This document discusses potential pathways through which irrigation can influence nutrition, health outcomes, and women's empowerment. It identifies five main pathways: 1) increased food production can lead to greater food availability and diversity; 2) irrigation can generate income which may be spent on food or health; 3) irrigation water can be used for domestic purposes to improve water supply; 4) health risks can increase from factors like waterborne diseases or pollution; and 5) irrigation projects that target women can empower them by increasing assets and income controlled by women. The document provides examples from various studies on how each of these pathways has played out and the gender dimensions, noting that outcomes depend on factors like who adopts irrigation and controls use of water, land,

1. Linkages between Irrigation,
Nutrition, Health and Gender
Elizabeth Bryan
Senior Research Analyst
Environment and Production Technology Division
International Food Policy Research Institute
e.bryan@cgiar.org

2. Potential Pathways through which Irrigation
Influences Nutrition and Health Outcomes and
Women’s Empowerment
 Production pathway*
 Income pathway*
 Water supply pathway*
 Health risks pathway*
 Women’s empowerment pathway*
 Irrigation lowers global food prices, makes all foods
cheaper, reduces need for deforestation and related heat
stroke/air pollution and other effects but increased emissions
from energy in irrigation (balance toward increased health
from irrigation through this particular pathway)
*Gender plays a key role in most pathways
Source: Domenech 2015; Rosegrant et al. (2009)

3. Potential Pathways through which Irrigation
Influences Nutrition and Health Outcomes and
Women’s Empowerment
Source: Domenech 2015

4. Irrigation Production Pathway
• Higher yields due to use with improved varieties & complementary
inputs (e.g. Burney et al 2010: microirrigation yield gains, Benin)
• Growing in the lean season (e.g. Aseyehen et al 2012: crops
planted 2-3 times compared to rainfed production in Ethiopia)
• Depends on crop choices—greater diversity, nutritious crops?
– Greater crop diversity? (Namara et al. 2005, India), no difference?
(Namara et al. 2011, Ghana), more monocropping? (Hossain et al.
2005, Bangladesh)
– Production diversity does not always led to dietary diversity (Sibhatu
et al. 2015), and dietary diversity is not the same as nutritional
improvement
– More production of vegetables and fruits (Fraiture and Giordano
2014) and cash crops (Burney et al 2013; Nkonya et al 2011)
– Increased production of animal foods through irrigated fodder
(Frenken 2005; Murphy and Allen 2003)

5. Production Pathway
• Some evidence that greater production/more
crop diversity as a result of irrigation leads to
greater intake or improved diets:
– Consumption of more vegetables among irrigating
HH in the Sudano-Sahel led to less food insecurity
(Burney et al. 2010)
– HH in Mali with irrigation had greater calorie
intake (Dillon 2008)

6. Link between share vegetables in calories
and irrigation in Africa?
Chad
EthiopiaGhana
Kenya
Lybia
Madagascar
Mauritania
Niger
SenegalSudan and South
Sudan
Uganda
MaliNigeria
Tanzania
Togo
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Vegetablesupply(%)
Irrigated land as percentage of agricultural land (%)
Source: FAOSTAT 2013

7. 2005-6
Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Height-for-Age Z-Scores of
children under 3 in India
NFHS Data
Lokshin and Radyakin 2012
Issue of Seasonality and Climate Change:
Potential for irrigation to address these challenges
0.2 is the median
impact of
complementary
feeding
interventions

8. Production Pathway Influenced by Gender
• Impact of irrigation on production outcomes
depends on who adopts and for what purpose
– Gender differences in crop choices: men may
plant cash crops while women may focus on
homestead gardens
– Cash crops have potential nutrition linkages
through income effect
– Direct potential for irrigated homestead garden
production to improve nutrition outcomes (Olney
et al. 2009; Iannotti et al. 2009)

9. Income Pathway
• Irrigation as a source of income through market
sales of surplus
– Food expenditures higher among irrigating HH in South
Africa (Sinyolo et al. 2014)
– Greater health spending (e.g. malaria treatment and
prevention)
– Market access/infrastructure is key (Chazovachiii
2012—lack of market access limits income generation
potential of irrigation, Zimbabwe)
• Employment generation due to increased
productivity and expanded production calendar
• Again gender is key—who controls the income
from sale of crops and from ag employment
will influence health and nutrition outcomes

10. Potential increase in gross revenue per hectare
from small-scale irrigation
Source: IFPRI (2010)

11. Irrigation can impact millions in Africa
SSA: motor pumps
• 185 million potential rural beneficiaries
• Net revenues up to US$22 billion/yr
Tanzania: motor pumps could benefit 2-4
million people (8-12% of rural households)
Crop Low-input, rainfed
yield (t/ha)
High input, irrigated
yield increase (%)
Maize 1.0 141-195
Paddy 0.9 270-283
Groundnuts 0.7 238-251
SSA: Potential yield improvements from AWM investments
Source: http://awm-solutions.iwmi.org

12. Water Supply Pathway
• Irrigation water may be used for other purposes such
as drinking, washing, bathing or other productive
purposes (e.g. livestock watering, aquaculture)
• Multiple uses of irrigation water may be unplanned or
by design (van Koppen et al. 2009)
• Greater water for domestic purposes as a result of
irrigation resulted in lower diarrhea and stunting in
Pakistan (Van der Hoel et al. 2002)
*The extent to which women are involved in the design of
irrigation systems may encourage more multiple uses of
irrigation water

