Journal of Agrcultural Economcs and Development, Vol. 2(7), pp. 264-271, July 2012 Avalable onlne at http://www.academeresearchjournals.org/journal/jaed ISSN 2327-3151 2012 Academe Research Journals Full Length Research Paper Agrcultural water development and households vulnerablty to food nsecurty: Emprcal evdence from Eastern Hararghe Ethopa Ssay Belay Bedeke Department of Rural Development and Agrcultural Extenson, Haramaya Unversty P.O. Box 293 Dre Dawa, Ethopa. E-mal: belayssay@gmal.com. Accepted 13 December, 2012 The ncdences of food nsecurty and poverty are partcularly devastatng n the developng countres and a lot of resources are beng channeled towards programs amed at eradcatng food nsecurty. Improvement n access to agrcultural water serves as a powerful tool to reduce vulnerablty, snce t creates optons for extended producton across the year and ncreases outputs. However, n some lteratures, rrgated agrculture can be more vulnerable for envronmental rsks as compared to ran fed agrculture. Moreover, t remans unclear whether nvestment n rrgaton nfrastructure development led to the desred goals of reducng vulnerablty to food nsecurty. Therefore, ths paper provdes results of a study conducted to assess the mpact of agrcultural water n reducng household vulnerablty to food nsecurty n eastern Hararghe zone of Ethopa. A multstage samplng technque was used to select sample household heads. Both Deder and Kersa dstrcts were purposvely selected due to avalablty of modern rrgaton schemes. Both prmary and secondary data collecton methods were employed. Data analyss was nvolved through descrptve statstcs and econometrc models. The results of the study showed that ncrease n proporton of rrgated land sze can sgnfcantly decrease households vulnerablty to food nsecurty. The study concluded that creatng enablng envronment n rrgaton areas can further decreases households vulnerablty to food nsecurty. Key words: East Hararghe, Ethopa, food nsecurty, small scale rrgaton, vulnerablty. INTRODUCTION The ncdences of food nsecurty and poverty are partcularly devastatng n the developng countres and a lot of resources are beng channeled towards programs amed at eradcatng food nsecurty and poverty by varous nternatonal organzatons and government of the developng natons. The ssue of food securty has been understood by many development workers as the avalablty of food n the world marketplace and on the food producton systems of developng countres (Dereje et al., 2006; FANTA, 2003). Ths s despte the fact that typcally 70% to 80% of the populaton n the regon s nvolved n agrcultural producton: an ndcator of the degree to whch land and labor productvty s stll extremely low by nternatonal standards (FAO, 2004). Improvement n access to agrcultural water serves as a powerful tool to ncrease ncome, dversfy lvelhoods and reduce vulnerablty, snce t creates optons for extended producton across the year, ncreases yelds and outputs, and creates employment opportuntes (Gebremedhn and Peden, 2002; Smth, 2004). As many of the low productvty areas have untapped water resources, rrgaton development s beng suggested as a key strategy to enhance agrcultural productvty and to stmulate economc development by reducng vulnerablty to food securty (Bahattara et al., 2002). In many lteratures, rrgaton has been regarded as a powerful factor n ncreasng crop productvty, enhancng food securty, hgher and more stable ncomes and employment and ncreasng prospects for multple croppng and lvelhood dversfcaton (Hussen et al.,
J. Agrc. Econ. Dev. 265 2003; Smth, 2004). In Asa, cereal producton has more than doubled between 1995 and 2001 due to the combned effect of expanson of rrgaton and the use of hgh-yeldng varetes and fertlzers (Hussan and Hanjra, 2004). Inda and Chna, where famne was once a threat, have acheved agrcultural growth through nvestments n rrgaton nfrastructure and by creatng enablng nsttutonal and economc envronments that contrbute to rrgaton s success. Wth sound management and careful plannng, rrgaton can mprove the lvelhoods of the rural poor (Chambers, 1988) by reducng the rsks of expensve mproved nputs beng wasted as a result of crop falure due to lack of water (Food and Agrculture Organzaton (FAO), 1997; Van Den Ban and Ruben, 2006). Moreover, further