted: Bullets and Numbering

Amhara 71 5,224 20,580 11 1,033 4,002 19 1,446 6,257

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times

Formatted: Font: Not Bold

Negative environmental impacts of irrigation development occur off-site as well as on site.

Formatted: Font: Italic

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times

Formatted: Space Before: 12 pt,

Deleted: Another study by Hussain et

In Ethiopia a study conducted by Woldeab (2003) identified that in Tigray irrigated

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times

surface area) is classified as Dega3 agro-climate (DESFED, 2004). Deleted:

Formatted: Font: (Default) Times

Deleted: The major types of crops

Fig. 1. Location of the study area and the irrigation schemes.

3.4. Sample Size and Sampling Technique