Assessment of the efficiency of water

management A comparative analysis of

the potentials and challenges in two areas in

Egypt

ABY

First; Introduction 1- background irrigation challenges and

options 2- linkage of irrigation improvement and

livelihood. 3--Methodology 4-- Research areas 5-Data collection 6- Results and discussion

Contents

“The challenges facing the water sector in Egypt are enormous and require the mobilization of all resources and the management of these resources in an integrated manner.

This is especially true as the amount of available water resources is fixed, meanwhile water demands continue to grow in the years ahead due to population growth, increased food demand, and expansion and modernization of the industrial base, and improved standards of living..” IWM1

Introduction:

Challenges and responses • At present, there are significant challenges to water resources

development and use in Egypt.• Beginning with a single source of water , The Nile –

uncertainties in climate, developments upstream, and population growths have characterized efforts to anticipate potential future water constraints.

• Municipal and industrial water use is being readily met and agricultural water use yields high levels of production with about 200% cropping intensity.

• However, the costs for water services for the next 15 years will be more than triple the current expenditures. Future public sector allocation for such high costs presents a heavy and unsustainable burden for the government budget.

• Moreover, water quality in a closed system is deteriorating because of pollutants being retained in as part of the recycling and reuse of drainage water, along with poor treatment and regulation of urban and rural sanitation. Stakeholders at the local level are organizing water users associations and water boards to confront the issue and have their voices heard on irrigation and rural sanitation issues.

• Given the current widespread planning and implementation of irrigation management programs, there is an urgent need to document experiences and share information about approaches used and results achieved in different areas of Egypt.

• Such information should include indications of irrigation performance before and after management transfer.

• Important performance criteria include productivity, financial and physical sustainability, equity, management efficiency, and environmental compatibility.

In addressing the main issues and the way forward, The Minister of Water Resources and Irrigation has stated in 2003 that: ―…the challenges facing the water sector in Egypt are enormous and require the mobilization of all resources and the management of these resources in an integrated manner. This is especially true as the amount of available water resources is fixed; meanwhile water demands continue to grow in the years ahead due to population growth, increased food demand, and expansion and grow in the years ahead due to population growth, increased food demand, and expansion and modernization of the industrial base, and improved standards of living.

• The term irrigation management means the contraction of the government’s role in irrigation management and the corresponding expansion of the role of water users in irrigation management.

• Management turnover does not necessarily mean the total withdrawal of government from all activities. It can be selective, in accordance with local management contexts.

• Self management mean the implementing or direct supervising of operation, maintenance and system improvement functions by an institution whose jurisdiction and membership are based on local “ hydro-management” boundaries. (douglas L. Vermillion).1995

Agricultural sector:• Agriculture in Egypt is restricted to the fertile lands of the

narrow Nile valley from Aswan to Cairo and the flat Nile Delta north of Cairo (5.5% of total country area).

• Egypt receives about 97% of its fresh water from the Nile, originating outside its international borders; at the Ethiopian plateau and the equatorial plateau. This is considered a major challenge for Egyptian water policy and decision makers

• In 2000, agriculture (crops and livestock) accounted for 20% Egypt’s GDP and about 50% of the Egyptian population relies on it for income generation and job opportunity creation (CAPMAS, 2000).

• Water available for irrigation varies due to changes in freshwater availability and to competition among water users. Crop prices and markets also fluctuate..

Source: CEDARE, 2011

This study is aimed at assessing the impacts of the irrigation management transfer on crop water requirements, crop yields, and crop water productivity under changing irrigation and cultural practices in the north Nile Delta.A branch Canals (improved and unimproved) were selected on the Bahr El Nour command area, Kafr El-Sheikh, Egypt, sample tertiary units were selected, six in each branch Canal, and distributed at head, middle and tail locations and were selected purposively to reflect different conditions.Three main summer crops (rice, Maize, cotton) and three main winter crops (wheat, sugar cane and local clover {Berseem}) were studied on each Mesqa.

The Nile River supplies about 97 % of the annual renewable water resources in Egypt. Out of the Nile’s average natural flow of 84.0 km3/y reaching Aswan, a share of 55.5 BCM/yr is allocated for Egypt according to the Nile Water Agreement (1959). The Agreement also allocates a share of 18.5 BCM/yr to Sudan; while about 10 BCM/yr is lost in evaporation from the high dam reservoir (Lake Nasser). Thus the total renewable water resources of Egypt are estimated at 56.8 BCM/yr. (Some references include an additional 1.0 BCM/yr of transboundary groundwater flow [FAO 1998]). The latter amount of supply is constant and incremental possibilities are not foreseen for the short term.