nvestment n rrgatoncomplementary actvtes lke credts; extenson and market nfrastructures have mplcated spll-over effects to neghborng farmers (Abonesh et al., 2006). Quanttatve evdence shows that household ncome and consumpton are much hgher n rrgated settngs than n ran-fed settngs, and a 50% pont gap s not uncommon (Agrawal and Ra, 2002; Hussan et al., 2002). The studes usng a dynamc concept of poverty such as those by Hussan et al. (2002) also show that ncdence of chronc poverty are sgnfcantly lower n rrgated than n ran-fed settngs. In Ethopa, rrgaton has long been n use; however, rrgated agrculture s far from satsfactory despte substantal nvestment, publc nterest, and strategc support through government polcy (Abonesh et al., 2006; Dereje et al., 2006). Irrgated agrculture comprses only 3% of the total natonal food producton. Untl recently, only 2% of cultvated lands were rrgated (Mnstry of Water Resources (MoWR), 2001), and only 10% of the estmated potental rrgable land (3.5 mllon ha) s actually rrgated (Berhanu and Pedon, 2002; Hussen et al., 2002). Per capta rrgaton s also estmated at about 35 m 2, compared wth the world average of 450 m 2. Currently, projects to expand small-scale rrgaton schemes and to modernze or rehabltate exstng tradtonal rrgaton schemes have been mplemented, wth a sgnfcant number of small-scale rrgaton schemes beng developed (Bedeke, 2011). However, n some cases, rrgated agrculture can be more vulnerable for rsks as compared to ran fed agrculture. Ther vulnerablty results from exposure to rsks whch threaten ther food consumpton and lvelhoods due to envronmental and socal factors. Ths can be manfested through sol salnty, dseases, resources conflcts and land fragmentatons and market fluctuatons. Besdes, the adaptve capacty of the food nsecure households n Ethopa s sgnfcantly low (Kasperson et al., 2001; Oluoko et al., 2011). Needless to say, reducng vulnerablty s a pre-condton for ensurng food securty and poverty reducton (Lovendal and Knowles, 2005; Bedeke, 2012). Moreover, t remans unclear whether nvestment n agrcultural water nfrastructure development led to the desred goals of reducng vulnerablty to food nsecurty. Currently, lterature on rrgaton mpacts on reducng households vulnerablty to food nsecurty s scant for Ethopa, n partcular, and sub-saharan Afrca n general. Thus, a detaled study to analyze and understand the mpact of access to agrcultural water on reducng households vulnerablty to food nsecurty s of paramount mportance. Ths paper provdes results of a study conducted to assess the contrbuton of access to agrcultural water n reducng household vulnerablty to food nsecurty n eastern Hararghe Ethopa. Understandng the vulnerablty reducton mpact of past agrcultural water development projects s mportant for chartng sound polces for future agrcultural water development. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The study ste East Hararghe s one of the zones of the Oroma regonal State of Ethopa. Based on the 2007 Census conducted by the Central Statstcal Agency of Ethopa (CSA), ths zone has a total populaton of 2,723,850, an ncrease of 48.79% over the 1994 census, of whom 1,383,198 are men and 1,340,652 are women; wth an area of 17,935.40 km 2, t has a populaton densty of 151.87. Kersa dstrct, where the study was conducted, s one of the 19 dstrcts n the East Hararghe zone. A survey of the land n Kersa shows that 28.5% s arable or cultvable, 2.3% pasture, 6.2% forest, and the remanng 56.3% s consdered bult-up, degraded or otherwse unusable. Based on fgures publshed by the Central Statstcal Agency n 2005, ths dstrct has an estmated total populaton of 169,330, of whom 82,537 are men and 86,793 are women. Deder dstrct, where the study was conducted, s also located n East Hararghe Ethopa. The annual average ran fall ranges from 600 to 1200 mm. Ths dstrct has an estmated total populaton of 236,236 out of these populatons; about 90.5% lve n rural area whle the remanng lves n urban area. In both of the dstrcts there are ntense modern rrgaton practces. Samplng procedures A multstage samplng technque was used to select sample households. Deder and Kersa dstrcts were purposvely selected due to avalablty of small-scale rrgaton schemes 1. Then two food secure and food 1 Modern small scale rrgaton: rrgaton, usually on small plots, n whch small farmers have the controllng nfluence, usng a level of technology whch they can operate and mantan effectvely
