Socio-Economic and Environmental
Consequences of Agricultural
Technology: A Comparative Study of
Small Scale Surface Irrigation
Technology in Nigeria and Swaziland

Kevin Urama
Emmanuel Mwendera

ATPS Working Paper Series No. 43

Published by the African Technology Policy Studies Network, P.O. Box 10081, 00100 General Post
Office, Nairobi, Kenya© 2005 African Technology Policy Studies Network (ATPS)

ISBN: 9966-916-58-X

ABOUT THE AFRICAN TECHNOLOGY POLICY STUDIES NETWORKThe African Technology Policy Studies Network (ATPS) is a multi-disciplinary network of researchers,
policymakers, actors in the private sector and other end users interested in generating, promoting
and strengthening innovative science and technology policies in Africa. With a regional secretariate
in Nairobi, the network operates through national chapters in 23 countries, with an expansion plan tocover the entire sub-Saharan Africa.
One of the objectives of the network is to disseminate research results to policy makers, legislators,
the organized private sector, civil society, mass media and farmers’ groups through publications,dialogue and advocacy. Among its range of publications are the Working Paper Series (WPS),
Research Paper Series (RPS), Special Paper Series (SPS) and the Technopolicy Briefs.
Papers published under the Working Paper Series (WPS) are those produced from the
ATPS small grants process or from regional projects. The WPS are not subjected to thestrict requirements of the RPS but this does not suggest that they do not have significant
policy or methodological contribution to make to the work of ATPS. The Board supports all
efforts aimed at improving the WPS, such as building skills that will make most of the ATPS
research outputs to be published under the RPS. Researchers are encouraged to produce
their final drafts in a publishable manuscript form that is shorter and easier to read.
ATPS is supported by a growing number of donors including the International Development ResearchCentre (IDRC), the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Rockefeller Foundation, the World Bank,
the OPEC Fund, Ford Foundation, Coca-Cola Eastern Africa, the African Development Bank, InfoDev
and the Royal Dutch Government.

Table of Contents

Abbreviations
List of Tables and Figures
Abstract
Chapter One
Introduction

1

Chapter Two
Research Methodology

6

Chapter Three
Literature Review

13

Chapter Four
Presentation of Results and Findings

25

Chapter Five
Summary of Findings, Potential Areas for Research and Policy,
Recommendations and Conclusion

41

References45

Abbreviations

ARIP
ATRBDA
ATs
BCR
CV
CVM
DRF
EIAs
ESADEP
FAO
FEPA
FSR
GDP
ISRIC
LAIP
LCDs
MB
MSC
NOAA
OLS
PPS
RBDAs
SRS
TEA
TEB
TDL
UNEP
USA
WAI
WRDP

Adarice Irrigation Project
Anambra - Imo River Basin Development Authorities
Appropriate technologies
benefit - cost ratios
contingent variation
contingent variation method
Dose response functions
Environmental Impact Assessments
Enugu State Agricultural Development Project
Food and Agriculture Organization
Federal Environmental Protection Agency
Farming systems researchgross national productInternational Soil Reference and Information Centre
Lower Anambra Irrigation Project
Less developing countries
Marginal benefits
Marginal social costs
National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration
Ordinary least squareprobability proportional to size
River Basin Development Authorities
simple random sampling
Total exchangeable acidity
Total exchangeable bases
Title Deed Land
United Nations Environmental Programme
United States of America
War against indiscipline
Water Resource (Irrigation) Development ProgrammeList of Tables and Figures
List of Tables
Table 2.1:
Table 4.1:
Table 4.2:
Table 4.3:

Area and percentage of total land area, total and dependable rainfall, temperature,
and altitude of the physiographic zones of Swaziland
A 5-year Moving Average of Annual Yields Across the Systems.
On-Farm Environmental Problems Documented from the survey
Off-Farm Environmental Problems Documented from the survey

List of Figures
Figure 3.1:
Figure 4.1:
Figure 4.2:
Figure 4.3:
Figure 4.4:
Figure 4.5:

Divergence of Social from Private Optimum due to Externality Costs/Benefits
Trends in Output per Hectare in both Systems (1984 -1998)
Mean Values of Input and Output in both Systems (1997/98)
Sustainability Cost of Irrigated Rice Production (1984-98)
Net Annual Differences in Gross Returns between the Systems1984-98
Computed Differentials Gross Returns per Hectare between Irrigated and Uplandfarms (1984-98).

