ANALYSIS OF ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY OF

IRRIGATION WATER-USE IN MWEA IRRIGATION

SCHEME, KIRINYAGA DISTRICT, KENYA

Owilla Benedict Peter Obiero

 iii

I56/10460/2006
 iv

A thesis submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the

Award of the Degree of Master of Science in Integrated Watershed
Management in the School of Pure and Applied Sciences, Kenyatta
University

MARCH 2010
 ii

DECLARATION

This thesis is my original work and has not been presented for a degree in any

university.

SignatureDate

Owilla Benedict Peter Obiero

Department of Geography
Kenyatta University

This thesis has been submitted with our approval as University Supervisors.

Dr. George L. Makokha

Department of Geography
Kenyatta University

SignatureDate

Prof. Chris A. Shisanya

Department of Geography
Kenyatta University

SignatureDate
 iii

DEDICATION

To the millions of irrigators, whose water-inefficient activities This thesis seeks to

improve. May policy-makers complement their diligent work with appropriate

technical and legal guidelines to improve the efficiency of, and sustain irrigation

development.

To my beloved wife Judith, daughter Annette, and sons Eugene and Ainsley, who

endured the pains of my inadequate attention while I pursued the study. May they

live long to reap the benefits that will accrue from the study.
 iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study benefited from valuable inputs by several institutions and individuals, to

whom I remain greatly indebted. Due to limited space, only a few are mentioned

here.

The academic staff members in the Geography Department of Kenyatta University

deserve exceptional recognition for their valuable contributions that improved the

quality of the study. My supervisors, Dr. G. L. Makokha and Prof. C. A. Shisanya

were instrumental in their critique, guidance and encouragement which helped to

maintain the focus of the study. The thesis owes its quality of content and relevance

to their wisdom and diligence. Dr. J. Obandos regular advice during the coursework

helped polish the original manuscript. Mr. A. D. Bojana merits special gratitude for

editing the final work.

Further, Mr. J. O. Okolla, Ms B. Makato and Mr. S. Ebole of the Geography

Department of Kenyatta University assisted with the geographical skills and access

to reference materials. The staff members of the Ministries of Water and Irrigation,

Agriculture, Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, and National Irrigation Board

generously provided useful information.

Special thanks go to the Mwea Irrigation Scheme farmers for their cooperation in

providing the necessary data during the study. Additional credit goes to the Nile

Basin Initiative for their partial sponsorship of the study. I, however, take full

responsibility for any errors and/or omissions in the Thesis.

 v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION..................................................................................................... ii
DEDICATION ....................................................................................................... iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .....................................................................................iv
LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................ viii
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................ix
LIST OF PLATES ....................................................................................................x
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................xi
ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................... xiii
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................1
1.1 Background to the Study ....................................................................................1
1.2 Statement of the Problem ...................................................................................4
1.3 Research Questions............................................................................................4
1.4 Research Hypotheses .........................................................................................5
1.5 Objective of the Study........................................................................................5
1.5.1 General Objective ...........................................................................................5
1.5.2 Specific Objectives .........................................................................................5
1.6 Justification and Significance of the Study .........................................................6
1.6.1 Justification of the Study.................................................................................6
1.6.2 Significance of the Study ................................................................................8
1.7 Scope and Limitation of the Study .....................................................................8
1.7.1 Scope of the Study ..........................................................................................8
1.7.2 Limitations of the Study..................................................................................9
1.8 The Study Area ................................................................................................10
LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................15
2.1 Introduction .....................................................................................................15
2.2 Importance of Rice Farming in Kenyas Economy ...........................................15
2.2.1 Agricultural Productivity and Kenyas Economic Development ....................15
2.2.2 Kenyas Agricultural Productivity and Expansion of Rice Cultivation...........17
2.2.3 Irrigation Water-Use and Rice Cultivation ....................................................20
2.3 Role of Water-Use Efficiency on Sustainable Irrigation ...................................22
2.3.1 Water Scarcity Trends and Sustainable Irrigation ..........................................22
2.3.2 Kenyas Irrigation Development ...................................................................23
2.3.3 The Need for Resource-Use Efficiency .........................................................25
2.4 Types and Measures of Efficiency....................................................................27
2.4.1 Types of Efficiency.......................................................................................27
2.4.2 Efficiency Measurement Concepts ................................................................29
2.5 Theoretical Background to Water-Use Efficiency ............................................32
2.6 Definition of Water-Use Efficiency Terms .......................................................33
2.7 Empirical Studies on Resource-Use Efficiency.................................................33
2.8 Gaps Identified in the Literature.......................................................................39
2.9 Technical and Socio-economic Factors of Water-Use Efficiency......................40
2.9.1 Quantity of Irrigation ....................................................................................40
2.9.2 Labour ..........................................................................................................41
 vi

2.9.3 Land Size......................................................................................................42

2.9.4 Working Capital............................................................................................42
2.9.5 Size of Household .........................................................................................43
2.9.6 Age of the Farmer .........................................................................................44
2.9.7 Gender of the Farmer ....................................................................................44
2.9.8 Farmers Level of Education .........................................................................45
2.9.9 Non-Farm Income.........................................................................................46
2.9.10 Farmers Irrigation Experience....................................................................47
2.9.11 Farm Position along the Canal.....................................................................47
2.9.12 Duration of Land Preparation ......................................................................48
2.9.13 Irrigation Water Conflicts............................................................................49
DATA AND RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .......................................................50
3.1 Introduction .....................................................................................................50
3.2 Sampling..........................................................................................................50
3.3 Data Collection ................................................................................................54
3.4 Definition of the Variables ...............................................................................57
3.4.1 Dependent Variables .....................................................................................57
3.4.2 Independent Variables...................................................................................58
3.5 Data Analysis...................................................................................................59
3.5.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................59
3.5.2 Response of Rice Yields to the Quantity of Irrigation Water Use...................61
3.5.3 Determination of Economic Efficiency of Irrigation Water Use.....................65
3.5.4 Examination of Factors that Determine Scheme Water-Use Efficiency..........70
3.6 Chapter Summary ............................................................................................74
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .............................................................................76
4.1 Introduction .....................................................................................................76
4.2 Quantity of Water as a Rice Production Factor.................................................76
4.2.1 Model Specification ......................................................................................77
4.2.2 Model Evaluation..........................................................................................79
4.2.3 Discussion.....................................................................................................80
4.3 Economic Efficiency of Irrigated Rice Production ...........................................82
4.3.1 Irrigation Water Use......................................................................................82
4.3.2 Economic Efficiency Analysis ......................................................................85
4.3.3 Discussion.....................................................................................................87
4.4 Factors that Determine Economic Efficiency of Irrigated Rice Production .......90
4.4.1 Summary of Socio-Economic Characteristics................................................90
4.4 2 Analysis of the Factors that Determine Water-use Efficiency ........................93
4.4.3 Discussion.....................................................................................................95
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................. 104
5.1 Conclusions ...................................................................................................104
5.2 Recommendations.......................................................................................... 105
5.3 Suggestions for Further Studies......................................................................109
REFERENCES.....................................................................................................111
APPENDICES......................................................................................................126
I: Planned Smallholder and Government-Managed Irrigation Schemes ................ 126
II: Efficiencies Related to Irrigation Water-Use ................................................... 127
III: Data Collection: Sample Size per WMU ........................................................ 128
 vii

IV: Data Collection Questionnaire .......................................................................129

V: SPSS Variable View Sheet..............................................................................133
 viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

Table 2.1: Global productivity trends for maize, rice and wheat (1966-2006)......... 18
Table 2.2: World trends and projections in population and sectoral water-use ........ 23
Table 2.3: Kenyas Irrigation Potential by Basins .................................................. 24
Table 2.4: Profiles of Kenyas major drainage basins ............................................. 25
Table 3.1: Variables for data collection.................................................................. 57
Table 3.2: Data analysis......................................................................................... 61
Table 4.1: Summary of statistics for the regression model...................................... 77
Table 4.2: Summary of coefficients for the regression model ................................. 77
Table 4.3: Summary report of irrigation water use in the Scheme........................... 83
Table 4.4: Summary of water-use efficiencies for Mwea Scheme........................... 85
Table 4.5: Overall irrigation efficiencies of some irrigation systems ...................... 89
Table 4.6: Determinants of technical water-use efficiency in Mwea Scheme.......... 94
 ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

Figure 1.2: Schematic diagram of the water abstraction and conveyance system .... 13
Figure 2.1: Kenyas agricultural and GDP growth rate trends (1990-2000) ............ 16
Figure 2.2: Global yield trends for maize, rice and wheat (1966-2006)................... 18
Figure 3.1: Location and spatial distribution of survey sites ................................... 56
Figure 4.1: Technical, allocative and cost efficiencies of Scheme water-use........... 86
Figure 4.2: Discharge Trends in the Upper Tana River Basin in m3 (1978-2000) . 102
 x

LIST OF PLATES

Plate Page

Plate 3.2: Use of labour in weeding of rice in Mwea Scheme ................................. 43

Plate 3.1: Data collection during field visit............................................................. 55
Plate 3.3: Quantifying irrigation water-use in the Scheme using a flow rate gauge . 65
Plate 3.4: Quantifying the irrigated rice output using standard-weight bags............ 65
Plate 4.1: A Scheme farmer operating irrigation water control gate under PIM ...... 90
Plate 4.3 Use of water in land preparation.............................................................. 99
Plate 4.4: Fields kept flooded between land preparation and transplanting ........... 100
 xi

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers

ASIP Agricultural Sector Investment Program

CRS Constant Returns to Scale

DEA Data Envelopment Analysis

DMU Decision Making Unit

ERSWEC Economic Recovery Strategy for Wealth and Employment

Creation

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

GAMS General Algebraic Modeling System

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GPS Global Positioning System

ICID International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage

IMF International Monetary Fund

IPTRID International Programme for Technology and Research in

Irrigation and Drainage

IWMI International Water Management Institute

IWUA Irrigation Water Users Association

KenGen Kenya Electricity Generating Company Limited

KESREF Kenya Sugar Research Foundation

MDGs Millennium Development Goals of the United Nations

NEMA National Environmental Management Authority

NEPAD New Partnership for Africas Development

NIB National Irrigation Board

 xii

OLS Ordinary Least Squares

PIM Participatory Irrigation Management

PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper

SAEFL Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscape

SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences

SRA Strategy for Revitalizing Agriculture

SSA Sub-Saharan Africa

SWIM System-Wide Initiative on Water Management

TIAPD Tegemeo Institute of Agricultural Policy and Development

UN United Nations

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

US United States of America

VRS Variable Returns to Scale

WMU Water Management Unit

WRMA Water Resources Management Authority

WRI World Resources Institute

WSSD World Summit on Sustainable Development

 xiii

ABSTRACT

Given the increasing freshwater scarcity, the performance of irrigation is critical in

increasing and sustaining agricultural productivity in the water-scarce and largely
arid and semi-arid Kenya. Irrigation currently accounts for most of the water
withdrawals in the country, and the required improvement in the performance of
irrigation is hampered by inadequate benchmarks upon which to base effective
planning. This study was conducted between September and October 2008 to
analyze the economic efficiency of irrigation water-use in Mwea Irrigation Scheme
in the Upper Tana River Basin in Kirinyaga District, Kenya. The objectives of the
study were to determine response of rice yields to the quantity of irrigation water
used in Mwea Irrigation Scheme, the economic water-use efficiency, and the main
factors explaining the efficiency. This required data on quantities of water
withdrawn for irrigation, irrigated land area, working capital, labour and rice output,
as well as other technical and socio-economic features of the irrigators.
Questionnaires and field observations were used to collect secondary data on these
variables from a sample of 121 out of the 4,189 rice farms. Descriptive statistics,
regression and correlation tools were used for data analysis. The results were
presented in form of tables, plates and graphs, from which discussions, conclusions,
and recommendations were made. The study revealed that the quantity of irrigation
water as was used had positive but insignificant effect on rice output, probably
implying over-use of water. Technical, allocative, and overall economic (cost)
water-use efficiencies in the Scheme were 69%, 91%, and 63% respectively.
Further, technical efficiency was explained mainly by the actual duration of land
preparation, water conflicts, drain water re-use, and availability of water in the canal.
It is recommended that technical and institutional changes be made in order to
improve technical efficiency of water use in the Scheme. Specifically, these include
dry land preparation, shortening of land preparation period, cultivation of more
water-efficient rice varieties, non-flood weed control, and construction of large-scale
water storage infrastructure. Other recommendations are canal lining, installation of
water control structures, drain water re-use, capacity-building of IWUAs, and
integrated approaches to water management in the Thiba and Nyamindi river basins.
This study contributes to effective and efficient decision-making on irrigation
planning and management in Mwea Scheme. It will also facilitate the development
and implementation of the National Irrigation Policy that is currently being
formulated. In addition, it is expected to generate more interest in irrigation research
in Kenya to help achieve the national macroeconomic development objectives of
poverty alleviation, food security, employment creation, and industrialization.
 1

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the Study

The world faces challenges of relentless environmental degradation, growing

population pressure, expanding need for food and fibre, and increasing scarcity of

freshwater resources. Water resources are getting increasingly scarce due to the

impacts of the emerging trends in climate, population, technology, and socio-

economics, with one-third of the global population facing water scarcity (Clarke &

King, 2004; Rockstrom, 2003; Sheikh, 1995).

The dwindling water resource availability is a serious challenge to the

sustainability of agricultural-based economies in Sub-Saharan Africa like Kenya

where there is great need for increasing the agricultural yields, environmental

protection, and poverty alleviation. With the rainfall getting increasingly erratic

and unreliable in the region, per capita food output has experienced a decline in

recent years with consequent intensification of hunger (FAO, 2008; Sen, 1998;

World Bank, 1981). It is in this context that the New Partnership for Africas

Development (NEPAD) has called for an additional US$37 billion investment in

agriculture by 2015, while the Commission for Africa has advocated for doubling

of the area of arable land under irrigation by 2015 in order to offset the deficit in

agricultural output. In addition, the World Water Development Report proposes

substantial increases in investment in rural areas where water management plays a

central role in raising the productivity of agriculture (McCartney et al., 2007).

 2

It is documented that the of Kenyas predominantly rain-fed agricultural sector has

recently declined in performance (Oduol, 2006). Further, Jaetzold et al. (2007)

describe the sector as highly vulnerable. The limited soil fertility, erratic rainfall,

frequent droughts, ineffective land-use policies, declining arable land and

increasing land fragmentation due to population growth have reduced the

performance of the sector. The adverse economic impacts of the fluctuating and

often poor performance of agriculture relative to sustained population growth in

Kenya include food insecurity, poverty, and unemployment. Indeed, the low

agricultural productivity due to the adverse environmental, social, and economic

challenges that plague Kenya in the current famine cannot be over-emphasized. It

is estimated that ten million people in the country face starvation due to the current

food crisis occasioned by poor rains (Opiyo, 2009), among other factors.

In recognition of the foregoing facts, several national macro-economic strategies

have been developed that aim at revitalizing agriculture and the national economy

in Kenya. These strategies include the National Economic Development Plan 2002-

2008, Vision 2030, Poverty Reduction Strategy, the Strategy for Revitalizing

Agriculture, as well as Economic Recovery Strategy for Employment and Wealth

Creation (Republic of Kenya, 2007a; 2004; 2003; 2002; 2001a; 2001b). All these

policies identify irrigation as a priority option for achieving their respective

objectives. The potential of irrigation in increasing agricultural productivity in

Kenya is evident. It has been reported that irrigation alone accounted for 18% of

the total value of Kenyas agricultural produce from only 1.5% of the total land
 3

under agricultural production in 2003. This gave a direct contribution of 3% to the

GDP (NIB, 2008).

Although irrigation is seen as a solution to the performance of the countrys

agricultural sector, it is however faced with a declining trend of water availability.

In addition to having variable spatial and temporal availability of water resources,

Kenya is a water-deficit country (Clark & King, 2004). With the national

population estimated at 37 million (Population Council, 2009) and an internal

renewable water endowment of 22 billion cubic metres, the country has water

resource availability of only 595m3 per capita. This is well below the recommended

global annual water poverty line of 1000m3 per capita (World Bank, 2007; Institute

of Economic Affairs, 2006; Clark & King, 2004). In this regard, the country has an

annual water poverty or deficit of 405m3 per capita. The deficit is increasing

further, with the declining per capita storage of surface water (WRMA, 2006). In

fact, Kenyas per capita availability of the finite resource is projected to fall further

to 250m3 by the year 2025, similar to the anticipated trends in the Sub-Saharan

Africa (NEMA, 2003, WRI, 2003).

These challenges call for a concerted effort to conserve water by enhancing its

efficient utilization, improving the productivity of crops with respect to land and

water resources, as well as investing in appropriate irrigation technology. This

study analyzes economic efficiency of irrigation water-use in Mwea Scheme,

which is Kenyas largest public-funded irrigation project. The established

efficiency will form a benchmark to facilitate effective planning for improved

irrigation water management for the expansion and sustainability of the project.
 4

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Kenya is water-scarce with diminishing availability of usable water, and the country

plans to expand irrigation that already dominates national water use (Clarke & King,

2004; Republic of Kenya, 2007a, 1992). Yet, irrigation expansion is likely to

intensify water scarcity if the equally expanding non-agricultural sectors are to get

their equitable share of the limited resource. This is expected to intensify conflicts

within as well as among the socio-economic sectors. Already the sustained irrigation

expansion in Mwea Scheme and the great fluctuation in the discharges of Nyamindi

and Thiba Rivers, whose water is used for irrigation, have rendered Scheme water

management difficult (Kamundia, 2008). So far, the Scheme lacks appropriate

quantitative and quantitative indicators to gauge water-use efficiency despite its

national importance as a model for public irrigation projects. Since efficiency is an

important factor of sustainability, the improved productivity of the current and future

irrigation activities lies in the efficient utilization of the available water. This requires

the determination of the value-addition of the current irrigation water-use to the crop

yields, the level of water-use efficiency, and the factors that explain this efficiency in

the Scheme.

1.3 Research Questions

(i) What is the response of rice yields to the quantity of irrigation water used

in Mwea Irrigation Scheme?

(ii) Is the use of irrigation water use in Mwea Scheme economically efficient?
 5

(iii) Which factors explain the Scheme economic irrigation water-use

efficiency?

1.4 Research Hypotheses

The hypotheses that formed the basis of the study were as follows:

(i) There is no significant response of rice yields to the quantity of irrigation

water used in Mwea Irrigation Scheme

(ii) Irrigation water use in Mwea Scheme is not economically efficient

(iii) There is no significant variation among the factors that determine the

economic water-use efficiency in Mwea Irrigation Scheme

1.5 Objective of the Study

1.5.1 General Objective

The overall objective of the study was to analyze the economic efficiency of

irrigation water-use in Mwea Irrigation Scheme.

1.5.2 Specific Objectives

The specific objectives guiding this study were:

(i) To determine the response of rice yields to the quantity of irrigation water

used in Mwea Irrigation Scheme

(ii) To determine the economic efficiency of irrigation water-use in Mwea

Irrigation Scheme
 6

(iii) To examine the factors determining economic irrigation water-use efficiency

of Mwea Irrigation Scheme

1.6 Justification and Significance of the Study

1.6.1 Justification of the Study

The study was prompted by a number of reasons. First, the evident threat of water

scarcity to sustainable development at international, regional, and national levels has

led to campaigns for integrated approach to water resources management (Hooper,

2003; SAEFL, 2002). These campaigns emphasize water-use efficiency. Equally, the

emphasis laid on irrigation expansion by the macro-economic strategies further justify

the need to improve the efficiency of irrigation projects and hence the study. These

include the poverty alleviation, economic recovery and wealth and employment

creation, as well as industrial transformation strategies.

Second, irrigation expansion is inevitable. Only 19.6% of the Kenyas irrigation

potential has been utilized so far (Republic of Kenya. 2007b), with more than half of

the water withdrawal being used in the process. The corollary to this situation is that

any measure of irrigation expansion will lead to a significant water deficit for other

sectors. Yet, the current national approach is focused on exploiting the vast untapped

irrigation potential, with disproportionate focus on the efficiency with which the

current irrigation activities are undertaken. Since irrigation is water-intensive, this

imbalanced emphasis may threaten the sustainability of both current and future

irrigation projects as well as the expansion of the non-agricultural sectors.

 7

Third, the Tana catchment where Mwea is located is the second largest basin in

Kenya, and the leading basin in terms of water abstraction (Republic of Kenya, 1992;

NEMA, 2003). Out of the annual water withdrawal of 0.5883 billion cubic metres

(BCM) in the basin, 91.74% (0.5397 BCM) is already committed to irrigating only

41.49% (68700 hectares) of the potential irrigable area of 205000 hectares (Siebert et

al., 2006; Republic of Kenya, 1992; Agwata, 2006; WRMA, 2006). Given that Tana

is the leading river basin in terms of planned irrigation expansion (Republic of Kenya,

1992), such a level of water-use threatens the sustainability and expansion of

irrigation. This calls for improved water-use efficiency in the basin, which is critical

in modelling the sustainable management of the finite resource in other basins in the

country.

Fourth, the national irrigation policy is still in its formative stages. For it to be

appropriate, formulation and implementation of the policy needs to be backed by

sound facts supported by empirical evidence (Rathgeber, 1997) that this study seeks

to provide. The findings of this study will thus augment the formulation and

implementation of this policy.

Since irrigation is a water-intensive and consumptive activity, increasing food

production through irrigation expansion will intensify water-use. This study argues

that if the expanding non-agricultural sectors too are to get their equitable share of the

available water, then efficient water-use must be incorporated into water management

in order to sustain the current uses and future irrigation expansion.

 8

1.6.2 Significance of the Study

This study forms a point of reference for evaluating the efficiency of the current as

well as future rice irrigation activities in the Scheme. It generates the empirical

evidence required to facilitate the improvement of economic use of irrigation water

in the Scheme, which will help improve the overall basin-wide and subsequently

national water resource productivity.

Equally, by expanding the empirical database and knowledge on local irrigation

water-use, the study has further provided a decision-support tool to facilitate the

effective development and implementation of irrigation policy in Kenya. The study

has, in addition, provided a structured methodology for determining the feasibility of

Scheme irrigation expansion based on the available water.

Finally, the study is expected to provoke the analysis of similar projects in the

country. This will facilitate the development and integration of best management

practices in the irrigation water-use in such projects.

1.7 Scope and Limitation of the Study

1.7.1 Scope of the Study

The spatial delineation of this study was the analysis of economic efficiency at the

Scheme level. The study was confined to the flood-irrigated rice cultivation

activities in the nucleus region of the Scheme. Although irrigated horticultural crop

production activities are also undertaken in the Scheme, these were excluded

because their water abstraction methods were not adequately gauged and the
 9

quantity of water consumed was, consequently, difficult to determine. The rice

cultivation activities in the out-grower region of the Scheme were excluded too due

to inability to quantify their irrigation water input. The latter region lacked adequate

irrigation infrastructure, and many farms received water from the neighbouring plots

at irregular times.