The availability of fresh water resources is jointly governed by hydro-climatologically features as well as social, economical and political factors. Population densities and geographic distributions along with existing cropping patterns, uniformity in irrigation coverage , and farmer‘s behavior are major social factors. Economic factors indicate that about ten years ago (2001) agriculture has been contributing to 83% of the national water demands while providing 16% of the GDP and employing near 50% of the labor force in rural Egypt. Throughout ten years of prevailing water scarcity, these figures have been declining due to increased demand of other sectors with higher net added value of water. Political factors display additional pressures on the government to maintain its irrigation water subsidies to control further rural to urban migrations, Gharib (2004).

The study was conducted in Kafr El-Sheikh governorate in the domain areas of Bahr El-Nour and Ebshan branch canals.

Three groups of mesqas were randomly selected from each branch canal taking into account the different locations of mesqas on the branch canals (Up-stream/Mid-stream/Down-stream).

Through a multistage sampling technique, one third of the total number of the mesqas of Bahr El Nour branch canal was selected a)Upstream: 8 out of 26 mesqas,

b) Midstream: 6 out of 17 mesqas, c) Downstream: 8 out of 24 mesqas. Bahr El Nours’ mesqas were purposively selected to

represent the current situation and the real circumstances surrounding the water users in this area.

Methodology

Map of Bahr ElNour

Bahr-Elnour sample

Upper stream Middle stream lower stream

population Sample N=8

 

population =17 MesqasSample N=6

 

population =24 MesqasSample N=8

 

Mesqas population

Sample Mesqas population

Sample Mesqas population

Sample

Bour1 26 14 Elrabwa 26 15 Matabek 20 11

1 Mobasher 13 9 Sheik Hassan

20 11 elzont 13 7

Mobasher2 12 7 Elmashabek

26 14 1 bagar 20 11

Mobasher3 16 9 Sabola 20 12 Dakush1 11 6

Mobasher4 12 7 Mobasher15

14 7 Dakush2 15 8

Mobasher18 13 7 Mobasher24

14 8 17Mobasher 10 5

Mobasher19 18 10       Mobasher28 11 6

Mobasher20 34 17       Mobasher29 9 5

االجمالى   80     67     59

االجمالى 206

Abshan sample

أول وسط آخر

مساقى( 9شاملة ) مساقى( 4شاملة ) مساقى( 3شاملة )

عدد

المبحوثي

ن

( 4عينة )عدد

المبح

وثين

(2عينة )عدد

المبحوثي

ن

(1عينة )

األساسى االحتياطى

 األساس

ى

االحتياط

ى  

28المحاطب الجزارين 28

المركبي

ة

بدوى أبو

 29

29 على

سليمان

العربى

الجزار29

ع مختار

القوس  

28 عوض عرفة عزبة            

29 سعد أبو السيد ابو            

114     57     29    

Approximately one half of the total number of the mesqas of Ibshan branch canal was selected to represent different locations as follows: a) Upstream: 4 out of 9 mesqas, b) Midstream: 2 out of 4 in mesqas, c): Downstream: 1 out of 3 mesqas.

Selection of the random sample in the improved areas was based on the data available to the water advisory service while it was based on informants related to the agricultural cooperatives in the unimproved area.

Data were collected through personal interviews using one questionnaire that had two versions (one for the farmers in the improved mesqas and one for unimproved mesqas). Two hundred farmers were selected in each domain area. The total of sample, thus, reached 400. Data were gathered during the period from August to September 2012.

Results and conclusions

Summary of Findings:The results showed thatGood on-farm water management in terms of quantity, timing and reliability (i) significant reductions in irrigation costs including mesqa O&M costs and irrigation labor time requirements, less irrigation time at field.(ii) some improvements in the equity of water distribution between mesqa heads and tails, (iii) prevention of tail-end water losses from low-level mesqas to drains, and Efficient land use, where old mesqa canal was located, filled up and used as field path, makingtransportation of materials and products easier.

