Africa RISING West Africa: Sustainable Agricultural Water Management Technical Report
1
Technical Report Submitted to the International Institute of
Tropical Agriculture (IITA) under USAID Sub-Project
titled: Sustainable Agricultural Water Management in
Cereal-Based Farming Systems
of Northern Ghana
Reporting Period: 1st May- 30th November, 2012
Prepared By:
IWMI, KNUST, WRI, ARI and CPWF
Fred Kizito, Regassa Namara, Edmund K. Akoto-Danso, Wilson A. Agyare, Emmanuel
Obuobie, Charles Quansah, Karbo Naminong, Emmanuel Panyan,
Bright Amegashie and Fred Logah
Africa RISING West Africa: Sustainable Agricultural Water Management Technical Report
2
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 4
2. Procedures ................................................................................................................................... 4
2.1 Sites and experimental treatments ........................................................................................ 4
2.2 Crop water productivity ........................................................................................................ 6
2.3 Scaling out small scale irrigation technologies from two communities ............................... 7
2.4. Soil and Water Conservation Training ................................................................................ 8
3. Results ......................................................................................................................................... 9
3.1. Water productivity ............................................................................................................... 9
3.2. Scaling up and out potential for smallholder irrigation technologies: ............................... 14
3.2.1 Tolon-Kumbugu district .............................................................................................................. 14
3.2.2 Lawra district ............................................................................................................................. 15
3.3 Training in soil and water conservation methods ............................................................... 16
3.3.1 KASA Assessment ....................................................................................................................... 16
4. Discussion ................................................................................................................................ 19
4.1. Crop water productivity ..................................................................................................... 19
4.2. Scaling up and out irrigation potential ............................................................................... 20
4.3. Training on soil and water conservation methods ............................................................. 20
5. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 21
6. References ................................................................................................................................ 22
Table of Figures
Figure 1. Location of field sites and corresponding site coordinates ....................................... 4
Figure 2. Field layout depicting instrumentation for real-time monitoring ............................ 5
Figure 3. Field research design with explanation of treatments applied on farmers’ fields .. 5
Figure 4 Farmer participatory monitoring of rainfall in Digu and Orbilli communities ......... 9
Figure 5 Seasonal rainfall events and reference evapotranspiration for the Digu and Orbilli
communities in 2012 .................................................................................................................. 10
Figure 6 Seasonal diurnal variations for mean reference evapotranspiration and maize
evapotranspiration for Digu and Orbilli sites ........................................................................... 10
Figure 7 Soil moisture storage variation for the Digu and Orbilli field sites.......................... 11
Figure 8 Seasonal volumetric water content variation in the experimental treatments at
Digu and Orbilli............................................................................................................................ 11
Figure 9 Maize water productivity and gross value of production trends for Digu site ....... 12
Figure 10 Maize water productivity and gross value of production for Orbilli site .............. 13
Figure 11 Soybean water productivity and gross value of production for Orbilli site ......... 13
Figure 12. Maps on scaling out potential for smallholder irrigation technologies: TolonKumbugu ...................................................................................................................................... 14
Figure 13. Maps on scaling out potential for smallholder irrigation technologies: Lawra ... 15
Figure 14. Technicians and farmers knowledge and skills before and after training in the
areas of Soil and Water Conservation (SWC), Soil Erosion (SE), Contouring (Ct), A-frame
and Line Level (A-F & LL), Water Harvesting (WH) and Irrigation (Irr) in Tolon-Kumbugu17
Africa RISING West Africa: Sustainable Agricultural Water Management Technical Report
3
Figure 15. Technicians and farmers attitude and aspiration before and after training in the
areas of Soil and Water Conservation (SWC), Soil Erosion (SE), Contouring (Ct), A-frame
and Line Level (A-F & LL), Water Harvesting (WH) and Irrigation (Irr) in Tolon-Kumbugu
after the training. ......................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 16. Technicians and farmers knowledge and skills before and after training in the
areas of Soil and Water Conservation (SWC), Soil Erosion (SE), Contouring (Ct), A-frame
and Line Level (A-F & LL), Water Harvesting (WH) and Irrigation (Irr) in Lawra. ............... 18
Figure 17. Technicians and farmers attitude and aspirations before and after training in the
areas of Soil and Water Conservation (SWC), Soil Erosion (SE), Contouring (Ct), A-frame
and Line Level (A-F & LL), Water Harvesting (WH) and Irrigation (Irr) in Lawra. ............... 18
Table of Tables
Table 1. Site coordinates ................................................................................................................. 4
Table 2 Crop parameters, planting dates and Kc values ............................................................ 6
Table 3. Criteria used for evaluation of irrigation technologies and scaling up potential ...... 7
Table 4 Crops yield and water productivity trends for experimental treatments for the Digu
and Orbilli sites ............................................................................................................................ 12
Table 5. KASA assessment form ................................................................................................. 16
Africa RISING West Africa: Sustainable Agricultural Water Management Technical Report
4
1. Introduction
This report provides feedback on project activities for the International Water Management Institute (IWMI)led component of the USAID funded project entitled: Sustainable Agricultural Water Management in CerealBased Farming Systems of Northern Ghana. The overarching project output was to identify and promote
approaches and technologies that foster improved water management and use in cereal-based farming
systems. The Project partners include: Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST);
Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) with two sister institutes Animal Research Institute
(ARI) and Water Research Institute (WRI) as well as the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) and
the Challenge Program of Water and Food (CPWF).
This IWMI-led USAID-IITA project builds off from work conducted through the CPWF. The major challenge in
this work was the lack of instrumentation to monitor the contribution of soil and water conservation
technologies to the water management regime and consequently agricultural water productivity.
In Ghana, the agricultural sector continues to drive economic growth and sustain livelihoods. However, the
sector is plagued by declining agricultural productivity due to lack of adoption of technologies and irregular
rainfall patterns that lead to droughts and reduced crop yields. Even within the rainy season, dry spells occur
with devastating effects on grain yield. In this environment, small-scale supplemental irrigation systems in
both the rainy and dry seasons based on surface and ground water abstraction can lead to positive
improvements in the livelihoods of smallholder farmers in these farming systems. This research study sought
to provide training and appropriate tools that can assist in enhancing farmer livelihoods while scaling-up and
out proven irrigation and in-situ water harvesting technologies in the proposed target areas.