Bedeke 266 nsecure Kebeles 2 n the rrgaton command 3 area and out of the command area were randomly selected from each dstrcts. Then, total numbers of households n kebeles were lsted and stratfed nto rrgaton users and non-rrgaton users based on the households lst whch was obtaned from water users commttee 4. Fnally, 30% of rrgaton users and equal percent of non-users were selected usng probablty proportonal to sze random samplng. Therefore, a total of 150 respondents were ntervewed based on the 2011/2012 croppng year 5. Data collecton Both secondary and prmary data collecton methods were employed. The prmary data requred for ths study was collected from sample respondents usng semstructured questonnares, focus group dscussons wth the scheme benefcares, Water User Assocatons 6 (WUA) commttee and development agents and key nformant ntervews. Moreover, secondary sources lke Ethopan rural household survey, Ethopan rural envronmental and economc polcy papers, Ethopan productve safety net and poverty reducton reports and related books, journal artcles and nternet sources were used. Data analyss Data analyss nvolved descrptve statstcs and econometrc models and t was accompaned by SPSS and STATA software packages. Descrptve statstcs tools such as mean, standard devaton and percentages were used to analyze and present soco-economc characterstcs, vulnerablty to food nsecurty under small scale rrgaton. Analyss of varance (ANOVA), t-test, 2 (ch-square) and mean comparson statstcal tests wll be run to compare groups wth respect to varables of nterest. Heckman selectvty model In practce, evaluatng the mpact of a project on outcome varables usng lnear regresson analyss can lead to 2 Kebele: the smallest admnstratve unt n Ethopa consstng of 800-3000 household heads. 3 Irrgaton command area: farmng plot where rrgaton water can be accessble at mnmum cost from the man source 4 Water users commttee: rrgaton water users assocaton s (10-20memebrs) leaders n the communty 5 Croppng year: the seasons of harvestng the crops may be two or more tmes per year 6 Water Users Assocaton: A group of farmers topographcally sharng from the same rrgaton source or branches based estmate f the underlyng process whch governs selecton nto a project s not ncorporated n the emprcal framework. The reason for ths s that, the effect of the program may be over (under) estmated f the program partcpants are more (less) able due to certan unobservable characterstcs, to derve benefts compared to elgble non-partcpants (Zaman, 2001). Therefore, Heckman two-stage estmaton procedures whch assumes probt n the frst step and Ordnary Least Square (OLS) n the second step are recommended as an approprate models to detect and avod sample selecton bases (Heckman, 1979). Inverse mll s rato or lambda was obtaned from the probt equaton and consdered as one explanatory varable n the second equaton. If ts coeffcent s statstcally sgnfcant, selectvty bases was confrmed (Heckman, 1979; Greene, 2000). Followng Green (2000), the models were specfed as:. Partcpaton/probt equaton k Z = k 1 Z = 1 f. y = s s 1 k W u k ; (1) z > 0 and Z = 0 f Z < 0 Selecton /outcome equaton Bs y = s observed only f u and X + ; (2) s Z > 0, and the dsturbances follows a normal dstrbuton wth zero means and constant varances and covarance s ( ). Where, Z = partcpaton decson whch has dchotomous realzaton on Z (unobserved) = unknown parameters of the varable to be k th k estmated n the frst equaton; w = varables determnng probablty of partcpaton n k rrgaton utlzaton; y = the value of household ncome n the second equaton (observed); th X = s varables determnng household ncome of the s ue
