Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
  • Like
Assessment of water management efficiency in Egypt
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Now you can save presentations on your phone or tablet

Available for both IPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Assessment of water management efficiency in Egypt

  • 399 views
Published

Dr. A. Bendary

Dr. A. Bendary

Published in Technology , Business
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
  • please send me Assessment of water management efficiency in Egypt
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
399
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1

Actions

Shares
Downloads
26
Comments
1
Likes
1

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Assessment of the efficiency ofwater managementA comparative analysis of thepotentials and challenges intwo areas in EgyptABY
  • 2. First; Introduction1- background irrigation challenges and options2- linkage of irrigation improvement and livelihood.3--Methodology4-- Research areas5-Data collection6- Results and discussionContents
  • 3. “The challenges facing the water sector in Egypt areenormous and require the mobilization of all resourcesand the management of these resources in anintegrated manner.This is especially true as the amount of available waterresources is fixed, meanwhile water demands continueto grow in the years ahead due to populationgrowth, increased food demand, and expansion andmodernization of the industrial base, and improvedstandards of living..” IWM1Introduction:
  • 4. Challenges and responses• At present, there are significant challenges to waterresources development and use in Egypt.• Beginning with a single source of water , The Nile –uncertainties in climate, developments upstream, andpopulation growths have characterized efforts toanticipate potential future water constraints.• Municipal and industrial water use is being readily metand agricultural water use yields high levels of productionwith about 200% cropping intensity.• However, the costs for water services for the next 15years will be more than triple the current expenditures.Future public sector allocation for such high costspresents a heavy and unsustainable burden for thegovernment budget.• Moreover, water quality in a closed system is deterioratingbecause of pollutants being retained in as part of therecycling and reuse of drainage water, along with poortreatment and regulation of urban and rural sanitation.Stakeholders at the local level are organizing water usersassociations and water boards to confront the issue andhave their voices heard on irrigation and rural sanitationissues.
  • 5. • Given the current widespread planning andimplementation of irrigation managementprograms, there is an urgent need todocument experiences and shareinformation about approaches used andresults achieved in different areas of Egypt.• Such information should include indicationsof irrigation performance before and aftermanagement transfer.• Important performance criteria includeproductivity, financial and physicalsustainability, equity, managementefficiency, and environmental compatibility.
  • 6. In addressing the main issues and the way forward, TheMinister of Water Resources and Irrigation has stated in2003 that: ―…the challenges facing the water sector inEgypt are enormous and require the mobilization of allresources and the management of these resources in anintegrated manner. This is especially true as the amountof available water resources is fixed; meanwhile waterdemands continue to grow in the years ahead due topopulation growth, increased food demand, and expansionand grow in the years ahead due to populationgrowth, increased food demand, and expansion andmodernization of the industrial base, and improvedstandards of living.
  • 7. • The term irrigation management means thecontraction of the government‟s role inirrigation management and the correspondingexpansion of the role of water users inirrigation management.• Management turnover does not necessarilymean the total withdrawal of government fromall activities. It can be selective, inaccordance with local management contexts.• Self management mean the implementing ordirect supervising of operation, maintenanceand system improvement functions by aninstitution whose jurisdiction and membershipare based on local “ hydro-management”boundaries. (douglas L. Vermillion).1995
  • 8. Agricultural sector:• Agriculture in Egypt is restricted to the fertile landsof the narrow Nile valley from Aswan to Cairo andthe flat Nile Delta north of Cairo (5.5% of totalcountry area).• Egypt receives about 97% of its fresh water from theNile, originating outside its international borders; atthe Ethiopian plateau and the equatorial plateau.This is considered a major challenge for Egyptianwater policy and decision makers• In 2000, agriculture (crops and livestock) accountedfor 20% Egypt‟s GDP and about 50% of the Egyptianpopulation relies on it for income generation and jobopportunity creation (CAPMAS, 2000).• Water available for irrigation varies due to changesin freshwater availability and to competition amongwater users. Crop prices and markets also fluctuate..