Purpose and objective
The overall goal of this project is to reduce poverty and improve food security, income and livelihoods of
small-scale resource poor farmers at the household level. Our overarching research hypothesis is that using a
systems approach that integrates water resources management, nutrient, soil and crop management coupled
with farmer training in soil and water conservation methods will result in significant benefits to the rural
poor and the environment, which can be scaled out to wider geographic areas. The planned activities to fulfill
this objective were:
1) Water productivity estimates
2) Scale-up and out proven small-scale irrigation technologies
3) Training and capacity building on small scale irrigation and soil and water conservation
2. Procedures
2.1 Sites and experimental treatments
The field trials were set up in May 2012 and planting of the fields was conducted 26th and 30th June 2012. The
maize seed variety used was the PANNAR seed. The field sites are located in Upper West Region (Orbilli and
Nabrunye with 15 farmers) and in the Northern Region (Golinga and Digu with 15 farmers) as shown in
Figure 1. Field instrumentation was deployed for Digu and Orbilli.
Table 1. Site coordinates
District
Lawra
TolonKumbugu
Figure 1. Location of field sites and corresponding site coordinates
Site
Orbilli
Nabrunye
Golinga
Digu
Latitude
10.69117
10.64393
9.59418
9.52667
Longitude
-2.8938
-2.78582
-0.01575
-1.05923
Africa RISING West Africa: Sustainable Agricultural Water Management Technical Report
5
Pyranometer
Anemometer
Relative humidity
and air temperature
Rain gauge
Data logger
Soil water content
Echo Probes
Maize
Soya -bean
Soil surface
10 cm
20 cm
Figure 2. Field layout depicting instrumentation for real-time monitoring
NF
NF
M (40Kg) [T5]
NM [T0]
C
NC
Automatic
NR
NR
Weather
NF
M (40Kg) [T5]
C
NR
F
NF
Station
M (20Kg) [T3]
M (40Kg) [T6]
NC
NC
R
R
F
M (20Kg) [T3]
NC
R
NF
M (40Kg) [T5]
C
NR
F
M (20Kg) [T2]
C
NR
F
M (20Kg) [T3]
NC
R
F
M (20Kg) [T2]
C
NR
F
M (20Kg) [T2]
C
NR
NF
M (40Kg) [T6]
NC
R
NF
NF
NF
NM [T0]
M (40Kg) [T6]
NM [T0]
NC
NC
NC
NR
R
NR
F - Fertilizer; NF - No Fertilizer; M - Manure; C - Contour NC - No Contour
R - Ridges; NR - No Ridges
Figure 3. Field research design with explanation of treatments applied on farmers’ fields
The factors that were selected as variables include:
1. Manure (a combination of animal manure, crop residue, compost and household waste)
2. Inorganic fertilizer (NPK 15-15-15 and sulphate of ammonia. NPK was applied at the rate of 2
bags/acre and sulphate of ammonia at 1 bag/acre).
3. Type of tillage
The type of tillage had 3 levels: no ridging/contour bunds, tied-ridging and contour bunds. The soil texture
for Golinga and Digu in the Northern Region is a loamy clay soil with a friable structure while that in Orbilli is
6
Africa RISING West Africa: Sustainable Agricultural Water Management Technical Report
a sandy loam soil with coarse stone pebbles. This has implications on the soil moisture storage and durability
of in-situ water harvesting interventions such as contours and tied ridges.
Table 2 Crop parameters, planting dates and Kc values
Planting/Harvest
Dates
Site/Crop
Digu
Maize
Orbili
Maize
Orbili
Soybean
Growth
Stage
ET
Planting:
26/6/2012
(Day of Year: 178)
Harvesting:
19/10/2012
(Day of Year 296)
Planting:
30/6/2012
(Day of Year: 178)
Harvesting:
22/10/2012
(Day of Year 296)
Planting:
30/6/2012
(Day of Year: 178)
Harvesting:
22/10/2012
(Day of Year 296)
501
487
378
Growth
Stage Kc
values
Ideal
growth
duration
Actual
Days of
year
duration
(Julian
days)
Initial
0.15
20
20
178-198
Mid
1.15
75
70
199-269
Late
0.30
30
26
270-296
Initial
0.15
20
20
182-202
Mid
1.15
75
70
203-273
Late
0.30
30
22
274-296
Initial
0.15
30
20
182-202
Mid
1.10
40
50
203-253
Late
0.30
15
15
254-296
2.2 Crop water productivity
Water productivity, a partial measure of productivity, is defined as output per unit of water depleted, where
output can be measured in physical or value terms. Both crop and livestock water productivity can serve as
entry points for targeted integrated water resources management for the study sites. Work conducted on
livestock water productivity is not reported herein. Crop water productivity is the amount of water required
(crop evapotranspiration, ETc) per unit of yield and is a vital parameter to assess the performance of
irrigated and rainfed agriculture.


Cropyield (Y )

CropWater Pr oductivity  
CropEvapot
ranspirati
on
(
ET
)
c 

Equation 1
Crop water productivity will vary greatly according to the specific conditions under which the crop is grown.
There are standard procedures used to assess crop water productivity (See FAO Irrigation and Drainage
papers Nos. 24, 33, 46 and 56 in the context of the framework of water management applications and
practices). A suite of these procedures was used in combination with the seasonal crop yield averages from
primary field data to estimate crop water productivity in the two study sites. The gross value of production
(GVP) is an index which uses product of the local price of the crop (US dollars) and the productivity per unit
consumed (kg m-3) (Bastiaanssen et al., 2003). As a result crop water productivity (CWP) can as well be
expressed as:
 GVP 

CWP  
 ETc 
Equation 2
Africa RISING West Africa: Sustainable Agricultural Water Management Technical Report
7
2.3 Scaling out small scale irrigation technologies from two communities
Following a similar approach to that of the IWMI led Agricultural Water Management (AWM) Solutions
Project (AgWater Solutions Project, 2011; FAO, 2012), this study mapped areas where small scale irrigation
technologies are likely to be most viable and have greatest impact for livelihood improvement. The difference
between the AWM solutions Project approach and this study is the spatial scale considered and the criteria
used (See Table 3). This study considered a smaller scale based on communities partitioned by hydrological
watershed boundaries. In the absence of detailed local level statistics, these irrigation potential maps serve as
useful tools to understand rural and urban dependence on water access, vulnerability, resilience to shock and
the extent to which interventions on water resources management are critical to community livelihood
empowerment.
