Responding to climate variability and change through improving agricultural water productivity | Natural Resource Management (Soil and Water Conservation)
Description of the technology or innovation
The low input agriculture widely practiced by farmers in the ECA region cannot meet the growing demand for food and cash income whilst the high risk associated with the variable weather conditions acts as a major constraint to increased uptake and utilization of production technologies that have the potential to increase productivity by several folds while maintaining or improving the resource base. Improving Agricultural Water Productivity Project sought to reverse this by increasing the availability and productivity of water in smallholder rain-fed and irrigated agriculture at both farm and catchment levels and thereby alleviating the negative impacts of variable rainfall and adapting to the expected changes in climate.
The project through which these innovative approaches were tested was implemented for three years (2011-2013) in five countries namely Kenya, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Rwanda and Madagascar. Its objectives were to: (i) Develop and promote gender responsive integrated water management options to improve water productivity and to cope with impacts of climate variability and change, (ii) Enhance capacity of stakeholders to develop and implement integrated water management options at farm and watershed scales, (iii) Pilot IWM policy options and institutional arrangements to minimize smallholder farmer’s vulnerability to climate uncertainties, and (iv) Strengthen learning alliances and nowledge exchange systems for scaling up technologies and sharing information on improved water management.
The project adopted the Integrated Watershed Management (IWM) approach. The approach links production, conservation and livelihood objectives of people with a stake in a given watershed. It provides a framework for integrating technical, economic and social nowledge in identifying constraints, and in supporting planning and decision making to achieve sustainable solut ions. The concept of IWM goes beyond traditional integration of technical interventions such as SWC, ISFM, and INRM to include production, environmental, market and poverty reduction related innovations that help diversify livelihood opportunities, link the poor stakeholders to new opportunities for income generation, and reduce market and climate-induced risks. The concept ties together the biophysical notion of a watershed as hydrological
unit for technological interventions with that of the political, social and economic institutions that determine the demand, viability and sustainability of such interventions. Hence, the community-based but watershed wide IWM interventions create synergies between targeted technologies, policies and institutions that improve productivity, resource use sustainability and market access for resource users. Using this approach, two small agricultural watersheds of 5-10 m2 area involving about 150-200
households were identified within each country and used to conduct project activities. Mwania and Kalii watersheds in Machakos and Makindu Districts, respectively, were selected for Kenya; Karama and MuseBivumu in Nyamagabe and Bugesera Districts, respectively, in Rwanda; Adulala and Ketchema in Ethiopia; Amadir and Molqi in Eritrea; and Ankazomiriotra and Avaratrambolo in Mandoto and Manjakandriana Districts, respectively, in Madagascar. Several technologies were selected, evaluated and availed to farmers to enhance productivity and income in all the participating countries. The technologies were selected jointly with farmers based on their ease of adoption, investment required and ability to make best use of increased water availability. They were evaluated jointly with the farmers using “mother-baby” trials and up-scaled through field days and farm visits. Majority of the technologies adopted were mainly for soil and water conservation (SWC) due to their perceived benefits. The benefits included decreased run
off and erosion, increased water infiltration, improved soil moisture conditions, and improved soil physical properties. High adoption rates and significant increases in crop yields were reported across the countries.
In Kenya, for instance, out of 198 farmers trained on terracing to conserve soil and water and improve productivity, 252 constructed them on their farms and realized very good maize yields. Similarly, of the 146 farmers trained on pitting to harvest run-off and grow fodder, 251 managed to dig over 20,000 pits on their farms and plant Napier grass for their livestock. The extra adopters learnt from their neighbors who attended the trainings. By embracing these and other technologies such as forecast-based farming, tiedridging, seed priming, improved agronomic practices, improved crop varieties, and micro-dosing among other technologies farmers posted good yields throughout the project period despite most seasons being bad. Maize yields ranged from 1.2 t/ha to 3.2 t/ha compared to baseline yield of less than 500 kg/ha (Figure
1). Hence, most households in the two watersheds, over 70 %, are food- secure. They were also able to harvest over 10 tonnes of fodder (Napier grass) from pitting/tumbukiza compared to “zero” at project inception (Figure 2).
