Assessment of water management efficiency in Egypt

Assessment of the efficiency of
water management
A comparative analysis of the
potentials and challenges in
two areas in Egypt
ABY

First; Introduction
1- background irrigation challenges and options
2- linkage of irrigation improvement and livelihood.
3--Methodology
4-- Research areas
5-Data collection
6- Results and discussion
Contents

“The challenges facing the water sector in Egypt are
enormous and require the mobilization of all resources
and the management of these resources in an
integrated manner.
This is especially true as the amount of available water
resources is fixed, meanwhile water demands continue
to grow in the years ahead due to population
growth, increased food demand, and expansion and
modernization of the industrial base, and improved
standards of living..” IWM1
Introduction:

Challenges and responses
• At present, there are significant challenges to water
resources development and use in Egypt.
• Beginning with a single source of water , The Nile –
uncertainties in climate, developments upstream, and
population growths have characterized efforts to
anticipate potential future water constraints.
• Municipal and industrial water use is being readily met
and agricultural water use yields high levels of production
with about 200% cropping intensity.
• However, the costs for water services for the next 15
years will be more than triple the current expenditures.
Future public sector allocation for such high costs
presents a heavy and unsustainable burden for the
government budget.
• Moreover, water quality in a closed system is deteriorating
because of pollutants being retained in as part of the
recycling and reuse of drainage water, along with poor
treatment and regulation of urban and rural sanitation.
Stakeholders at the local level are organizing water users
associations and water boards to confront the issue and
have their voices heard on irrigation and rural sanitation
issues.

• Given the current widespread planning and
implementation of irrigation management
programs, there is an urgent need to
document experiences and share
information about approaches used and
results achieved in different areas of Egypt.
• Such information should include indications
of irrigation performance before and after
management transfer.
• Important performance criteria include
productivity, financial and physical
sustainability, equity, management
efficiency, and environmental compatibility.

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

• The term irrigation management means the
contraction of the government‟s role in
irrigation management and the corresponding
expansion of the role of water users in
irrigation management.
• Management turnover does not necessarily
mean the total withdrawal of government from
all activities. It can be selective, in
accordance with local management contexts.
• Self management mean the implementing or
direct supervising of operation, maintenance
and system improvement functions by an
institution whose jurisdiction and membership
are based on local “ hydro-management”
boundaries. (douglas L. Vermillion).1995

Agricultural sector:
• Agriculture in Egypt is restricted to the fertile lands
of the narrow Nile valley from Aswan to Cairo and
the flat Nile Delta north of Cairo (5.5% of total
country area).
• Egypt receives about 97% of its fresh water from the
Nile, originating outside its international borders; at
the Ethiopian plateau and the equatorial plateau.
This is considered a major challenge for Egyptian
water policy and decision makers
• In 2000, agriculture (crops and livestock) accounted
for 20% Egypt‟s GDP and about 50% of the Egyptian
population relies on it for income generation and job
opportunity creation (CAPMAS, 2000).
• Water available for irrigation varies due to changes
in freshwater availability and to competition among
water users. Crop prices and markets also fluctuate..

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

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

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

The study was conducted in Kafr El-Sheikh governorate
in the domain areas of Bahr El-Nour and Ebshan branch
canals.
Three groups of mesqas were randomly selected from
each branch canal taking into account the different
locations of mesqas on the branch canals (Up-
stream/Mid-stream/Down-stream).
Through a multistage sampling technique, one third of
the total number of the mesqas of Bahr El Nour branch
canal was selected a)Upstream: 8 out of 26 mesqas,
b) Midstream: 6 out of 17 mesqas,
c) Downstream: 8 out of 24 mesqas.
Bahr El Nours‟ mesqas were purposively selected to
represent the current situation and the real
circumstances surrounding the water users in this
area.
Methodology

sampleElnour-Bahr
Upper stream Middle stream lower stream
population
Sample N=8
population =17 Mesqas
Sample N=6
population =24 Mesqas
Sample N=8
Mesqas populati
on
Sample Mesqas population Sample Mesqas pop
ulati
on
Sample
Bour1 Elrabwa Matabek
1 Mobasher Sheik
Hassan
elzont
Mobasher2 Elmashabek bagar
Mobasher3 Sabola Dakush1
Mobasher4 Mobasher15 Dakush2
Mobasher18 Mobasher24 Mobasher
Mobasher19 Mobasher28
Mobasher20 Mobasher29