Table 3. Criteria used for evaluation of irrigation technologies and scaling up potential
Category
Variable/Criteria
Biophysical attributes
(contributes to 55% of
weighting index)
Presence/proximity of water sources
Aridity index (P/ETref)
Soil characteristics (Classification)
Socio-economic attributes
(contributes to 45% of
weighting index)
Livestock density (head/ha)
Cropping density (plants/ha)
% Slope
Distance to markets (km)
Population density (pop./ km2)
Community perception on irrigation
(includes # of farmers practicing smallscale irrigation)
Micro-finance presence (0-100%)
Total population (# people)
Sub-watershed Area (km2)
Scoring Matrix
% Weight Index
Lawra
TolonKumbugu
15
9
Variable/Criteria
10
6
Presence/proximity of water sources
(Small reservoirs, shallow ground water,
rivers, streams)
Aridity index (P/ETref)
10
15
Soil characteristics
5
10
8
15
Livestock density (head/ha)
Cropping density (plants/ha)
5
15
5
20
5
-
2
20
5
15
5
-
% Slope
Distance to markets (km)
Population density (per capita/ha)
Community perception on irrigation
Micro-finance potential (0-100%)
Total population (per capita)
Sub-watershed Area (km2)
Tolon-Kumbugu District
Golinga and Digu
Small reservoirs, shallow ground water,
streams
Proximity: 0.1 - 15 km
0.75
Predominantly Ferric Acrisols
0.146 – 14.243
0.011 – 0.549
0-5%
0-20 km
26.8
Mixed: Good to neutral
125 around small reservoir (Golinga)
and shallow wells; alternative sources
of income present
20
116, 600
2,300
Lawra District
Nabrunye and Orbili
Small reservoirs, Black Volta, smaller
streams
Proximity: 0.1 - 10 km
0.85
Predominantly Ferric Lixisols and
Planosols
0-75.23
0-0.37
0-5%
0-10 km
79
Positive/Good cultural orientation
240 farmers around Black Volta
30
267,075
3,150
Evaluation criteria and data sources
Remotely sensed data for reservoirs with area greater than 1 ha; for the period
between 1999-2001 mainly in the dry season Nov through Dec. and from survey
data conducted from target communities
Ranges from 0-1 or >1: The closer index is to 1 or if greater the less prone area is
to aridity; dependent on rainfall amount and distribution as well as ET levels
Classification based on suitability to manual drilling, tube well installation and
other mechanized practices in Ghana) (See Appendix II)
Geo-processed from FAO Geo-portal data (FAO, 2004)
Ramankutty et al, 2000. Geo-processed from Global Croplands database; FAO,
2004; Complemented with Ghana MoFA Data and CPWF Household data
Digital Elevation Model (90 km resolution)
Spatial processing and calculation
Ghana Population Census (2010)
Survey data conducted from target communities (See Appendix I)
Survey data conducted from target communities (See Appendix I)
Ghana Population Census (2010)
SWAT Watershed delineation
The resulting scaling out and up irrigation potential maps are therefore a combination of spatial biophysical
parameters, socio-economic parameters and participatory mapping processes involving researchers’
interaction with various entities in the target communities (e.g. local chiefs, farmers and agricultural
extension agents). A weighting method was used and biophysical parameters accounted for 55% of the
weight and socio-economic parameters accounted for 45% of the weight (see Table 2).
Africa RISING West Africa: Sustainable Agricultural Water Management Technical Report
8
2.4. Soil and Water Conservation Training
The training workshop was a training of trainers (ToT) organized with the aim to equip agricultural
extension agents and farmers with the relevant knowledge and skills on sustainable soil and water
management technologies for onward transmission to others. The main objectives of the training were to:
(i) Assess the knowledge and skills of Agricultural Extension Agents (AEAs) and Farmers in soil and
water conservation measures;
(ii) Enhance existing knowledge and skills through training and on-farm demonstration; and
(iii) Encourage farmer cross learning through sharing of farmer experiences.
2.4.1 Participation
There were a total of 24 core participants from IWMI, WRI, KNUST (facilitators), the Ministry of Food and
Agriculture (MoFA), ARI and farmers for the training workshop at Nyankpala (Northern Region of Ghana) and
Lawra (Upper West Region of Ghana). However at the field training sessions, there were a total of about 35
participants comprising farmers, MoFA extension agents (technical staff) and facilitators from IWMI,
KNUST,WRI, ARI and other farmers who voluntarily joined other participants to learn.
2.4.2 Training sessions and approach
Two trainings were held; one in the Northern Region of Ghana and the other in the Upper West Region. The
training in the Northern Region was held at Nyankpala on the 18th and 19th of September 2012 while the one
in the Upper West took place at Orbilli on the 20th and 21st September 2012 and the first day was held at the
Lawra District office of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture. Each training program started and ended with
Knowledge, Attitude, Skill and Aspiration (KASA) assessment of participants (Agricultural extension
technicians and farmers) pertaining to key issues relevant to water management interventions. These were
soil and water conservation, soil erosion, contouring, A-frame and line level, water harvesting and irrigation.
KASA analysis as a participatory monitoring and evaluation (PME) tool was applied to assess or estimate
changes in knowledge, attitudes, skills, and aspirations of technicians and farmers as a result of the training.
The training was a learning process for all the participants, including the Researchers. To encourage farmer
cross learning, a farmer from Orbilli in the Upper West was invited to participate in the training held in the
Northern Region and the same was done for the training in the Upper West. Both trainings were facilitated by
the team from KNUST, with support from IWMI, ARI and WRI teams. At both venues, the first day was
dedicated to lectures with some demonstrations while the second day was devoted to practical work in the
field.
9
Africa RISING West Africa: Sustainable Agricultural Water Management Technical Report
3. Results
The results presented here include water productivity, scaling out of irrigation technologies and training on
soil and water conservation measures.
3.1. Water productivity
Below are sample graphs of farmer participatory monitoring of rain records in Digu and Orbilli communities.
80
60
55
55
55
55
50
50
40
40
40
30
27
25
21 20
20
18
15
17
11
10
6
6 5
3
64
60
50
47
47
43
40
35
32
27
23
20
28
25
20
17
17
17
11
10 10
5
5
20
17
16
13 14
5
12
55
6
8 9
8
4
0
0
6/20/12
Rainfall (mm): Orbilli 2012 cropping season
Rainfall (mm): Digu 2012 cropping season
80
7/30/12
9/8/12
10/18/12
6/20/12
7/30/12
9/8/12
10/18/12
Figure 4 Farmer participatory monitoring of rainfall in Digu and Orbilli communities
The data collected by farmers was quite helpful because it provided initial data trends before the automated
weather stations were deployed; this effort contributed to the periodic monitoring of rainfall for estimating
water productivity in these landscapes. Additionally it provided a new perspective to farmers to feel as costewards in the research being conducted in their fields. This boosts their confidence and empowers them
with data they can readily access.
Results from Figures 4 and 5 indicate that Digu received less rainfall (614 mm) than Orbilli (694 mm) and had
fewer rain events (22) compared to those of Orbilli (36 events). Additionally, the on-set of the rains in Digu
was delayed (12 July 2012) compared to the on-set in Orbilli (2 July 2012). The on-set timing, amount,
duration and distribution of rainfall events can have profound influence on crop productivity.