Abstract
This study compares the socio-economic and environmental consequences of small scale surface
irrigation (SSSI) technology in Nigeria and Swaziland. Its major thrust is to identify and compare theeconomic and environmental externalities of the technology in the two countries. The broad premiseis that even as technological innovation is seen as the engine of modern agricultural productivity
improvements, international trade competitiveness and general economic growth, and theexternalities of the technology may, in the long-run, be inimical to sustainable agricultural/economic
development.
Specifically, the SSSI technology is a major World Bank assisted technological thrust for increased
productivity and international competitiveness of agriculture in most African countries. In many
developing countries, this World Bank assisted technological innovation has received several empiricalevaluations of its socio-economic and environmental impacts. Such studies have often uncoveredsome deleterious effects of the technology and thus provided basis for remedial actions. Unfortunately,
despite the increasing proliferation of the technology in sub-Saharan Africa (especially in Nigeria
and Swaziland), it has hardly been subjected to any rigorous socio-economic and environmental
impacts’ assessment. This study is designed to address this research gap.
The study therefore, investigated the consequences of surface irrigation technology on the socioeconomic life of farmers and their environment in Nigeria and Swaziland, and identifies the technoenvironmental mismatches that exist. It suggests possible mitigation measures to the socio-economicand environmental problems observed in both countries.
The findings show that surface irrigation has had diverse but subtle consequences for social,economic and environmental sustainability in both countries. In general, it has reduced the productive
capacity of river flood plains, while creating the illusion of increased crop productivity in the project
areas. It has marginally increased crop productivity in both countries, while increasing factor costs
significantly. Its environmental impact so far is largely reflected in degraded soils and increased
health risks to farm households in both countries. Generally, water resource extraction for irrigation
has been high, unregulated and incorrectlypriced in both countries. There is need for proper water
resource pricing and management, and adequate monitoring of the schemes in both countries. It is
important to track these subtle changes in soils and water quality for effective control of the socialand environmental problems that have been observed so far. Providing adequate production resources
to upland farmers is also critical to improving productivity in the unirrigated farms in Nigeria, while
improved agricultural extension services are critical in Swaziland.

Chapter One
Introduction
This study compares the socio-economic and environmental consequences of small scale surface
irrigation (SSSI) technology in Nigeria and Swaziland. The broad premise of the study is that eventhough technological innovation is seen as the engine of modern agricultural productivity
improvements, international trade competitiveness and general economic growth, the externalitiesof the technology may, in the long-run, be inimical to sustainable agricultural/economic development.
Specifically, the SSSI technology is a major World Bank assisted technology for increased
productivity and international competitiveness of agriculture in most African countries. In many
developing countries, the socio-economic and environmental impacts of this World Bank assisted
technology have been empirically evaluated. Such studies have often uncovered some deleterious
effects of the technology and thus provided basis for remedial actions. Unfortunately, despite theincreasing proliferation of the technology in sub-Saharan Africa (especially in Nigeria and Swaziland),it has hardly been subjected to any rigorous socio-economic and environmental impacts’ assessment.
This current study sought to fill this research gap.
Available evidence in the literature shows that surface irrigation has affected the environment indiverse ways: ranging from “on-site” edaphic affects to “off-site” effects on bio-diversity and climatechange, and on various forms of human welfare. However, its “on-site” effects on soil fertility, salinization
and water logging, and its impact on both human and livestock health and water quality, dominate
the reviewed literature on the subject. Its effects on the global environments (climate change, green
house effects), are however also documented. Like most environmental issues, no boundaries canbe put on the effects of irrigation on the environment.
Some key findings in the analysis of data collected from farm surveys in Nigeria and Swaziland in
1998/1999 show that the productivity gains of irrigation in the Nigerian project have been very marginal,
when compared with adjacent upland counterparts. The true welfare gain of this productivity increaseis yet to be identified since full environmental costs and benefits of the system are yet to be factored
into the analysis. Farmers’ access to agricultural extension services in Nigeria increased significantlywith the introduction of irrigation in the study area. This has lead to an apparent parity in productivityof factors in both systems, and may serve to explain the apparent increase in rice output sinceirrigation was adopted. Improving extension services may be a better policy option than further
development of irrigation in the study area. In Swaziland, there is need for improving extension
services to the farmers in both categories. Access to extension by farmers in Swaziland is still poor.
There has been significant degradation (deleterious changes in some chemical and physicalproperties of soils) in irrigated farms, relative to soils in upland farms in the study area. Thesechanges have been subtle but significant. There has been significant increase in bulk density and1

2

ATPS WORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 43

decrease in water infiltration rates in the study area. These trends do suggest that the prospects forthe sustainability of crop production on soils in the irrigation projects studied, is bleak. There is
therefore the need for regular soil surveys in project areas to monitor trends of the different chemicaland physical properties of soils between the two systems, for proper fertility management.
A major environmental health consequence of irrigation development in both countries as reported
by respondents is mosquito infestation causing malaria epidemic in farm households, and otherwater related diseases. Famers in Swaziland also reported few cases of bilhazia in project areas.
There is, therefore, need for a systematic monitoring of the incidence of these diseases in irrigatedareas for proper prevention and/or treatment.