Economically, the Scheme irrigation water-use efficiency can be analyzed at

technical, allocative, and scale levels. However, this study was limited to technical

and allocative levels for the purpose of determining overall economic or cost

efficiency. From classical economics, management is a basic variable in a

production process. However, it was omitted in data collection and analysis because

the variable had no empirically measurable indices. Secondly, since management

underpins the decision-making in the allocation and utilization of the other factors of

production, it was assumed to be adequately explained by the use of these factors. In

addition, during analysis of efficiency, the variable land was eliminated due to

strong positive correlation between land and the other factors of production.

1.7.2 Limitations of the Study

Lack of reliable time-series data on rice cultivation activities in the Scheme

production limited the study to the use of cross-sectional data. Likewise, the limited

period and funds allocated for the study restricted the number of variables of study

to the farmers technical and socio-economic characteristics, input quantities and

costs, and rice yields. In addition, limited finance did not allow a larger sample size
 10

for the study. The study was further limited by the inadequacy of published literature

on irrigation in Kenya.

Other limitations were inadequate data on the quantity of on-farm water-use in the

Scheme. Consequently, it was not possible to decompose the water-use inefficiency

into water lost through the irrigation conveyance system, the field bunds, and

inefficient field application. Similarly, on-farm water supply was assumed to be

equitable among the farms.

1.8 The Study Area

The study area is located in Mwea Division of Kirinyaga District in Central Province,

Kenya. It is situated in the upper region of the Tana Catchment that is drained by the

Thiba, Nyamindi, and Ruamuthambi Rivers and several streams (Figure 1.1). Its relief

is gently undulating. The higher areas have shallow reddish-brown lateritic clay

loams (red soils), while the low lands are impervious heavy montmorillonitic clays.

Mwea has bi-modal rainfall with peaks in April and November, a mean annual

precipitation of 944.1mm, and a temperature range of 22C in July and 24C in

February (Chuaga, 1981).

 11

3720'
KEY:
N River

Link canal

Main canal
Branch
040'

canal

040'
Main drain
H4
WMU

Settlement

Scale: 1: 400,000

3720'

Figure 1.1: Location and Map of the Study Area

(Source: NIB, 2008)

Although the precipitation compares favourably with the national mean of 630mm

(FAO, 2007) and the global mean of 750mm (Nandalal & Semasinghe, 2006), it is

insufficient to meet the crop water demand owing to seasonal variability and
 12

distribution patterns. The predominant land-use activity in the area is commercial

flood-irrigation of rice through open-earth gravity flow water abstraction and delivery

system. Horticultural crop cultivation is also significantly carried out using furrow

irrigation.

The Scheme irrigation water is supplied in bulk continuously up to the main feeder

canal level (Figure 1.2). From here, it is delivered to the farms in rotation through the

branch, main feeder and line feeder canals. Branch canals supply water from the main

canal to one or more blocks of farms known as water management units (WMUs),

whose sizes range from 55 to 508 acres. The individual farms situated along the line

feeder canals. During periods of low river discharge, the rotational water supply

occurs at any level between the branch canal and line feeder canal depending on

severity of the water scarcity. Extreme scarcity (very low river discharge) results in

rotational supply at the branch canal level, whereas the main feeder canal (that is,

between the WMUs) rotational supply is adopted under moderate scarcity.

Water use in the Scheme is regularly monitored by use of gauges installed at the main

canal headworks (water intake points on the river). As at the time of the study,

installation of similar gauges further downstream was in progress. However, the

structures were often vandalized by the irrigators during periods of water scarcity

thereby hampering routine gauging of water distribution. River and canal discharges

were recorded at the gauge stations and water-use in the farms monitored daily.
 13

river

Intake
Main canal

Main drain
Canal II
= Branch canal

WMU
Main feeder
Line
feeder
Field
drain

Water
flow
Unit drain

Figure 1.2: Schematic diagram of the water abstraction and conveyance system
(Source: Lebeau, 2007)

The choice of the study area was influenced by several factors. First, Mwea is the

oldest and largest public irrigation project in Kenya, upon which other such projects

as Ahero, West Kano, and Bunyala were modelled. It is the most active irrigation area

in Tana basin, which is the largest river basin in the country in terms of mean annual

discharge as well as percentage water abstraction (Republic of Kenya, 1992; NEMA,

2003). More than 90% of the water abstracted in the basin is already used in irrigating

just over 40% of its irrigable potential. Further, irrigation is still expanding in the

study area. Addressing irrigation water-use efficiency in Mwea, therefore, has direct
 14

benefits to the area and the Tana basin, and a multiplier effect on other basins in the

country. Next, characteristic of the rivers in the Upper Tana catchment (KenGen,

2001), the river discharges of the two rivers Nyamindi and Thiba which provide

irrigation water to the Scheme fluctuate greatly, making the Scheme irrigation water

management difficult (Kamundia, 2008).

 15

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

The previous chapter gave an overview of the need for analysis of economic use of

irrigation water-use in Mwea Scheme. Investigating the efficiency contributes to the

theory and practice of irrigation water management in Mwea Scheme, the Tana

basin, and Kenya as a whole. In the current chapter, the necessity and timeliness of

this study are presented in the context of sustainable development. The relationship

between this study and the information in the literature is provided, the distinction

between the study and previous research explained, and the gaps identified in this

respect highlighted. The chapter discusses these issues in relation to sustainable use

of irrigation water in Mwea Scheme.

2.2 Importance of Rice Farming in Kenyas Economy

2.2.1 Agricultural Productivity and Kenyas Economic Development

The declining agricultural productivity due to environmental degradation and

population pressure on the limited natural resources requires innovative distribution

and use of resources available to the agricultural sector (Todaro & Smith 2006;

Rosegrant et al., 2001). In Kenya, this need is justified by the fact that agriculture

forms the backbone of the countrys economy, with the gross domestic product
 16

(GDP) fluctuating in response to agricultural productivity. The GDP exhibits

particular vulnerability during periods of low agricultural performance (Figure 2.1).

Figure 2.1: Kenyas agricultural and GDP growth rate trends (1990-2000)
(Source: Republic of Kenya, 2002)

From Figure 2.1, it can be observed that a unit change in agricultural growth rate is

followed by more than unit change in GDP growth rate. For instance, when

agricultural growth declined by 1.5% from 2% to 0.5% during the 1991-1992

period, the GDP declined by 3% from -1% to -4%. Likewise, there was a

corresponding seven-unit percent increase in the GDP from -4% to 3% when

agricultural growth registered a three-unit percentage growth from 0% to 3% in the

period 1993-1994. Similar trends were observed in 1996-1997, as well as 1999-

2000 periods. Indeed it is estimated that 1.6% increase in Kenyas GDP is realized

for every 1% increase in growth of the agricultural sector (SRA, 2004).

The strong positive correlation between the growth rates of agriculture and GDP

observed demonstrates the importance of Kenyas agriculture in the national

 17

economic growth and development. Agriculture is the single largest sector

contributing to the national GDP, accounting for 80% employment, over 50% of

total export earnings, and 60% of national income (NIB, 2009). The sector further

stimulates economic development through an elaborate network of forward and

backward linkages with other sectors of the national economy (UN, 2007; Juma,

1994). Fluctuations in the sectors performance thus have immediate and

significant impact on the overall economic performance of the country.

2.2.2 Kenyas Agricultural Productivity and Expansion of Rice Cultivation

It is generally agreed that the performance of Kenyas predominantly rain-fed

agricultural sector has declined in the recent past (Oduol, 2006). Further, Jaetzold et

al. (2007) describe the sector as highly vulnerable. The limited soil fertility, erratic

rainfall, frequent droughts, ineffective land-use policies, declining arable land and

increasing land fragmentation due to population growth have reduced the

performance of the sector (Bruce, 2008).

Rice is one of the worlds three major cereal crops, the other two being maize and

wheat. Globally, it is the leading cereal crop that is consumed as staple food by 2.7

billion people, providing 3560 percent of the total calories (Guerra et al., 1998).

The crop occupies one-third of the worlds total area planted to cereals, is the second

most productive (Table 2.1), and the leading in yield stability (Figure 2.2), among

the cereals.
 18

Table 2.1: Global productivity trends for maize, rice and wheat (1966-2006)
Crop Mean Yield (kg ha-1) Rate of gain
1966 2006 (kg ha-1 yr-1)
Maize 2260 4759 62.5
Rice 2097 4235 53.5
Wheat 1373 2976 40.1
(Source: Cassman, 2008)

Figure 2.2: Global yield trends for maize, rice and wheat (1966-2006)
(Source: Cassman, 2008)

Rice has a great potential to mitigate the global energy crisis. The global fuel energy

consumption is expected to rise by 71% between 2003 and 2030 from 421quadrillion

British thermal units (btu) to 722 quadrillion btu, with the inevitable consequence of

increase in the bio-fuel production (von Braun & Pachauri, 2008). The leading

potential sources of bio-fuel are maize and wheat for bio-ethanol, and oilseeds such
 19

as Jatropha curcas for bio-diesel (Rosegrant et al., 2008). In addition, maize and

wheat serve dual functions of human food and livestock feed (NIB, 2009b). The

possible increase in use of maize and wheat for non-food purposes will likely

increase the pressure on rice as the main cereal food crop, with additional production

required to offset the growing cereal food deficit. The fact that rice has sustained a

steady lead in price among the three cereals globally between the years 2000 and

2008 (TIAPD, 2009) further calls for its increased production in the regions that

have the comparative advantage to do so to help achieve global food security and

economic development.

Kenya has a declining arable land (Oduol, 2006). Its low agricultural productivity

therefore calls for expanded cultivation of crops with high yields and socio-

economic value. Rice is such a crop with high productivity and with increasing

demand in the country. Awange et al. (2007) report that the demand for such staple

food crops as cassava is declining in Kenya as consumer preferences shift towards

maize and rice. Indeed, the annual national consumption growth rates among the

three major cereals in Kenya are 12%, 9%, and 3% for rice, wheat, and maize

respectively, with rice expected to lead as staple food by the year 2050 (Waiyaki,

2007). The increasing consumer acceptability coupled with high productivity of rice

implies that expansion of its cultivation has very high potential for improving

Kenyas agricultural productivity.

 20

2.2.3 Irrigation Water-Use and Rice Cultivation

The prospects of irrigation in revitalizing agriculture have been demonstrated by the

output derived from the limited area exploited so far. Irrigation accounts for 40% of

the global food from only 17% of the cultivated land. In Asia, yields of most crops

have increased by between 100400% due to irrigation, with subsequent reduction in

food prices (IPTRID, 1999). In fact, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)

estimates that irrigated land will increase globally to 209.5 million hectares come

2010, up from 186 million hectares in 1994 (Yudelman, 1994).

Most of the worlds rice is grown in Asia, where more than 80 percent of the

developed freshwater resources are used for irrigation purposes and about half of the

total irrigation water is used for rice production (Dawe et al., 1998; Bhuiyan 1992).

The dominant practice in rice cultivation is flood irrigation. Under this system, the

rice is grown in paddies that are maintained in flooded field conditions throughout the

crop establishment, as well as crop growth and development stages. The flooding

only stops when the crop starts maturing. In Kenya, the paddies are kept flooded even

during land preparation period.

The objective of wet land preparation is to kill weeds, reduce the soil clod size to the

required tilth, and achieve the desired slope for proper distribution of water and

fertilizer. It involves ploughing, pulverizing and levelling the flooded land.

Levelling reduces the total irrigation duration and applied water depth (Asif et al.,

2003). Wet land preparation, however, consumes a considerable quantity of water.

Chuaga (1981) discovered that as much as 317.12mm (17.31%) out of the effective
 21

1832.44mm/ha of irrigation water utilized in 1979/80 rice cultivation season went to

flooding the field for land preparation in the low hydraulic-conductivity soils that

characterize Mwea Scheme.

The challenge of rice cultivation is that the yields are higher under irrigation than

under rain-fed conditions (Pandey, 1998), and flooding is the preferred method of

irrigation (Sas & Cicerone, 2002). Flooding will therefore likely continue to

dominate rice cultivation in Kenya. Yet, the increasing competition for water

between agricultural and non-agricultural sectors reduces the availability of water to

the agricultural sector. Efficient flood irrigation water use is thus needed to sustain

rice cultivation in this water-scarce country. Already, water scarcity due to drought

alone leads to 4% (which is 18 million metric tons) loss of rice crop, worth 3.6

billion US dollars on a global scale annually (OToole, 2004). At Kenyas current

annual demand of 300,000 metric tons (NIB, 2009b), the 18 million metric tons of

loss can sustain the country for up to 60 years.

Further, expansion of rice cultivation is set to continue in Kenya under the macro-

economic objective of food security (NIB, 2009b). Since rice is mainly cultivated

under irrigation, the increased cultivation will intensify irrigation water-use, hence

the need for efficiency of irrigation.

From the above review, it can be concluded that agriculture will continue playing a

vital role in Kenyas socio-economic development. However, the rapidly-declining

arable land, erratic rainfall pattern and expanded food needs require expanded rice

cultivation. Whereas rice irrigation offers an opportunity for improving the

 22

productivity of this sector, the increasing water scarcity requires appropriate

strategies to ensure sustainability. As Hayami and Ruttan (1985) assert, sustainable

agricultural growth requires a paradigm shift from resource exploitation to

development of resource-conserving technologies. Quantifying the current

contribution of water, among other production factors, to rice yields is a critical step

towards determining water-use efficiency. Moreover, such a study in the leading

irrigated rice growing area in Kenya is both essential and timely due to the problems

of drought and food insecurity currently facing the country, with nearly ten million

people facing starvation (Opiyo, 2009).

2.3 Role of Water-Use Efficiency on Sustainable Irrigation

2.3.1 Water Scarcity Trends and Sustainable Irrigation

Forecasts indicate that severe water shortages will be witnessed on regional or even

global scales in the twenty-first century (World Water Forum, 2000). At the same

time, population explosion will stimulate additional demands for food and fibre

production as rural people flock into the cities. In this respect, Falkenmark (1997)

reported that 55 percent of the global population is consigned to either water stress,

or severe water stress, merely by virtue of population growth. Table 2.2 gives the

world trends and projections in sectoral water utilization.

 23

Table 2.2: World trends and projections in population and sectoral water-use
Sector 1900 1960 1995 2010 2025

Population (million) 3,029 5,735 7,113 7,877

Irrigated land (106ha) 47.3 142 253 288 329

Agricultural use (km3/yr) 513 1,481 2,504 2,817 3,189

Municipal use (km3/yr) 22 118 344 472 607

Industrial use (km3/yr) 44 339 752 908 1,170

Total use (km3/yr) 579 1,968 3,788 4,431 5,235

(Source: Pereira, 2005)

The table shows a remarkable rise in water-use for all the sectors. Of immediate

concern is the leading margin by which agricultural water-use is increasing in tandem

with increase in population, and hence the need for water conservation.

2.3.2 Kenyas Irrigation Development

Irrigation in Kenya dates back some four centuries ago, although modern irrigation

can be traced from the introduction of commercial farming by the colonial settlers

in the period 1939-1945 (Republic of Kenya, 2006). Despite its relatively long

history in the country, the limited productivity of rain-fed agriculture

notwithstanding, irrigation accounts for only 1.5% of the total cultivated land area

(NIB, 2008b). Only 105,800ha out of the estimated national irrigation potential of

539,000ha have been exploited so far (Table 2.3). The inadequate performance of

the dominant rain-fed agriculture has therefore led to prioritization of expanded

 24

irrigation development to revitalize agricultural sector (Republic of Kenya, 2002).

An annual development target of 32,000 hectares has been set towards achieving

this goal (Republic of Kenya, 2007a).

Currently, 2 billion shillings is generated annually from the 14,340 hectares of

irrigated land under the NIB Schemes, which sustains approximately 120,000

people (NIB, 2009). The realization of the annual expansion target is consequently

expected to considerably increase agricultural productivity.

Table 2.3: Kenyas Irrigation Potential by Basins

Basin Irrigation Potential (ha) Irrigation Development (ha)

Tana 205,000 68,700

Athi 40,000 11,000

Lake Victoria 200,000 10,700

Kerio valley 64,000 5,400

Ewaso Ngiro 30,000 10,000

Total 539,000 105,800

(Source: Republic of Kenya, 2007b)

In addition, the country does not have a comprehensive policy on irrigation.

Subsequently, irrigation activities are undertaken by several public organizations,

communities, private companies and individuals in the country, with little

institutionalized coordination. The possible consequence of this scenario is the

likelihood of the sub-sector expanding very haphazardly in response to the

increasing demand for farm produce, without looking at its sustainability in the face
 25

of imminent competition from non-agricultural sectors for the limited water

resources.

Although only 5.3% of Kenyas water resource base is exploited (Table 2.4), the

bulk of the withdrawal is used in agriculture. An estimated 50-74% of Kenyas

total annual water withdrawal goes to irrigation (KESREF, 2007). This compares

favourably with 86.6% in the SSA (FAO, 2009) and 70-90% at the global level

(Siebert et al., 2006; Mollinga & Bolding, 2004; Pearce, 2008).

Table 2.4: Profiles of Kenyas major drainage basins

Drainage Area % of Mean Annual Mean Annual % of
Area (km 2) Total Rainfall Discharge Water
Area (mm) (BCM) Abstracted
Lake 46,229 8.4 1370 13.80 2.2
Victoria
Rift Valley 130,452 21.8 560 3.26 1.7
Inland
Athi 66,837 12 740 1.31 11.6

Tana 126,000 22.7 700 3.70 15.9

Ewaso 210,226 35.1 410 0.34 12.4

Ngiro
Kenya 579,744 100.0 N/A 22.41 5.3

(Source: Republic of Kenya, 1992; NEMA, 2003)

2.3.3 The Need for Resource-Use Efficiency

The cardinal principle of sustainable development is that resources must not be

depleted at rates faster than they can be replenished by nature or substituted by

human-made capital (UN, 2002). This principle calls for a conservation approach to
 26

the management of the available limited resources, especially those with low

substitutability such as water.

Watershed resources are known to be limited and vulnerable, and their unsustainable

uses are cited as the primary causes of agricultural inefficiency in Sub-Saharan

Africa (Rockstrm, 2003; Shisanya, 1996). The need for conservation through

efficient use is the more crucial for water-deficit, agricultural-based economies.

Perkins et al. (2001), while supporting resource conservation, emphasize the role of

market efficiency as the most effective mechanism available to promote efficient

resource-use, reduce environmental degradation, and promote sustainable

development. As competition for the scarce water intensifies, efficient allocation

mechanisms are required to ensure equitable water distribution among competing

needs within and across socio-economic sectors. Whereas markets help in efficient

allocation of scarce resources, however, the current study argues that it takes

improved efficiency within a sector industry to derive sustainable benefit (output)

from the resource duly allocated by the market. It is this sustainable derivation of

benefits that underpins sustainable development.

An analysis of the foregoing literature leads to several conclusions. First, the

declining trend in water availability makes redistribution of water resources between

various socio-economic sectors inevitable. In particular, it will imply a considerable

transfer of water from the currently dominant agricultural sector to other competing

sectors. Second, improved agricultural use will have the greatest impact in

determining water availability since the sector leads in water use. The inadequate

rainfall, intensifying water scarcity, and limited land frontier render inevitable the
 27

intensive land-use practices in the agricultural-based Mwea economy. Since

agriculture and irrigation are expanding in the area, their sustainability is only

assured under efficient management. Third, given that the water supply in a basin is

constant in the long run, the increasing utilization can only be sustained if water-use

efficiency is improved. Improving water management in the Scheme requires a

better understanding of the current level of water-use efficiency.

2.4 Types and Measures of Efficiency

2.4.1 Types of Efficiency

Measures of efficiency include technical efficiency, scale efficiency, allocative

efficiency, and productive (also termed cost or economic) efficiency. Technical

efficiency of a production process refers to the physical or functional relation

between resources and outcome. A technically efficient position is achieved when

the maximum possible improvement in outcome is obtained from a set of resources.

A production process is said to be technically inefficient if the same (or greater)

outcome could be produced with less of at least one of the inputs used (Palmer &

Torgerson, 1998).

Technical efficiency cannot, however, directly compare alternative interventions,

where one intervention produces the same (or better) outcome with less (or more) of

one resource and more of another. Since it is possible to use different combinations of

inputs to produce a given level of output, the choice between input combinations is
 28

based on the relative costs of these different inputs. In this case, productive efficiency

is a preferable measure.

Allocative efficiency reflects the ability of a firm to use inputs in optimal proportions,

given their respective prices and the production technology. It takes into account not

only the productive efficiency with which resources are used to produce outcomes but

also the efficiency with which these outcomes are distributed among the community.

Allocative efficiency is achieved when resources are allocated so as to maximise the

welfare of the community.

Scale efficiency measures the potential productivity gain from achieving optimal size

of a firm. As an index of performance, this parameter evaluates the change in a firms

productivity when the firm size changes. Cost efficiency on the other hand measures

the overall economic performance of a firm, and is a product of technical and

allocative efficiencies.

Productive efficiency, also termed cost or economic efficiency, refers to the

maximisation of outcome for a given cost, or the minimisation of cost for a given

outcome. Productive efficiency enables assessment of the relative value for money of

input combinations with directly comparable outcomes. It cannot, however, address

the impact of re-allocating resources at a broader level, such as water from

agricultural to municipal or industrial sectors because the products from the

respective sectors are incommensurate.

This study sought to analyze irrigation water use within a one particular crop (rice)

in one sector (agriculture). The interest of the study was to determine highest level
 29

of output that the farms could have produced given their combination of resources.

Technical efficiency measure was, therefore, adopted. The approach of variable

returns to scale was adopted due to the supposition that farmers operate under

imperfect competition and financial constraints.

2.4.2 Efficiency Measurement Concepts

A production process involves use of a combination of inputs in order to obtain an

output. For instance, the output of rice or yield requires inputs in form of land,

irrigation water, labour and working capital. Analysis of efficiency of such a

production requires a methodology that incorporates all the specified inputs.

Measures of efficiency that incorporate multiple inputs can be traced back to Farrell

(1957), who proposed that efficiency of a decision-making unit (a firm, or farm) can

be decomposed into technical efficiency and allocative efficiency. Technical

efficiency illustrates the ability of the firm to obtain maximal output from a given set

of inputs. On the other hand, allocative efficiency shows the ability of the firm to use

the inputs in optimal proportions, given their respective prices and the production

technology. A combination of technical efficiency and allocative efficiency then

gives the overall cost or economic efficiency. Thus, EE is defined as the capacity of

a firm to produce a predetermined quantity of output at minimum cost for a given

level of technology (Farrell, 1957; Kopp & Diewert, 1982).

The two main objectives of efficiency measurement are input minimization and

output maximization. Coeli et al. (1998) describe these objectives as input-oriented

and output-oriented measures respectively. The input-oriented approach attempts to

 30

expose by how much the input quantities can be proportionally reduced without

changing the output quantities produced. On the other hand, the output-oriented

approach seeks to determine by how much the output quantities can be

proportionally expanded without changing the input quantities used. The input

approach involves managing the production inputs in such a way as to optimize

output, while the output orientation involves managing the output so as to optimize

the use of inputs. Since farmers can control the management of the factors of

production more easily than the output, this study adopted the input approach to the

efficiency analysis.