Based on Kc values reported in Table 2, Figure 6 shows that the reference evapotranspiration and the crop
mid-growth evapotranspiration at both sites exhibited similar trends, with crop evapotranspiration slightly
higher than the reference though both peaked just before 1300 hours. The evapotranspiration magnitudes
were not significantly different at both study sites. The crop evaporation trends for both the early growth and
senescence period were the lowest as expected.
10
Africa RISING West Africa: Sustainable Agricultural Water Management Technical Report
60
55
55
50
8
40.91
40
36.58
30
6
27
25
21
20
17
4
10
6
2
120
160
20
18 18.8
12.95
11
10.92
10.15
9.91
4.574.57 4.32
3.55
2.54
0.75
0.25
3
40
200
240
280
Day of Year (2012)
0
320
360
10
80
64
8
60
50
Rainfall (mm)
55
Orbilli Reference Evapotranspiration (mm)
55
Rainfall (mm)
Digu Reference Evapotranspiration (mm)
10
47 47
43
6
35
32
23
4
27 28
25
20
17 17 16
14
13
11
17
10
10
5
5 5
20
160
13
10.42
12
2
120
20
17
55
40
89 8
6.1
6
6
4.07
3.81 4
2.78
2.03
1.781.02
1.02
0.76
0.76
200
240
280
Day of Year (2012)
0
320
360
0.8
0.8
Evapotranspiration (mm)
Evapotranspiration (mm)
Figure 5 Seasonal rainfall events and reference evapotranspiration for the Digu and Orbilli communities in
2012
(a) Digu
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
300
800
1300
1800
2300
Time of Day
Reference ET
Early growth
Mid growth
(b) Orbilli
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
300
800
1300
1800
2300
Time of Day
Scenesence
Reference ET
Early growth
Mid growth
Scenesence
Figure 6 Seasonal diurnal variations for mean reference evapotranspiration and maize evapotranspiration for
Digu and Orbilli sites
As depicted in Figure 3, there are four treatments that were monitored for variation in soil moisture regime.
For the Digu site (Figure 7), soil moisture storage trends followed closely similar patterns for all the
treatments. The FM20R treatment (fertilizer, 20 kg of manure and tied ridging) depicted higher soil moisture
storage trends between Day of year (DOY) 270 through 310 and receded thereafter. This was followed by the
NFM40R treatment (No fertilizer, 40 kg manure and tied ridging), then the control treatment and lastly
NFM40C treatment (No fertilizer, 40 kg manure and contour bund at bottom slope). Both the control and
NFM40C treatments had very comparable trends.
11
Fertilizer,manure (20kg), Tied Ridging
No fertilizer, manure (40kg), tied-ridging
Control
No fertilizer, manure (40kg), Contour bunds
0.04
Orbilli Soil moisture storage (0-10 cm) rooting zone
Digu Soil moisture storage (0-10 cm) rooting zone
Africa RISING West Africa: Sustainable Agricultural Water Management Technical Report
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
260
280
300
320
340
Fertilizer,manure (20kg), Tied Ridging
No fertilizer, manure (40kg), tied-ridging
Control
No fertilizer, manure (40kg), Contour bunds
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
260
Days of the year, 2012 Cropping Season
280
300
320
340
Days of the year, 2012 Cropping Season
Figure 7 Soil moisture storage variation for the Digu and Orbilli field sites
0.5
Orbilli Volumetric water content (m3m-3)
Digu Volumetric water content (m3m-3)
Figure 7 also revealed more pronounced soil moisture storage differences for the Orbilli site
compared to the Digu site. Similarly, the FM20R treatment consistently exhibited higher storage
levels than other treatments. This was followed by the NFM40C, control and then NFM40R. The
profile moisture storage depicts a steady gradual decline between DOY 285 (10 Oct) through DOY
306 (1 Nov) as it did not receive recharge from rainfall.
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
FM20R
NFM40R
Control
Management regimes
NFM40C
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
FM20R
NFM40R
Control
NFM40C
Management regimes
Figure 8 Seasonal volumetric water content variation in the experimental treatments at Digu and Orbilli
12
Africa RISING West Africa: Sustainable Agricultural Water Management Technical Report
The results presented in Figure 7 are substantiated by trends reported in Figure 8 where the mean
differences in volumetric water content for Digu were not as pronounce as those for the Orbilli site. Similarly,
the FM20R depicted higher volumetric water content for both sites.
Table 4 results revealed higher values for the FM20R treatment for maize yield, productivity per unit
consumed and consequently higher gross value of production. Thus, for maize the treatments were in the
order of FM20R>NFM40R>Control >NFM40C. These trends are further exemplified in Figures 9 and 10.
Table 4 Crops yield and water productivity trends for experimental treatments for the Digu and Orbilli sites
Site
Crop
Digu
(Tolon-Kumbugu)
Maize
Orbilli (Lawra)
Treatment
Soybean*
Maize
Soybean
FM20R (T4)
NFM40R (T2)
Control (T1)
NFM40C (T3)
ET
(mm)
Crop yield
(kg ha-1)
(Std Dev.)
5867 (384)
4578 (567)
3467 (1058)
2400 (538)
X
5600 (1872)
3556 (270)
2711 (1111)
2533 (758)
560 (36)
769 (91)
453 (8)
700 (140)
501
X
FM20R (T4)
NFM40R (T2)
Control (T1)
NFM40C (T3)
FM20R (T4)
NFM40R (T2)
Control (T1)
NFM40C (T3)
Productivity
per unit
consumed
(kg m-3)
1.17 (0.076)
0.91 (0.113)
0.69 (0.211)
0.48 (0.107)
X
1.15 (0.38)
0.73 (0.06)
0.56 (0.23)
0.52 (0.16)
0.15 (0.01)
0.20 (0.02)
0.12
0.19 (0.04)
487
378
GVP per unit
consumed
(US $ m-3)
0.39 (0.03)
0.31 (0.04)
0.23 (0.07)
0.16 (0.04)
X
0.39 (0.13)
0.25 (0.02)
0.19 (0.08)
0.18 (0.05)
0.05
0.07 (0.01)
0.04
0.07 (0.01)
*No results for soybean as farmer did not grow soybean as an intercrop; had sole maize crop
0.5
0.4
1.2
Digu GVP (US $ m-3)
Digu Maize water productivity (kg m-3)
1.6
0.8
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.1
0
0
FM20R
NFM40R
Control
Management regimes
NFM40C
FM20R
NFM40R
Control
Management regimes
Figure 9 Maize water productivity and gross value of production trends for Digu site
NFM40C
13
Africa RISING West Africa: Sustainable Agricultural Water Management Technical Report
0.6
Orbilli maize GVP (US $ m-3)
Orbilli maize water productivity (kg m-3)
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
0
0.4
0.2
0
FM20R
NFM40R
Control
NFM40C
FM20R
Management regimes
NFM40R
Control
NFM40C
Management regimes
Figure 10 Maize water productivity and gross value of production for Orbilli site
0.25
0.08
Orbilli soyabean GVP (US $ m-3)
Orbilli soyabean water productivity (kg m-3)
In contrast to the maize, soybean trends revealed interesting differences. Soybean performed remarkably
well for the NFM40R and NFM40C (Figure 11) with consequently higher GVP for the two aforementioned
treatment management regimes. It’s also worth noting that soybean seasonal evapotranspiration was the
lowest with (378 mm).