  • 9. Source: CEDARE, 2011
  • 10. This study is aimed at assessing the impacts ofthe irrigation management transfer on crop waterrequirements, crop yields, and crop waterproductivity under changing irrigation and culturalpractices in the north Nile Delta.A branch Canals (improved and unimproved) wereselected on the Bahr El Nour command area, KafrEl-Sheikh, Egypt, sample tertiary units wereselected, six in each branch Canal, anddistributed at head, middle and tail locations andwere selected purposively to reflect differentconditions.Three main summer crops (rice, Maize, cotton)and three main winter crops (wheat, sugar caneand local clover {Berseem}) were studied on eachMesqa.
  • 11. The Nile River supplies about 97 % of the annualrenewable water resources in Egypt.Out of the Nile‟s average natural flow of 84.0 km3/yreaching Aswan, a share of 55.5 BCM/yr is allocatedfor Egypt according to the Nile Water Agreement(1959).The Agreement also allocates a share of 18.5 BCM/yrto Sudan; while about 10 BCM/yr is lost inevaporation from the high dam reservoir (LakeNasser).Thus the total renewable water resources of Egyptare estimated at 56.8 BCM/yr. (Some referencesinclude an additional 1.0 BCM/yr of transboundarygroundwater flow [FAO 1998]).The latter amount of supply is constant andincremental possibilities are not foreseen for theshort term.
  • 12. The availability of fresh water resources is jointlygoverned by hydro-climatologically features as well associal, economical and political factors.Population densities and geographic distributions alongwith existing cropping patterns, uniformity in irrigationcoverage , and farmer„s behavior are major socialfactors. Economic factors indicate that about ten yearsago (2001) agriculture has been contributing to 83% ofthe national water demands while providing 16% of theGDP and employing near 50% of the labor force in ruralEgypt. Throughout ten years of prevailing waterscarcity, these figures have been declining due toincreased demand of other sectors with higher netadded value of water.Political factors display additional pressures on thegovernment to maintain its irrigation water subsidies tocontrol further rural to urban migrations, Gharib (2004).
  • 13. The study was conducted in Kafr El-Sheikh governoratein the domain areas of Bahr El-Nour and Ebshan branchcanals.Three groups of mesqas were randomly selected fromeach branch canal taking into account the differentlocations of mesqas on the branch canals (Up-stream/Mid-stream/Down-stream).Through a multistage sampling technique, one third ofthe total number of the mesqas of Bahr El Nour branchcanal 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 torepresent the current situation and the realcircumstances surrounding the water users in thisarea.Methodology
  • 14. Map of Bahr ElNour
  • 15. sampleElnour-BahrUpper stream Middle stream lower streampopulationSample N=8population =17 MesqasSample N=6population =24 MesqasSample N=8Mesqas populationSample Mesqas population Sample Mesqas populationSampleBour1 Elrabwa Matabek1 Mobasher SheikHassanelzontMobasher2 Elmashabek bagarMobasher3 Sabola Dakush1Mobasher4 Mobasher15 Dakush2Mobasher18 Mobasher24 MobasherMobasher19 Mobasher28Mobasher20 Mobasher29
  • 16. Abshan sample
  • 17. Approximately one half of the total number of themesqas of Ibshan branch canal was selected torepresent 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 improvedareas was based on the data available to the wateradvisory service while it was based on informantsrelated to the agricultural cooperatives in theunimproved area.Data were collected through personal interviewsusing one questionnaire that had two versions (one forthe farmers in the improved mesqas and one forunimproved mesqas). Two hundred farmers wereselected in each domain area. The total of sample,thus, reached 400. Data were gathered during theperiod from August to September 2012.
  • 18. Results and conclusions
  • 19. Summary of Findings:The results showed thatGood on-farm water management in terms ofquantity, timing and reliability(i) significant reductions in irrigation costs includingmesqa O&M costs and irrigation labor timerequirements, less irrigation time at field.(ii) some improvements in the equity of waterdistribution between mesqa heads and tails,(iii) prevention of tail-end water losses from low-levelmesqas to drains, andEfficient land use, where old mesqa canal waslocated, filled up and used as field path, makingtransportation of materials and products easier.
  • 20. The main reported perceived problems with improvedmesqas were(i) some difficulties with pumps maintenanceincluding technicalexpertise and availability of spare parts,(ii) insufficient pump discharge capacities. Watershortages and short water availability periods werestill common problems facing farmers in bothunimproved and improved areas attributable to delaysin introduction of CF operations, but these problemsseemed to be less severe in the improved areas.There was also a general downward trend in the useof low-quality drainage water in tail-end areas.