Efficiency measurement requires derivation of the production function from the

sample data using either parametric or non-parametric methods suggested by Farrell

(1957). In the parametric procedure, a stochastic function such as a Cobb-Douglas

form is fitted to the data, such that no observed point lies to the left or below it

(Coeli et al., 1998). The Cobb-Douglas model, however, does not account for the

possible influence of measurement errors and other noise upon the production

function (frontier). This limitation is addressed by using the stochastic frontier

production function that incorporates a random error term (Aigner et al., 1977). In

the non-parametric procedure, a piece-wise linear convex isoquant is constructed

over the data such that no observed point lies to the left or below it (Coeli et al.,

1998). Efficiency measures are then computed relative to this surface. Boles (1966)

and Afriat (1972) suggested mathematical programming methods, which were later

used to develop a method commonly known as the data envelopment analysis

(DEA).
 31

The DEA has been widely used for efficiency analysis. In this analysis, efficiency

assessment requires establishing an appropriate benchmark. Using actual observations,

this frontier is defined with reference to all the decision making units (DMUs) in the

sample set. The frontier gives the efficient firms in the set as a benchmark against

which to measure other DMUs performance. A DMUs efficiency is analyzed by

comparing its performance with that of other DMUs located along the frontier. Since

the frontier passes through the efficient observations, input efficiency is measured

along a ray through the origin (Moesen & Persoon, 2002). The distance of an

observation from the frontier indicates the level of efficiency, or inefficiency, with the

more efficient observations located closer to the frontier than the less efficient ones.

Data envelopment analysis therefore specifies the maximum possible quantities of

output that a decision making unit can realize from a given input mix. Alternatively, it

specifies the minimum quantities of inputs required to produce a given level of output.

Initial efficiency measures adopted input orientation under constant returns to scale

(Coeli et al., 1998). However, the assumption of constant returns to scale (CRS) is only

appropriate when all firms operate optimally. This situation is often hampered by such

conditions as imperfect competition and financial constraints. When the CRS is used

under these circumstances, the resultant measures of technical efficiency are

confounded by scale efficiencies. The limitations imposed by such conditions on firms

have led to further works with alternative sets of assumptions. Banker et al. (1984), for

instance, proposed a variable returns to scale (VRS) model in the DEA method.

The variable returns to scale specification has been the most commonly used approach

in the 1990s (Coeli et al., 1998). Based on the positive attributes identified in the
 32

foregoing literature, this study adopted the method of DEA under variable returns to

scale (DEAVRS) to discern the irrigation water-use efficiency.

2.5 Theoretical Background to Water-Use Efficiency

There is a positive correlation between economic development and water

consumption (Environmental Protection Authority, 2007). This implies that as an

economy shifts from agriculture to expansion of industrial and service sectors, water

utilization too increases. But water supply is either constant, or declining. It can,

therefore, be concluded that economic development leads to redistribution of water

among socio-economic sectors and hence intensifies water scarcity per sector.

Efficient water-use thus needs to be integrated into sustainable development

planning.

At sectoral level, smallholder farming households exhibit significant variability of

resources available on the farm such as land, water, and labour (Ahmed et al., 2006;

Shisanya, 1996). Consequently, farmers face considerable challenge in identifying the

most appropriate resource and output mix as well as practices that minimize costs and

risks, and/or maximize profits. The limitations in these planning-related factors have

been reported to cause the unsatisfactory performance of irrigation development and

management projects in Sub-Saharan Africa (IWMI, 2005). Farmers need to

incorporate optimal use of resource productivity into the planning and decision-

making processes in order to improve their economic performance.

 33

2.6 Definition of Water-Use Efficiency Terms

Several authorities have applied the concept of efficiency to water resource use.

Subsequently, irrigation efficiency has been given several definitions based on water

use, energy use, labour and capital investment, and how these aspects relate to

production and profitability. It should, however, be noted that there is no single

definition that covers all aspects of irrigation efficiency (Pereira, 2005). Appendix II

gives the various technical concepts of water-use efficiency, and how they relate to

each other.

There was inadequate gauging of irrigation water conveyance, distribution and use in

the Scheme. Consequently, there was limited data on irrigation water use. This study

therefore used economic approach to analyze water-use efficiency.

2.7 Empirical Studies on Resource-Use Efficiency

Given the declining trends in the availability of resources, the efficiency with which

they are used has been the focus of several empirical studies. This section reviews

some of these scholarly works from the literature.

Zhang et al. (2008) determined the effect of alternate wetting and moderate soil

drying during grain filling on rice grain yield and quality using two rice cultivars,

Zhendao-88 (japonica) and Shanyou-63 (indica), field-grown under three irrigation

treatments. The treatments were: alternate wetting and moderate soil drying (WMD)

re-watered when soil water potential reached 25kPa at 1520cm depth, alternate
 34

wetting and severe soil drying (WSD), re-watered when soil water potential reached

50kPa, and conventional irrigation (CI, continuously flooded), conducted from 6 days

after heading to harvestable maturity. Grain yield increased by 9.3% to 9.5% under

WMD, while it was reduced by 7.5% to 7.8% under WSD, compared to CI. Further,

water-use under WMD and WSD was 44% and 25% respectively of the amount

applied to CI. WMD significantly improved milling, appearance, and cooking

qualities, while WSD decreased these qualities. It was concluded that a moderate

wetting drying regime during the grain-filling phase of rice can increase yield

quantity and quality, and also save irrigation water. The study used a single input-

output approach, which fails to recognize that rice yield is a function of interactions

among water, land, labour and capital. Such an approach is only useful in

experimental research where the factor under analysis is varied with all other factors

held constant. The current study used an integrated approach where all the factors of

production were taken into account, which reflects the real situation faced by the

farmers in their fields. It used secondary data to determine the impact of the quantity

of flood irrigation water used, among other production factors, on the yield of rice in

Mwea.

An analysis of Kenyas agricultural sector productivity between 1960 and 1990 using

time-series data to generate the Cobb-Douglas production function revealed that

agricultural land as well as land productivity was declining (Juma, 1994). The study

recommended the need to improve land productivity, but fell short of identifying

practical ways of achieving this improvement. Unlike Juma (1994), who relied on

time series data, the current study used cross-sectional data. Time series data are
 35

appropriate for analyzing change in parameters over time. Comparing performance of

farms within a season requires cross-sectional data. The current study used cross-

sectional data approach since it involved comparing the differences among irrigators

within a common season of irrigation. Further, this study suggested how to improve

the productivity of the national agricultural sector through efficient use of irrigation

water.

Kamau (1981) studied the productivity of land and labour in the small- and large-

scale coffee farms in Kiambu District of Kenya by using the Cobb-Douglas

production function to estimate the marginal value product. He found that large-scale

farms were better at optimizing farm mechanization and hence achieving higher

productivity due to higher technical efficiency than the small-scale farms. He

suggested the need for improving the productivity of the factors of production. The

current study identified irrigation as a critical means of improving land productivity,

and addressed water-use efficiency as one way of sustaining the productivity.

Effective intervention demands identification of the factors determining the low

productivity of the inputs of production.

In an assessment of on-farm water-use efficiency in the public irrigated Schemes in

the River Nile State of Sudan, Ahmed et al. (2007) used integrated techniques

involving the General Algebraic Modeling System (GAMS), CropWat4 and Cobb-

Douglas function to analyze secondary data. They found that water-use efficiency

was 0.56 (or 56%). The current study used the data envelopment analysis method to

analyze primary and secondary data. The method is effective when dealing with
 36

analysis of multiple input-output interactions whose functional relationship is

unknown, and when comparing efficiency across farms.

Malana and Malano (2006) benchmarked productive efficiency of selected wheat

areas in Pakistan and India using data envelopment analysis (DEA). They

demonstrated DEA (a non-parametric method) as an effective tool for analysing and

benchmarking productive efficiency of agricultural units. Further, ranking of

productive efficiency based on three inputs was shown to differ significantly from

that based on a single factor (irrigation water). The current study adopted the DEA

approach to analysis of irrigation water-use in Mwea Scheme since rice cultivation

involves the use of more than water alone.

Oduol et al. (2006) examined the relationship between farm size and productive

efficiency on smallholder farms in Embu District of Kenya. They used the non-

parametric data envelopment analysis (DEA) and total factor productivity indices to

generate estimates of productive efficiency. They found that there were higher gains

from improving technical efficiency in large- and medium-than in small-sized farms.

Further, technical inefficiency in small farms was found to be a function of scale

inefficiency. The current study suggested how the technical efficiency concept can be

applied to quantify the level of efficiency, and hence inefficiency gap in irrigation

water use in Mwea Scheme.

Asif et al. (2003) benchmarked laser land levelling against traditional land levelling

techniques on wheat productivity, land and water-use efficiency at district Toba Tek

Singh, Pakistan. Field experiments were conducted and primary data collected and
 37

analyzed using descriptive statistics. Laser land levelling reduced the total duration of

irrigation and applied water depth by 47% and 15% respectively more than traditional

levelling techniques did. Further, the water-use efficiency in the laser-levelled fields

was 98.7% and 29.4% higher than the non-levelled and the traditionally-levelled

fields respectively. In terms of yields, the laser levelled fields gave 5.56tha-1

compared to 3.99tha-1 from the non-levelled fields. All the other factors of production

were experimentally held constant. In the current study, the real-situation

relationships among the factors of production in the farmers fields were maintained.

Non-experimental secondary data on water-use were analyzed using econometric

tools. Econometrics is based on problems related to collecting and analyzing non-

experimental data, estimating economic relationships using statistical methods and

forecasting variables of economic importance.

Results from an assessment of technical and economic performance of Aguthi,

Matanya and Thome smallholder irrigation Schemes in Tanzania by Ragwa (2002)

revealed variability among irrigators within a Scheme and between the Schemes.

Within the Scheme, irrigators located upstream along the distribution network seemed

to get more water and had higher crop yield response than those located at the tail-

end. The study collected experimental data on crop yield responses to 33%, 66% and

100% levels of irrigation.

This study contends that although farm location along the canal influences access to

irrigation water and hence efficiency of water-use, it is not the only factor that

explains water-use efficiency at the farmers level, and is inadequate if used to plan

Scheme-based water management. At farmers level, water-use efficiency is a

 38

multiple function of technical and socioeconomic factors. A better approach in

assessing Scheme performance should therefore incorporate all these factors. The

current study used non-experimental data to determine irrigation water-use efficiency

based on all the factors of production, and identified additional factors that explain

this efficiency in order to aid comprehensive water management planning in the

Scheme.

Chuaga (1981) estimated the water balance for the Thiba Section of Mwea Irrigation

Settlement Scheme. In the study, field experimental method was used to obtain data

on the Scheme water balance, which were then used to compute the crop water-use.

He found that rice cultivation required for the 1979/80 season was 0.95 hectare-

metres of water (equivalent to 9500m3) per acre, and that production of one kilogram

of un-milled rice required 4.19m3 of irrigation water. The study fell short of

determining the irrigation water-use efficiency. Further, the study was conducted at a

time when the Scheme irrigation water management was done by the National

Irrigation Board. Structural changes have since occurred that impacted on rice

irrigation in the scheme. These include the operation and maintenance of the

irrigation infrastructure by the Water Users Association under the on-going

participatory irrigation management (PIM) programme. Equally, the liberalization of

the agricultural sector has since led to poorly-coordinated irrigation expansion in and

around the Scheme. The current study focused on the entire Scheme.

Kinsey (1981) used Tobit analysis to examine the relative importance of household

characteristics in determining the number of credit card accounts per householdin

the US. The study examined the behaviour of households as consumer units by
 39

analyzing the factors that determine household expenditure. It was revealed that

households whose time was the most valuable would be the most likely credit

account holders. The current study adopted the same methodology to examine the

behaviour of farm households as decision making units by analyzing the factors

determining how they allocate irrigation water.

To investigate the factors determining the demand for life insurance in Canada, Fu

(2004) used the Tobit analysis in order to examine the quantity of life insurance and

the probability of purchasing. Income, marriage, age, educational level, number of

earners, family size, and home ownership were found to be positively related with the

demand for insurance. Regarding the probability of purchasing, the respondents

after-tax income had the highest elasticity of demand. The current study adopted

similar methodology to examine the relative importance of social and economic

characteristics of irrigators in determining their use of irrigation water.

2.8 Gaps Identified in the Literature

Expanding the cultivation of high-productivity crops such as rice holds the key to

improving agricultural productivity. In addition, innovative use of the limited water

resources available to the agricultural sector is necessary to mitigate the vulnerability

of Kenyas GDP to the predominantly rain-fed sector. This involves improved

efficiency of water use. In this respect, the following were the gaps identified in the

literature which this study addressed:

 40

i) In order to effectively improve the water resource productivity, there is need

to determine the contribution of the quantity of water used as a factor of rice

production in the Scheme;

ii) Irrigated agricultural production is a function of complex interactions among

water, land, labour, and capital. Analyzing economic efficiency of irrigation

water-use needs integrated approach that incorporates all these factors. The

DEA tool is therefore more appropriate in such an analysis;

iii) Improving water-use efficiency is imperative for sustainable management of

the resource. Effective interventions aimed at improving the efficiency of

irrigation water-use require identification of the factors which explain the

economic water-use inefficiency.

The following is a brief explanation of these variables.

2.9 Technical and Socio-economic Factors of Water-Use Efficiency

2.9.1 Quantity of Irrigation

In this study, water-use efficiency as a parameter is a ratio of the quantity of rice

output to quantity of water input. Water-use efficiency is expected to be higher when

less water is used to produce a given quantity of output than when more water is used.

Since there were no gauges for irrigation water-use at the farm level, the water

abstracted for irrigation from the rivers was used. The water supply was assumed to

be equitable and proportional to land area. Conveyance and distribution water losses

were thus lumped together with the application losses. There was one point of

abstraction of water from each of the two rivers. The canal discharge at each

abstraction point was monitored throughout the season and daily records taken in
 41

cubic metres per second. The study summed up these daily discharges, recorded for

the entire rice season, to obtain the total Scheme irrigation water-use. In this study, it

was hypothesized that excess water is used to produce output in the Scheme. The

variable, measured in cubic metres, was theorized to be negatively correlated with

efficiency.

2.9.2 Labour

The factors of labour that affect irrigation water-use efficiency include its cost,

availability, and reliability (Aqualink, 2006). The intensity of use and hence impact of

labour is a function of technology, with more advanced (mechanized) technology

being less labour-intensive. In Mwea, the abstraction, conveyance and distribution of

irrigation water are accomplished by gravity flow. However, the conveyance system

is an elaborate network of open earth canals. In effect, therefore, the subsequent

siltation and weed congestion in the canal network renders the operation and

maintenance of the irrigation and drainage infrastructure labour-intensive. In addition,

labour is used in the crop husbandry activities such as seedbed preparation, levelling,

weed control, application of agro-chemicals, bird-scaring, and harvesting. These

activities directly affect the quantity of output produced as well as on-farm water

management and consequently the water-use efficiency. Considering the labour-

intensive technology used in the Scheme, the labour was expected to be positively

correlated with water-use efficiency, and was quantified in terms of man/days by

enumerating all the family members who can provide labour.

 42

2.9.3 Land Size

Land is a basic input in an agricultural production process. Farm size in respect of this

study refers to a measure of the area of the land allocated to rice under irrigation

during the period under study. During water conveyance, one has to significantly fill

up the primary and secondary canals to enable water flow into the fields downstream,

irrespective of the number of such fields irrigated. Conveyance losses at the level of

these canals are, consequently, dependent more on the duration of conveyance than

on the command area downstream. If conveyance losses are prorated per acre of land

irrigated, then more land under irrigation is more efficient than less land irrigated

through a given canal network. The larger the area being irrigated the better the

economies of scale. Farm size was, therefore, hypothesized to be positively correlated

with water-use efficiency due to economies of scale. The variable was measured in

acres of rice irrigated.

2.9.4 Working Capital

This variable represents the expenditure incurred by the farmer in procuring inputs

and services that were used in the production process. The working capital included

the cost of labour for land levelling, weeding (Plate 3.2), transplanting, bird-scaring,

and harvesting. Other labour expenses included application of fertilizers, herbicides,

insecticides, and fungicides. Also included in this variable were costs of canal

operation and maintenance, land preparation, seed, fertilizer, herbicide, fungicide,

gunny bags, and post-harvest handling of the harvested rice. The canal operation and

maintenance cost included the cost of water. The costs were measured in Kenya
 43

shillings. Since high capital intensity increases productive efficiency, this variable

was hypothesized to have a positive correlation with water-use efficiency.

Plate 3.2: Use of labour in weeding of rice in Mwea Scheme

(Source: Author, 2008)

2.9.5 Size of Household

The size of household determines labour supply and availability both at both farm and

Scheme levels. Large household sizes lead to more labour availability at Scheme level

and hence low cost of labour in the Scheme. Since the Scheme farming operations are

labour-intensive, large households were expected to have more labour available for

farm operations as well as the operation and maintenance of irrigation infrastructure

thereby reducing the cost o labour. Indeed, Oduol (2006) concurs with this argument

by asserting that household size as an index is often used to capture the households

access to labour.
 44

On the other hand, the savings made on labour costs due to large household size was

expected to be used to acquire more of the other limiting resources like farm inputs.

The study, therefore, hypothesized that household size had a positive correlation with

the irrigation water-use efficiency. This variable was measured as the total number of

adult household members.

2.9.6 Age of the Farmer

Age of farmer, measured in years, is important since it may influence the farmers

decision-making on the input allocation as well as the intensity of input use (Oduol,

2006). This can be attributed to the positive correlation between age and

accumulation of knowledge through experience. Moreover, where there are conflicts

over water-use, older farmers tend to have more restricted access to water than their

younger and more energetic counterparts. Those with greater access to water irrigate

more frequently and luxuriously than the less privileged ones. The study considered

as inefficient the luxurious use of water. Farmers age was therefore expected to be

positively correlated with less water-use, and hence greater efficiency. The age

recorded was the age attained as of the date of interview.

2.9.7 Gender of the Farmer

Gender disparity has been reported regarding rights of access to productive resources

such as water (Oha, 2007; du Guerny, & Topouzis, 1996). Further, women are

disproportionately represented among the poor, with economic and social inequities

preventing them from accessing educational opportunities, productive resources such

as land, and hence credit (IPTRID, 1999). Access to information due to education
 45

increases rate of technical change. The consequence of gender disparity in access to

credit and education is the limited disposable income and increased risk averseness

that may lead to reduced intensity and efficiency of input utilization among female-

headed households.

In the Scheme, however, access to farming credit is based on tenancy licence, to

which men and women have equal rights. The only gender disparity of relevance to

water-use efficiency lies in access to irrigation water during periods of water

shortage. Women were expected to be disadvantaged in the event of water conflicts

among the irrigators. It was hypothesized that women use less water, and are hence

more water-efficient than men. Dummy variables were introduced to measure this

variable, with 1 indicating male, and 2 indicating female.

2.9.8 Farmers Level of Education

This variable affects the literacy and technical skills and hence rate of adoption of

technology. Since the benefits, intensity, and methods of input-use require technical

skills, high level of education improves the farmers capacity to seek and utilize

information. Education, thus, forms the basis for technical change, with positive

correlation with technical efficiency (Myint & Kyi, 2005). In fact, Hayami and

Ruttan, (1985) associated high level of education with increased farm productivity

due to improved quality of management. They argued that inadequate education

increases conservatism, limits the capacity to absorb risks, and increases fear to invest

in production resources. The variable was, consequently, expected to be positively

correlated with efficiency of irrigation water use. The study expected a significant
 46

difference between the farmers with at least formal education and those without, than

difference between the various levels of formal education. Farmers with at least

formal education were expected to be more efficient in using irrigation water than

those without. The variable was measured by using dummy variables, with 1, and 2,

indicating formal education and none respectively.

2.9.9 Non-Farm Income

Hypotheses have been advanced regarding the possible relationship between financial

characteristics and organization of production of a farm enterprise (Banker &

MacDonald, 2004). This can be explained by the fact that the financial structure of a

farm may affect its technical efficiency indirectly through its effect on the farm

liability to asset ratio.

Agricultural production activities by small-scale farmers are vulnerable to risks

related to environmental and economic factors. This vulnerability affects farmers

willingness to procure inputs and services that are associated with extra production

costs. Consequently, there is slow adoption of technological change that is necessary

for increased agricultural productivity. Environmental risk factors include weather,

pests, and diseases; whereas commodity price fluctuations form the key economic

factor.

Non-farm income improves household wealth, and acts as insurance against these

risks by improving farmers equity capital and hence liquidity. In addition, there are

complementarities between farm and non-farm income sources, with each one providing

investment funds for other and reducing the farmers risk averseness. Indeed,
 47

Langyintuo and Mungoma (2006) assert that there is considerable relationship

between the level of household wealth and the ability of the household to cope with

production and price risks. Further, intensity of input-use and input allocation

decisions related to farm enterprises has been associated with diversification of non-

farm income (Oduol, 2006). This study, therefore, hypothesized that non-farm income

had a positive impact on irrigation water-use efficiency. This variable was measured

through use of binary variables 1, as code for yes, implying the availability of non-

farm income; and 0 otherwise.

2.9.10 Farmers Irrigation Experience

This variable refers to the skills on irrigation accumulated overtime by the farmer.

More experience implies that the irrigators understand the purpose of irrigation, and

therefore, apply the required amount of water at the right time. Experience, measured

in number of years as an irrigator, is expected to contribute positively to irrigation

efficiency. In the study, dichotomous variables were used to measure farmers

irrigation experience. In this case, 1 was used to indicate 1-3 years, 2 for 4-6

years, 3 for 7-9 years, and 4 for 10 years and above.

2.9.11 Farm Position along the Canal

The quantity of irrigation water used is affected by the location of the farm along the

canal (Ragwa, 2002). Due to the upstream priority enjoyed by the farms located at the

head of the canal, such farm irrigators may over-irrigate by topping up their fields

more often whenever there is water in the canal, thus creating shortage downstream.
 48

On the other hand, those farms located at the tail-end along the canal tend to under-

irrigate due to less privilege in terms of access to water. Occasionally, though, over-

irrigation may occur at the tail-end as an insurance against anticipated future water

shortages due to inadequate water supply or due to interference from upstream

irrigators. In the latter case, fields are topped beyond the required depth as an

insurance against water shortage in the subsequent irrigation rotations.

The hypothesis regarding this variable was that water-use efficiency increases

downstream. In measuring this variable, dummy variables 1, 2, and 3 were used to

represent head, middle, and tail, respectively.

2.9.12 Duration of Land Preparation

Land preparation for rice cultivation in the Scheme involves flooding to soak the soil,

followed by rotavation (paddling) and levelling the paddled land under water. The

levelled land is then maintained under water (topping) for weed control until rice

transplanting is done. The planned duration can take months depending on the

acreage, as well as availability of water and land preparation machinery. This period

is set in order to allow all farmers in a WMU to prepare land so that seed nurseries are

set at the same time for uniform crop and water management. The actual duration

taken depends on the farmers capital outlay and experience, but cannot go beyond

the planned period due to restriction by the crop programme. Longer duration implies

more water-use for topping of the rotavated field, which does not necessarily add

value to the rice output. The duration, measured in weeks, was therefore hypothesized

to have a negative impact on water-use efficiency.