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
FM20R
NFM40R
Control
Management regimes
NFM40C
FM20R
NFM40R
Control
Management regimes
Figure 11 Soybean water productivity and gross value of production for Orbilli site
NFM40C
Africa RISING West Africa: Sustainable Agricultural Water Management Technical Report
14
3.2. Scaling up and out potential for smallholder irrigation technologies:
3.2.1 Tolon-Kumbugu district
Biophysical and socio-economic attributes
Livestock density (small ruminants)
^_
0
4
0°20'0"W
8
16
Kilometers
32 0°0'0"
24
0°10'0"W
^_
0
0°10'0"E
^_
^_
^_
!
^_
9°30'0"N
^_
^_
^_
!
9°20'0"N
^_
^_
^_^_
_
^
^_
^_
0°20'0"W
^_
0°10'0"W
0
4
^_
9°20'0"N
^_
^__
^
8
^_
^_
0°0'0"
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
0°10'0"E
^_
Cropping density
0°20'0"W
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
Transport
9°30'0"N
^_ !(
_
^
9°20'0"N
Small reservoirs
^_
0°20'0"W
0°10'0"W
^_
0°0'0"
^_
^_
^_
0°10'0"E
Smallholder irrigation potential
16
Kilometers
32 0°0'0"
24
0°10'0"W
^_
^_
^_
_
^
0°10'0"E
^_
10°0'0"N
10°0'0"N
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
Communities/towns
^_
^_
9°20'0"N
^_
!(
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
Rivers/streams
^_
!(
9°30'0"N
^_
Golinga
_
^^_
^_
^_
^_ !(
^_
Legend
^_
9°40'0"N
^_
^_
9°30'0"N
^_
!(
^_
^_
9°40'0"N
^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_ ^_
!(
^_
^_
^_
9°50'0"N
^_
9°40'0"N
^_
^_
!(
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
9°50'0"N
^_
^_
9°40'0"N
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
!(
^_
^_
^_
9°50'0"N
^_ ^_
0°10'0"E
10°0'0"N
!(
^_
_
^
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
Kilometers
32 0°0'0"
24
^_
_
^
9°50'0"N
_
^
16
0°10'0"W
10°0'0"N
^_
^_
^_
8
^_
10°0'0"N
^_
4
0°20'0"W
10°0'0"N
^_
^_
^_
_
^
^_
^_
^_
^_
_
^
_
^
!(
9°50'0"N
9°50'0"N
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_ ^_
^_
!(
9°40'0"N
9°40'0"N
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_
9°30'0"N
^_
!(
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
9°30'0"N
^_ !(
^_
^_
^_
9°20'0"N
^_
^_
^_
^_
_
^
9°20'0"N
_
^
^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
0°20'0"W
0°10'0"W
^_
0°0'0"
^_
^_
^_
0°10'0"E
Figure 12. Maps on scaling out potential for smallholder irrigation technologies: Tolon-Kumbugu
The area around Tolon-Kumbugu revealed good river/stream network. Some of the streams are ephemeral in
nature which poses challenges on irrigation sustainability during the dry season. Both livestock and crop
distribution patterns appear to be in sync. For the most part, areas with high crop distribution densities
revealed high livestock distribution. The overall irrigation potential for this district appears to be promising
with about 60% of the area having moderate to very high potential.
Africa RISING West Africa: Sustainable Agricultural Water Management Technical Report
15
3.2.2 Lawra district
^_
!(
Biophysical and socio-economic
attributes
^_!(
^_
^_
0
2.5
5
10
2°43'30"W
^_
^_
_
^
^_
^_
^_
^_
(!
^_
^_
^_
!(
^_
^_
Transport
2°43'30"W
^_
!(
^_
10
2°54'0"W
^_
^_
^_!(
^_
^_
^_
^_
(!
^_
^_
^_ ^_
^_
2°54'0"W
0
2.5
5
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
10°30'0"N
^_
^_ ^_
_
^
2°54'0"W
^_
^_
^_ ^_
!(
2°43'30"W
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
(!
^_
^_
^_
^_ !( ^_ ^_
^_!(
10°50'0"N
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_ !(
!
^_
!(
_
^
10°30'0"N
^_
^_
^_
_
^ !(
^_
^_
^_
!(
^_
^_
10°30'0"N
^_
^_ ^_
^_
_
^
10°20'0"N
_
^
2°33'0"W
^_
^_
^_
2°54'0"W
^_
_
^
^_
^_ ^_
^_
10°20'0"N
^_
^_
!(
^_
^_
^_ ^_ ^_
^_
^_
!(
^_
^_
^_
10°40'0"N
^_
^_
!(
^_
!(
^_
^_
^_ _ (!
^ ^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
10°30'0"N
^_
^_
^_
_
^
^_
^_
10°20'0"N
!( ^_
10°40'0"N
^_
^_
2°33'0"W
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
!(
^_
!^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
!(
!(
^_
10°40'0"N
^_
_
^
^_
^_!(
^_
^_
^_
2°33'0"W
2°43'30"W
^_
^_
^_
^_
!(
^_
10°50'0"N
_
^ !(
10°20'0"N
^_
^_
20
Kilometers
!(
^_!( (!
^_
^_
^_
!^_
!
15
^_!(
2°54'0"W
^_
^_
10
10°50'0"N
^_!(
^_
Smallholder irrigation potential
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
10°40'0"N
2°43'30"W
!(
^_ ^_ ^_
_
^
^_
^_ _ !(
^ ^_
^_
^_
2°33'0"W
^_
^_
^_ ^_
^_
^_ !( ^_ ^_
!(
^_
^_
!(
_
^
^_
^_
^_
_
^
10°50'0"N
^_
^_
^_
!( _
^
^_ _
^
^_ ^_
^_
^_
^_
^_ ^_
^_
10°20'0"N
^_
2°43'30"W
^_
^_
10°20'0"N
2°33'0"W
!(20 ^_
_
^^_!( !(Kilometers^_
^_
!( ^_
15
10°30'0"N
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_!(
Cropping density
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
!(
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_ _ !(
^ ^_
^_
Target sites
^_
^_
(!