Statement of the problem
The impressive degree of technological dynamism has been a constant source of economic
development (Wright, 1995) and technological change is seen as the engine of growth (Kayode etal., 1995). Wise management of natural resources and the global environment are essential toachieve sustainable economic development for alleviating poverty, improving human conditions
and preserving the biological systems on which all life depends (Heaton et al., 1991, pp. 5-7).
Sustainable development means economic development that does not degrade the quality of theenvironment or world’s natural resource base and that “sustain(s)” human progress not just in a few
places for a few years (WCEA, 1987). Hence, technological change becomes more dynamic only
when it has an incremental value, transforms existing values and systems, and modernizes them byenriching, rather than disrupting, replacing or displacing them (Zahlan, 1991).
A consensus is emerging in literature, that widely replicated present technology packages andpractices, if unchecked, would choke the world in wastes and pollutants. The only fundamental
changes in technology and economic activities of people are the only realistic strategies that wouldarrest this trend (Heaton, et al., 1991, pp. 5-7); Krause, 1993; Pearce and Turner, 1990). Building thetechnological capacity of societies to monitor and mitigate these socio-economic and environmental
externalities of technologization, thus becomes pertinent as an important long term strategy (TheWorld Bank, 1989, p. 185). In the words of the Japanese Minister of International Trade and Industry(1991), “the goal of zero production of wastes and/or emission of pollutants for example, would work
as well as a goal of zero defects in technology packaging”.
Surprisingly, however, in Africa’s technologization process, many countries have sought accessto western technology, the very technology which many observers blame for the prevailingenvironmental threats facing humanity, with little attention given to its environmental impact. Over thelast three decades, for instance, professional and policy debates surrounding technology transfer inAfrica, have centered largely on the issue of locational appropriateness, since advanced capital intensive technologies, are ill-suited to the needs and resource endowments of developing countries(Eremie & Chheda, 1991).
More recently, however, the issue of increasing the domestic content of agricultural technology
packages through indigenization, in order to increase their “appropriateness”, has received little
treatment (Agboola, 1991). Nevertheless, the issue of ecological friendliness and/or socio-economic

S OCIAL -ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY

3and environmental consequences of technology transfer or indigenization process has either been
ignored completely or addressed only fleetingly.
Reports abound of the extension of “appropriate” technologies (ATs) to various rural communities
in developing countries (Carr, 1988). In Nigeria, for instance, the National Science and Technology
Policy (1986) stipulate inter alia the “initiating, promoting, and supporting of relevant and appropriatetechnology diffusion to her rural areas” (FRN, 1986). Obibuaku, (1974) and Obasanjo and Mabogunje(1991), report extensive extension of appropriate agricultural technologies to Nigerian farmers throughher ADP extension programmes. Aina and Soetan (1991) share similar views. The case of Swaziland
is not different.
It may thus appear that various forms of agricultural technologies have been transferred to African
farmers and may also be in use in some parts of the continent. What is not evident is to what extent
these technologies are influencing farmer’s cultural, social, economic and environmental conditions.
Olukosi et al. (1991), thus recommends that diagnostic surveys be conducted, in order to gather,among other things, the socio-economic and cultural consequences of agricultural technologies
on farmers. Eremie and Chheda (1991) also share similar views, adding that greater attention
should be given to the social systems within which the generated technologies would operate and/or impact. The recent inauguration of Federal Environmental Protection Agency (FEPA) by theFederal Government of Nigeria in 1995, further amplifies the need for environmental impact
assessments (EIA) of technological innovations in Nigeria. It is on this platform that this research isconceived with special reference to SSSI technologies in Nigeria and Swaziland, as case studies.
This SSSI technology recently received a boost from a World Bank assisted National Fadama
Development Project for increased productivity and international competitiveness of Nigerian
agriculture. In many countries (both developed and developing), the socio-economic andenvironmental impacts of this World Bank assisted technology have uncovered some of its deleterious
effects and thus provided the basis for remedial actions (see Joshi et al., 1990 for India; Hawercamp
et al., 1985 for Washington DC; WHO, 1990 for Asia; UNEP, 1991 for North Africa and Middle East;
Science Council of Canada, 1986 for Canada.
A study of an irrigation district in eastern Uttar Pradesh in India found that 78% of the farmers
reported problems with soil degradation (alkalinity, salinity or water-logging), that forced 29% of theircropland out of production, reduced rice and wheat yields by more than 50% and 80%, respectively,
and caused run-off of fertilizers into rivers and estuaries that significantly caused water pollution inIndia. Soil salinization, primarily caused by faulty irrigation, also lowered crop yields and ultimately
made land unsuitable for cultivation in some parts of Canada (Science Council of Canada, 1986).
Unintentional pesticide poisoning, occurring mainly in developing countries, was also reported by
the World Health Organization to have caused 20,000 deaths and 1 million illnesses per year (WHO,1990). While over 86% of fresh water withdrawals in Asia, North Africa and other parts of the Middle
East are due to irrigation process (UNEP, 1991), other off-farm impacts of the technology are describedas more expensive (Chapman et al., 1985; Myers et al., 1985). SSSI technology in Nigeria andSwaziland are no exceptions. According to Mabogunje (1988):
The call to increase agricultural productivity has already induced government (inNigeria), to embark on irrigation projects in different parts of the country, with the