Approximately one half of the total number of the
mesqas of Ibshan branch canal was selected to
represent different locations as follows: a) Upstream:
4 out of 9 mesqas, b) Midstream: 2 out of 4 in mesqas,
c): Downstream: 1 out of 3 mesqas.
Selection of the random sample in the improved
areas was based on the data available to the water
advisory service while it was based on informants
related to the agricultural cooperatives in the
unimproved area.
Data were collected through personal interviews
using one questionnaire that had two versions (one for
the farmers in the improved mesqas and one for
unimproved mesqas). Two hundred farmers were
selected in each domain area. The total of sample,
thus, reached 400. Data were gathered during the
period from August to September 2012.

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

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

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

Adequacy of water supply after & before irrigation
management
Mean T value Sig
Winter crops
Wheat:
No of irrigation in the season after &before
Average irrigation hours each time after &before
Sugar beet:
Barseem baladi
Summer Crops
Rice
Maize
Cotton lint
.653
1.162
.400
.4900
.1407
.5752
2.580
1.285
.085
.032
1.397
2.970
.528
1.968
1.407
5.019
4.294
5.185
1.807
1.351
.164
.003**
.286
.001**
.161
.000***
.000***
.000 ***
.052*
.178
Changes in water quantity after and before irrigation transfer of some
selected crops

Adequacy of water supply after & before irrigation management Mean T value Sig
Winter crops
Wheat:
Sugar beet:
Barseem baladi
Summer Crops
Rice
Maize
Cotton lint
.653
1.162
.400
.4900
.1407
.5752
2.580
1.285
.085
.032
1.397
2.970
.528
1.968
1.407
5.019
4.294
5.185
1.807
1.351
.164
.003**
.286
.001**
.161
.000***
.000***
.000 ***
.052*
.178
Table ( ) Changes in water quantity after and before
irrigation transfer of some selected crops:
:

Mean
difference
s
T
value
sig
• Wheat total cultivated area
/kerate
• Wheat crop yield/unit
• Sugar beet total cultivated
area /kerate
• Sugar beet crop yield/unit
• Barseem baladi total
cultivated area/kerate
• Rice No of cultivated area
8.2119
4.5918
5.838
5.339
3.663
19.838
3.171
2.644
2.446
2.566
2.499
4.897
.002
.009
.015
.011
.013
.000
Differences in crop yield &cultivated area
between the improved and unimproved
Mesqass

Impact on respondent’s livelihood:
Yearly Expenditure in each Scale
The differences between four classes (Kerat)
Scale 1 = under 27.8 K, Scale 2 = 27.8 - 50 K
Scale 3 = 50 - 80 K, Scale 4 = over 80 K
“Livelihood” = Food, Clothes, Education, Resid.
rent, Electricity, Water and Transportation
“Health” = Medical,
“Social” = Social events and Recreational activ.