_
^ ^_ ^_
_
^
^_ ^_
^_
Small reservoirs
^_
!(
^_
^_!(
_
^
^_
10°30'0"N
_
^
10°40'0"N
^_
^_
!(
!(
^_ !(
^_
!(
_
^
^_
Rivers/streams
5
_
^
10°30'0"N
^_
2.5
!
^_
^_
^_
Legend
0
^_
^_
^_ ^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
10°50'0"N
^_!(
^_
^_ !(
^_
^_
2°54'0"W
^_
10°40'0"N
!(
!(
Communities/towns
(!
^_
^_
^_ !( ^_ ^_
^_
^_
_
^
10°40'0"N
^_
_
^
!(
!
^_
!^_
^_
^_
^_
^_!(
_
^
^_
10°30'0"N
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_ !(
_
^
10°20'0"N
^_
2°33'0"W
^_
10°50'0"N
^_
^_
10°40'0"N
_
^
^_
^_
10°50'0"N
^_!(
^_
2°43'30"W
^_
^_ !( ^_ ^_
^_
!(20Kilometers
^_!( (!
_
^
!( ^_
15
^_
^_
!
10
^_
!^_
^_
5
^_
^_
^_
2.5
2°54'0"W
^_
^_
^_
0
2°33'0"W
^_
10°50'0"N
^_
^_
Livestock density^_(small ruminants)
^_
^_
^_
!(20Kilometers
^_!( (!
_
^
!( ^_
15
2°54'0"W
2°43'30"W
^_
^_ _ !(
^ ^_
^_
(!
^_
^_ ^_ ^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
10°20'0"N
^_
2°33'0"W
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
Figure 13. Maps on scaling out potential for smallholder irrigation technologies:
Lawra
^_
Lawra district is strategically placed at the hub of several road networks linking Burkina Faso and Ghana.
Likewise, this area serves as the regional trade link between the Upper West Region and the Upper East and
Northern Regions. However, some portions of the district have poor road networks and few water points
such as rivers and reservoirs. For the most part, areas with high crop distribution densities revealed high
livestock distribution. The overall irrigation potential for this district appears to be promising with about
82% of the area having moderate to very high potential.
Africa RISING West Africa: Sustainable Agricultural Water Management Technical Report
16
3.3 Training in soil and water conservation methods
The template used for evaluation of the training sessions for farmers and technical officers is
shown below.
Table 5. KASA assessment form
Type of Training
KNOWLEDGE
Before
After
Training
Training
Before
Training
SKILLS
After
Training
Before
Training
ATTITUDE
After
Training
ASPIRATIONS
Before
After
Training
Training
Soil and Water
conservation
Soil erosion
Contouring
A-frame and line
level
Field water
harvesting
Irrigation
Ratings: 1. Very Poor; 2. Below average; 3. Average; 4. Good; 5. Very good
All participants were therefore asked to rate themselves at the “before training” column under Knowledge,
Attitude, Skills and Aspirations.
3.3.1 KASA Assessment
Figure 14 shows the impact of the training on technical officers and farmers in the Tolon-Kumbungu district.
In the area of knowledge (Figures 14 A & B) concerning the various training areas for technical officers and
farmers, the technical officers were rated average whilst the farmers were rated below average before the
training. However, after the training the ratings improved to “good” for almost all the training areas for both
training groups. This shows how the training impacted positively on their knowledge-base. The skills of the
technical officers and farmers in the various training areas were assessed before the training. The assessment
showed the technical officers and farmers to have relatively average and below average skills (Fig. 14C and D)
respectively. However, the assessment after the training indicated “very good” for the technical officers with
that of the farmers being “good”.
Figure 15 shows the impact of the training on technical officers and farmers in the Tolon–Kumbungu district.
The attitude of the technical officers before the training was rated average and that of the farmers was below
average (Figs. 15 A & B). However, the attitude of the technical officers and farmers after the training
improved to good and average respectively underscoring the impact of the training on the participants. The
assessment of the aspirations of the technical officers and farmers before the training showed a rating of good
and below average (Figs. 15 C&D) respectively. However, after the training, there was a significant change in
the aspirations of the two groups with technical officers rated as very good and that of the farmers as good.
Thus the participants have developed keen interest in the fields they were introduced to and are more likely
to apply to them.
Figure 16 shows the impact of the training on technical officers and farmers in Orbilli, Lawra District. The
assessment of the knowledge (Figs. 16 A & B) of the technical officers and farmers respectively in the various
training areas showed that the technical officers had average knowledge whilst the farmers had below
average knowledge before the training. However, after the training their knowledge was rated “very good” for
all of them. It can therefore be concluded that the training has had an impact on them. With respect to their
skills in the various training areas, the assessment before the training showed the technical officers and
farmers to have relatively average skills (Figs. 16C and D) respectively. However, the assessment after the
training indicated “very good” skills for the technical officers and that of the farmers was “good”.
Africa RISING West Africa: Sustainable Agricultural Water Management Technical Report
A
C
Technical Officers - Knowledge
Technical Officers - Skills
6
5
5
4
4
Changes
Changes
6
3
2
3
2
1
1
0
0
SWC
SE
Ct
A-F & LL
WH
SWC
IRR
SE
Training Areas
Before training
B
Ct
A-F & LL WH
IRR
Training Areas
After training
D
Farmers - Knowledge
6
6
Farmers - Skills
5
5
Changes
4
Changes
17
3
4
3
2
2
1
1
0
0
SWC
SE
Ct
A-F & LL
WH
IRR
SWC
SE
Training Areas
Ct
A-F & LL WH
IRR
Training Areas
Figure 14. Technicians and farmers knowledge and skills before and after training in the areas of Soil and
Water Conservation (SWC), Soil Erosion (SE), Contouring (Ct), A-frame and Line Level (A-F & LL), Water
Harvesting (WH) and Irrigation (Irr) in Tolon-Kumbugu
C
6
Technical Officers - Attitude
6
5
5
4
4
Changes
Changes
A
3
2
1
Technical Officers - Aspirations
3
2
1
0
0
SWC
SE
Ct
A-F & LL WH
IRR
SWC
SE
Training Areas
B
D
6
WH
IRR
6
5
4
Changes
Changes
A-F & LL
Farmers - Aspirations
Farmers - Attitude
5
Ct
Training Areas
3
4
3
2
2
1
1
0
0
SWC
SE
Ct
A-F & LL WH
Training Areas
IRR
SWC
SE
Ct
A-F & LL
WH
IRR
Training Areas
Figure 15. Technicians and farmers attitude and aspiration before and after training in the areas of Soil and
Water Conservation (SWC), Soil Erosion (SE), Contouring (Ct), A-frame and Line Level (A-F & LL), Water
Harvesting (WH) and Irrigation (Irr) in Tolon-Kumbugu after the training.