ATPS WORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 43

4risk of heightened salinization and toxicity. Private sector operators are also now
concerned with large mechanization of cultivation as well as the extensive use offertilizers, herbicides, pesticides and insecticides, for increased yield. Suchdevelopments if not well monitored and managed can be costly in environmental
terms. They could in fact compromise the legacy of usable agricultural lands that
we bequeath to coming generations of Nigerians.
Sustainable irrigation technology must be seen to be consistent with the preservation of theenvironment and also promote the socio-economic well-being of both current and future generations.
An environmental impact assessment (EIA) of the project is therefore, pertinent in countries where
they exist. Unfortunately, Africa’s irrigation technology policy has largely ignored and/or addressed
the socio-economic and environmental impacts of the irrigation process only fleetingly. Thus, despite
the increased proliferation of the technology in Nigeria and Swaziland; it has hardly been subjected
to any rigorous socio-economic and environmental impact assessment. This current study seeks tofill this research gap.

Objectives of the research
The principal objective of this research is to investigate the socio-economic and environmental
consequences of surface irrigation technology in Sub-Saharan Africa agriculture, with specialreference to selected SSSI Project areas in Nigeria and Swaziland as case studies.
The specific objectives are to:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Describe the type(s) of surface irrigation technology being used by participant
farmers in the project areas.
Determine the impact of the irrigation facility on crop productivity of participants
compared to non-participants in the same ecological zone.
Review the incidence of water-logging, soil salinity, soil erosion and leaching ofsoil nutrients within the project areas, compared to non-irrigated areas within thesame ecological zone and relating these to the productivity of the land.
Survey the incidence of water-borne diseases and pests within the project areas,
compared to non-irrigated areas within the same ecological zone.
Suggest, based on findings, remedial measures for the problems that exist andtheir implications for irrigation technology policy in sub-Saharan Africa.

Outline of the report
The report is divided into five chapters. Chapter one introduces the core research problems, questions
and objectives, and the justification of the study is also presented in chapter one. Chapter two
presents the research methodology employed for the case study, discussing the study area andpopulation, sampling methods, data collection and analysis. Chapter three comprises the literature

S OCIAL -ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY

5

review, discussing the definition of concepts, conceptual framework, the secondary evidence on
environmental impacts of surface irrigation, and explores the potentials of available methods forevaluating these effects in Nigeria and Swaziland. Chapter four presents and discusses the types ofirrigation practiced in Nigeria and Swaziland, the research findings and the limitations of the analysis.
Finally, chapter five presents the summary of findings, their implications for further research, and theconclusions of the study.

Chapter Two
Research Methodology
A combination of desk studies, experimental techniques and survey methodology were used incollecting both primary and secondary data relevant to the analysis.
The first stage of this methodology consists of the selection of respondents and, the design andadministration of survey instruments. This was implemented in three phases:
1. a pilot survey for sample frame construction;
2. design and administration of structured questionnaires/collection of samples (specimen)
for relevant laboratory test. Necessary data/information from the questionnaires andlaboratory results were collated, coded and analyzed using a combination of qualitativedescriptions and relevant statistical techniques; and3. a follow-up informal survey for data validation and updating.