 49

2.9.13 Irrigation Water Conflicts

Conflicts over natural resource use occur when the rate of use is faster than any

combination of natural replenishment, technological advances in resource-use

efficiency, and institutional capacity to regulate resource use. Water-use conflicts lead

to artificial water shortages, reduce equitable distribution of water among the

irrigators, and often lead to over-irrigation as an insurance against anticipated lack of

water in subsequent water supply rotations. Conflicts were therefore hypothesized to

be correlated with less efficient water use. This variable was measured through use of

binary variables 1, as code for yes, implying frequent occurrence of conflicts

among the water users; and 0 otherwise.

 50

CHAPTER THREE

DATA AND RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

The previous chapter highlighted the relevance of the study objectives in the context

of the current practice and theory of irrigation. This chapter gives the design of the

study by describing the methodologies used in order to achieve these objectives.

Section 3.2 outlines the sampling procedures, while section 3.3 focuses on the data

collection. The definitions of the data collection variables and data analysis are

presented in sections 3.4 and 3.5 respectively.

3.2 Sampling

The study was conducted by analyzing a statistical sample of the Scheme irrigation

water user population. Effective sampling minimizes selection bias and random error

and facilitates drawing of effective inferences from the study. This is achieved

through cost-effectiveness, but without compromising the precision of the estimates

(Valades & Bamberges, 1994). To prevent selection bias, a representative sample was

determined, and complete coverage of the study population ensured. Simple random

sampling method was used in selecting respondents. The advantage of this method is

that each possible sample of some given size has the same likelihood or probability of

being selected. In addition, it offers considerable efficiency in estimation of

population parameters from the parameters of a sample if the cases exhibit internal
 51

similarity (Webster, 1995). The method was therefore applicable since the Scheme

irrigators have a strong homogeneity in terms of farm and canal design

characteristics; water-use and hydrologic characteristics; water distribution schedules;

as well as crop type, production programme, and agronomic practices.

The Scheme has approximately 4,189 farms, out of which a sample size of 121 farms

was studied. This sample size was limited by funds, time, the large spatial area of the

farmland to be covered; the unavailable on-farm reported data, as well as the nature of

the objective of the study. The statistical study sample was determined using the

Equation (3.1) used by Valades and Bamberger (1994):

d = n-(C2pq) (3.1)

Where,

d is the precision of an estimate for a particular confidence interval, with high

values indicating low precision and low values indicating high precision;

C is the Z-score for the selected level of confidence (in this case, 95 percent);

n is the sample size;

p is the probability at which the event being measured is likely to occur; and

q is the probability that the event will not occur (q= 1- p).

Using confidence level of 95 percent (i.e. = 0.05), which corresponds to the Z score

of 1.96, and setting the values of d at 0.089 (8.9%) and p at 0.5 because it results in

the highest precision, the sample size is found by substituting the values of d, C, p,

and q into Equation (3.1). Since the number of irrigators in the WMUs varied

between 55 and 508, the need to get the smallest representative sample of Scheme
 52

farms that maximized representation from all the sixty Scheme WMUs (Appendix III)

justified the use of a precision level of 0.089. The smallest representative study

sample size was then computed thus:

0.089 = n-[(1.96)2 x (0.5) (0.5)] (3.2)

Solving Equation (3.2) gives a value of 121 for n.

Although even a higher precision (d<0.089) was desirable, the corresponding sample

size was too large for the limited budget. However, the sample size of 121 was

considered large enough to help ensure the reliability of the overall water-use

estimates. In reality, 142 farms were interviewed to cater for outliers within the

sample. During data entry and analysis, twenty-one of them were thus excluded. Out

of those excluded, fourteen were left out as a result of their considerably low yield

due to severe rice blast infection; whereas for seven of them, the entire rice holdings

had been rented out in the 2007 season.

The 95 per cent confidence level and the chosen precision were found appropriate due

to the sensitivity of the socio-economic consequences of the decisions that the study

findings were likely to elicit. Highly sensitive consequences such as those that

threaten human life need decisions that are based on high degree of precision

(Webster, 1995), and hence a low value of d. In addition, the population studied was

relatively homogeneous, and required no grouping within the sample.

The overall sample size was then apportioned as follows. The Scheme is divided into

five sections for easy water management. The sections are further divided into WMUs
 53

that vary in size and hence number of farmers. However, the farms in the WMUs are

similar in design and size, and have similar irrigation and drainage infrastructure for

water management. In addition, farmers in a WMU cultivate the same crop under a

common cropping programme. The overall sample was divided proportionately

among the WMUs in the Scheme, depending on the total number of farmers in each

WMU as a fraction of the total number of farmers in the Scheme thus (Malik &

Mahmood, 2009):

nu = (Nu/N) x 121, subject to nu = n = 121 (3.3)

Where,

nu = the sample size in a given WMU

Nu = the total number of farmers in the WMU

N = the total population of the Scheme irrigators

n = the total sample size

The Scheme farms have registration numbers that are also used to identify the

irrigators. Each WMU in the Scheme has a unique series of numbers, usually in

ascending order, along the respective canals. The individual farms (sites) that were

surveyed in each WMU were therefore identified by using the random number

method to generate the farm registration numbers.

 54

3.3 Data Collection

Cross-sectional data were collected on rice production and irrigation water-use for the

2007/2008 season. The study used both primary and secondary data collected by

conducting direct personal interviews to the sample respondents. A structured

questionnaire (Appendix IV) was used as a tool for this exercise. Such a tool prevents

observation bias. The data collection was carried out in September and October of the

year 2008.

The data collection was preceded by a public-relations bulletin and training of the

interviewers. A notice was given and public awareness meetings held in the

respective sections of the Scheme in order to inform the farmers about the objective

of, as well as the legal authority for conducting the field survey. The meetings further

explained ultimate use of the data and how the irrigators would benefit from the

study, and underscored the need for accurate information. Farmers were also assured

of the confidentiality with which the information given would be treated. The said

notices and meetings helped to achieve the farmers cooperation during the

subsequent interviews.

The sensitization meetings were then followed by pre-testing of the questionnaires in

order to ensure that the required information was adequately captured. After pre-

testing, the reviewed questionnaires were then used to conduct field survey through

direct personal interviews (Plate 3.1). Secondary data were collected from relevant

institutional sources such as the National Irrigation Board; Agricultural Information

Centre, Kenyatta University, University of Nairobi, Kenya and Agricultural Research

 55

Institute. Other sources included the Ministries of Agriculture, Water and Irrigation,

Planning and National Development, as well as the Internet. The sampling sites were

mapped using Global Positioning System (Figure 3.1).

Plate 3.1: Data collection during field visit

(Source: Author, 2008)
 56

3720' 3730'

bara
Muru
# surveysites

Nyamindi
Maincanals
Branchcanals
Thibamain N
Maincanalnyamindi
Linkcanal.
W E
Network_rivers
Thiba

Network_roads
S

3 0 3 6 Kilometers
Murubara

#
indi
#
# ## #
# Nyam
# # #
# #
## # #
Th

# # #
# #
iba

#
#
040'

040'
#
# ##
#
# # #
# # #
## # # #
## #

# #
Ny

#
am

# #
#
### ## #
ind

#
i

#
# #
# ##
#
# ## #
# # # Thiba
bra
a
u
Mru

m d
ini

###
y
Na

Thiba
T
hib
a

# # #
M
ur
ub

# # ## # ##
a

# # N
r

i
a

in
d
#
##
##
ya
m
#
##

#
#
## #
# ## #
##
T

#
#
hib

#
a

## #
#

###
#
# #
# #

# ##
#
##
## #

#
#
##
N

# ##
y

##
# #
a
m

## #
# #
in

##
d

# #
#
i

#
##
##
# # Th
# # #

# ## #
ib
a

##
####
###
T
h
# #
ib
a
##
##
# ## # # #
# #
###
## # ##
#

# # ### # # ##
##

# ## #
#
##

3720' 3730'

Figure 3.1: Location and spatial distribution of survey sites

(Source: Author, 2008)

The respective variables on which data were collected are summarized in Table 3.1.
 57

Table 3.1: Variables for data collection

Objectives Variables Type of data Collection
tools
To determine the Number of irrigated acres of Cross- Questionnaire
response of rice rice per farmer; sectional; (Appendix IV
yields to the Quantity of water used per Quantitative Part I) ;
quantity of farmer; In-depth
irrigation water Number of bags harvested and interviews
used in Mwea standard weight per bag per (Appendix IV
Irrigation Scheme farmer; Part II)
Total labour per farmer;
Working capital used per
farmer
To determine Weighted values of irrigated Cross- Questionnaire
the level of acres of rice, quantity of water sectional; (Appendix IV
economic used, total labour, working Quantitative Part I) ;
efficiency of capital, and quantity of rice In-depth
irrigation water harvested per farmer interviews
use in Mwea (Appendix IV
Irrigation Scheme Part II)
To examine the Irrigation water-use, conflicts Qualitative; Topographic
factors that among irrigators, planned and Cross- maps ;
determine actual duration of land sectional Site visit
economic preparation, non-farm income, (Plate 3.1)
efficiency of gender of farmer, number of GPS ;
irrigation water years in irrigation, acres of Questionnaire
use in Mwea rice irrigated, farmer's level of (Appendix IV
Irrigation Scheme education, position of farm on Part I)
feeder canal, size of
household, age of farmer;
Water use efficiency

(Source: Author, 2008)

3.4 Definition of the Variables

3.4.1 Dependent Variables

There were three dependent variables in the analytical models. In the determination of

the significance of the response of rice yields to the quantity of irrigation water used
 58

in Mwea Irrigation Scheme, the dependent variable was the quantity of rice harvested

per farmer. This variable was measured in kilograms as the sum of the quantity of rice

harvested per farm family in the Scheme in the 2007/08 cropping season. Farmers

were asked the total number of standard bags of rice harvested. Using the standard

weight per bag in the Scheme, the total kilograms of the harvested rice were

computed and recorded as the rice output.

The other dependent variables were technical and allocative efficiencies at variable

returns to scale (TEVRS and AEVRS). Both variables were used in the determination of

economic water-use efficiency; whereas TEVRS was used in the examination of the

factors that determine water-use efficiency in the Scheme.

3.4.2 Independent Variables

The study collected data on four main explanatory variables in the determination of

significance of the quantity of irrigation water used as a rice production factor in the

Scheme. These were the quantities of irrigation water, land, working capital and

labour. The weighted values of rice output, water, land, working capital, and labour

inputs were used in determining the economic water-use efficiency.

The variables used in the examination of the factors that determine water-use

efficiency in the Scheme included farmers age, farmers level of education, gender of

farmer, and farm position along the canal. Others were the planned and actual

durations of land preparation, reason for actual duration of land preparation, water

shortages, water conflicts among the irrigators, drain-water use, reason for depth of

irrigation water used, and impression of operation and maintenance fee charged.
 59

3.5 Data Analysis

3.5.1 Introduction

The essence of data acquisition is to transform it, by analysis using economic

principles, into useful information from which inferences are drawn through

description, prediction and explanation. These inferences are then used to support the

identification of the potential alternatives that facilitate decision making in managing

or controlling the phenomenon under study.

There are different types of analytical methods, each one suitable for use under

specific sets of assumptions. The choice of a method required depends on the

structure of the data analysis as well as the nature of the design technique. Familiarity

with the structure and procedures of the analysis helps one to know that a design will

be effective (Rudestam & Newton, 2001). This study used economic analytical

methods. These were descriptive statistics, regression, correlation, and data

envelopment methods of data analysis. In descriptive statistics, graphic displays were

used to illustrate key features of the study variables (Martin & Larson, 2006).

Regression is defined as a quantitative expression of the basic nature of the

relationship between the dependent and independent variables (Webster, 1995). It

measures the direction of movement of the dependent variable in response to changes

in the independent (the explanatory) variable. In addition, it reveals the amount by

which the dependent variable will change given a one-unit change in the independent

variable. Correlation complements regression by measuring the strength of the

 60

relationship between the dependent and the independent variables or the degree to

which the two variables change together.

As analytical tools used to identify and measure the statistical relationship between

variables, regression and correlation are useful in estimating parameters of a

population based on the study of its sample. The power of these tools lies in their

ability to help identify, test and validate the functional relationships between variables

(Warner, 2004). Such relationships facilitate policy evaluation necessary for

identifying the best practice approaches to natural resource management. This was

found appropriate for the study since the findings are expected to facilitate the

effective formulation and implementation of the critically needed irrigation policy in

Kenya.

In this study, the ordinary least squares (OLS) regression and correlation analyses

were used to determine the relationship between the quantity of irrigation water used

and the rice output (Afolabi, 2009). The result of this analysis was the Cobb-Douglas

production function for rice cultivation in the Scheme. In addition, data envelopment

analysis (DEA) was used to analyze the water-use efficiency, while Tobit regression

was used for examination of the factors that determine water-use efficiency in the

Scheme (Coeli et al., 1998; Kamakura & Wedel, 2001). The methods of data analysis

used in the study are summarized in Table 3.2.

 61

Table 3.2: Data analysis

Objectives Activity and Variables Statistical
Analysis
To determine the -Compute the quantities of inputs used -Descriptive statistics;
response of rice (water, land, working capital, labour) and
yields to the their log values per farmer; -OLS regression
quantity of -Compute the quantity of rice harvested analysis using SPSS-
irrigation water and its log value per farmer; PC software;
used in Mwea -Generate a Cobb-Douglas production
Irrigation Scheme function for rice in the Scheme Correlation analysis
To determine -Compute input technical efficiencies -DEA analysis using
the level of (TEVRS) from respective input quantities; EXCEL-PC software;
economic -Compute input allocative efficiencies
efficiency of (AEVRS) from respective input quantities; -Descriptive statistics
irrigation water -Compute overall economic or cost
use in Mwea water-use efficiency (CEVRS) from the
Irrigation Scheme product of its TEVRS and AEVRS
To examine the Determine the variation in the -Censored Tobit
factors that significance among factors determining regression analysis
determine the technical efficiency in the Scheme: using STATA-PC
economic drain water re-use, conflicts among software;
efficiency of irrigators, planned and actual duration of
irrigationwater land preparation, gender of farmer, -Descriptive statistics
use in farmer's level of education, position of
Mwea Irrigation farm on feeder canal, impression of
Scheme operation and maintenance fee charged,
age of farmer, water shortages, reliability
of water supply, and availability of water
(Source: Author, 2008)

These methods are described and explained in sections 3.6.2, 3.6.3, and 3.6.4 below.

3.5.2 Response of Rice Yields to the Quantity of Irrigation Water Use

To the response of rice yields to the quantity of irrigation water used in the Scheme,

this study adopted the parametric function approach. This approach uses the
 62

production function to determine the relative contribution of the independent

variables to dependent variable.

The factors of an irrigated agricultural production are land, water, labour, capital and

management. Whereas it is possible to quantify variables such as land, water, labour

and capital, no satisfactory index of measurement exists for management

(entrepreneurial ability) as a variable. Consequently, empirical studies on production

functions have routinely excluded management in the data collection (Tintner &

Brownlee, 1944), and are instead limited to variables that are easily measurable (Katz

& Rosen, 1994).

Two functional forms of regression models were used to determine the rice yield

response to the production factors. These were the commonly used multiple linear

regression and the Cobb-Douglas production functions. A generalized Cobb-Douglas

production function is expressed thus (Murphy, 2002):

Yi = AX11 * X2 2 * * Xnn (3.4)

The multiple linear regression function on the other hand is expressed thus:

Yi = a + 1X1 + 2X2 + + nXn + (3.5)

In both Equations (3.4) and (3.5), Y is the dependent variable (regressand), X1 through

Xn are the independent or explanatory variables (regressors); A and a are

regression constants; 1 through n are the regression coefficients for X1 through Xn.

is the error term that accounts for the residuals that arise from measurement errors in

Y and errors in the specification of the relationship between the dependent and the

explanatory variables.
 63

Assuming that the elasticity of production is constant over the entire production

surface such that equal increments of inputs add the same percentage to total output at

all levels of input uses, Equation (3.4) can be converted into the functional form of

Equation (3.5) through a log-linear transformation to give Equation (3.6), thus (Reid,

1993):

InY = InA + 1InX1 + 2InX2 + 3InX3 + 4InX4 + (3.6)

The log-linear transformation enables the use of ordinary least squares method to

solve the Cobb-Douglas production function. The ordinary least squares method of

determining the line of best fit minimizes the sum of squared errors (Webster, 1995).

The regression coefficients in both models have different interpretations. In the

multiple linear regression model, these coefficients refer to the change in Y due to a

unit change in one regressor with all other regressors held constant. In the log-linear

regression model, however, the coefficients refer to elasticities or the percent change

in Y due to a unit-percent change in one regressor with all the other regressors held

constant.

In this study, Y is the gross output (in this study, the quantity of rice harvested); X1,

X2, X3 and X4 are the factors of production (representing irrigation water, labour, other

operating costs termed collectively as working capital, and land respectively); A is a

regression constant; is the error term accounting for the effects, on the dependent

variable, of other variables not included in the model. It captures the variation above

and below the regression line due to all other factors not included in the model. 1, 2,

3 and 4 are the partial regression coefficients (also termed elasticities of

 64

production). They indicate the percentages by which the value of output increases

with every 1% increase in the use of a particular production factor, all the other

factors held constant.

The function allows for constant, increasing or decreasing returns to scale depending

on whether the sum of the coefficients (1, 2, 3 and 4) is one, more than one, or less

than one respectively. The popularity of the use of the Cobb-Douglas production

function is premised on the following advantages (Matovu, 1979):

a) The regression coefficients immediately give the elasticities of production

which are independent of the units of measurements for the respective inputs;

b) It permits the phenomenon of diminishing returns without using too many

degrees of freedom; and

c) Assuming that the errors are small and normally distributed, such a

logarithmic transformation of the variables will presume, to a substantial

degree, the function assumes normality in the distribution of errors in the data.

Data were collected on the quantities of irrigation water (Plate 3.3), labour, and

capital used, as well as the rice output (Plate 3.4). Appendix III gives the details of

these variables.
 65

Plate 3.3: Quantifying irrigation water-use in the Scheme using a flow rate gauge
(Source: Author, 2008)

Plate 3.4: Quantifying the irrigated rice output using standard-weight bags
(Source: Author, 2008)

3.5.3 Determination of Economic Efficiency of Irrigation Water Use

Efficiency level of a decision-making unit (DMU) such as a farm enterprise indicates

the possibility of increasing the level of output with the same input combination (the

output-oriented approach), or producing the same level of output with a reduced level
 66

of inputs (the input-oriented approach). Efficiency therefore helps the DMU in

determining the optimal use of a resource in a production process, and hence

allocation of a limited resource among competing needs. This is important in Mwea

where water availability is declining with the expanding agricultural and non-

agricultural water uses.

Efficiency of input use or output production is measured using parametric and non-

parametric methods. The parametric approach specifies and estimates a parametric

production function such as cost or profit function. It is useful for hypothesis testing

but is prone to mis-specification error (Coeli et al., 1998). The non-parametric

approach is based on the frontiers rather than the central tendencies, and uses

mathematical programming techniques and models to evaluate the performance of

best practices in input and output combinations. An example is the data envelopment

analysis (DEA). The approach requires no specification of the functional relationship

between the inputs and outputs a priori. However, it is limited by effects of random

noise, measurement error, and exogenous factors beyond the researchers control.

The two principal scalar measures of efficiency for the input-oriented approach are

the technical efficiency and allocative efficiency (Farrell, 1957). Technical efficiency

is the proportion by which inputs can possibly be reduced for a particular level of

output to obtain efficient use of the inputs. Allocative efficiency, on the other hand, is

an indicator of the DMU to use inputs in optimal proportions, given their respective

prices. A combination of these two measures gives the economic (cost) efficiency

(Kumbhaker & Lovell, 2000). Therefore, the determination of these constituent

parameters is a pre-requisite for deriving the economic efficiency.

 67

Technical efficiency relates a firms observed production to its ideal or potential

production. The measurement of the deviation of observed output from the best

production or efficient production frontier gives the firms technical efficiency.

Quantitatively, the ratio of the actual to potential production defines the level of

efficiency of the firm. A firm is said to be perfectly efficient if its actual production

point lies on, and technically inefficient if it lies below its efficient production

frontier. Relative technical efficiencies of firms can be estimated among a set of firms

in an industry such as farms in a Scheme. The best-practice production frontier or

function is determined by extracting information from extreme observations from a

set of firms. The relative measure of technical efficiency for an individual firm is then

derived from this frontier.

The DEA method uses the observed efficient farms to specify the best-practice

frontier, and then gives the minimum possible quantities of inputs that other DMUs

in the sample can use to realize the observed output levels on the basis of the efficient

frontier. The method uses mathematical programming to measure efficiency by

computing the ratio of all outputs to all inputs for each farm (or case of in the

sample). The method has an advantage that, no functional form has to be specified a

priori. However, its limitation is that it is sensitive to outliers in the data. The DEA

has received wide application in estimating the efficiency scores of individual DMUs

using cross-sectional data in various areas (Moesen & Persoon, 2002).

The mathematical programming formulation of the efficiency problem asks what

output and input weights would optimize efficiency (Uri, 2001). Efficiency of each
 68

farm is computed as the maximum ratio of weighted outputs to weighted inputs,

conditional on similar ratios for every farm being less than or equal to one.

The following explanation of the DEA was adopted from Zhu (2003). Let n be a set

of observations on the DMUs, where each observation DMUj (j=1, 2, , n) uses m

inputs xij (i=1, 2, , m) to produce s outputs yrj (r=1, 2, , s). The efficient empirical

frontier (best-practice frontier) is determined by these n observations. A piecewise

linear approximation to the efficient frontier and the area dominated by the frontier is

developed by using the properties of convexity and inefficiency thus:

Assuming convexity, the possible inputs usable by DMUj (Zhu, 2003) are:

jxij
j 1
(i = 1, 2, , m); (3.7)

and the possible outputs achievable by DMUj are

jyrj
j 1
(r = 1, 2, , s); (3.8)

n
Where, j (j=1, 2, , n) are non-negative scalars such that j = 1
j 1

Assuming inefficiency, the same outputs yrj can be produced by using more inputs xij

where xij xij ; or the same inputs xij can be used to produce less output yrj where

yrj yrj

Thus, for specific xi (i=1, 2, , m) and yr (r=1, 2, , s), we have:

jxij
j 1
xi (i = 1, 2, , m); (3.9)
 69

jyrj
j 1
yrj (r = 1, 2, , s); (3.10)

j = 1
j 1
(3.11)

Now, the empirical (piecewise linear) efficient frontier described by equations (3.9),

(3.10) and (3.11) can be estimated by adopting either input-oriented approach, or

output-oriented approach. The input-oriented model where inputs are minimized and

outputs are kept constant at their current level (Zhu, 2003) is:

* = min, (3.12)

Subject to:

jxij
j 1
xio (i = 1, 2, , m); (3.13)

jyrj
j 1
yro (r = 1, 2, , s); (3.14)

j = 1;
j 1
(3.15)

j 0 (j = 1, 2, , n); (3.16)

Where, denotes the weighted ratio of efficient (potential) to the actual input

quantities; DMUo denotes one of the n DMUs being evaluated; xio denotes the ith

input for DMUo; yro denotes the rth output for DMUo; * is the efficiency score of the

DMUo. If *= 1, then the input levels cannot be reduced further without changing the

level of output, indicating that DMUo lies on the efficient frontier. If *<1, then

DMUo is dominated by the efficient frontier, implying that it is inefficient.