The main reported perceived problems with improved mesqas were (i) some difficulties with pumps maintenance including technicalexpertise and availability of spare parts,(ii) insufficient pump discharge capacities. Water shortages and short water availability periods were still common problems facing farmers in both unimproved and improved areas attributable to delays in introduction of CF operations, but these problems seemed to be less severe in the improved areas. There was also a general downward trend in the use of low-quality drainage water in tail-end areas.

The hypothesis is: as farmers have a vested interest in the irrigation service, involving them directly in irrigation management would lead to improvement in the quality of the irrigation service and water supply. Changes in the quality of irrigation service is assessed in terms of farmer perception about the quality of irrigation service before and after transfer.Table ( ) displays the quantity of irrigation water used in selected crop in the number of irrigations and average of irrigation hours on each time in both winter and summer seasons.The table displays that there is no change in the irrigation numbers of each crops after and before irrigation transfer and management, while there is significant differences in average irrigation hours where the farmers spend less hours in irrigating their cops in winter and summer seasons. Reduction of irrigation time ranged from 50 to 60 % that of before IIP.

Adequacy of water supply after & before irrigation management

Mean T value Sig

Winter cropsWheat:No of irrigation in the season after &beforeAverage irrigation hours each time after &before Sugar beet:No of irrigation in the season after &beforeAverage irrigation hours each time after &beforeBarseem baladiNo of irrigation in the season after &beforeAverage irrigation hours each time after &beforeSummer CropsRiceNo of irrigation in the season after &before Average irrigation hours each time after &beforeMaizeNo of irrigation in the season after &before Average irrigation hours each time after &beforeCotton lintNo of irrigation in the season after &before Average irrigation hours each time after &before 

  .6531.162 .400.4900 .1407.5752  2.5801.285  .085  .032 

  1.3972.970 .5281.968 1.4075.019  4.2945.185  1.807  1.351 

  .164.003** .286.001** .161.000***  .000***.000 ***  .052*  .178

Changes in water quantity after and before irrigation transfer of some selected crops

Adequacy of water supply after & before irrigation management

Mean T value Sig

Winter cropsWheat:No of irrigation in the season after &beforeAverage irrigation hours each time after &before Sugar beet:No of irrigation in the season after &beforeAverage irrigation hours each time after &beforeBarseem baladiNo of irrigation in the season after &beforeAverage irrigation hours each time after &beforeSummer CropsRiceNo of irrigation in the season after &before Average irrigation hours each time after &beforeMaizeNo of irrigation in the season after &before Average irrigation hours each time after &beforeCotton lintNo of irrigation in the season after &before Average irrigation hours each time after &before 

  .6531.162 .400.4900 .1407.5752  2.5801.285  .085  .032 

  1.3972.970 .5281.968 1.4075.019  4.2945.185  1.807  1.351 

  .164.003** .286.001** .161.000***  .000***.000 ***  .052*  .178

Table ( ) Changes in water quantity after and before irrigation transfer of

some selected crops: :

Meandifferences

T value

sig

• Wheat total cultivated area /kerate

• Wheat crop yield/unit • Sugar beet total cultivated

area /kerate• Sugar beet crop yield/unit• Barseem baladi total cultivated

area/kerate• Rice No of cultivated area

8.2119

4.59185.838

5.3393.66319.838

3.171

2.6442.446

2.5662.4994.897

.002

.009

.015

.011

.013

.000

Differences in crop yield &cultivated area between the improved and unimproved Mesqass

Impact on respondent’s livelihood: Yearly Expenditure in each Scale

The differences between four classes (Kerat) Scale 1 = under 27.8 K, Scale 2 = 27.8 - 50 K Scale 3 = 50 - 80 K, Scale 4 = over 80 K “Livelihood” = Food, Clothes, Education, Resid.

rent, Electricity, Water and Transportation “Health” = Medical, “Social” = Social events and Recreational activ.