The study area
Two case study projects were selected from Nigeria and Swaziland. The two countries are locatedin the Western and Southern region of Africa and span about 3.07% and 0.058% (91, 077000 and
1,720,000 ha), respectively of Africa’s total land area (2,964,138 ha). Out of Nigeria’s total cropland(31,335,000 ha, i.e. 34% of total land area), about 3% or 940050 ha are currently irrigated. Similarly,of Swaziland’s total crop land (164,000 ha, i.e. 9.5% of her total land area), 38% or 62320 ha are
currently irrigated (FAO, 1991). According to World Resources Institute (WRI, 1992/1993: 328), 54%
and 93% of the annual internal renewable water resources in Nigeria and Swaziland, respectively
are used for irrigated agriculture. The choice of Swaziland as the collaborating country is therefore
representative due to this preponderance of irrigation technology in the country (she is second to
Egypt where 99% of cropland is irrigated with over 88% of total animal renewable water resources
WRI, 1992/93: 328)1

1 Egypt may not be a good collaborating country since the selection of the control group of farmers (the non-participant farmers) may
not be found.

6

S OCIAL -ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY

7

In Nigeria, the Lower Anambra Irrigation Project (LAIP) and Adarice Irrigation Project (ARIP) thatspan parts of Anambra and Enugu States of Nigeria were selected for the study. The choice of theseprojects was based on the presence of adjacent upland rice farms, which would serve as the control
groups for the study2. The long duration of continuous irrigated and upland rice production in bothsites (10 years), is also expected to affect soils and productivity in the area.
The project locations have two distinct seasons: the wet and dry seasons. The former lasts
approximately from April/May to October/November of each calendar year. The mean annual rainfall
is approximately 1,730mm and is bi-modally distributed, with peaks in July and September. The
mean annual maximum temperature is about 380C and that of minimum temperature is 220C. The
entire landform is generally undulating and underlain by the Imo clay shales of the tertiary period(Asadu et al., 1996). The residuum of this shale formation is the parent material of the soils.
The Kingdom of Swaziland lies between latitudes 250 and 280 south and 300 and 330 east in thesoutheastern part of Africa. The country has an area of about 17,364 km 2. It is surrounded to the eastby Mozambique and the Republic of South Africa to the north, west and south. The population is justover 930,000 people with an average growth rate of 2.7% per annum (Swaziland Government,
1998a). The country has historically been divided into four regions (Highveld, Middleveld, Lowveld,and Lubombo). It has now been appropriately reclassified into six physiographic zones, based onelevation, landforms, geology, soils and vegetation (Van Waveren and Nhlengetfwa, 1992; andRemmelzwaal, 1993). The main characteristics of the physiographic zones are summarized inTable 2.1.
Table 2.1: Area and percentage of total land area, total and dependable rainfall, temperature, andaltitude of the physiographic zones of Swaziland
Physiographic
zone

Area
(Km2) As%

RainfallMean Annual
Dependanble
(mm)
(%)

Mean
temp.
( oC)

Highveld
Upper Middleveld
Lower Middleveld
Western Lowveld
Eastern Lowveld
Lubombo Range

5,680
2,420
2,420
3,410
1,960
1,480

800-1400
800-1000
650-800
625-725550-625700-825

17
20
21
22
22
21

33
14
14
20
11
8

700-1200
650-850
500-700
425-550
400-500
500-750

Altitude
Above mean sea
level (m)900-1400
600-800
400-600
250-400
200-300
250-600

Source: van Waveren and Nhlengetfwa (1992) and Remmelzvaal (1993).

2 Both projects are run by the Anambra Imo River Basin Development, Authority in the rice growing villages of eastern Nigeria.
Local farmers are participants in the project, but still remain some adjacent plots for upland rice production using the same varieties.
Both farms therefore share similar soils, management and natural uncertainties that fraughts agriculture in developing countries.
Observed differences in yield are therefore mainly due to changes in the cropping system adopted.