13. Health Risks Pathway
• Increased risk of vector-borne diseases such as malaria
and dengue
– Microdam construction in Ethiopia led to more malaria
(Ghebreyesus et al. 1999; Ersado 2005)
– Ijumba and Lindsay (2001) find irrigation does not
increase malaria, except in areas of unstable transmission
– Relationship depends on many factors: socioeconomic
status, vector control programs, presence of cattle
• Negative health outcomes from increased pollution
(especially pesticides)
– Clarke et al. 1997 found greater symptoms of headache,
blurred vision, nausea/vomiting among irrigation workers
in Ghana
*Any gender-differentiated outcomes depend on gender
distribution of labor

14. Estimated global loadings of BOD, N and P
Source: IFPRI-Veolia (2015).
(a) BOD (b) Nitrogen (N)
(c) Phosphorus (P)
Loading
(million ton/yr)
Population at risk
BOD 209 1 in 8 people or 651 million
N 131 1 in 6 people or 973 million
P 10 1 in 4 people or 1,287 million
Largest Pollution levels in countries with largest irrigation, most rapid
growth to 2050 in Africa and Asia

15. Women’s Empowerment Pathway
• Gender roles in agriculture affect women’s ability to adopt
irrigation and the outcomes for women and men
– What type of irrigation is being introduced? >>implications for women’s
ability to adopt irrigation, time use
– Who is responsible for irrigating crops? Collecting water?
>>implications for time use
– Do women control land and make productive decisions (e.g. what to
plant, use of inputs, etc.)? >>implications for women’s ability to adopt
irrigation, crop choices
– Do women control irrigated output (from plots they manage, of certain
crops)? >>implications for hh consumption
– Do they sell and keep income from irrigated production? >>implications
for women’s income, asset accumulation, spending on food and health
• Women may be less likely to adopt irrigation given lack of assets
such as land (van Koppen et al. 2012) or other constraints such as
lack of labor (e.g. female-headed households in Ethiopia
(Aseyehen et al. 2012) or social norms (Njuki et al. 2014—
kickstart example)

16. Women tend to have less control over irrigation
(Example smallholder irrigation Tanzania)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Hip pump SMMP Motorized pump Hose pipe
Female Joint Male Source: Nkonya et al. (2011)

17. Irrigation technologies matter [Ex. Tanzania:
Time spent irrigating (hrs/ha/yr)]

18. Women’s Empowerment Pathway
• Irrigation projects targeted towards women may be an
important pathway for improved nutrition and health
outcomes
– Women may allocate resources gained from sale of irrigated
crops towards food and health expenditures
– Women may use irrigation to grow more nutritious foods for
home consumption
– Also contributes directly to women’s empowerment (e.g.
increase in assets owned by women, income controlled by
women, etc.)
e.g. homestead food production program in Burkina Faso
increased assets and income controlled by women (van den Bold
et al 2013)
e.g. irrigation project targeting women’s groups increased food
consumed (including vegetables and protein) and income from
sale of irrigated crops (Burney et al. 2010)

19. IFPRI Projects Addressing these Issues
• Innovation Lab for Small-Scale Irrigation (ILSSI)
– Funded by USAID, 5 years
– 3 Countries: Ethiopia, Tanzania and Ghana
– Led by Texas A&M with IWMI, ILRI, North Carolina
A&T
– IFPRI leading household surveys/observational
study
• WLE Ghana Experiment
– Partnering with iDE to encourage adoption of
motor pumps among random set of farmer groups

20. WLE Ghana Activity

21. WEAI Modifications
• We use a “Modified WEAI” for the ILSSI project in order
to better capture linkages between irrigation and gender
• Modifications to the original WEAI include:
– Role in decisionmaking: on irrigated food crop and cash crop
farming
– Autonomy in decisionmaking: types of crops to grow for
irrigated vs. non-irrigated
– Productive capital: also includes irrigation tank/pond and
irrigation equipment
– Access to information/extension: on irrigation methods
– Time allocation: time spent irrigating/working with equipment
– Added response options on irrigation topics for various
questions on credit, savings, group membership

22. Initial WEAI Results from Ethiopia and
Tanzania
WEAI Irrigators
Non-
irrigators
Contributors to
disempowerment
Ethiopia 0.82 0.85
• Group membership
• Leisure time
• Speaking in public
• Credit access
• Control over use of income
Tanzania 0.88 0.86
• Group membership
• Credit access
• Leisure time
• Speaking in public
• Autonomy in production
IFPRI-ILSSI Tanzania, Ethiopia dataset

23. Decision-making on Irrigation in Ethiopia
Women’s Responses: Ethiopia
How much input did you
have in making decisions
about…
How much input did you
have in decisions on the use
of income generated from…
Irrigated food
crop farming
Irrigated cash
crop farming
Irrigated food
crop farming
Irrigated cash
crop farming
No Input 0% 2% 0% 1%
Input into very few decisions 14% 15% 13% 16%
Input into some decisions 52% 53% 51% 53%
Input into most decisions 23% 16% 23% 15%
Input into all decisions 11% 15% 13% 15%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100%
IFPRI-ILSSI Tanzania, Ethiopia dataset

24. Women’s Responses: Tanzania
How much input did you
have in making decisions
about…
How much input did you have
in decisions on the use of
income generated from…
Irrigated food
crop farming
Irrigated cash
crop farming
Irrigated food
crop farming
Irrigated cash
crop farming
No input 0% 0% 1% 0%
Input into very few decisions 9% 11% 11% 14%
Input into some decisions 23% 31% 26% 30%
Input into most decisions 30% 24% 29% 23%
Input into all decisions 37% 34% 34% 34%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100%
Decision-making on Irrigation in Tanzania
IFPRI-ILSSI Tanzania, Ethiopia dataset

25. THANK YOU!
Elizabeth Bryan
e.bryan@cgiar.org