 70

DEA comprises several models depending on the assumptions which are made about

the nature of the returns to scale. The variable returns to scale condition (DEAVRS)

occurs if = 1. The term = 1 is, therefore, imposed in order to give the multiplier

form of the DEA linear programming problem. Conditions such as imperfect

competition and financial constraints that firms often face usually cause the firms not

to operate at optimum scale (Coelli et al., 1998), and hence the adoption of the VRS

approach in this study.

The DEA analysis was run on EXCEL-PC. The outputs of this analysis were the

technical and allocative water-use efficiencies. The product of the technical and

allocative efficiencies was then used to derive the economic (cost) efficiency of

water-use for each DMU, and the average of the DMUs adopted as the economic

efficiency of water-use in the Scheme. The economic efficiency indicates to what

extent the individual farms maximize profit from their use of the water resource

(Merz, 2004).

3.5.4 Examination of Factors that Determine Scheme Water-Use Efficiency

Sustainable solution to the declining agricultural productivity is well-documented.

Hayami and Ruttan (1985), advocate for a shift to resource-conserving technologies

as a strategy for mitigating the declining productivity of natural resources. With its

population concentrated in the limited high and medium potential areas, Kenya faces

a considerable land constraint and has the greatest need for intensification. Further,

additional growth of the vital Kenyas agricultural sector depends on enhancing the

productivity of the limited arable land (Oduol, 2006).

 71

Extensive research has led to the development and adoption of technologies such as

use of crop varieties that are more responsive to capital-intensive management, soil

conservation and fertility improvement, and agricultural extension. However,

harnessing the full potential of these technologies in Kenya has been hampered by

adverse climatic conditions under the countrys predominantly rain-fed farming.

Integrating irrigation into this package of technologies offers an effective solution to

sustainable agricultural growth and development. With the dwindling water resource

availability, however, sustainable irrigation will depend on how efficiently the water

is utilized.

In terms of public irrigation activities, Mwea is the most active region in Kirinyaga

District as well as in Central Province. Nevertheless, water is getting increasingly

scarce in the Scheme due to adverse climatic conditions, increasing vertical irrigation

expansion within the Scheme, and horizontal expansion in the region outlying the

Scheme. This objective sought to find out why irrigators still over-use water despite

its declining availability in the Scheme where irrigation is the mainstay of the

economic and social welfare of the community. This explanation is vital to facilitate

identifying priority areas of intervention when planning for sustainable water resource

management in the Scheme.

During this study, it was observed that the Scheme farmers were aware of the

increasing water scarcity, but still used inefficient water management practices

through excessive water application rates. Farmers cited several factors of this level

of water-use. This objective therefore sought to identify which factors among these

explain the inefficient water-use. Data were collected on the farmers age, gender,
 72

level of education, water conflicts among the irrigators, frequency of water shortages,

planned and actual periods of land preparation, drain water re-use, availability of

water in the canal, impression about the operation and maintenance fee, and position

of the farm along the irrigation canal. In this analysis, the above factors were used as

the independent variables, and technical efficiency at variable returns to scale used as

the dependant variable.

Linear regression analysis is effective where the values of all variables are known for

the entire sample. However, sometimes a sample may be limited by censoring and

truncation. Censoring is said to occur when the independent variables are observable

for the entire sample, but the dependent variable is known only if some criterion

defined in terms of its value is met (Breen, 1996). Truncation on the other hand

excludes some observations based on the characteristics of the dependent variable,

and the independent variable is observed only if the dependent variable is observed.

Whereas truncation changes the sample such that the sample is no longer

representative of the population, censoring does not (Scott, 1997). When the variable

of interest is only observable under certain conditions, using ordinary least squares

regression with such variables yields biased and inconsistent parameter estimates

(Tobin, 1958; Breen, 1996). The inconsistency includes the relative magnitude of

coefficients, level of significance, and direction of effect the independent variable on

the dependent variable. Censoring of variables is performed in such a case. The

statistical methods appropriate for analyzing censored and truncated samples are the

Tobit models (Amemiya, 1984). Classically, estimating parameters from censored

 73

data involves deriving a likelihood function and use its maximizer that has all the

asymptotic properties of a maximum likelihood estimator (Schnedler, 2005)

In order to analyze the relative significance of the factors explaining the Scheme

water-use efficiency, the independent variables were re-coded. During the re-coding,

each of the variables was observed only if it was above or below some cut-off level

(that is, the variables were censored). Except for the farmers age and the planned and

actual periods of land preparation period, the other factors were re-coded and binary

variables used to characterize them. The data were then analyzed using descriptive

and Censored Tobit regression analysis.

The Tobit, an econometric model proposed by James Tobin (1958), describes the

relationship between a non-negative dependent variable yi and an independent

variable (or vector) xi. It supposes that there is a latent variable yi* that cannot be

observed over its entire range, and linearly depends on xi through a parameter (vector)

. determines the relationship between xi and yi*. In addition, there is a normally

distributed error term i to capture random influences on this relationship. The

observable variable yi is defined to be equal to the latent variable whenever the latent

variable is above zero, and zero otherwise.

The Tobit is a non-linear model that is estimated using maximum likelihood

estimation techniques. The likelihood function for the Tobit model takes the form

(Bierens, 2004):

(3.17)
 74

(3.18)

Where, i is a normally distributed error term with a mean of zero and a variance of 2;

xs are the independent variables observed for all cases; and y* is a latent variable that

is not observed over its entire range. y* is observed for values greater than 0, and is

censored for values less than or equal to 0. is the regression coefficient that

represents the marginal effect of x on yi*.. thus corresponds to the marginal effect of

x on the latent variable y*, not to the observed variable y.

The Tobit model was run using STATA-PC to calculate these marginal effects using

the censored regression analysis.

3.6 Chapter Summary

The expanding irrigation activities amid declining water availability and fluctuating

river discharges in Mwea Scheme necessitated this study. 121 out of the 4,189

Scheme rice farmers were randomly selected and cross-sectional data collected on

variables related to their socio-economic characteristics and production activities for

the cropping season 2007/08. These included the rice output, land, labour, capital and

water. Others were the position of farm along the canal, age and gender of farmer,

standard and actual duration of land preparation, water conflicts and shortages,

education, drain water re-use, water availability and reliability, operation and

maintenance charge.
 75

The Cobb-Douglas production function and ordinary least squares regression methods

were used to analyze value-addition of the quantity of irrigation water. On the other

hand, data envelopment analysis and censored Tobit regression were used to analyze

water-use efficiency and factors of water-use efficiency respectively.

 76

CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Introduction

In this chapter, the findings of the study are presented and discussed. Section 4.2 of

the chapter deals with determining the significance of quantity of irrigation water

used as a factor of rice production in the Scheme. Section 4.3 presents the analysis

of economic water-use efficiency. Finally, section 4.4 dwells on the determination of

the factors that explain the Scheme economic water-use efficiency.

4.2 Quantity of Water as a Rice Production Factor

The hypothesis tested under this objective was:

H0: There is no significant effect of the quantity of irrigation water used as a rice

production factor in Mwea Irrigation Scheme

HA: There is significant effect of the quantity of irrigation water used as a rice

production factor in Mwea Irrigation Scheme

The decision rule was: Reject H0 if effect of quantity of irrigation water is significant

at 95% level of confidence such that

t < 1.96 or > 0.05.

 77

4.2.1 Model Specification

Regression analysis was run using SPSS-PC in order to generate the Cobb-Douglas

rice production function for the Scheme. The study chose four explanatory variables a

priori. These were the quantity of irrigation water, land, labour, and working capital.

The input elasticities (coefficients) and the associated statistics derived by the

analysis are given in Tables 4.1 and 4.2 below.

Table 4.1: Summary of statistics for the regression model

Std. Error of the
R R2 Adjusted R2 Estimate
0.891(a) 0.793 0.788 0.28137
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Predictors: (Constant), log of working capital, log of quantity of water used, log of total
labour, log of land under irrigated rice
b. Dependent Variable: Log of total rice harvested
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Source: Author, 2008)

Table 4.2: Summary of coefficients for the regression model

Parameter Unstandardized Standardized t Sig.
Coefficients Coefficients: ()
Beta
Std Error

Log Constant 0.481 1.017 0.473 0.637

Log quantity of water 0.099 0.222 0.097 0.445 0.657
Log total labour 0.294 0.209 0.286 1.409 0.162
Log land n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Log working capital 0.510 0.174 0.517 2.928 0.004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Predictors: (Constant), log of working capital, log of quantity of water used, log of total
labour, log of land under irrigated rice
b. Dependent Variable: Log of total rice harvested
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Source: Author, 2008)

 78

Since the irrigation water use was assumed to be uniformly applied across the farms,

any variation in the quantity of water used per farmer was due to variation in the size

of land irrigated. Similarly, the labour and working capital too were strongly

correlated with the land size. The regression output, therefore, showed exclusion of

land from the analysis results, since the effects of the land input could be explained

by the effects of the other variables.

From the regression results, the Cobb-Douglas function was fitted to the data in order

to derive the production function for rice in the Scheme. The elasticity values

obtained from the regression analysis were substituted into the logarithmic function

(Equation 3.5) with X1, X2, X3, and X4 representing irrigation water, labour, working

capital and land respectively as follows:

InY = 0.481 + 0.099InX1 + 0.294InX2 + 0.510InX3 + 4InX4 + (4.1)

With the elimination of land from the function, Equation (4.1) was transformed into

Equation (4.2):

InY = 0.481 + 0.099InX1 + 0.294InX2 + 0.510InX3 + (4.2)

Substituting the mean log values into Equation (4.2) gave the value of thus:

InY = 0.481 + 0.099InX1 + 0.294InX2 + 0.510InX3 +

8.5284= 0.481 + 0.099(10.1982) + 0.294(5.6051) + 0.510(10.5755) +

= -0.0036

The final function was then derived as:

InY = 0.477 + 0.099InX1 + 0.294InX2 + 0.510InX3 (4.3)

 79

4.2.2 Model Evaluation

It is possible that the subsequent inferences drawn from the data could mislead due to

sampling error, and the apparent functional relationship revealed by the sample may

not actually exist at the population level. It was therefore deemed necessary to

evaluate the model to determine its explanatory value.

The model evaluation can be achieved through the standard error of the estimate,

ANOVA and the F-test, evaluation of the contribution of each independent variable

with the use of t-test, or examination of the coefficient of multiple determination

(Webster, 1995). The standard error of the estimate measures the dispersion of the

observed values of the dependent variable around those predicted by the regression

model. In doing so, the parameter reflects the measure of error in any prediction

based on the regression model. Less dispersion, indicated by the smaller value of the

standard error of the estimate, implies higher accuracy of the model in prediction and

forecasting. The coefficient of multiple determination, R2, measures the explanatory

power of the regression model by measuring the portion of the change in the

dependent variable that is explained by all the independent variables in the model.

The output for the SPSS-PC run of the coefficient of multiple determination as well

as the Standard Error of the Estimate is given in Table 4.4 above. The R, R2, adjusted

R2, and Standard Error of the Estimate were 0.891, 0.793, 0.788, and 0.28137

respectively. This reveals that 79.3% of the change in the rice output is explained by

the changes in the quantity of irrigation water used, labour, and working capital. This

fact together with the low standard error of the estimate implied that the regression

plane defined by the model fitted the data fairly well. It was therefore, concluded that
 80

there exists a relationship between the rice output and irrigation water, labour and

working capital used in rice production process. The strength and direction of this

relationship is given by the corresponding coefficients of correlation. The

corresponding coefficients of correlation ranged from 0.876 to 1.000, indicating a

strong and direct relationship.

4.2.3 Discussion

From the result of this analysis, it can be observed that the quantity of irrigation

water, labour and capital used have positive impact on rice output in the Scheme. The

impacts, however, are insignificant for water and labour, but significant for capital at

95% confidence level. Since the impact of the quantity of irrigation water used on rice

yield was insignificant at 0.05 level of significance, there was no sufficient evidence

to reject the null hypothesis.

On the basis of the data obtained from the sample of 121 Scheme irrigators, the

regression coefficients (production elasticities of inputs) were 0.099, 0.294, and 0.510

for water, labour, and working capital respectively. Two principal inferences can be

drawn from the production function depicted by Equation (4.3), both related to the

regression coefficients. The first one is linked to the relative importance of the factor

inputs used in Mwea Irrigation Scheme. A 0.51% change in output would be observed

if working capital changed by 1% with labour and water held constant. Similarly, an

equivalent change in labour would change rice output by 0.294% with all other inputs

held constant; whereas, a 1% change in water would change the output of rice by only

0.099%, ceteris paribus. Considering the three inputs therefore, rice output in the
 81

Scheme is most responsive to capital, and least responsive to quantity of irrigation

water under the current level of technology.

Statistically, there is no significant relationship between the quantity of irrigation

water as used, and the rice output in the Scheme. At the 0.05 level of significance, -

value should be 0.05 or less to imply significant effect. However, the -value for

impact of irrigation water was 0.657, implying insignificant effect. The low response

of output to water suggests that water-use in the Scheme is below its productive

potential. Comparable observations on irrigation efficiency in paddy fields in the

Lower Mekong Basinwere made by (Phengphaengsy & Hiroshi, 2006) on total and

input factor productivity analysis of poultry production in Khorasan Province, Iran.

Alternatively, the water has probably attained its maximum factor productivity in the

Scheme and, at the current technology, is in the third stage of the production function.

In this stage, both the average and marginal productivity are positive but are

declining. Precise explanation of the current water use in the Scheme thus requires

determination of the water-use efficiency.

The second inference regards the implication of the sum of the coefficients. The sum

of 1, 2 and 3 in the model is 0.903. The fact that this sum is less than unity

indicates a situation of decreasing returns to scale. This means that an increase in rice

output has to be accompanied by more than proportionate increase in the factors of

production. The solution to improving the productive capacity of the resources thus

lies in technical change rather than physically expanding their use.

 82

The above analysis and inferences only refer to the functional relationship between

the factors of production and the output. They do not, in any way, prove whether the

water resources are optimally utilized or not. In addition, the least squares

econometric models employed in this analysis have the limitation of assuming that all

the DMUs (farms) studied are fully efficient (Coeli et al., 1998). This, however, is not

always the case. In order to address this limitation, an analysis of the efficiency of use

of the water resources was undertaken, under the subsequent objective.

4.3 Economic Efficiency of Irrigated Rice Production

4.3.1 Irrigation Water Use

The Scheme operated a number of check points for monitoring irrigation water flow

between the point of abstraction from the rivers (the headworks) and the farms.

However, there was inadequate gauging and inconsistency in the data collection due

to frequent breakage of the gauges by vandals. The only guarded structures are those

installed at the headworks. The only reliable data, therefore, were those of abstraction

at the Nyamindi and Thiba headworks, where records were maintained of the daily

water abstraction.

The water abstraction was governed by the on-farm water requirement as well as the

weather conditions. Irrigation was only used to top up the deficit created by severe

weather and crop water demand. Table 4.3 gives the data that the study computed

from the record of daily water abstraction at the two headworks.

 83

Table 4.3: Summary report of irrigation water use in the Scheme

River Recorded Annual Estimate of Estimated Water-Use
Headworks Water Irrigated Area (m3/acre)
Withdrawal (m3) (acres)
Thiba 13.01 x 107 12,695.43 10.24 x 103

Nyamindi 4.04 x 107 4,500.00 8.98 x 103

Total 17.05 x 107 17,195.43 9.61 x 103

(Source: Author, 2008)

From Table 4.3, a disparity can be observed of the water-use between the two rivers.

The estimated water-use for rice cultivation in the Thiba Basin was 10.24 x

103m3/acre, whereas that of Nyamindi Basin was 8.98 x 103m3/acre. Two possible

explanations can be given for this variance. One is that the Scheme uses open earth

canals that have considerable seepage losses during conveyance. Nearly 74% of the

irrigation command area falls under Thiba basin. The Sections and hence WMUs in

this sub-basin are spatially distributed over a large area, and that means a more

elaborate canal network with an expected higher level of water losses. The remaining

26% of the command area falls under Nyamindi basin and is composed of WMUs

that are close to each other, and hence less water loss during conveyance and

distribution. Again, there are more informal (out-grower) irrigation activities where

the irrigation infrastructure is inefficient in Thiba part of the Scheme. Of the

12,695.43 acres under rice cultivation in the Thiba Basin, approximately 1000 acres

were estimated to be under out-grower activities.

The water withdrawn from River Nyamindi was used to irrigate an estimated 4000

acres of rice plus 500 acres of horticultural crops. The horticultural crop cultivation
 84

was carried out mainly on the loam soils that are considered marginal for rice

cultivation due to high infiltration and seepage water losses. The crops grown

included French beans, baby corn, tomatoes, and kales, and were intensively grown in

rotation. There was no coordinated cropping pattern, or regulated irrigation activities

for horticulture. In addition, there were no records of the respective acreage of the

horticultural crops all year round. Within the scope of this study, therefore, it was

difficult to estimate horticultural water-use. However, it was observed that there

might be no considerable disparity in water-use between rice and horticultural

irrigators. This was inferred from the fact that the non-rice crops were grown

intensively and in quick rotation, often with three to four crops per year. Further, the

activities were mainly in the loam soil areas where the furrow irrigation practised was

performed frequently (sometimes twice weekly). On the other hand, rice was

cultivated only once annually.

The Scheme irrigation water-use was found to be 9610 m3 per acre per season for rice

cultivation. The mean average productivity of water was 0.1962 kg/m3. This is

equivalent to 5.097 m3 per kilo of rice produced. This is higher than the 4.19m3 of per

kilogram of rice found by Chuaga (1981). The disparity can be explained by the fact

that the previous study measured water-use experimentally at farm level, while the

current study looked at overall irrigation system-wide water-use. Access to irrigation

water attracted a uniform operation and maintenance fee per acre of land irrespective

of the quantity of water used.

 85

4.3.2 Economic Efficiency Analysis

The hypothesis tested under this objective was:

H0: Irrigation water use in Mwea Scheme is not economically efficient

HA: Irrigation water use in Mwea Scheme is economically efficient

CEVRS can only have a positive value that is either less than one to imply
inefficiency, or equal to one to imply efficiency. The decision rule was thus:

Reject H0 if mean CEVRS = 1

The DEA was run on EXCEL-PC, and results obtained as summarized in Table 4.4

below:

Table 4.4: Summary of water-use efficiencies for Mwea Scheme

Parameter Technical Efficiency Allocative Efficiency Cost Efficiency
(TEVRS) (AEVRS) (CEVRS)
Maximum 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000

Minimum 0.27665 0.27263 0.25408

Mean 0.68951 0.913083 0.62958

Std. deviation 0.17630 0.05142 0.16715

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Predictors: weighted values of quantities of rice, water, labour, working capital, and land
b. Dependent Variables: TEVRS; AEVRS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Source: Author, 2008)

Table 4.4 reveals that the technical efficiency (TEVRS) ranged between 0.27665 and

1.00000, with a mean of 0.68951. In fact, only seven out of the total sample of 121

farms had a TEVRS value of unity (1.00000). On the other hand, the allocative

efficiency (AEVRS) ranged between 0.27263 and 1.00000, with an average of

0.913083. Only four out of the 121 farms had unit allocative efficiency. The overall
 86

economic (cost) efficiency, (CEVRS) was computed from the technical and allocative

efficiencies using the formula 4.4 (Coeli et al., 1998) thus:

CEVRS = TEVRS x AEVRS (4.4)

The mean CEVRS was found to be 0.62958, or 62.96%. Figure 4.1 illustrates the

technical, allocative and cost efficiency scores for the surveyed farms. On the basis of

evidence from the sample, the null hypothesis was therefore not rejected.

TE (VRS) CE (VRS) AE (VRS)

1.2

1.0

0.8
Efficiency scores

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
1 7 13 19 25 31 37 43 49 55 61 67 73 79 85 91 97 103 109 115 121
DMUs

Figure 4.1: Technical, allocative and cost efficiencies of Scheme water-use

(Source: Author, 2008)
 87

4.3.3 Discussion

A number of implications can be inferred from the results regarding the efficiency

parameters analyzed. One such conclusion relates to the level of technical efficiency.

This parameter is observed to be highly variable across the sampled farms, with a

minimum of 27.67%, a maximum of 100.00%, implying 0.00% to 72.33%

inefficiency. The mean efficiency was 68.96%, implying mean inefficiency of

31.04%. Therefore, holding the technology and the quantities of land, labour and

capital constant, the observed level of rice output can be achieved by using only

68.96% of the water currently used. Since the Scheme currently uses 1.705x108m3 of

water, a saving of 31.04% (equivalent to 5.29x107m3) can be made on water, which

could be used to either expand rice cultivation, expand the irrigation of other crops, or

released to the non-agricultural sectors altogether. At the current technology and level

of other inputs, if all the technical inefficiency were fully mitigated, the Scheme

would expand rice cultivation by an additional 7982 acres with no extra abstraction of

water.

Allocative efficiency ranged between 27.26% and 100.00%, with a mean of 91.31%.

Since this parameter is a function of input prices, this suggests that there is no

significant variation in the input costs, and/or rice output prices. Another possible

explanation is that rice cultivation in the Scheme is strictly controlled by the crop

programme and subsequent crop husbandry activities, thus having uniformity in

decisions regarding input allocation and management. It was, thus, possible to save

only 8.69% of the production costs incurred. This shows that centralized irrigation
 88

planning has the advantage of improving allocative efficiency, and hence economic or

cost efficiency of the irrigation project.

Overall, the cost efficiency was 62.96%, indicating that most of the farms did not

maximize profit from their use of the water. Being a product of TE and AE, economic

efficiency was contributed more by allocative, than technical efficiency. The

functional relationship among these three parameters implies that the cost efficiency

of rice production in the Scheme can be significantly improved more by improving

the technical than allocative efficiency. The cost of production could also be reduced,

though marginally, if allocative inefficiency were removed. Based on the results from

sample, there was no sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis.

The results of this study are consistent with empirical results found in literature.

Ahmed et al. (2007) reported 56% on-farm water-use efficiency in the public irrigated

Schemes in the River Nile State of Sudan. Similarly, system-wide and country overall

irrigation efficiencies have been reported by Guerra et al. (1998) as indicated in Table

4.5 below:

From Table 4.5, the reported overall irrigation efficiencies range from 30% to 65%.

Although the technologies used are not indicated, these figures show remarkable

overuse of water, and this probably explains why irrigation consumes more than 80%

of abstracted water in Asia (Dawe et al., 1998; Bhuiyan 1992). In addition, it is

shown that lower efficiency was observed during wet than during dry seasons in

Thailand. This is probably due to excess availability of water during wet season as
 89

well as its scarcity during dry season. Irrigators therefore place greater value for, and

economize water use during dry season than they do in wet season.