J. Agrc. Econ. Dev. 267 second equaton; B = vector of unknown parameters of the second s equaton/households vulnerablty to food nsecurty; u, = dsturbance terms of the frst and second equatons, respectvely. Lambda was constructed as: (- W )=- ( W )/1- ( Where, ( ( W ) (3) W ) = probablty densty functon; 1- W ) = cumulatve normal dstrbuton functon. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Irrgaton and vulnerablty to food nsecurty Descrptve results of the study showed that rrgatng households reported an average 20% ncrease n food securty snce adoptng rrgaton, and n some cases up to 300%, due to cultvaton of hgher value crops, ntensfed producton and reduced losses. Nutrton was sad to have mproved as varous frut and vegetables became locally avalable. The most successful households have ncreased ther assets, partcularly lvestock whch s an mportant form of savng and wealth accumulaton to reduce vulnerablty. Some have bought new farmng equpment to further ncrease productvty. In ths way, rrgaton can lead to an upward spral of ncreased producton and food securty, and some households say that ther lvelhoods have been transformed. However, many saw only modest ncreases n households food securty, partcularly poorer households. The extra ncome helps them to meet dayto-day expenses but many are stll food nsecure and relant on food or cash for work from the Productve Safety Net Program 7 (PSNP). Households have dfferent levels of knowledge about mproved agrcultural practces, and female-headed households n partcular are often excluded from tranng. Farmers also have dfferent atttudes to rsk-takng, and some are unwllng to nvest n new actvtes due to hgh rsks n producton and marketng. However, some have sad that they have learned new sklls by watchng others or adopted new crops after seeng the benefts to ther neghbors, suggestng that farmer to farmer learnng s mportant. Households wll be unable to reduce vulnerablty to food nsecurty f they lack the assets needed for new 7 Productve safety Net Program: food for work program n Ethopa whch can be pad n cash or knd actvtes (or deem the opportunty costs too hgh), ncludng the necessary sklls or knowledge (Hussen et al., 2003). Irrgaton provdes access to key asset for farm dversfcaton: water. However, successfully usng rrgaton to dversfy vulnerablty to food securty requres access to other assets such as labor, fnance to buy nputs and water tself, and access to the necessary technologes, as well as the rght sklls. Assets that may be needed at household level also nclude less tangble factors such as knowledge, sklls, socal standng and famly support. Important meso-level assets nclude market nfrastructure, roads, communty rrgaton schemes, nsurance and credt schemes, and socal organzatons (Abonesh et al., 2006). To successfully generate ncome from an actvty, access to market nformaton and nfrastructure s essental. More lucratve forms of dversfcaton typcally have hgher costs and demand more skll than low return actvtes, meanng that poor households are often barred from hgh-value optons, a problem exacerbated by the absence of credt markets (Barrett et al., 2000; Reardon et al., 2006). It has been shown that asset poverty s a barrer to the adopton of nonfarm actvtes, ncludng n Ethopa (Holden et al., 2001). The nonfarm actvtes avalable to poor households are lkely to offer low returns and may be rsky and nsecure, such as wage labour and petty tradng. Ths s borne out by fndngs from varous countres that ntensfcaton or commercalzaton of agrculture and the resultng hgher food securty enable dversfcaton nto nonfarm actvtes, but very poor households are lkely to reman stuck n subsstence producton. The better-off also tend to have better access to market opportuntes whch enhances the vulnerablty of reducng food nsecurty potental of new actvtes. They have more lvestock to transport goods, money to spend on transport and (usually) more labour to send to market or to collect market nformaton. Ths suggests that poor households need other opportuntes to buld up ther assets and sklls, whch requres nvestments n educaton, health, water and santaton, roads, electrcty, credt facltes, nformaton avalablty and market nsttutons. Equty ssues n rrgaton: Source for vulnerablty to food nsecurty An mportant source of nequalty assocated wth rrgaton s head-tal nequty n access to rrgaton water. Farms at the tal -end 8 (far from the water source) usually receve less water than those close by at the head -end 9, and lose out at tmes of water scarcty. The dspartes n 8 Tal-end: the dstance of the farm plot very far from the water sources manly greater than 400 meters. 9 Head-end: the dstance of the farm plot from the source manly less than 200 meters.