“Livelihood Expenses” are more than 70% in each Scale and Area < Table 2, 3

“Total Expenses” are increasing along to Scale in both Areas < Table 2, 3

The difference of “Total Expenses” in two Areas is not statistically significant. (at 10% level) < Table 4

Area 1 Livelihood Health Social others Total No. of farmers

Scale4 26,162.5 4,029.6 1,993.0 2,802.1 34,987.2 (27)

(74.8) (11.5) (5.7) (8.0) (100.0)

Scale3 22,441.5 2,414.1 1,784.9 5,133.0 31,773.4 (37)

(70.6) (7.6) (5.6) (16.2) (100.0)

Scale2 17,580.9 2,628.3 1,949.4 2,041.4 24,200.0 (99)

(72.6) (10.9) (8.1) (8.4) (100.0)

Scale1 14,017.7 1,750.7 1,198.7 2,344.8 19,311.9 (15)

(72.6) (9.1) (6.2) (12.1) (100.0)

All Scale 19,592.7 2,722.4 1,858.6 2,825.0 26,998.6 (178)

(72.6) (10.1) (6.9) (10.5) (100.0)

Area 1 Livelihood Health Social others Total No. of farmers

Scale4 26,162.5 4,029.6 1,993.0 2,802.1 34,987.2 (27)

(74.8) (11.5) (5.7) (8.0) (100.0)

Scale3 22,441.5 2,414.1 1,784.9 5,133.0 31,773.4 (37)

(70.6) (7.6) (5.6) (16.2) (100.0)

Scale2 17,580.9 2,628.3 1,949.4 2,041.4 24,200.0 (99)

(72.6) (10.9) (8.1) (8.4) (100.0)

Scale1 14,017.7 1,750.7 1,198.7 2,344.8 19,311.9 (15)

(72.6) (9.1) (6.2) (12.1) (100.0)

All Scale 19,592.7 2,722.4 1,858.6 2,825.0 26,998.6 (178)

(72.6) (10.1) (6.9) (10.5) (100.0)

Area 2 Livelihood Health Social others Total No. of farmers

Scale4 30,924.3 3,161.3 3,345.5 3,279.0 40,710.0 (31)

(76.0) (7.8) (8.2) (8.1) (100.0)

Scale3 19,057.6 3,359.0 2,831.0 1,713.8 26,961.4 (42)

(70.7) (12.5) (10.5) (6.4) (100.0)

Scale2 20,478.7 2,137.8 2,966.6 2,055.0 27,638.1 (119)

(74.1) (7.7) (10.7) (7.4) (100.0)

Scale1 15,320.8 3,022.5 1,487.5 2,280.0 22,110.8 (8)

(69.3) (13.7) (6.7) (10.3) (100.0)

All Scale 21,593.0 2,588.3 2,937.7 2,182.0 29,301.1 (200)

(73.7) (8.8) (10.0) (7.4) (100.0)

t-test

Total No. of farmers Total No. of farmers p-value

Scale4 34,987.2 (27) 40,710.0 (31) - -

(100.0) (100.0) - -

Scale3 31,773.4 (37) 26,961.4 (42) - -

(100.0) (100.0) - -

Scale2 24,200.0 (99) 27,638.1 (119) - -

(100.0) (100.0) - -

Scale1 19,311.9 (15) 22,110.8 (8) - -

(100.0) (100.0) - -

All Scale 26,998.6 (178) 29,301.1 (200) 0.352 N.S.

(100.0) (100.0) - -

Area 1 Area 2

Game 1: The payoffs and corresponding risk classification

Game 2: The choice experiment “Selecting new rice variety with different Properties” < still under discussion

Tentative discussion of Game 1 < Table 5, 6

Table i5 Game 1 The payoffs and corresponding risk classification

= choosing a trader in response to different conditions of prices =

“Now if you have one feddan and you can plant it with a new variety of rice that the research station has produced which gives the same productivity but in higher quality as the local variety that is required specifically for export to particular markets, and has the same cost of production of the local variety.”

You have five different dealers each of them will suggest a minimum and maximum price and the chances that you get any of the two limits are equal.

Trader Low Payoff High Payoff Risk aversion class

A 7,500 LE 7,500 LE Extreme

B 6,000 LE 18,000 LE Severe

C 4,500 LE 22,500 LE Moderate

D 3,000 LE 24,000 LE Inefficient

E 0 LE 45,000 LE Neutral to Negative

Trader Risk aversion class

A Extreme 110.0 (55.0) 125.0 (62.5)

B Severe 24.0 (12.0) 29.0 (14.5)

C Moderate 11.0 (5.5) 9.0 (4.5)

C Inefficient 2.0 (1.0) 3.0 (1.5)

D Neutral to Negative 49.0 (24.5) 28.0 (14.0)

Not join the Game 4.0 (2.0) 6.0 (3.0)

Area 1 Area 2

Farmers in Area 2 tend to be more risk averse than in Area 1 under the condition of IIP