Table 4.5: Overall irrigation efficiencies of some irrigation systems

Country/Irrigation system Overall Remarks
irrigation
efficiency (%)
Indonesia 40-65
Malaysia/Kerian Irrigation 35-45 Command area
Scheme = 23,560ha
37-46 Wet season >12,800ha
Thailand/Northern, Mae Kiong,
Chao Phraya 40-62 Dry season >12,800ha

Canal systems, northern India 38

Kamataka state, India 30
(Source: Guerra et al., 1998)

The level of inefficiency revealed by these results lead to the may imply that the

inefficiency is due to water resource overuse, a common feature of common-pool

resources. Such resources are characterized by low excludability, and high rivalry. In

order to assure the sustainability of such resources, Ostrom (1990) recommended

eight principles. These principles can be summarized into delineation of project areas

based on hydrological rather than administrative boundaries, effective regulation, and

integrated resource management.

It was observed that the concept of watershed-based water sector reforms and the PIM

(Plate 4.1) being introduced in the Scheme will embody these principles if fully

implemented. However, there is need to build the capacity of IWUA, the institution

charged with the implementation of PIM at farmers level, in order to realize the

sustainable management of the common-pool water resource.

 90

Plate 4.1: A Scheme farmer operating irrigation water control gate under PIM
(Source: Author, 2008)

From results of the current study, it is evident that irrigation, as currently practised, is

unnecessarily consumptive of water. Given that irrigation holds the key to the needed

increase in agricultural output, serious focus on water-saving approaches is

recommended if irrigation is to be sustained. This can be effectively achieved by

identifying the project-specific factors that determine the water-use efficiency in

order to facilitate appropriate intervention.

4.4 Factors that Determine Economic Efficiency of Irrigated Rice

Production

4.4.1 Summary of Socio-Economic Characteristics

The main economic activity in the Scheme is farming, with 120 (99.2%) respondents

fully dependent on farming as their main occupation, against 1 (0.8%) respondent

 91

who relied on business. The limited variability in this factor among the irrigators led

to its exclusion from subsequent analysis. Similarly, the 118 (97.5%) of the farmers

had more than ten years of experience in irrigation farming, and the variable was

excluded from further analysis due to its limited variability among the irrigators.

Household size ranged from 2 to 38, with a median size of 8. Labour in the Scheme

was found to be fully commercial, even at household level. In addition, household

access to labour depended on capital rather than household size. This variable

therefore had no impact on household labour productivity, since household size only

affected labour availability at the Scheme-, but not household levels. Consequently,

this variable was eliminated in the subsequent analysis.

The mean land size was 3.769 acres per farmer. The farmers are therefore classified

as small-scale. In terms of land-use in the Scheme, farmers held between 0.92 and

14.25 acres. The mean total land size per farm family was 4.25 acres. Out of this

mean, 0.25 acres was devoted to settlement and other non-agricultural uses. On

average, a household cultivated 4 acres almost entirely under irrigation. In addition,

the irrigated land was almost entirely put under rice cultivation.

The land-use results reveal a number of factors regarding the land resource in the

Scheme. These include the availability of the resource, importance of agriculture to

the Scheme community, scale of farming activities, and potential for horizontal

irrigation expansion. Additional revelations are the importance of irrigation in the

Scheme farming activities, and the importance of rice cultivation to the local

community.
 92

Regarding the land resource availability in the Scheme, open land frontier has been

closed since there is no fallow land available. This reflects similar observations

regarding the Sub-Saharan Africa and Kenya (Reardon et al., 1996; Lele & Stone,

1989). This implies that irrigation expansion in the study area will involve

intensification (vertical expansion) of the already used land rather than the horizontal

expansion of the cultivated land. In addition, based on the mean land holding, the

Scheme is generally composed of small-scale farmers. The farming activities rely on

irrigation and rice is the main crop grown. Since the rice is grown for commercial

purposes, the farmers can thus be described as commercial small-scale.

Land in the Scheme is administered under the Trustland Regulations, with the NIB as

the trustee, and farmers as tenants. Farmers expressed a sense of insecure access to

land under this type of tenure system. However, the licensees have equal legal access

to land, and hence irrigation water. The observed high correlation (multicollinearity)

between land on the one hand and labour, capital and water on the other, led to

exclusion of land from further analysis.

The remaining factors showed sufficient variability to warrant further analysis. These

were the position of farm, age of farmer, male gender, planned and actual durations of

land preparation, water conflicts among the irrigators, frequency of water shortages,

and formal education. Others were drain water re-use, availability of water in the

canal, reliability of water supply, and cost of operation and maintenance fee charged.

In this analysis, the above factors were used as the independent variables, and

technical efficiency at variable returns to scale used as the dependant variable.

 93

4.4 2 Analysis of the Factors that Determine Water-use Efficiency

The hypothesis to be tested under this objective was:

H0: There is no significant variation, at 95% level of confidence, among the factors

that determine the efficiency of irrigation water-use in Mwea Irrigation Scheme

HA: There is significant variation among the factors that determine the efficiency of

irrigation water-use in Mwea Irrigation Scheme

Decision rule: Reject H0 if t is insignificant, and hence P>|t| is greater than 0.05.

To facilitate the use of censored Tobit regression, binary variables were used to

characterize the qualitative variables under investigation as follows:

The farm positions along the canal were head, middle and tail-end. Since nearly all

those who reported limited access to irrigation water due to farm position were tail-

enders, tail-end position of farm on the canal was assigned the value of 1, and 0

otherwise. Since the dominant gender was male, the male gender was characterized

by 1, and 0 otherwise. Most of the respondents who cited water conflicts described

the variable as frequent. Frequent water conflicts were thus assigned the value of 1,

and 0 otherwise. Frequent water shortage was allotted the value of 1, and 0 otherwise.

It was hypothesized that there was significant difference between a resource user with

formal education and one without. Formal educational level (whether primary,

secondary, or post-secondary) was, hence, assigned the value of 1, and 0 otherwise.

The reliability of water supply was the main reason cited for the actual duration of

land preparation, and was assigned the value of 1, and 0 otherwise. The availability of

water in the canal was most commonly cited as the criterion for the depth of irrigation
 94

water applied and was assigned the value of 1, and 0 otherwise. In addition, the

impression of the cost of operation and maintenance fee charged being high was

given the value of 1, and 0 otherwise. Frequent water conflicts, and re-use of drain

water were each assigned the value of 1, and 0 otherwise.

The observed quantitative values were used for age, planned duration of land

preparation, and actual duration of land preparation. Table 4.6 shows part of a

censored Tobit analysis printout from STATA-PC run using the data collected in

during the study. Although the printout included all the factors used in the regression

analysis, only those factors that were significant at 0.05 level are indicated here.

Table 4.6: Determinants of technical water-use efficiency in Mwea Scheme

TEVRS Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t|
Actual duration of land 0.000535 0.00027 1.98 0.050
preparation
Water conflicts -0.0854945 0.0386228 -2.21 0.029
Drain water re-use -0.1489102 0.0693522 -2.15 0.034
Availability of water in the 0.1020979 0.0457173 2.23 0.028
canal
Reliability of water supply -0.0569561 0.0311046 -1.83 0.070
Constant 0.6337806 0.1066839 5.94 0.000
/sigma 0.156662 0.1066839
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of observations = 121; LR chi2(12) = 29.22; Prob > chi2 = 0.0037; Log likelihood =
50.702714; Pseudo R2 = -0.4047

(Source: Author, 2008)

From the regression analysis results, all the factors listed showed variability in impact

on the efficiency of water-use. Consequently, the null hypothesis was rejected and its

alternative supported. The downstream position of the farm on the feeder canal, male

gender of farmer, irrigation water conflicts, drain and water re-use had negative
 95

impact. Other variables with similar effect were the reliability of water supply and the

high cost of operation and maintenance fee charged. On the other hand, farmer age,

planned and actual durations of land preparation, frequency of water shortage, formal

education, and availability of water in the canal showed positive impact. In addition,

actual duration of land preparation, water conflicts, drain water re-use, and

availability of water in the canal had significant impact; whereas all the other factors

had insignificant impact at 0.05 level of significance.

4.4.3 Discussion

The possible explanations for these observations are as follows: Downstream (tail-

end) location of the farm on the feeder canal, contrary to the hypothesis, had a

negative but insignificant impact on technical efficiency. Ragwa (2006) associated

tail-end location of irrigators with less access to water, and hence reduced crop yields.

However, this correlation was not observed in this study. This implies that despite the

frequent water shortages that the tail-enders reported, the quantity (depth) of

irrigation water they applied when water was available was still met, or was in excess

of the crop requirement. It could also suggest that the apparent water shortage

reported by those tail-enders was not absolute, but rather relative to the over-irrigated

upstream farms. If the farmers still observed dry fields after applying the actual depth

of water, then their fields could probably be losing the water, for example, through

lateral seepage due to thin field bunds. Alternatively, those particular fields might

probably be located in areas considered marginal for paddy field construction. Thin

sizes of field bunds were common in the field. Many farmers maintained thin field
 96

bunds so as to maximize the farm size. Thin field bunds and marginal location of

farms are factors of irrigation design that need to be considered when planning for

irrigation development, and adhered to in irrigated farm management.

As hypothesized, the male gender reduced technical efficiency albeit insignificantly.

This can be explained by the fact that men are able to access water even under

conflict, an ability they seemed to abuse by using more water than necessary. The

impact of gender on technical efficiency was insignificant since there was no gender

disparity in access to production factors in the Scheme so long as one was licensed as

a landholder. Regarding gender disparity, the male farmers, perhaps being stronger

and more resilient to conflicts, seemed to have advantage over female farmers in

access to water. Women were also reported to shy away from irrigating at night

during periods of severe water shortage. The observed inefficiency in this respect can,

therefore, be attributed to greater misuse of water by men than women. Impact of

gender on water use therefore ought to be an integral factor of irrigation management

planning.

Water conflicts refer to interference, by some farmers, with the planned field water

distribution. Irrigation water conflicts had significant negative impact on water-use

efficiency as expected. Under conditions of conflict, farmers fight to get water in

disregard of the planned water distribution programme. Water conflicts increase

access to water for the irrigators located upstream as well as the strong mid- and tail-

enders, but reduce access for the weak farmers located mid and tail-end of the canal.

In addition, such conflicts result in damage of water control structures. The effect is

wastage of water due to spillages, seepage, and outright over-irrigation, leading to

 97

reduced water-use efficiency. The farmers who reported adverse impact due to water

conflicts were mainly tail-enders and a few located midstream. Farmers reported

inadequate water supply as the main reason behind conflicts. The Scheme

management on the other hand said that water supply was mainly governed by crop

water requirements. This suggests that farmers did not know the rice crop water

requirements and hence over-irrigated; or the IWUA leaders just did not distribute

water equitably among the irrigators, leading to conflicts. Availability of water in the

canal is an aspect of irrigation scheduling. In either case, there is need for training of

both farmers and IWUA leaders on rice crop water-use, as well as field water

distribution and on-farm water management.

Drain water-use had a significant negative impact on water-use efficiency since

hardly any of the farmers interviewed used drain water. This situation was confirmed

in the field, with drain canals almost over-flowing with water even where some fields

had less or no water at all. Farmers had low opinion of re-cycled water, and preferred

fresh water from the water supply to drain water. This means that re-use of drain

water would have given a positive impact on water-use efficiency.

Availability of water in the canal was the most common reason for the actual duration

of land preparation. It had a significant negative impact on efficiency. This shows that

if water were regularly available, then farmers would take a shorter time in land

preparation. Supplying irrigation water as per the irrigation plan, coupled with

sufficient awareness of the plan, could help reduce the actual land preparation period

and hence increase efficiency.

 98

Frequent water shortages had an insignificant negative impact on technical efficiency.

Water shortages were mainly common amongst the tail-enders. Its impact indicates

that some of these irrigators, in an attempt to mitigate water shortages, tended to over-

irrigate so as to maintain enough stock in case they missed water in the subsequent

water supply rotations. The overall effect of this was an increased or artificial demand

that possibly resulted in increased water abstraction from source.

The age of the farmer resulted in increased efficiency. Age contributes to

accumulation of knowledge through experience. It was noted that nearly all the

farmers interviewed had ten years and more in terms of experience on Scheme rice

irrigation. However, the insignificant contribution of this experience to technical

efficiency can be attributed to the fact that the irrigation and hence water management

activities in the Scheme largely depend on a pre-determined cropping programme.

The farmers decision-making is therefore governed by the flow of activities as they

are programmed rather than by the farmers own planning capacity.

Equally, the actual duration of land preparation resulted in increased efficiency. A lot

of water is used for land preparation in the Scheme (Plate 4.3). The observed actual

duration of land preparation was either less than or equal to the planned period of land

preparation. The impact of this factor on technical efficiency can be explained by the

fact that the period taken was dictated by the crop programme. Farmers, as a result,

risked forfeiting the crop by exceeding the period of time set for getting their land

ready since the subsequent irrigation water supply activities depended on the crop

programme. Reducing the actual land preparation period would thus result in

increased water-use efficiency. It is possible to reduce the actual period by reducing

 99

the planned land preparation period, subject to availability of water. In addition, by

controlling the farm operations, crop programme planning increases allocative

efficiency, and is an effective way of improving the cost efficiency.

Plate 4.3 Use of water in land preparation

(Source: Author, 2008)

The planned period of land preparation, showed insignificant positive impact on

technical efficiency. The planned period is the duration of time set by the crop

programme to enable farmers to prepare their land. It is defined as the period of time

between the initial flooding and transplanting, and the fields are kept flooded during

the entire period for weed control (Plate 4.4). The period varied between four and

sixteen weeks. Since water is used in the land preparation, a longer period implies

that the fields lie under water for a long time. This results in a considerable use of

water prior to transplanting. Although this water is beneficially used to control weeds,

this use is non-productive, and hence contributes to inefficiency.

 100

The observed positive impact of the planned period of land preparation on efficiency,

however, may be related to the planning rather than the period itself. By planning, this

period determines the actual period taken, and the time of onset of subsequent farm

operations.

Plate 4.4: Fields kept flooded between land preparation and transplanting
Source: Author (2008)

Another implication is that reducing the period can therefore considerably increase

the water-use efficiency.

The positive impact of formal education on water-use efficiency indicates education

improves technical skills, rate of adoption of technology, and hence productivity in

irrigation water management. This finding conforms to that of Hayami and Ruttan

(1970), who showed that agricultural labour productivity is positively correlated to

human capital (education) .The implication of this, is that more capacity building
 101

through training can help improve technical efficiency in the use of irrigation water in

the Scheme.

Availability of water in the canal was the main reason cited by the farmers for

determining the depth of irrigation water. Several farmers reported applying greater

depth than normal in anticipation for shortage in the subsequent irrigation rotations

due to conflicts. The negative impact of this variable on efficiency suggests that

anticipation of water scarcity led to over-irrigation by the farmers. The factors of such

anticipation include water conflicts, irregular water supply, and ignorance of the

water distribution schedule. Ignorance is particularly common among the many non-

resident irrigators who have rented farms from the licensees. There is no structured

system of communication between the IWUAs and such irrigators. Efficiency can

therefore be improved by addressing these factors.

The Scheme management reported that the Scheme had frequently faced great river

discharge fluctuations in the recent past, which resulted in variation in water

availability in the canal. Such fluctuations are typical of the Upper Tana Basin where

the Scheme is located (Figure 4.2).

 102

Figure 4.2: Discharge Trends in the Upper Tana River Basin in m3 (1978-2000)
(Source: KenGen, 2001)

Figure 4.2 shows fluctuating water discharge from the Upper Tana River Basin, with

a low or high discharge recurrence period of three to four years. Although the

recurrence exhibits a fairly regular pattern, there is great fluctuation in the river

discharge, which makes it difficult to predict the quantity of water available for

irrigation use in successive years. These factors coupled with the consistently

increasing trend of water-use in the Scheme complicate irrigation planning and

management.

The operation and maintenance (o/m) fee charged includes the cost of irrigation water

together with the cost of managing the irrigation, drainage, and farm-road

infrastructure. The cost of water accounts for a very insignificant proportion of the

fee. Most of those interviewed had an impression that the fee charged was high. It is

expected that a high fee should instil an economic sense, and hence efficiency among
 103

the irrigators. However, the analysis showed a negative correlation between these two

variables. This shows that farmers equate the o/m fee with the cost of water, and

hence regard it as an unnecessary charge since they expect water to be free. In that

case, the fee can only affect how farmers allocate water as an input. The fee therefore

affects allocative rather than technical efficiency. Although the observed impact of

this fee is insignificant, this analysis suggests that increasing the fee may only serve

to improve the allocative rather than technical efficiency of irrigation water-use.

Mitigating many of these challenges depend on the effectiveness of the IWUAs. Their

by-laws are either ineffective, or the implementation is inadequate. This institution,

charged with the responsibility of managing on-farm water-use, is incapable of

sustainable management of the water resource in its current set-up. It is composed of

ill-equipped volunteers as leaders, who are expected to govern irrigators to whom

they are only accountable as their electors. This makes the management difficult. For

improved effectiveness, they should be managed as business enterprises, with the

institutions receiving and managing funds from the irrigators. Therefore there is need

for re-structuring the IWUAs with a view to injecting professionalism in their

management. This will require building the capacity of the institutions through

training of the irrigators.

 104

CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Conclusions

Several conclusions can be drawn from the study. First, there is no significant impact

of the quantity of irrigation water used on the rice output. No further significant

increase in rice output is expected by using more water on the area currently being

cultivated since the farms were operating at decreasing returns to scale. The water has

almost attained its maximum productivity in the Scheme. Consequently, there is need

to reduce the quantity of irrigation water used for rice cultivation in the Scheme.

In addition, the farming activities are basically small-scale with resource constraints

since the Scheme has reached its cultivatable horizontal land frontier in addition to

the increasing water scarcity. Expansion of irrigation therefore requires improving

land and water productivity. This requires investing in technologies that reduce water-

use on rice, as well as improving the land productivity. This will help improve output

through vertical irrigation expansion.

Whereas these results are commensurate with similar results elsewhere in the world,

Kenyas fast-increasing water poverty and the critical role of irrigation in revitalizing

its agriculture warrant serious remedial measures. The results show that there is

potential for improving water productivity in the Scheme through technical change.
 105

The factors with significant effect on technical efficiency of irrigation water-use

efficiency in the Scheme included the actual duration of land preparation, water

conflicts among irrigators, drain water re-use, and availability of water in the canal.

The effects of these factors were significant at 0.05 level of significance. Actual

duration of land preparation and availability of water in the canal improved, while

conflicts and drain water re-use reduced water-use efficiency

5.2 Recommendations

Based on the observed inefficient water-use, the study recommends both technical

and institutional changes in order to sustain irrigation development in Mwea irrigation

Scheme. The technical changes include agronomic and engineering or infrastructural

interventions. Agronomic interventions include:

a. use of dry land preparation techniques by the farmers,

b. use of compost manure by the farmers,

c. reduction in the period of land preparation by the IWUAs and the

management,

d. introduction of rice varieties that are more water-efficient by the farmers and

the government,

e. use of alternative weed control methods by the farmers, and

f. adjustment of cropping patterns by the IWUAs and the management.

Dry land preparation will help save the water that is currently wasted on weed control

prior to transplanting. Heavy clay soils that characterize Mwea rice fields have
 106

limited workability since they are often too hard when dry, or too heavy when wet.

The range of soil moisture that facilitates dry ploughing of such soils is therefore

limited. However, this workability can be improved significantly if farmers

incorporate rice straw in form of compost manure into the soil. Equally, the rice crop

can be rotated with dual purpose (commercial-cum-subsistence) leguminous crops

such as soybeans and green grams. The impact of such crops may take more than a

season to realize, and the desired outcome too may be gradual, though.

Reduction in the land preparation period can be immediately implemented by the

IWUAs and the management, subject to availability of land preparation services from

the private sector or farmers organizations. A stronger public-private sector

stakeholder collaboration aimed at improving the provision of these services could

help reduce land preparation period considerably. In addition, integrated techniques

of weed control should be explored in order to reduce the flooding of rice fields to

control weeds during rice crop growth and development.

There is need for adjusting the Scheme cropping pattern by the farmers, IWUAs, and

the management in order to improve water-use efficiency for rice cultivation. The rice

crop programme in the Scheme is limited by climate such that the Scheme has not

been able to take advantage of lower water demand periods such as the long rains for

crop use. Other adapted crops should be grown during this period in order to reduce

the pressure on water during rice crop season. In addition, research can be done on the

adoption of more water-efficient rice varieties to replace the current ones.

 107

The engineering methods include:

a. construction of large-scale water storage infrastructure by the government,

b. canal lining and installation of water control structures by the government,

c. re-use of drain water by the farmers and the management, and

d. installation of gauges along the conveyance and distribution canal network by

the management.

Construction of large-scale water storage infrastructure such as dams will help in

stabilizing irrigation water supply through improved storage of night river flows and

wet season runoff. The stored water can then supplement the limited natural supplies

during dry season. This, however, is a major development activity with considerable

capital outlay that only the government can undertake. The resulting stable water

supply will be an incentive for reduced conflicts and over-irrigation, and hence

improved water-use efficiency. Lining of canals will help to reduce conveyance

losses. In addition, installation of gauges and water control structures will improve

the monitoring, distribution, and management of water. Re-use of drain water will

reduce water abstraction from the rivers, reduce pollution, and help recycle the heavy

nutrient load of the drain water. Still, non-flood techniques of irrigation should be

explored with a view to reducing the quantity of irrigation water used in rice

cultivation.

Institutional or policy interventions include legal, integrated, and socio-economic

approaches, as well as capacity building of WUAs. At the legal level, there is need for

establishment of effective incentive and penalty systems in order to encourage water

conservation. Further, the use of pricing or market as tools for allocation of water
 108

among sectors that transfer the cost to the final user are suggested as possible

interventions. This cost will create an economic sense, which is a pre-requisite for

efficient utilization of the water as a resource. Equally, supplying water up to the farm

level using a redesigned canal infrastructure that requires energy to lift the water for

field application is feasible. In that way, the extra energy costs will be an incentive for

improved field water management by the irrigators.

In addition, centralized irrigation management systems should be promoted in the

outlying (jua kali) areas of the Scheme to help benefit from high allocative

efficiencies. This can be achieved through the concept of WRUAs. In the short- to

medium-term, the WRUAs need restructuring with a view to injecting

professionalism in their management. This will require building the capacity of the

institutions through training of the irrigators.

This study also recommends an integrated approach policy in water resources

management in the Thiba and Nyamindi river sub-basins. Since the observed water

scarcity is partly a function of factors exogenous to the Scheme, there is need for an

institutionalized stakeholder approach to ensure sustainable management of the

limited water. Despite the on-going water sector reforms, Mwea is yet to feel their

impact. Currently, there is no institutionalized stakeholder collaboration in the water

resources management in the two sub-basins. The various governmental and non-

governmental organizations that deal with water resources, for instance, carry out

their activities independently according to their respective business and work plans,

and mission/vision statements. The result is that stakeholder participation, though

informal, is only visible at the level of projects and programmes. This is contrary to
 109

the principle of stakeholder participation if water resource use is to be sustained in the

Tana Basin.

The Water Resources Management Authority (WRMA) should institutionalize

stakeholder participation to enable integration of all sectors in the management of

water resources in the sub-basins. To achieve this, sectoral linkages in the

management of water in the Thiba and Nyamindi sub-basins should be formed,

clearly defined and strengthened. This will increase the power of the Scheme to

bargain for its share of the water, especially during periods of severe scarcity.