Bedeke 268 Table 1. Maxmum lkelhood estmates of probt model and ts margnal effects. Varables Coef. t-value Marg.ef. Constant -0.164-1.17-0.0341 Off farm ncome 0.0030 0.13 0.066 Educatonal level 1.0134 2.91 0.3154 Actve labor force 0.3738 0.86 0.1048 Famly sze 0.8790 0.66 0.2000 Average plot dstance from water source -0.2948-0.60-0.0812 Market nformaton access 1.4956 3.78 0.4726 Non-farm ncome 1.0613 3.01 0.3029 Age -0.3123-0.75-0.0923 Land fertlty level -0.4032 0.09 0.0784 Age Square 0.0180 0.36 0.0091 Sex 0.8419 2.11 0.2851 Square of famly sze n adult equvalent 0.0440 0.46 0.0344 Access to extenson 0.0549 0.16 0.0155 Farm sze n hectare 0.0093 0.04 0.0026 Lvestock holdng 0.2318 1.64 0.0662 Access to credt -0.0012-1.62-0.0003 Fnancal constrants -1.2822-3.79-0.5823 Dependant varable = partcpaton decson n rrgaton utlzaton; number of observatons (N) = 150; Ch-square = 125.68; log-lkelhood = -48.54; restrcted log-lkelhood = -36.47; Pseudo R-square = 0.843., statstcally sgnfcant at 1 and 5%, respectvely. Source: Survey result (2012). water receved may be hgh, wth serous mplcatons for the productvty of tal-end farms; n some systems, headenders are able to rrgate three tmes more often than tal-enders. Resolvng ths problem s not easy, but Bhattara et al. (2002) suggest varous measures that can be taken to mprove equty of access and/or compensate tal-end farmers. These nclude: defnton of clear water rghts and enttlements, wth enforcement; ntegrated use of ran, canal and groundwater; adjustment of rrgaton operaton and mantenance costs to reflect level of water use and/or benefts ganed; targeted addtonal support for tal-end users, for example, credt for extra rrgaton equpment; and mprovng water storage and delvery structures. Fnally, rrgaton s assocated wth a number of negatve externaltes and t s mportant to ensure that these do not dsproportonately affect the poor. The man negatve mpacts are on health (rrgaton ponds and reservors have been shown to ncrease ncdence of water-related dseases and the envronment) water losses, water loggng and salnaton of sols and further worsenng vulnerablty (Lpton and Ltchfeld, 2003). Many of these mpacts affect entre communtes, both rrgators and non-rrgators. ECONOMETRIC MODEL RESULTS Decson on rrgaton water utlzaton: Selecton varable Fnancal Constrants Irrgaton actvtes are more captal and labor ntensve as compared to ran-fed and needs suffcent cash at hand for effcent producton and productvty. The margnal effect shows that the probablty of partcpaton on rrgaton water utlzaton for household heads that are constraned fnancally decreases by 58.2% as compared to the household heads who are not constraned. A prevous study ndcated that fnancal constrant negatvely and sgnfcantly affects partcpaton decson n water harvestng (Bhatar et al., 2002). Educaton has also drect and postve effect on households decson for rrgaton water utlzaton. The margnal effect of the result n Table 1 confrms that a unt ncrease of the schoolng of the household ncreases the probablty of households decson to partcpate n rrgaton water utlzaton by 31%. Smlarly, access to market also postvely and sgnfcantly affects partcpaton decson n rrgaton water utlzaton wth margnal effect value of 47%. Ths was also smlarly reported by the study of Abonesh et al. (2006). Non-farm ncome of the household has sgnfcant effect on probablty of usng rrgaton water. Irrgaton has multpler effect on other non-farm sectors f there s enablng nsttutonal envronments, ths can agan be renvested nto the rrgaton sector. Ths study also showed that a unt ncrease n household non-farm ncome ncrease the probablty of rrgaton water utlzaton by 30%. Based on the probt results, sex of the household head has postve and sgnfcant effect on the use of rrgaton water. Male-headed households have relatvely more actve labor and economcally well-off. The margnal effect shows that probablty of partcpaton n rrgaton utlzaton for male-headed household ncreases by 28.5% as compared to ther female