“Livelihood Expenses” are more than 70%
in each Scale and Area < Table 2, 3
“Total Expenses” are increasing along to
Scale in both Areas < Table 2, 3
The difference of “Total Expenses” in two
Areas is not statistically significant. (at 10%
level) < Table 4

Area 1 Livelihood Health Social others Total No. of farmers
Scale4 26,162.5 4,029.6 1,993.0 2,802.1 34,987.2 (27)
(74.8) (11.5) (5.7) (8.0) (100.0)
Scale3 22,441.5 2,414.1 1,784.9 5,133.0 31,773.4 (37)
(70.6) (7.6) (5.6) (16.2) (100.0)
Scale2 17,580.9 2,628.3 1,949.4 2,041.4 24,200.0 (99)
(72.6) (10.9) (8.1) (8.4) (100.0)
Scale1 14,017.7 1,750.7 1,198.7 2,344.8 19,311.9 (15)
(72.6) (9.1) (6.2) (12.1) (100.0)
All Scale 19,592.7 2,722.4 1,858.6 2,825.0 26,998.6 (178)
(72.6) (10.1) (6.9) (10.5) (100.0)

Area 2 Livelihood Health Social others Total No. of farmers
Scale4 30,924.3 3,161.3 3,345.5 3,279.0 40,710.0 (31)
(76.0) (7.8) (8.2) (8.1) (100.0)
Scale3 19,057.6 3,359.0 2,831.0 1,713.8 26,961.4 (42)
(70.7) (12.5) (10.5) (6.4) (100.0)
Scale2 20,478.7 2,137.8 2,966.6 2,055.0 27,638.1 (119)
(74.1) (7.7) (10.7) (7.4) (100.0)
Scale1 15,320.8 3,022.5 1,487.5 2,280.0 22,110.8 (8)
(69.3) (13.7) (6.7) (10.3) (100.0)
All Scale 21,593.0 2,588.3 2,937.7 2,182.0 29,301.1 (200)
(73.7) (8.8) (10.0) (7.4) (100.0)

t-test
Total No. of farmers Total No. of farmers p-value
Scale4 34,987.2 (27) 40,710.0 (31) - -
(100.0) (100.0) - -
Scale3 31,773.4 (37) 26,961.4 (42) - -
(100.0) (100.0) - -
Scale2 24,200.0 (99) 27,638.1 (119) - -
(100.0) (100.0) - -
Scale1 19,311.9 (15) 22,110.8 (8) - -
(100.0) (100.0) - -
All Scale 26,998.6 (178) 29,301.1 (200) 0.352 N.S.
(100.0) (100.0) - -
Area 1 Area 2

Game 1: The payoffs and corresponding risk
classification
Game 2: The choice experiment
“Selecting new rice variety with different
Properties” < still under discussion
Tentative discussion of Game 1 < Table 5, 6

Table i5 Game 1 The payoffs and corresponding risk
classification
= choosing a trader in response to different conditions of prices =
“Now if you have one feddan and you can plant it with a new variety of rice
that the research station has produced which gives the same productivity but in
higher quality as the local variety that is required specifically for export to
particular markets, and has the same cost of production of the local variety.”
You have five different dealers each of them will suggest a minimum and
maximum price and the chances that you get any of the two limits are equal.
Trader Low Payoff High Payoff Risk aversion class
A 7,500 LE 7,500 LE Extreme
B 6,000 LE 18,000 LE Severe
C 4,500 LE 22,500 LE Moderate
D 3,000 LE 24,000 LE Inefficient
E 0 LE 45,000 LE Neutral to Negative

Trader Risk aversion class
A Extreme 110.0 (55.0) 125.0 (62.5)
B Severe 24.0 (12.0) 29.0 (14.5)
C Moderate 11.0 (5.5) 9.0 (4.5)
C Inefficient 2.0 (1.0) 3.0 (1.5)
D Neutral to Negative 49.0 (24.5) 28.0 (14.0)
Not join the Game 4.0 (2.0) 6.0 (3.0)
Area 1 Area 2
Farmers in Area 2 tend to be more risk averse than
in Area 1 under the condition of IIP

Assessment of water management efficiency in Egypt

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

Similaire à Assessment of water management efficiency in Egypt

Similaire à Assessment of water management efficiency in Egypt (20)

Plus de ICARDA

Plus de ICARDA (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Assessment of water management efficiency in Egypt