5.3 Suggestions for Further Studies

From this study, it has emerged that effective mitigation of the Scheme irrigation

water-use inefficiency requires additional research work. This will help identify the

sources of inefficiency along the supply-utilization continuum, resource management,

and sustainability. The following are the suggested areas for further research:

(a) Analysis of water conveyance efficiency in Mwea Irrigation Scheme. This

will help decompose the water-use inefficiency into inefficiencies due to

conveyance and distribution as well as those due to on-farm water

management for effective intervention.

(b) Analysis of impact of non-flooding irrigation techniques on the yield and

quality of rice in Mwea Irrigation Scheme. This will help reduce the

proportion of water allocated to rice cultivation so as to expand irrigation of

other crops as well.

 110

(c) Determination of factors affecting the effectiveness of participatory irrigation

management in Mwea Irrigation Scheme. This will help identify priority areas

of investment in public-private sector partnerships for sustainable Scheme

irrigation management.
 111

REFERENCES

Agwata, J. F. (2006). Resource Potential of the Tana Basin with Particular Focus on
the Bwathonaro Watershed, Kenya. In: Thiemann, S., Winegge, R., and Forch, B.
(Eds.) DAAD Alumni Summer School 2006: Participatory Watershed Management
Plan. University of Siegen, Germany. pp 143.

Ahmed, M. M., Preckel, P. V. and Ehui, S. (2005). Modelling the Impact of Credit
on Intensification in Mixed Crop-Livestock Systems: A Case Study from
Ethiopia.http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/25514/1/pp060402.pdf . Accessed
on 08/08/2008

Ahmed, E., Faki, H. H. M., Elobeid, H. A. (2007). Assessment of On-farm Water-

Use Efficiency in the Public Irrigated Schemes in the River Nile State of Sudan.
Conference on International Agricultural Research for Development. University of
Kassel-Witzenhausen and University of Gttingen, October 9-11, 2007

Afolabi, J. A. (2009). An Assessment of Gari Marketing in South-Western

Nigeria. Journal of Social Sciences, 21(1): 33-38 (2009).
http://www.krepublishers.com/02-Journals/JSS/JSS-21-0-000-09-Web/JSS-21-1-
000-09-Abst-PDF/JSS-21-1-033-09-754-Afolabi-J-A/JSS-21-1-033-09-754-Afolabi-
J-A-Tt.pdf Accessed on 08/2/2010

Afriat, S. N. (1972) Quoted in Coeli, T., Rao, D. S. P. and Battese, G. E. An

Introduction to Efficiency and Productivity Analysis. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Boston, USA. pp 267

Ahmed, E. A., Faki, H. H., and Elobeid, H. A. (2007). Assessment of On-farm

Water Use Efficiency in the Public Irrigated Schemes in the River Nile State of
Sudan. Conference on International Agricultural Research for Development.
University of Gttingen, October 9-11.

Aigner, D., J., and Chu, S. F. (1968). Quoted in Coeli, T., Rao, D. S. P. and Battese,
G. E. An Introduction to Efficiency and Productivity Analysis. Kluwer Academic
Publishers. Boston, USA. pp 267

Amemiya, T. (1984). Quoted by Breen, R. (1996). Regression Models: Censored,

Sample-Selected, or Truncated Data. SAGE Publications Inc., UK. pp 80

Aigner, D., J., Lovell, C. A., K., and Schmidt, P. (1977). Quoted in Coeli, T., Rao, D.
S. P. and Battese, G. E. An Introduction to Efficiency and Productivity Analysis.
Kluwer Academic Publishers. Boston, USA. pp 267

Aqualink Research Limited. (2006). Irrigation Efficiency Gaps: Review and Stock
Take. Irrigation New Zealand. Report No L05264/2. February 2006. pp 43
 112

ASCE. (1978). Quoted by Aqualink Research limited. (2003). Irrigation Efficiency

Gaps: Review and Stock Take. Irrigation New Zealand. Report No L05264/2.
February 2006. pp 43

Asif, M., Ahmed, M., Gafoor, A., and Aslam, Z. (2003). Wheat Productivity, Land
and Water Use Efficiency by Traditional and Laser Land Levelling Techniques. On-
Line Journal of Biological Sciences 3(2): p141-146

Awange1, J. L., Aluoch, J., Ogallo, L. A., Omulo, M. and Omondi, P. (2007).
Frequency and Severity of Drought in the LakeVictoria Region (Kenya) and its
Effects on Food Security. Climate Research. Vol. 33: pp. 135142.

Banker, D. E. and MacDonald, J. M. (eds) (2004) Structural and Financial

Characteristics of U.S. Farms: 2004 Family Farm Report. Agriculture Information
Bulletin Number 797. http://www.fchorizons.com/uploads/19-familyfarmreport.pdf
Accessed on 10/4/2009

Banker, R. D., Charmes, A., and Cooper W.W. (1984). Quoted in Coeli, T., Rao, D.
S. P. and Battese, G. E. An Introduction to Efficiency and Productivity Analysis.
Kluwer Academic Publishers. Boston, USA. pp 267

Bloomer, D. (2005). Irrigation Efficiency. Irrigation New Zealand November 2005.

http://www.irrigationnz.co.nz/files/d_bloomer_presentation.pdf Accessed on
10/8/2008.

Bierens, H. J. (2004). The Tobit Model.

http://econ.la.psu.edu/~hbierens/EasyRegTours/TOBIT_Tourfiles/TOBIT.PDF
Accessed on 20/6/2008.

Boles, J.N. (1966). Quoted in Coeli, T., Rao, D. S. P. and Battese, G. E. (1998). An
Introduction to Efficiency and Productivity Analysis. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Boston, USA. pp 267

Breen, R. (1996). Regression Models: Censored, Sample-Selected, or Truncated

Data. SAGE Publications Inc., UK. pp 80

Bruce, J. (2008). Kenya Land Policy: Analysis and Recommendations.

http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADP494.pdf Accessed on 20/04/2009

Bucks, Dale A. and Terry A. Howell. 2008. Enhancing Water Conservation or Water
Use Efficiency in Irrigated Agriculture.
http://www.irrigation.org/gov/pdf/BucksIRR-WUE.ppt. Accessed on 20/6/2008.

Bhuiyan, S. I. (1992). Quoted by Guerra, et al. (1998). Producing More Rice with
Less Water. SWIM Paper 5.
Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute
 113

Cadot, P. D., Slack, D. C., and Dutt, G. R. (1989). Quoted by Slack, D. C. and
Martin, E. C. (2004). Irrigation Water Requirements of Wien Grapes in the Sonoita
Wine Growing Region of Arizona.
http://ag.arizona.edu/pubs/crops/az1148.pdf. Accessed on 08/2/2009.

Cassman, K. (2008). Biophysical Determinants of Crop Yield Trends and the Food
versus Fuel Deabate.
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/guirr/Cassman_Presentation.pdf Accessed on
27/3/2009

Chang, T. T. (2000). Quoted by OToole, J. C. Rice and Water: The Final Frontier.
The First International Conference on Rice for the Future. 31 August2 September
2004. Bangkok, Thailand

Chuaga, F. M. (1981). Water Balance Study of Thiba Section of Mwea Irrigation

Settlement. M. Sc. Thesis, University of Nairobi. Unpublished.

Coeli, T. J., Rao, D. S. P., and Battese, G. E. (1998). An Introduction to Efficiency

and Productivity Analysis. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston. pp 267

Clark, W. (2003). Determinants of a Championship: An Econometric Study

http://www.marietta.edu/~khorassj/econ421/champ.doc Accessed on 11/2/2009
Clarke, R. and King, J. (2004). The Atlas of Water: Mapping the Worlds Most
Critical Resource. Earthscan Publications Ltd. London. pp127

Dawe, D., D. Seckler, and R. Barker. . (1998). Quoted by Guerra, L. C., Bhuiyan, S.
I., Tuong, T. P. and Barker, R. (1998). Producing More Rice with Less Water.
SWIM Paper 5. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute

Doorne, J. H. van. (1985). Major Catchments and River Basins in Kenya. In: FAO
Gateway to Land and Water Information: Kenya National Report.
http://www.fao.org/ag/Agl/swlwpnr/reports/y_sf/z_ke/ketb312.htm. Accessed on
15/7/2008.

du Guerny, J. and Topouzis, D. (1996). Gender, Land and Fertility - Women's

Access to Land and Security of Tenure
http://www.fao.org/sd/wpdirect/wpan0001.htm. Accessed on 15/05/2009

Environmental Protection Authority (2007) State of the Environment Report: Western

Australia 2007, http://www.soe.wa.gov.au/contact.html. Department of Environment
and Conservation, Perth, Western Australia. . Accessed on 02/4/2009

Falkenmark, M. (1997). Quoted by Bremmer, J. and Bilsborrow, R. (2005).

Population Dynamics and Millennium Development Goal 7. Population-
Environment Research Network Cyberseminar Paper. September 5-16.
http://www.populationenvironmentresearch.org/papers/Pop&MDG7.pdf. Accessed on
15/10/2008
 114

FAO. (2008). The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2008- High Food Prices
and Food Security, Threats and Opportunities
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/hunger/general/2008/2008foodinsecurity.pdf .
Accessed on 15/10/2008

FAO. (2008a). Water profile of Kenya

http://www.eoearth.org/image/Kenyatable2.GIF . Accessed on 14/1/09

FAO. (2008b). Global Map of Irrigation Areas.

http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/irrigationmap/ke/index.stm#table. Accessed on
06/2/08.

FAO. (2007). Water Profile of Kenya. http://www.eoearth.org/article/water

profile_of _Kenya # Economy.2C_Agriculture.2C_and_Food _Security. Accessed on
06/6/2008

FAO. (2009). Mapping Poverty, Water and Agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa

ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/i0132e03a.pdf. Accessed on 20/01/2009

FAO. (1993). The State of Food and Agriculture 1993. FAO Agriculture Series No.
26
http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/t0800e/t0800e0b.htm. Accessed on 15/2/2009.

Farrell, J. (1957). Quoted in Coeli, T., Rao, D. S. P. and Battese, G. E. An

Introduction to Efficiency and Productivity Analysis. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Boston, USA. pp 267

Fre, R., and Lovell, C. A. K. (1978). Quoted in Coeli, T., Rao, D. S. P. and Battese,
G. E. An Introduction to Efficiency and Productivity Analysis. Kluwer Academic
Publishers. Boston, USA. pp 267

Fu, H. (2004). A Tobit Analysis of the Demand for Life Insurance in Canada.
http;//www.socialsciences.uottawa.ca/eco/eng/thesisdetails.asp?ID=688. Accessed on
14/4/2009

Gardner, B. L. and Rausser, G. C. (Eds.). (2001). Handbook of Agricultural

Economics. Volume 1A: Agricultural Production. ElsevierScience B. V. Amsterdam,
The Netherlands. pp 331.

Guerra, L. C., Bhuiyan, S. I., Tuong, T. P. and Barker, R. (1998). Producing More
Rice with Less Water. SWIM Paper 5. International Water Management Institute.
Colombo, Sri Lanka:
 115

Hadley, B, Shankar, B., Thirtle, C, and Coeli, T. (2001). Financial Exposure and
Farm Efficiency: Evidence from the England and Wales Dairy Sector.
http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/20656/1/sp01ha07.pdf Accessed on
19/1/2009

Hayami, Y. and Ruttan, W.V. (1985). Quoted by Oduol, J. B. A. (2006). Resource

Productivity and Resource Use Efficiency Under Land and Capital Constraints in
Kenya: Evidence from Smallholder Farms in Embu District. PhD. Thesis, Kyushu
University. Unpublished

Hayami, Y. and Ruttan, W.V. (1970). Quoted in Gardner, B., and Rausser, G. (Eds.)
A Handbook of Agricultural Economics, Volume 1 (2001).

Hooper, B. P. (2003). Integrated Water Resources Management and River Basin

Governance. Universities Council on Water Resources Water Resources Update,
Issue 126, pp 12-20, November 2003.
http://www.ucowr.siu.edu/updates/126/126_A2.pdf Accessed on 12/12/2008

IFTD. (2007). International Freshwater Treaties Database

http://www.transboundarywaters.orst.edu/database/interfreshtreatdata.html.
Accessed on 15/8/2008

Institute of Economic Affairs. (2006). A Rapid Assessment of Kenyas Water,

Sanitation and Sewerage Framework. p17.
http://www.netwas.org/studies/Rapid % 20assess_wsrke.pdf. Accessed on 28/2/2008

IPTRID. (1999). Poverty Reduction and Irrigated Agriculture. Issues Paper Number
1. January 1999.

IWMI. (2005). Improving Irrigation Project Planning and Implementation Processes

in Sub-Saharan Africa: Diagnosis and Recommendations.
http://www.lk.iwmi.org/pubs/working/WOR99_1.pdf.Accessed on 28/2/2008

IWMI. (2007). Water Management: Urgent Need for More Food with Less Water.
http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/News_Room/Multimedia/coverage/pdf/ScienceDaily_Urg
ent_need_for_more_food_with_less_water.pdf.Accessed on 08/8/2008

Jacobs, J. (2004). Exploring the Potential Impact of Reforestation on the Hydrology

of the Upper Tana River Catchments and the Masinga Dam, Kenya.
http://www.netwas.org/studies/Rapid % 35assess_wsrke.pdf. Accessed on 28/2/2008

Jaetzold, R., Schmidt, H., Hornetz, B. and Shisanya, C. (2007). Part C East Kenya,
Subpart C1 Eastern Province. In Ministry of Agriculture and GTZ (eds.), Farm
Management Handbooks of Kenya, Vol. II: Natural Conditions and Farm
Management Information. Nairobi, 571 pp.
 116

Jensen, M. E. (1980). Quoted by Guerra, L. C., Bhuiyan, S. I., Tuong, T. P. and

Barker, R. (1998). Producing More Rice with Less Water. SWIM Paper 5.
Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute.

Juma, J. O. (1994). Analysis of Productivity and Technical Change in Kenyas

Agricultural Sector 1960-1990. M. Sc. Thesis, University of Nairobi. Unpublished.

Kamakura, W. A. and Wedel, M. (2001). Exploratory Tobit Factor Analysis for

Multivariate Censored Data. Multivariate Behavioral Research, Volume 36, Issue 1
January 2001 , pages 5382.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a785042578&db=all Accessed
on 03/2/2010

Kamau, P. C. (1981). A Comparative Study of Land and Labour Productivity in

Small-Scale and Large-Scale Coffee Farms with Particular Reference to Kiambu
District. M. Sc. Thesis, University of Nairobi. Unpublished.

Kamundia. (2008). Personal communication on 04/07/2008.

Katz, M. L. and Rosen, H. S. (1994). Microeconomics. 2nd Edition. The Irwin series
in economics. USA. pp 705

KenGen. (2001). Quoted by UNEP (2000) Drought: Impacts on Natural Resources,

Water, Forest and Land. www.unep.org/PDF/2000_drought_chapter3.pdf .Accessed
on 20/1/2009
KESREF. (2007). Irrigation and Drainage Programme, Kenya Sugar Research
Foundation. http://www.kesref.org. Accessed on 06/2/2008.

Kimenye, L. N. (1984). Analysis of Growth and Productivity in Kenyas

Agricultural Sector. M. Sc. Thesis, University of Nairobi. Unpublished.

Kinsey, J. (1981). Determinants of Credit Card Accounts: An Application of Tobit

Analysis. Journal of Consumer Research . Volume 8, September 1981.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2488828. Accessed on 27/3/2009

Kobotti, O. K. (1996). Tana River Basin Management: A Case Study. In Hirji, R.,
Patorni, F. M., and Rubin, D. (Eds.) Seminar on Integrated Water Resources
Management, Kenya: Proceedings. The Economic Development Institute of the
World Bank. pp 227

Kopp, Raymond J., and W. Erwin Diewert. 1982. The Decomposition of Frontier
Cost Functions Deviations into Measures of Technical and Allocative Efficiency.
Journal of Econometrics 19, nos. 2/3: 31931.
 117

Kumbhaker, S. C. and Lovell, C. A. K. (2000). Quoted by Herrero, I. and Pascoe, S.

(2002). Estimation of technical efficiency: a review of some of the stochastic frontier
and DEA software. CHEER Computers in Higher Education Economics Review.
Volume 15 (1). http://www.economicsnetwork.ac.uk/cheer.htm Accessed on
20/7/2008

Langyintuo, A. S. and Mungoma, C. (2006). The Effect of Household Wealth on

Input Market Participation in Southern Africa. Annual Meeting, International
Association of Agricultural Economists. Queensland, Australia. August 12-18, 2006,
http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/agsiaae06/25630.htm Accessed on 20/3/2008

Lebeau, J. (2007). How Can Water Users Association Solve the Case of Mwea
Irrigation Scheme? Internal presentation. NIB headquarters. Unpublished.

Lele, U. and Stone, W. S. (1989). Quoted by Oduol, J. B. A. (2006). Resource

Productivity and Resource Use Efficiency Under Land and Capital Constraints in
Kenya: Evidence from Smallholder Farms in Embu District. PhD. Thesis, Kyushu
University. Unpublished

Macharia, P. (2004). Gateway to Land and Water Information: Kenya National

Report Kenya Soil Survey.
www. fao.org/ag/agl/swlwpnr/reports/y_sf/z_ke/ke.htm. Accessed on 20/6/2008

Malana, N. M. and Malano, H. M. (2006). Benchmarking Productive Efficiency of

Selected Wheat Areas in Pakistan and India Using Data Envelopment Analysis.
Irrigation and Drainage 55: 383394 (2006). http://www.interscience.wiley.com.
Accessed on 10/8/2008

(Malik, A, and Mahmood, K. (2009). Web Search Behaviour of Students: A Case

Study at University of Punjab. Webology, Vol. VI, 2, 2009.
http://www.webology.ir/2009/v6n2/a70.html Accessed on 16/8/2008

Mansfield, E. (1988). Micro-Economics: Theory and Applications. 6th Edition. W.W.

Norton and Company. New York. pp 599

Martin, G, and Larson, S. D. (2006). Statistical Primer for Cardiovascular Research:

Descriptive Statistics and Graphical Displays. Circulation. 2006;114:76-81.
American Heart Association, Inc.
http://www.circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/114/1/76 Accessed on 21/8/2008

Matovu, J. M. (1979). Efficiency of Resource Utilization in Small-scale Farming:

Case Study of Maize and Cotton Production in Machakos and Meru Districts, Kenya
M. Sc. Thesis, University of Nairobi. Unpublished.
 118

McCartney, M.P., Lankford, B.A., Mahoo, H. (2007). Agricultural Water

Management in a Water-Stressed Catchment: Lessons from the RPARWIN Project.
IWMI Report 116. Colombo, Sri Lanka.
http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/Publications/IWMI_Research_Reports/PDF/Pub116/RR1
16.pdf. Accessed on 26/8/2008.

McIndoe, I. (2002). Quoted by Christchurch, H. 2006. Irrigation Efficiency Gaps-

Review and Stock Take. www.aqualinc.com. Accessed on 16/8/2008.

Meeusen, W. and van den Broek, J. (1977). Quoted in Coeli, T., Rao, D. S. P. and
Battese, G. E. An Introduction to Efficiency and Productivity Analysis. Kluwer
Academic Publishers. Boston, USA. pp 267

Merz, S. K. (2004). National Cost Benefit Analysis of Proposals to Take Water from
the Waitaki River: Final Report.
http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/MultipageDocumentTOC_10566.ASPX. Accessed
on 29/8/2008

Moesen, W. and Persoon, A. (2002). Measuring and Explaining the Productive

Efficiency of Tax Offices: A Non-Parametric Best Practice Frontier Approach. Tijdschrift
voor Economie en Management.Vol. XLVII, 3, 2002.

Mollinga, P. P. and Bolding, A. (2004). The Politics of Irrigation: Contested Policy

Formulation and Implementation in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Ashgate
Publishing Ltd . pp 584.

Muriithi, F.M. (1990). Efficiency of Resource Use in Smallholder Milk Production:

the Case of Meru Central District. M. Sc. Thesis, University of Nairobi.
Unpublished.

Murphy, K. V. B. (2002). Arguing a Case for Cobb-Douglas Production Function.

Review of Commerce Studies. Vol 20-21, No.1, January-June, 2002.
http://ssrn.com/abstract=598082 Accessed on 18/2/2009.

Myint, T. and Kyi, T. (2005). The Global Food and Product Chain: Dynamics,
Innovations, Conflicts, Strategies.
http://www.tropentag.de/2005/abstracts/links/Myint_ta2klXh4.pdf. Accessed on
20/1/2009

Nandalal, K.D.W. and Semasinghe, S.B.A.D. (2006). A System Dynamics

Simulation Model for the Assessment of Water Resources in Sri Lanka. In
Sustainable Development of Water Resources, Water Supply and Environmental
Sanitation. 32nd WEDC International Conference, Colombo, Sri Lanka, 2006. p 259-
262. http:wedc.lboro.ac.uk/conferences/pdfs/32/Nandalal.pdf. Accessed on
18/2/2008.
 119

Nangulu, A. K. (2001). Food Security and Coping Mechanisms in Kenyas Marginal

Areas: The Case of West Pokot PhD. Thesis, West Virginia University.
Unpublished.

NEMA. (2003). State of the Environment Report, Kenya

http://www.unccd.int/cop/reports/africa/national/2004/kenya-eng.pdf Accessed on
28/12/2008.

NIB. (1994a). Mwea Irrigation Development Project. Development Plan Report.

Volume 5, December 1994. Nippon Koei Co. Ltd. Unpublished.

NIB. (1994b). Mwea Irrigation Development Project. Development Plan Report.

Volume 1. Nippon Koei Co. Ltd. Unpublished.

NIB. (2008). National Irrigation Board Strategic Plan 2008-2013. Unpublished. pp

49

NIB. (2009). Proposal for Technical Assistance on Detailed Design and

Construction for Kieni Irrigation Development Project. Unpublished. pp 10
NIB. (2009b). Draft National Rice Development Strategy 2009-2013. Unpublished.

Oduol, J. B. A. (2006). Resource Productivity and Resource Use Efficiency Under

Land and Capital Constraints in Kenya: Evidence from Smallholder Farms in Embu
District. PhD. Thesis, Kyushu University. Unpublished.

Oduol, J. B. A., Hotta, K, Shinkai, S., and Tsuji, M., (2006). Farm Size and
Productive Efficiency: Lessons from Smallholder Farms in Embu District, Kenya.
Journal of Faculty of Agriculture, Kyushu University. Vol.51(2) p449-458.

Oha, M. (2007). Reviewing Gender Disparity

http://www.awlproject.org/fileadmin/user_upload/News_Articles/11Oct07_Reviewin
gGenderDisparity_ThisDay.doc Accessed on 18/5/2009.
Opiyo, D. (2009). Unep Champions Price Controls. Daily Nation. Issue number
16075. Nation Media Group. Nairobi. http://www.nation.co.ke.