Figure 1. A farmer admires his bumper maize crop in Makindu due to efficient water management, Kenya
Figure 2. Lush Napier grass crop grown using tumbiza/pitting in Machakos, Kenya
In Eritrea, adoption rates were low but encouraging. About 66 out of 450 households adopted agroforestry after training. They planted 1130 Rhamnus prinoides, 218 Psidium guajava, and 198 Papaya seedlings and were able to earn about US$ 450 each in just six months from the sale of Rhamnus leaves and vegetables. Most of them used this money to buy sheep and poultry to diversify and increase income. Additional income of US$ 480 was generated from the sale of just 360 Rhamnus seedlings from the nursery established by the project. Similarly, out of the 153 households trained on soil and water conservation measures 6 constructed tied ridges and terraces and realized very high sorghum yields after many years of crop failure. Yields ranged from 1.5 to 2t/ha compared to baseline yields of 600kg/ha.
In Madagascar, adoption of improved rice varieties increased rice yields from 2 to 4 t/ha whilst onion yields increased from 10 to 25 t/ha due to prudent management of water and other inputs. As a result, communities in Ankazomiriotra and Avaratrambolo watersheds are now 60% food-secure and are able to
earn additional income of about US$ 2500 /ha/year from the sale of onions and potatoes during off-season (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Farmers in Madagascar counting their blessings due to prudent management of water
Farmers in Rwanda were able to construct twelve 120-m3 capacity water pans and rehabilitate another 4 to harvest run-off and are now able to grow and sale tomatoes on 0.5 acre plots during off-season when their demand is very high and earn good returns.
Figure 4. Harvesting run-off to grow high-value crops in Rwanda
Finally, with support from the project and the Directorate of Fisheries in Machakos County, farmers in Mwania watershed in Kenya were able to rehabilitate an abandoned 308 m3 -capacity fish pond, harvest run-off, and stock it with fingerlings. About 113m3 of water were harvested during the 2013 short rain season alone. This will improve their income and nutri tion, and also serve as a role model for promoting seasonal fish farming in semi-arid areas.
Figure 5. Harvesting rainwater to grow fish in Machakos (Kenya)
Lessons learnt
- If properly implemented, IWM project has the potential to transform our rain-fed agriculture to provide adequate food and income
- The success or failure of the project(IWM) depends on the composition and management of the innovation platform created
- To succeed, the project must demonstrate both short- and long-term benefits
- IWM projects are long-term in nature and therefore require more time and financial resources to realize full benefits
- For successful implementation of IWM programs, the managers of the programs should be well versed with the concept and principles of watershed management and should maintain close contacts with all players
- When properly mobilized and sensitized, communities are willing to invest substantial resources, mainly labour, in resource conservation activities
- Support by government and non-governmental developmental agencies especially in making capital intensive interventions such as check dams , similar to the ones practiced in India, will enhance the success of IWM programs
Contact details
Dr Hezron Mogaka
Program Manager;
Natural Resource Management and Biodiversity
ASARECA
Email: h.mogaka@asareca.org
Mr. Kizito Kwena
Senior Research Officer (SRO)
Natural Resource Management Research Programme, Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Organisation
(KALRO) -Katumani
P. O Box 340-90100
Machakos – Kenya
Email: Kizito.kwena@kari.org and wenakizito@yahoo.com
Tel: +254726370808
Asmerom Kidane Tecleghiorghis
Director of Natural Resources Management Research Institution
National Agricultural Research Institute
Ministry of Agriculture
P.O.Box 4627
Asmara - Eritrea
E-mail: asmeromk@yahoo.co.uk
Tel: +291-1-08600046 or 291-1-115026
Dr. Serge LalaRakotoson
Joint Manager, Artelia Madagascar
P.O. Box 519
Antananarivo – Madagascar
Email: serge.lalarakotoson@arteliagroup.com and serge.lalarakotoson@gmail.com
Tel: +261-202222557 and +261-320267082
Mr. Razakamiaramanana
Regional Research Station Head
FOFIFA /RRS Tsivatrinikamo
P.O. Box 230
Antsirabe – Madagascar
Email: fofifa-abe@moov.mg and rzk5320@yahoo.fr
Tel: +261320439184, +261341495012
Dr Admassu Habtamu
Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research
Melekassa Station
Email: habtamu.admassu@gmail.com