J. Agrc. Econ. Dev. 269 Table 2. Ordnary Least Square estmates of selecton model/outcome equaton. Varables Coef. t-value Constant 2641.37 1.90 Off farm ncome -15.73-0.58 Educatonal level 6.42 0.64 Actve labor force 457.87 0.72 Famly sze 63.28 2.56 Famly sze square 453.65 3.44 Average plot dstance from water source 76.64 0.26 Market nformaton access 244.11 0.36 Non-farm ncome 524.81 0.81 Age 413.34 0.59 Land fertlty level 207.52 0.51 Age Square 417.82 0.99 Sex 486.05 2.85 Square of famly sze n adult equvalent 0.63 0.58 Access to extenson 29.28 0.09 Farm sze n hectare -127.82-0.20 Lvestock holdng 567.45 0.67 Access to credt 234.56 0.55 Fnancal constrants 673.55 0.34 Proporton of rrgated land sze 5725.80 4.48 Mlls lambda 340.78 1.28 Dependant varable = households vulnerablty to food nsecurty; number of observatons (N) = 150; F-value = 25.26; R-squared = 0.866; Adjusted R-squared = 0.756., statstcally sgnfcant at 1, 5 and 10%, respectvely. Source: Survey result (2012). counterparts, ceters parbus. Prevous research results reported by Smth (2005) ndcated also sgnfcant and postve relatonshp. Smlar fndng also confrmed postve and strongly sgnfcant results (Van Den Berg and Rubn, 2006). The study also showed 84% of the varaton of decson on rrgaton utlzaton was due to varaton of explanatory varables and the sample can sgnfcantly ft the populaton of the study at 1%. Vulnerablty to food nsecurty: Outcome varables Results from the second stage of the Heckman model, or the response equaton, were presented n Table 2. Lambda s nsgnfcant suggestng that there are no sample selecton bases. The sgnfcant vulnerablty to food nsecurty determnants (future household consumpton expendture) are famly sze, famly sze square, sex and proporton of rrgated land sze. These varables contrbuted postvely n reducng households food nsecurty vulnerablty. The relatonshp between vulnerablty to households food nsecurty and the famly sze s non-lnear as ndcated by the statstcal sgnfcance of ther squared terms n the model. The relatonshp between famly sze (n adult equvalent) and reducng households vulnerablty to food nsecurty (per adult equvalent) s U-shaped, ndcatng that as the famly sze ncreases, the vulnerablty of a famly decreases but only up to a certan pont, beyond whch the reducng vulnerablty ncreases agan. Ths may be due to the labor-ntensve nature of the rrgaton busness. After a famly has access to rrgaton, ncreasng the workforce wthn a household s not an ncreased lablty, rather t enables agrcultural ntensfcaton. Ths was also smlarly reported by the study of Abonesh et al. (2006) and Dereje et al. (2006). The total margnal effects ndcate the change n reducng vulnerablty to food nsecurty resultng from a unt change n the explanatory varable for the entre sample. Among those who have access to rrgaton, a hectare ncrease n proporton of rrgated area would decrease reducng vulnerablty to food nsecurty by 5725 ETB 10. However, a unt ncreases n famly sze 10 ETB: exchange money n Ethopa. Based on 2012 exchange rate 1 USD: 17 Brr
Bedeke 270 decreases vulnerablty to food nsecurty by 63.4 ETB for those wth access to rrgaton, but only up to a certan pont beyond whch a unt ncrease n famly sze decreases households vulnerablty by about 453 Brr. When the entre sample s consdered, a unt ncrease n famly sze decreases vulnerablty by 387 Brr, mantanng the U-shaped relatonshp between famly sze and vulnerablty. The mplcaton s that an rrgated farm can support more people by creatng the condtons for ntensfcaton. Moreover, the 75.6% varaton of vulnerablty to food nsecurty was due to varaton n hypotheszed explanatory varables. Conclusons Based on the probt result, sex, educaton, non-farm ncome, access to credt and fnancal constrants were sgnfcant varables. On the