Ostrom, E. (1990) "Governing the Commons. The Evolution of Institutions for

Collective Action". Cambridge University Press.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-pool_resource Accessed on 11/1/2009

OToole, J. C. (2004). Rice and Water: The Final Frontier. The First International
Conference on Rice for the Future. 31 August 2 September 2004. Bangkok,
Thailand. http://www.plantstress.com/Articles/up_drought_files/Rice_water.pdf
Accessed on 10/3/2009

Otim, J., J. (2004). Assuring Food and Nutrition Security in Africa by 2020:
Prioritizing Actions, Strengthening Actors, and Facilitating Partnerships. A Way
Forward from the 2020 Africa Conference. Kampala, Uganda. April 1-3.
 120

Pandey, S. (1998). Nutrient management technologies for rainfed rice in tomorrow's

Asia: economic and institutional considerations.
http://www.irri.org/science/abstracts/012.asp Accessed on 10/3/2009

Palmer, S., and Torgerson, D. (1999). Economics Notes. BMJ 1999; 318: 1136-
1136(24 April). http:/www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/318/7191/1136 Accessed on
23/05/2009

Pearce, F. (2008). Water Scarcity: The Real Food Crisis. Yale Environment 360.
http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=1825. Accessed on 11/8/2008

Pereira, L. S. (2005). Water and Agriculture: Facing Water Scarcity and

Environmental Challenges. Agricultural Engineering International: the CIGR
Journal of Scientific Research and Development. Invited Overview Paper. Vol. VII.
February 2005.

Phengphaengsy, F. and Hiroshi, O. (2006). Improvement of Efficiency in Paddy

Fields in the Lower Mekong Basin (IIEPF) .
http:/wwwmrcmekong.org/download/Papers/full_paperimpr_of_irrigation.pdf
Accessed on 20/12/2009

Population Council. (2009). Country Fact-Files: Kenya.

http://www.popcouncil.org/afrca/kenya.html Accessed on 27/1/2009.

Perkins, D. H. et al. (2001). Economics of Development. Fifth edition. W. W. Norton

& Company, Inc. New York. pp 761

Ragwa, J. (2002). An Assessment of Technical and Economic Performance of

Aguthi, Matanya and Thome Smallholder Irrigation Schemes, Tanzania. M. Sc.
Thesis, University of Nairobi. Unpublished.

Rathgeber, E. (1997). In Brooks, D. B., Rached, E., and Saade, M. (Eds.)

Management of Water Demands in Africa and the Middle East: Current Practices
and Future Needs. International Development Research Centre. Ottawa, Canada.

Reardon, T., Kelly, V., Jayne, T., Savadogo, K., and Clay, D. (1996). Quoted by
Oduol, J. B. A. (2006). Resource Productivity and Resource Use Efficiency Under
Land and Capital Constraints in Kenya: Evidence from Smallholder Farms in Embu
District. PhD. Thesis, Kyushu University. Unpublished

Reid, G. C. (1993). Small Business Enterprise: An Economic Analysis. Routledge. pp

327

Republic of Kenya. (2002). National Development Plan 2002-2008: Effective

Management for Sustainable Economic Growth and Poverty Reduction. Ministry of
Planning. Government Printers, Nairobi. pp 157.
 121

Republic of Kenya. (2003). Economic Recovery Strategy for Wealth and

Employment Creation 200-2007.
http;//siteresources.worldbank.org/KENYAEXTN/Resources/ERS.pdf Accessed on
20/12/2008

Republic of Kenya. (2007a). Economic Survey 2007. Kenya National Bureau of

Statistics, Ministry of Planning and National Developmnet, Government Printers,
Nairobi. pp 284.

Republic of Kenya. (2007a). Vision 2030 (Draft Copy). Ministry of Planning and
National Developmnet. Government Printers, Nairobi.

Republic of Kenya. (2006). National Policy on Irrigation and Drainage (Draft) of

Water and Irrigation. Unpublished.

Republic of Kenya. (2007b). Irrigation and Drainage Sub-Department Summary of

Strategic Plan (2003-2008). Ministry of Water and Irrigation. Unpublished.

Republic of Kenya. (2004). Kenya Agricultural Productivity Project http://www-

wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2004/03/08/00016
0016_20040308173825/Rendered/PDF/AB307.pdf. Accessed on 02/8/2008.

Republic of Kenya. (2001a). Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper for the Period 2001-
2004 Prepared by the People and Government of Kenya. June 2001. Volume I.
Ministry of Finance and Planning. Government Printer. Nairobi. pp 107.

Republic of Kenya. (2001b). Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper for the Period 2001-
2004 Prepared by the People and Government of Kenya. June 2001. Volume II.
Ministry of Finance and Planning. Government Printer. Nairobi. pp 179.

Republic of Kenya. (1992). National Water Master Plans 1992. Ministry of Water
Development.

Rockstrom, J. (2003). Managing Rain for the Future. In Figueres, C. M., Trotajada,
C. and Rockstom J. (Eds.) Rethinking Water Management- Innovative Approaches to
Contemporary Issues. Earthscan Publications Limited, UK.

Rosegrant, M., W., Paisner, M. S., Meijer, S., and Witcover, J. (2001). 2020 Global
Food Outlook: Trends, Alternatives, and Choices. A Vision for Food, Agriculture,
and the Environment Initiative. International Food Policy Research Institute.
Washington D.C.

Rosegrant, M. et al. (2008). A Closer Look at the Food-versus-Fuel Debate.

http://www.ifpri.org/pubs/books/ar2005/ar05e.pdf Accessed on 30/3/2009
 122

Rudestam, K. E. and Newton, R. R. (2001). Surviving Your Dissertation: A

Comprehensive Guide to Content and Process. 2nd edition. Sage Publications, Inc.
UK. pp 298

SAEFL. (2002). Sustainable Management of Water Resources: The Need for a

Holistic Ecosystem Approach Running out of Freshwater or Maintaining Freshwater
through a Ecosystem Based Approach - An Easy Choice.
http://www.ramsar.org/wssd_side_paper.htm Accessed on 20/12/2008

Sass, R. L. and Cicerone, R. J. (2002). Photosynthetic Allocations in Rice Plants:

Food Production or Atmospheric Methane?
http://www.pnas.org/content/99/11993.full .Accessed on 20/1/2009

Scott, J. L. (1997). Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent

Variables.Advanced Quantitative Techniques in the Social Sciences Number 7. Sage
Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA.

Sen, A. (1998). Food, Economics, and Entitlements. In Carl, E.K. and Staaz, J.M.
(Eds.) International Agricultural Development. 3rd Edition. The John Hopkins
University Press. London. pp 615

Schnedler, W. (2005). Likelihood Estimation for Censored Random Vectors.

Discussion Paper Series No. 417.
http://www.awi.uni-
heidelberg.de/with2/Discussion%20papers/papers_2003_2005/dp417.pdf . Accessed
on 10/2/2009

Sheikh, K., H. (1995). Quoted by Ahmed, E. A., et al. (2007). Assessment of On-
farm Water Use Efficiency in the Public Irrigated Schemes in the River Nile State of
Sudan. Conference on International Agricultural Research for Development.
University of Gttingen, October 9-11, 2007.

Shisanya, C. (2005). An Analysis of Accessibility and Pricing of Water Supply in

Rural Watersheds: A Case Study of Kakamega District, Kenya. In Thiemann, S.,
Winegge, R. and Forch, B. (Eds.) DAAD Alumni Summer School 2005: Topics in
Integrated Watershed Management. University of Siegen. Siegen, Germany. pp 226

Shisanya, C. (1996). Chances and Risks of Maize and Bean Growing in the Semi-
Arid Areas of South-East Kenya During Expected Deficient, Normal and Above-
Normal Rainfall of the Short Rainy Seasons. PhD Thesis, Trier University.
Unpublished.
 123

Siebert, S., Hoogeveen, J., and Frenken, K. (2006). Irrigation in Africa, Europe and
Latin America: Update of the Digital Global Map of Irrigation Areas to Version 4.
Frankfurt Hydrology Paper 5. Institute of Physical Geography, University of
Frankfurt (Main), Germany. December 2006.
http://www.geounifrankfurt.de/ipg/ag/dl/f_publikationen/2006FHP_05_Siebert_at_al
_2006.pdf. Accessed on 11/2/2008.

Slavin, S., L. (1996). Economics. Foutrth Edition. Webcrafters Inc. USA. pp 821

Smigel, C., Strang, J., and Kurtural, K. (2003). Kentucky Winery Purchasing and
Production Survey. http://www.uky.edu/Ag/NewCrops/winecontent04.pdf
Accessed on 08/2/2009

SRA. (2004). Quoted in Kenya Agricultural Research Institute Strategic Plan 2005-
2015. .pp 40

TIAPD. (2009). Challenges Facing Agricultural Sector in Kenya on Agriculture

(PE 2007).
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTRANETPROD/Resources/Kenya_DTIS.pdf
Accessed on 12/3/2009

Tintner and Brownlee. (1944). Quoted by Gardner, B. L. and Rausser, G. C. (Eds.).

Handbook of Agricultural Economics. Volume 1A: Agricultural Production.
ElsevierScience B. V. Amsterdam, The Netherlands. pp 331.

Tobin, J. (1958). Quoted by Schnedler, W. (2005). Likelihood Estimation for

Censored Random Vectors. Econometric Reviews, 24(2):195217.
http://www.schnedler.de/papers/Schnedler2005.pdf Accessed on 15/1/2009

Todaro, M. P. and Smith, S. C. (2006). Economic Development. Ninth edition.

Pearson Education Limited, UK. pp 851

UN. (1992). Integrated Approach to the Planning and Management of Land

Resources. Chapter 10, Agenda 21.
www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/english/agenda21chapter10.htm
Accessed on 10/3/2008

UN. (2000). The [United Nations Millennium Development] Goals

http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/. Accessed on 20/5/2008

UN. (2002). Changing Unsustainable Patterns of Consumption and Production.

http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/WSSD_POI_PD/English/POIChapter3.htm
Accessed on 20/3/2009

UN. (2007). Globalization, Agriculture and the Least Developed Countries.

United Nations Ministerial Conference of the Least Developed Countries. Making
Globalization Work for the LDCs. Istanbul, 9-11 July 2007
 124

UNEP. 2002. The Multiple Dimensions of Water Scarcity. Earthtrends.

http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/264. Accessed on 03/07/2008

UNEP. (2002). Africa Environment Outlook: Past, Present and Future Perspectives.
Earthprint Ltd, UK. pp 422

Uri, N., D. (2001). Technical Efficiency, Allocative Efficiency, and the

Implementation of a Price Cap Plan in Telecommunications in the United States.
Journal of Applied Economics, mayo, volumen IV, nmero 1. Universidad del
CEMA Buenos Aires, Argetntina. pp. 163-186

Valades, J. and Bamberger, M. (1994). Monitoring and Evaluating Social

Programmes in Developing Countries: A Handbook for Policymakers, Managers, and
Researchers. The World Bank. Washington D.C. pp519

von Braun, J. and Pachauri, R.K. (2008). The Promises and Challenges of Bio-
Fuels for the Poor in Developing Countries
http://www.ifpri.org/pubs/books/ar2005/ar05e.pdf Accessed on 30/3/2009

Waiyaki, N. (2007). Sensitive and Special Products in Trade Negotiations: The Case
of Kenya. Kenya Institute for Public Policy Research and Analysis
http://www.uneca.org/eca_programmes/trade_and_regional_integration/documents/co
tonu/Special%20Products%20Slides%20Cotonou.ppt#315,15,Slide15 Accessed on
30/3/2009.
Warner, B. (2004). Introduction to Regression Test Automation Software.
www.operativesoft.com. Accessed on 30/05/2009

Webster, A. L. (1995). Applied Statistics for Business and Economics. Second

edition. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. USA.

World Water Forum, 2000. World Water Challenges for the Twenty-first Century.
http://www.waternunc.com/gb/secwwf5.htm. Accessed on 30/05/2009.

Wolters, W., and Bos, M. G. (1989). Quoted by Guerra, L. C. et al. (1998).

Producing More Rice with Less Water. SWIM Paper 5. Colombo, Sri Lanka:
International Water Management Institute.

World Bank. (1981). Accelerated Development in Sub-Saharan Africa: An Agenda

for Action. Washington DC.

World Bank. (2007). Project Information Document (PID) Appraisal Stage. Report
No.AB3145.
http://www.wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2007/
10/04/000021271_20071004100741/Original/Kenya/0WaSSIP1P1sa10Stage1091071
2007.doc. Accessed on 20/2/2008.
 125

World Water Forum (2000).http:// www.waternunc.com/gb/secwwf5.html.

Accessed on 03/3/2009.

WRI. (2003). Water Resources and Freshwater Ecosystems- Kenya. Earth Trends:
Country Profiles.
http:// earthtrends.wri.org/pdf_library/country_profiles /wat_cou_404.pdf.
Accessed on 03/3/2008.

WRMA. (2005). Workshop on the Formation of Bwathonaro Water Users

Association: Workshop Report. Nairobi. pp 28. Unpublished.

WRMA. (2006). Catchment Management Strategy: Zero Draft, Tana Catchment.

Unpublished.

Yoffe, S., and Ward, B. (1999). Water Resources and Indicators of Conflict: A
Proposed Spatial Analysis Water International, Volume 24, Number 4, December.
http://geo.oregonstate.edu/research/stupubs.htm. Accessed on 20/8/2008

Yudelman, M. (1994). Quoted in FAO (1995) Planning for Sustainable Use of Land
Resources: Towards a New Approach.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/V8047E/v8047e00.htm#Contents. Accessed on 16/2/ 208.

Zengchuan, D. (2006). Concepts and Practices for Optimal Water Resource

Allocation. In: Proceedings of the international Forum for Water Resources
Management and Irrigation Modernization in Shanxi Province, China. pp 106-110.

Zhang, H. et al. (2008). Postanthesis Moderate Wetting Drying Improves Both

Quality and Quantity of Rice Yield. Agronomy Journal 100(3). pp 726-734

Zhu, J. (2003). Quantitative Models for Performance Evaluation and Benchmarking:

Data Envelopment Analysis with Spreadsheets and DEA Excel Solver. Kluwer
Academic Publishers. USA.
 126

APPENDICES

I: Planned Smallholder and Government-Managed

Irrigation Schemes

(Source: Republic of Kenya, 1992)

 127

II: Efficiencies Related to Irrigation Water-Use

(Source: Bloomer, 2005)

 128

III: Data Collection: Sample Size per WMU

WMU Nu nu WMU Nu nu
T2 12 0 M15 27 1
T5 73 3 M16 74 3
T6 29 1 M17 85 3
T7 59 2 H1 44 2
T8 80 3 H2 63 2
T11 64 2 H3 65 2
T13 39 1 H4 55 2
T15 19 1 H5 96 3
T16 52 2 H6 66 2
T17 16 1 H7 47 2
T18 44 2 H8 58 2
T20 75 3 H18 66 2
T21 39 1 H19 60 2
T22 41 1 H20 65 2
T23 26 1 W1 78 3
T25 16 1 W2 118 4
T19 63 2 W3 103 4
M1 49 2 W4 85 3
M2 23 1 W5 99 3
M3 44 2 W6 126 4
M4 75 3 W7 89 3
M5 32 1 K1 127 4
M6 39 1 K2 99 3
M7 29 1 K3 87 3
M8 15 1 K4 89 3
M9 47 2 K5 91 3
M10 15 1 K6 66 2
M12A/B 46 2 K7 78 3
M13 39 1 K8 18 1
M14 15 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WMU = water management unit; Nu = total number of farms in a WMU;
nu = total number of farms sampled in a WMU
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Author, 2008

soi
 129

IV: Data Collection Questionnaire

PREAMBLE

Dear Sir/Madam,

I request for your contribution in this study on analysis of efficiency of irrigation

water use in Mwea Irrigation Scheme. Please provide the answers to the best of your
knowledge. The answers you give will be kept strictly confidential in accordance
with the research regulations of Kenyatta University.

Thank you for your co-operation.

Owilla Benedict Peter Obiero

Student,
Kenyatta University

PART I: FARMER/IRRIGATOR RESPONDENTS

A: GENERAL INFORMATION

Date of interview....
Name of interviewer...
Time started....
Time completed..

B: GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION

Farm location: UTMX.UMTY. Altitude...

C: IDENTIFICATION OF THE IRRIGATOR

Name of respondent....
Name of farmer...

D: FARMERS SOCIO-ECONOMIC BACKGROUND

1. Age
2. Gender of farmer (1) Male; (0) Otherwise ..
3. Level of education: (1) At least formal education (0) Otherwise
4. Household size ...
5. Do you have any non-farm income?: (1) Yes (0) Otherwise
6. Number of years in irrigation farming (1) 1-3 (2) 4-6 (3) 7-9 (4) 10 and above
 130

E: HYDROLOGIC PARTICULARS OF THE FARM

Section (1) Tebere (2) Mwea or Nguka (3) Thiba (4) Wamumu (5) Karaba
Unit/Block Name....
Feeder-Canal Name ...
Water User Identification Number.
Location of the farm on the feeder canal:
(1) downstream (0) otherwise

F: IRRIGATION WATER MANAGEMENT

Water use during land preparation

1. The planned period of land preparation. -------------weeks

2. Actual duration taken to complete land preparation. ----------weeks
3. Reason(s) for actual duration of land preparation
1 = availability of water in the canal; 2 = followed the usual practice of
soaking the field while waiting for seedlings to be ready; 3 = other (specify)

Water use during the crop growth and development

1. How did you decide on the amount of water to use in the farm?
1 = reliability of water supply within the irrigation system; 2= depth of water
necessary to smother weeds; 3= other (specify)

2. What is your view of the operation and maintenance fees charged? 1 = high;
0 = otherwise

3. How frequently did other farmers interfere with the irrigation schedule?
1 = frequent; 0 = infrequent/otherwise

4. Did you frequently lack water as a tail-end farmer along the canal?
1 = yes; 0 = otherwise

5. Do you irrigate using drain water? 1 = yes; 0 = otherwise

G: LAND-USE IN 2007

Agricultural use Non-agricultural Total

Irrigated Rain-fed
 131

H: YIELDS OF RICE HARVESTED IN THE SCHEME IN 2007

Total no. of Standard weight Total weight of rice Average weight of rice
bags harvested per bag (kgs) harvested harvested per acre (kgs)

I: LABOUR USE
Activity No. of people No. of days Daily wage rate Total cost
(KShs) (KShs)
Pre-transplanting
weeding
Transplanting
Fertiliser application
Post-transplanting
weeding
Insecticide spraying
Herbicide spraying
Bird-scaring
Harvesting
Post-harvest handling
Other (specify)

J. WORKING CAPITAL PER ACRE IN SHORT RAINS 2007

INPUT UNIT QUANTITY UNIT TOTAL
COST COST
(KSHS) (KSHS)

Irrigation water Cubic metre

Land Preparation
Canal Operation/
maintenance
Seed Kg
Fertilizer Kg
Herbicide litre
Insecticide litre
Fungicide Gram/litre
Gunny bags Number
Post-harvest Kshs
handling

TOTAL
 132

K. INCOME FROM IRRIGATED CROP PER ACRE IN SHORT RAINS 2007

CROP UNIT PRICE INCOME

QUANTITY SOLD (KGS) (KSHS) (KSHS)

PART II: KEY INFORMANTS

NATIONAL IRRIGATION BOARD/WATER USERS ASSOCIATION

1. What was the total volume of irrigation water abstracted per rice
season?
2. What was the cost of irrigation water delivered to the farms?
 133

V: SPSS Variable View Sheet

Data written to F:\spss dataview.xls.
58 variables and 157 cases written to range: SPSS.
Variable: FARMNAME Type: String Width: 25
Variable: RESPNAME Type: String Width: 25
Variable: BRANCANA Type: Number Width: 15 Dec: 0
Variable: SECTION Type: Number Width: 6 Dec: 0
Variable: UNIT Type: String Width: 10
Variable: FCANNAM Type: String Width: 8
Variable: FEFAMPOS Type: Number Width: 8 Dec: 0
Variable: FARMNUM Type: Number Width: 8 Dec: 0
Variable: FAGEOPX Type: Number Width: 8 Dec: 3
Variable: FAGEOPY Type: Number Width: 8 Dec: 3
Variable: FAGEOALT Type: Number Width: 8 Dec: 0
Variable: FARMAGE Type: Number Width: 3 Dec: 0
Variable: FAGENDER Type: Number Width: 6 Dec: 0
Variable: FAMEDUC Type: Number Width: 8 Dec: 0
Variable: FMAINOCC Type: Number Width: 18 Dec: 0
Variable: HSHOLDSZ Type: Number Width: 3 Dec: 0
Variable: IRRIGEXP Type: Number Width: 8 Dec: 0
Variable: LANDTOT Type: Number Width: 8 Dec: 2
Variable: ACNONAGR Type: Number Width: 8 Dec: 2
Variable: FARMSZ Type: Number Width: 8 Dec: 2
Variable: RAINFARM Type: Number Width: 3 Dec: 2
Variable: IRRFAMSZ Type: Number Width: 8 Dec: 2
Variable: IRRICEFS Type: Number Width: 3 Dec: 2
Variable: WDLPRTRS Type: Number Width: 8 Dec: 0
Variable: LABLEVEL Type: Number Width: 8 Dec: 0
Variable: LBTSPL Type: Number Width: 8 Dec: 0
Variable: WLBPSTPL Type: Number Width: 8 Dec: 0
Variable: LBINSP Type: Number Width: 8 Dec: 0
Variable: LBHRBSP Type: Number Width: 8 Dec: 0
Variable: LBFNGSP Type: Number Width: 8 Dec: 0
Variable: LABFRTAP Type: Number Width: 8 Dec: 0
Variable: BSCLB Type: Number Width: 8 Dec: 0
Variable: LBHARV Type: Number Width: 8 Dec: 0
Variable: TOTLAB Type: Number Width: 8 Dec: 0
Variable: LPREPCST Type: Number Width: 8 Dec: 2
Variable: LEVLACST Type: Number Width: 8 Dec: 2
Variable: PRTPLCST Type: Number Width: 8 Dec: 2
Variable: TRNPLCST Type: Number Width: 8 Dec: 2
Variable: PSTPLCST Type: Number Width: 8 Dec: 2
Variable: INSLCST Type: Number Width: 8 Dec: 2
Variable: HRBSLCST Type: Number Width: 8 Dec: 2
Variable: FUNSLCST Type: Number Width: 8 Dec: 2
Variable: BRDSLCST Type: Number Width: 8 Dec: 2
Variable: HARVLCST Type: Number Width: 8 Dec: 2
Variable: PTHHLCST Type: Number Width: 8 Dec: 2
Variable: CANOMCST Type: Number Width: 8 Dec: 2
Variable: SEEDCST Type: Number Width: 8 Dec: 2
Variable: FRTCST Type: Number Width: 8 Dec: 2
Variable: FUCDCST Type: Number Width: 8 Dec: 2
Variable: HRBCST Type: Number Width: 8 Dec: 2
Variable: FRTAPCST Type: Number Width: 8 Dec: 2
Variable: INSCDCST Type: Number Width: 8 Dec: 2
Variable: GUBGCST Type: Number Width: 8 Dec: 2
 134

Variable: TOTWKCAP Type: Number Width: 8 Dec: 2

Variable: QTYRCHAR Type: Number Width: 8 Dec: 2
Variable: RCSPR Type: Number Width: 8 Dec: 2
Variable: GRIRRCRV Type: Number Width: 8 Dec: 2
Variable: QTYIRWAT Type: Number Width: 8 Dec: 2