Africa RISING West Africa: Sustainable Agricultural Water Management Technical Report
6
A
C
Technical Officers - Knowledge
6
4
3
2
0
3
1
SWC
SE
Ct
A-F & LL
WH
IRR
0
Training Areas
Before training
6
SWC
SE
Ct
A-F & LL
WH
IRR
A-F & LL WH
IRR
Training Areas
After training
D
Farmers - Knoweldge
6
5
5
4
4
Changes
Changes
4
2
1
B
Technical Officers - Skills
5
Changes
Changes
5
18
3
2
1
Farmers - Skills
3
2
1
0
0
SWC
SE
Ct
A-F & LL WH
IRR
SWC
SE
Training Areas
Ct
Training Areas
Figure 16. Technicians and farmers knowledge and skills before and after training in the areas of Soil and
Water Conservation (SWC), Soil Erosion (SE), Contouring (Ct), A-frame and Line Level (A-F & LL), Water
Harvesting (WH) and Irrigation (Irr) in Lawra.
Figure 17 presents the impact of the training on technical officers and farmers in Orbilli, Lawra District. The
attitude of the technical officers before the training was rated average and that of the farmers was good (Figs.
17 A&B). However, the attitude of the technical officers and farmers after the training was good, thus the
farmers attitude remained unchanged. The assessment of the aspirations of the technical officers and farmers
before the training showed a rating of good (Figs. 17 C&D) respectively. However, after the training, there
was a significant change in the aspirations of the two groups with technical officers and farmers rated as very
good.
6
C
Technical Officers - Aspirations
Attitude
6
5
5
4
4
Changes
Changes
A
3
Technical Officers - Aspirations
3
2
2
1
1
0
0
SWC
SE
Ct
A-F & LL
WH
SWC
IRR
SE
Training Areas
Before training
B 6
A-F & LL
WH
IRR
WH
IRR
After training
D
Farmers - Attitude
5
6
Farmers - Aspirations
5
Changes
4
Changes
Ct
Training Areas
3
2
1
4
3
2
1
0
0
SWC
SE
Ct
A-F & LL
Training Areas
WH
IRR
SWC
SE
Ct
A-F & LL
Training Areas
Figure 17. Technicians and farmers attitude and aspirations before and after training in the areas of Soil and
Water Conservation (SWC), Soil Erosion (SE), Contouring (Ct), A-frame and Line Level (A-F & LL), Water
Harvesting (WH) and Irrigation (Irr) in Lawra.
Africa RISING West Africa: Sustainable Agricultural Water Management Technical Report
19
4. Discussion
4.1. Crop water productivity
Figure 7 revealed differences in site characteristics between Digu and Orbilli. The soil texture for Digu is a
loamy clay soil with a fine structure and good infiltration properties while that in Orbilli is a sandy loam soil
with coarser pebbles and moderate infiltration. Based on physical site observations, the soil and water
conservation structures were visibly well reinforced in Orbilli and were not deteriorated by the rains due to
the coarser nature of the soil yet in Digu the structures were less pronounced.
This implies that in Orbilli, water is captured within the tied ridges that act as “mini storage basins” allowing
the water more residence time to infiltrate into the profile. Additionally, due to the coarser nature of the soil,
there is less organic manure which calls for supplemental organic additions. The aforementioned
characteristics suggest that any intervention done to improve moisture retention and the nutrient status will
have more pronounced effects because the soil will respond to both technical interventions and nutrient
additions. These trends are implicitly revealed in Figure 8 as well.
Crop productivity and gross value of production trends shown in Figures 9 and 10 for maize at both study
sites are likely to be more attributed to the water captured within the tied ridging treatments and the
fertilizer dosage supplements than the manure addition. This is conceivable because the FM20R consistently
performed better than the NFM40R and NFM40C.
Conversely, Figure 11 trends for soybean revealed higher crop water productivity and gross value of
production for the NFM40R and NFM40C treatments than for the FM20R treatment. Soybean appears to have
a higher biomass response (See Table 4) to higher organic manure amendments. The nature of ingredients
within the manure used for these trials was a combination of animal and poultry manure as well as crop
residues. It is therefore conceivable that the manure had high nitrogen levels needed by soybean for nitrogen
fixation and biomass build up. Previous work conducted in West Africa (Randall and Abaidoo, 2006) also
suggests higher nutrient accumulation within soybean compared to maize which may explain trends
observed in this study.
In the context of this research, there appears to be both facilitative and complementary co-existence between
the maize and soybean plants. Both crops seem to explore the same root zone (soy 0.15 m- 0.95 m and maize
0.15 m – 1.35 m) with no evident competition potentially due to the differences in growth stages as
exemplified in Table 3. The nitrogen fixation by soybeans benefits the maize, soybean also acts as a trap crop
when intercropped with maize to reduce the detrimental impact of parasitic weeds. The soybean stimulates
suicidal germination of Striga hermonthica (Odhiambo et al., 2011). In addition, the soybean acts as a cover
crop to reduce raindrop impacts hence erosion and reduced soil evaporation which improves soil moisture
storage. In return, due to differences in crop phenology, height and biomass, the soybean benefits from
shading provided by maize to reduce the radiant loads and hence ET losses. Soybean had lower ET levels
compared to maize due to the shorter growth cycle. Trends observed in Figures 7 through 11 are potentially
attributed to the complementary nature of this relationship.
Water productivity estimates from this study ranged from 0.5 kg/m3 for treatments with no fertilizer but
with 40 kg of manure supplement under contour bunds to about 1.2 kg/m3 for treatments with fertilizer
additions and 20 kg of manure under tied ridging. Elsewhere, water productivity has been reported to range
from 0.8 kg/m3 for irrigated rice in the Mekong delta to 0.5 kg/m3 for maize in the São Francisco Basin, and to
0.05 kg/m3 for rain-fed maize in the northern part of the Volta Basin (Lemoalle, 2008). Therefore, results
from this study suggest higher water productivity trends than the average.
The value reported in the literature appears well below its potential for the Volta Basin. The low yields result
from risk avoidance strategies adopted by the farmers to cope with uncertainties about water availability
(variability of rainfall in time and space), poor and degraded soils, with no or low input of fertilizers, and poor
productive assets (draft animals, man power limited by frequent diseases). The low productivity coupled with
limited market access, unstable prices, and insecure land tenure in some regions worsens the effects. At the
Africa RISING West Africa: Sustainable Agricultural Water Management Technical Report
20
basin scale, because only a small percentage of the basin’s area is cropped, overall crop water productivity is
even lower. Most of the production increase of the last decade has come more from an increase in the
cropped area than from increased productivity.