other hand, rrgatng households reported an average of 20% ncrease n food securty snce adoptng rrgaton, and n some cases up to 300%, due to cultvaton of hgher value crops, ntensfed producton and reduced losses. Households wll be unable to reduce vulnerablty to food nsecurty f they lack the assets needed for new actvtes (or deem the opportunty costs too hgh), ncludng the necessary sklls or knowledge. Irrgaton actvtes are more captal and labor ntensve as compared to ran-fed and needs suffcent cash at hand for effcent producton and productvty. The result of OLS also showed that sex, famly sze, famly sze square and proporton of rrgated land sze were sgnfcant. The margnal effect shows that the probablty of partcpaton on rrgaton water utlzaton for household heads who constraned fnancally decreases by 58.2% as compared to the household heads who dd not constraned. Among those who have access to rrgaton, a hectare ncrease n proporton of rrgated area would decrease vulnerablty to food nsecurty by 5725 ETB 11. In general, the study suggested that creatng enablng nsttutonal and economc envronment for rrgaton development can further decrease households vulnerablty to food nsecurty. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author acknowledges staff of East Hararghe Zone Agrculture and Rural Development Offces (EHARDO), Deder and Kersa Dstrct agrcultural offce workers for ther cooperaton durng data collecton. Great apprecaton goes to the farmers who spared ther precous tme to respond to the lengthy questonnare wllngly; wthout ther cooperaton, ths study could not 11 ETB: exchange money n Ethopa. Based on 2012 exchange rate 1 USD: 17 Brr have been completed. Lastly, the author apprecates Haramaya Unversty Department of Rural Development and Agrcultural Extenson n supportng logstcs. REFERENCES Agrawal B, Ra D (2002). Methodologes for water resources management n Gomt basn, U.P. Inda: A case study of hydrologcal plannng. http://www.coc.tlesa.es/abstracts/038.htm Accessed on June 12, 2012. Barrett C, Bezuneh M, Clay D, Reardon T (2000). Heterogeneous constrants, ncentves and ncome dversfcaton strateges n rural Afrca. Cornell Unversty Department of Appled Economcs and Management Workng Paper No. 1476, New York: Cornell Unversty. Bedeke S (2011). Communty based rrgaton management system: the case of Deder dstrct, East Hararghe, Ethopa: Advances n Phy. Theos. and Appl., Vol. 1, 2011. Bedeke S (2012). Food nsecurty and copng strateges: a perspectve from Kersa Dstrcts of East Hararghe Ethopa. Food Scences and Qualty Management. Vol. 5, 2012. Bhattara M, Sakthvadvel R, Hussen I (2002). Irrgaton mpacts on ncome nequalty and poverty allevaton: Polcy ssues and optons for mproved management of rrgaton systems. Colombo, Sr Lanka: Internatonal Water Management Insttute (IWMI) Workng Paper No.39, pp. 28-29. Chambers R (1988). Managng Canal Irrgaton: Practcal Analyss from South Asa. Cambrdge Unversty Press: Cambrdge; p. 279. Dereje B, Ayalneh B, Abonesh T, Regassa N (2006). Impact of small-scale rrgaton on household poverty: Emprcal evdences from Ambo dstrct, Ethopa. J. Irrg. Drang. Sys., 12: 242 258. FANTA (2003). Food and Nutrton Techncal Assstance Project (FANTA) and Food Ad Management (FAM). Food Access Indcator Revew Washngton, D.C.: Food and Nutrton Techncal Assstance, Academy for Educatonal Development, 2003. FAO (1997). Fact sheets of the world food summt: rrgaton and food securty. Food and Agrculture Organzaton of the Unted Natons, Rome. FAO (2004). Unlockng the water potental of agrculture. FAO, Rome. Gebremedhn B, Pedon D (2002). Polces and nsttutons to enhance the mpact of rrgaton development n mxed crop lvestock system. In Integrated Water and Land Management Research and Capacty Buldng Prortes for Ethopa, Proceedngs of MoWR/EARO/IWMI/ILRI Internatonal Workshop held at ILRI, Adds Ababa, Ethopa, 2 4 December; pp. 168-184.