  • 21. The hypothesis is: as farmers have a vested interest in the irrigationservice, involving them directly in irrigation management would lead toimprovement in the quality of the irrigation service and water supply. Changesin the quality of irrigation service is assessed in terms of farmer perceptionabout the quality of irrigation service before and after transfer.Table ( ) displays the quantity of irrigation water used in selected crop in thenumber of irrigations and average of irrigation hours on each time in bothwinter and summer seasons.The table displays that there is no change in the irrigation numbers of eachcrops after and before irrigation transfer and management, while there issignificant differences in average irrigation hours where the farmers spendless hours in irrigating their cops in winter and summer seasons. Reduction ofirrigation time ranged from 50 to 60 % that of before IIP.
  • 22. Adequacy of water supply after & before irrigationmanagementMean T value SigWinter cropsWheat:No of irrigation in the season after &beforeAverage irrigation hours each time after &beforeSugar beet:No of irrigation in the season after &beforeAverage irrigation hours each time after &beforeBarseem baladiNo of irrigation in the season after &beforeAverage irrigation hours each time after &beforeSummer CropsRiceNo of irrigation in the season after &beforeAverage irrigation hours each time after &beforeMaizeNo of irrigation in the season after &beforeAverage irrigation hours each time after &beforeCotton lintNo of irrigation in the season after &beforeAverage irrigation hours each time after &before.6531.162.400.4900.1407.57522.5801.285.085.0321.3972.970.5281.9681.4075.0194.2945.1851.8071.351.164.003**.286.001**.161.000***.000***.000 ***.052*.178Changes in water quantity after and before irrigation transfer of someselected crops
  • 23. Adequacy of water supply after & before irrigation management Mean T value SigWinter cropsWheat:No of irrigation in the season after &beforeAverage irrigation hours each time after &beforeSugar beet:No of irrigation in the season after &beforeAverage irrigation hours each time after &beforeBarseem baladiNo of irrigation in the season after &beforeAverage irrigation hours each time after &beforeSummer CropsRiceNo of irrigation in the season after &beforeAverage irrigation hours each time after &beforeMaizeNo of irrigation in the season after &beforeAverage irrigation hours each time after &beforeCotton lintNo of irrigation in the season after &beforeAverage irrigation hours each time after &before.6531.162.400.4900.1407.57522.5801.285.085.0321.3972.970.5281.9681.4075.0194.2945.1851.8071.351.164.003**.286.001**.161.000***.000***.000 ***.052*.178Table ( ) Changes in water quantity after and beforeirrigation transfer of some selected crops::
  • 24. MeandifferencesTvaluesig• Wheat total cultivated area/kerate• Wheat crop yield/unit• Sugar beet total cultivatedarea /kerate• Sugar beet crop yield/unit• Barseem baladi totalcultivated area/kerate• Rice No of cultivated area8.21194.59185.8385.3393.66319.8383.1712.6442.4462.5662.4994.897.002.009.015.011.013.000Differences in crop yield &cultivated areabetween the improved and unimprovedMesqass
  • 25. Impact on respondent’s livelihood:Yearly Expenditure in each ScaleThe differences between four classes (Kerat)Scale 1 = under 27.8 K, Scale 2 = 27.8 - 50 KScale 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.
  • 26. “Livelihood Expenses” are more than 70%in each Scale and Area < Table 2, 3“Total Expenses” are increasing along toScale in both Areas < Table 2, 3The difference of “Total Expenses” in twoAreas is not statistically significant. (at 10%level) < Table 4
  • 27. Area 1 Livelihood Health Social others Total No. of farmersScale4 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)
  • 28. Area 1 Livelihood Health Social others Total No. of farmersScale4 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)
  • 29. Area 2 Livelihood Health Social others Total No. of farmersScale4 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)
  • 30. t-testTotal No. of farmers Total No. of farmers p-valueScale4 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
  • 31. Game 1: The payoffs and corresponding riskclassificationGame 2: The choice experiment“Selecting new rice variety with differentProperties” < still under discussionTentative discussion of Game 1 < Table 5, 6
  • 32. Table i5 Game 1 The payoffs and corresponding riskclassification= 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 ricethat the research station has produced which gives the same productivity but inhigher quality as the local variety that is required specifically for export toparticular markets, and has the same cost of production of the local variety.”You have five different dealers each of them will suggest a minimum andmaximum price and the chances that you get any of the two limits are equal.Trader Low Payoff High Payoff Risk aversion classA 7,500 LE 7,500 LE ExtremeB 6,000 LE 18,000 LE SevereC 4,500 LE 22,500 LE ModerateD 3,000 LE 24,000 LE InefficientE 0 LE 45,000 LE Neutral to Negative
  • 33. Trader Risk aversion classA 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 2Farmers in Area 2 tend to be more risk averse thanin Area 1 under the condition of IIP