Previous work has reported that water productivity of rain-fed agriculture in the Volta Basin tended to
increase as rainfall decreased (Lemoalle, 2008). This is consistent with findings in this study where rainfall in
Digu was lower (614 mm) than that in Orbilli (694 mm) (Figure 4) yet the crop water productivity and gross
value of production was higher in the latter than the former (Table 3; Figures 9 and 10). The notion of water
productivity being lower in wetter areas than in drier areas has also been cited elsewhere. For example water
productivity in irrigated areas in the Karkheh Basin, was lower than in rain-fed areas (Ahmadab et al., 2009).
Water productivity in these systems is also largely driven by factors affecting land productivity, for example,
crop production technology, input use and post-harvesting processes. Improvements in the rain-fed systems,
coupled with investment in fertilizers and small-scale irrigation, offer the main opportunity for development.
Other positive measures include improvements in infrastructure, secure and transparent land tenure, access
to agricultural water and affordable micro-credit. The work conducted herein highlights that the technical
possibilities for improvement have been well identified, but the social and economic conditions for their
implementation need further emphasis and careful institutional and socioeconomic appraisal. In the Volta
basin, for example, the duality between the legal state and the traditional hierarchy impacts a number of
social determinants such as land tenure and access to water.
4.2. Scaling up and out irrigation potential
In Lawra district, irrigation potential is highly dependent on available water sources such as small reservoirs
and the road network that permit easy market access. Though Lawra has a higher aridity index than TolonKumbugu, its irrigation potential is fractionally higher (~20%) than Tolon-Kumbugu based on spatial
coverage owing to the nature of soils and the cultural perception that the rural population have regarding
benefits associated with out-of-season irrigation. The presence of the Black Volta (a more permanent water
source from the Mohoun Basin) contributes to this compared to small reservoirs that are highly vulnerable to
the vagaries of poor rainfall distribution in the sub-region.
Though it is rare to find non intervened systems with productivity greater than 0.4 or 0.6 kg/m 3 there
appears to be considerable scope for improvement for many staple foods such as rice, sorghum and millet
especially if rain-fed systems are complemented with irrigation as depicted from the scaling out results.
Cognizance has to be given to the fact that crop water productivity can exhibit substantial spatial and
temporal variability even in areas with seemingly similar climates (Cook et al., 2009). This is not surprising if
consideration is given to how heterogeneous and variable field conditions can be (Lemoalle, 2008). This
presents future opportunities for using spatial mapping of water productivity to ascertain whether practices
in areas of high productivity might be suitable for areas of lower productivity. In addition, opportunities exist
through the integration of livestock with rain-fed crop production where livestock are fed on grass or crop
residues while they return their manure to enrich the soil resource base.
4.3. Training on soil and water conservation methods
The participants were greatly involved in the practical sessions and the enthusiasm was very high. It will be
of great benefit to the farmers if such training sessions are organized early before the planting season starts.
The training sessions formed a platform where farmers could easily learn from one another. Knowledge, skill,
attitude and aspiration of technicians and farmers in the fields of soil and water conservation, soil erosion,
contouring, A-frame and line level, water harvesting and irrigation for effective water management
interventions were improved through the training as exemplified by the data (Figures 14 - 17). The training
improved the knowledge and skills of the participants in soil and water conservation and management. Over
60% of the training was devoted to demonstration and field practice which was necessary to ensure that
farmers and AEAs had full grasp of the technologies that were passed to them. Farmers had a unique
Africa RISING West Africa: Sustainable Agricultural Water Management Technical Report
21
opportunity to learn from each other and were able to share their experience with the AEAs and the
facilitators. They accepted the charge to share their new knowledge and skills with other farmers in their
respective communities. The training was a learning experience for the farmers, AEAs/technical officers as
well as facilitators (researchers). During the next season’s planting, there should be a follow-up on the
farmers to see how well they are implementing what they have learnt from the training sessions. There
remains a need for resource persons to backstop technicians in the goal of up-scaling water management
interventions.
5. Conclusion
Rural populations are looking for alternative means of intensifying and diversifying their systems to meet
their food needs as well as to increase their incomes. Improving water productivity requires that more value
be obtained from every drop used for crops, trees and livestock while conserving the natural resource base.
This research highlighted that an integrated approach to soil, water, crop and nutrient management is
essential for increasing crop productivity and optimizing the use of inputs. We contend that using a systems
research perspective which integrates crop, soil, nutrients and water management coupled with training of
farmers in soil and water conservation methods empowers rural communities with opportunities to invest in
better management of their resources while protecting the natural resource base.
This study was implemented by a multi-institutional and multi-disciplinary team of research and
development partners using a combination of scientific and participatory action research approaches.
Successful small scale irrigation conditions and technologies were scaled out beyond the target communities
to a wider geographic area. This work, through partnership with farmers, demonstrates that integrated
technology options improve water productivity and increase crop yields. We recommend that these
technological options in agricultural water management need to be complemented and backed up by social
and economic conditions to realize maximum benefits. Institutional and socioeconomic appraisal will help
identify and assess market innovations that provide incentives for the adoption of improved water, nutrient
and crop management technologies that benefit different categories of small holder farmers, especially
women and other marginalized groups of farmers.
Africa RISING West Africa: Sustainable Agricultural Water Management Technical Report
22
6. References
AgWater Solutions Project. 2011. Shallow groundwater in Ghana. Based on a report by
Regassa E. Namara, Joseph Awuni and Lesley Hope. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International
Water Management Institute (IWMI). 3p. (AgWater Solutions Learning and Discussion Brief).
Bastiaanssen, W, Ahmad, M, and Tahir, Z. 2003. Upscaling Water Productivity in Irrigated Agriculture Using
Remote-sensing and GIS Technologies. In CAB International 2003. Water Productivity in Agriculture:
Limits and Opportunities for Improvement (eds J.W. Kijne, R. Barker and D. Molden).
Cook, S.E., Fisher, M.J., Harrington, L.W., Huber-Lee, A. and Vidal, A. Agricultural water productivity and
poverty: A conceptual pathway to link global, basin and local understanding. Irrigation and
Drainage 58: 60-72.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2012. Mapping and
Assessing the Potential for Investments in Agricultural Water Management: Ghana. Country
Investment Brief. Rome, Italy: FAO Water for AgWater Solutions Project
Odhiambo, J.A., Vanlauwe, B., Tabu, I. M., Kanampiu, F. and Khan, Z.Effect of intercropping maize and soybeans
on Striga hermonthica parasitism and yield of maize.
Lemoalle, J. 2008. Basin Focal Project Volta. CPWF Project Report series, Challenge Program
on Water and Food, Colombo, Sri Lanka, 81p.
Ahmadab, M., Islama, M., Masiha,I., Muthuwattaa, L., Karimic P., Turrala, H., 2009. Water productivity in the
Karkheh basin: Basin-level water productivity in the Karkheh basin. Water
International 34: 119-133.