J. Agrc. Econ. Dev. 271 Greene HW (2000). Econometrc Analyss. 4th ed, Prentce Hall Internatonal, Inc. New York. p. 1004. Heckman JJ (1979). Sample selecton bas as a specfcaton error. J. Econ., 47(1): 153-161. Holden S, Shferaw B, Pender J (2004). Non-farm ncome, household welfare, and sustanable land management n a less-favoured area n the Ethopan hghlands. J. Food Pol., 29: 369-392. Hussan I, Hanjra A (2004). Irrgaton and Poverty Allevaton: J. Irgn. and Drnge. Syst., 53(1): 1-15. Hussan I, Markar F, Thrkawala S (2001). Impact of rrgaton nfrastructure development on poverty allevaton n Sr Lanka and Pakstan. J. Dev. Stud., 21(2): 29-31. Hussan I, Markar F, Thrkawala S (2002). Impact assessment of rrgaton nfrastructure development on poverty allevaton: A case study from Sr Lanka. JBIC Research Paper No. 19. Colombo, Sr Lanka: Japan Bank for Internatonal Cooperaton and Internatonal Water Management Insttute. Hussan I, Sakthvadvel R, Amarasnghe U, Mudasser M, Molden D (2003). Land and water productvty of wheat n the western Indo-Gangetc plans of Inda and Pakstan: A comparatve analyss. Research Report 65. Colombo, Sr Lanka: Internatonal Water Management Insttute. Kasperson RE, Kasperson JX, Dow K (2001). Vulnerablty, equty, and global envronmental change, In: Kasperson JX, Kasperson RE (Eds.), Global Envronmental Rsk. London, Earthscan. Lpton M, Ltchfeld J (2003). The effects of rrgaton on poverty: A framework for analyss. J. Water Pol., 5(5-6): 413-427 Lovendal R, Knowles M (2005). Tomorrow s Hunger: A Framework for Analyzng Vulnerablty to Food Insecurty, Agrcultural and Development Economcs Dvson, FAO, ESA Workng Paper No. 05-07. Oluoko O, Alce A (2011). Vulnerablty and Adaptaton to Food Insecurty and Poverty n Kenya. Annals of the Assocaton of Amercan Geographers. 101(1): 1-20. Blackmal publshng. Reardon T, Berdegue J, Barret C, Stamouls K (2006). Household ncome dversfcaton nto rural nonfarm actvtes. In: Haggblade S, Hazell P, Reardon T (eds) Transformng the rural nonfarm economy, Baltmore: Johns Hopkns Unversty Press. Smth D (2004). Assessment of the Contrbuton of Irrgaton to Poverty Reducton and Sustanable Lvelhoods. J. Water Resour. Dev., 20(2): 243 257. Tesfay A, Bogale A, Bacha D, Namara R (2006). Impact of small-scale rrgaton on households food securty: Evdence from Godno and Fltno rrgaton schemes n Ada Lven dstrct, Ethopa. J. Irgn. Drng. Syst., 22: 145-158. URL http://www.coc.tlesa.es/abstracts/038.htm Accessed on June 12, 2012. Van Den Berg M, Ruben R (2006). Small-scale rrgaton and ncome dstrbuton n Ethopa. J. Dev. Stud., 42(5): 868-880. Zaman H (2001). Assessng the poverty and vulnerablty mpact of mcro credt access n Bangladesh: a Case Study of BRAC. Offce of the Chef Economst and Senor Vce Presdent. The World Bank.