8

ATPS WORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 43

The soils of the Lower Middleveld and Lowveld are characteristically gray or red light-textured soils,
derived from granite or gneiss. They are generally shallow, between 40–70cm in depth. They have
low moisture-holding capacity due to the shallowness and light texture. They have low fertility andhigh erodibility.
The eastern Lowveld zone is underlain by basalt, which gives rise to an association of red, brownand black clays. About 45% of the areas have shallow soils (20-40cm). The fertility of the soils isgood, except for a shortage of phosphorous. The poor drainage of the black clays and their highalkalinity and salinity in low-lying areas, limit their use for irrigation.
The mean annual rainfall ranges from 1450 mm in the Highveld to 550mm in the Lowveld, withconsiderable variations from year to year. Years with lower rainfall than normal occur frequently,
especially in the Lowveld, leading to drought. Highest temperatures are recorded in January, whilelowest temperatures are recorded in July. The highest mean maximum temperature is recorded in
the Eastern Lowveld (340C for Lavumisa at 200 m above mean sea level), and lowest in the Highveld(220C for Usutu at 1450 m above mean sea level). The lowest mean minimum temperature of 5 0C
occurs at Usutu in the Highveld, while the highest mean minimum of 100C occurs at Lavumisa in the
Lowveld. Frost occurs in all physiographic zones, but most frequently in the Highveld.
Swaziland relies largely on surface water for its agricultural development and other uses. There
are four main rivers in the country. Komati River and its tributary, the Lomati, flow from the Republicof South Africa (RSA) through the north of Swaziland and back into the RSA before entering
Mozambique. The Komati has a catchment area of 7,423 km 2 and the Lomati has 740 km 2 within
Swaziland. The Mbuluzi River originates in Swaziland and flows into Mozambique, with a catchment
area of 3,065 km 2. The Usuthu River, which, together with a number of tributaries, rises from the RSA
and flows out of Swaziland into Mozambique, has a catchment area of 15,876 km 2. The Ngwavuma,
which originates in Swaziland and flows into the RSA before entering Mozambique, has a catchment
area of 1,305 km 2.
Agriculture plays a very important role in national development of both Nigeria and Swaziland andis one of the leading sectors in its contribution to gross national product (GNP). For example, in
1992/1993 financial year, the agricultural sector accounted for E109.7 million or 10.2% of Swaziland’s
GNP at 1985 factor prices (Swaziland Government, 1995a).

Research design and data sources
Research design: The whole research and its questionnaire designs were designed by the principal
researcher in collaboration with the management of the selected projects and some resource
persons from relevant disciplines in the University of Nigeria. The pre-test of the research instruments
were also carried out by the Principal Researcher in Nigeria, and later sent to the collaborator in
Swaziland.
Data sources: Both primary and secondary data were sourced for relevant analysis. While the primarydata was generated through experimental and field survey methods, the secondary data weregenerated through literature search (desk study). Data were collected on the productivity and soilchanges in the irrigated farms (treatment) and their adjacent rain-fed “upland” counterparts (control),S OCIAL -ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY

9

before and after the introduction of the irrigation schemes. In other words, the study adopts theclassical experimental design for social research (i.e. combining both the “before” and “after”
approach with the counterfactual (“with” and “without” technique) 3. This was necessary in order tocontrol the effect of climate change and other ecological risks and uncertainties that may affectagricultural yields in developing countries4.
Questionnaires were administered by personal interviews in order to collate responses with onthe-spot observations and measurements. Specifically, data on crop output for 1997/1998 crop year
were collected through field measurements using the crop cutting technique (Poate and Daplyn,
1993, p. 102). The historical soil and crop output data (from 1986-1996/1997), were collected fromthe annual reports, and official publications of the Anambra-Imo River Basin Development Authorities(AIRBDA), which are in charge of the selected projects in Nigeria.
Population for the study
The population of the study comprises all farmers in the selected project areas. This was stratified
into two groups:
1. Rice farmers who have participated in the selected irrigation projects continuously for overten years (from 1986 - 1997).
2. Adjacent farmers who have grown rice on upland conditions continuously within the same
period. This group serves as the control group and a benchmark for relevant impact
assessment.
Samples for the study
Sample selection was accomplished in two stages. Firstly, pilot surveys of the selected project areas
were carried out to identify and list the two groups of farmers specified. These lists served as the
sampling frame. Secondly, equal numbers of farmers in each group were selected using a simple
random sampling (SRS) technique. The labour intensity involved in data collection, required
minimization of logistic problems that would be caused by large samples, especially, when selectedfrom very distant, highly dispersed projects. As an exploratory baseline study, the samples for the
study were limited to small numbers: 40 irrigated farms and 40 upland farms in Nigeria; and 229
irrigated and 42 upland farms in Swaziland. This baseline study would latter be followed up by moredetailed ex-post study of the externalities of irrigation in both countries.

3
4This is the sum of the two irrigation crops (i.e. both dry and rainy season crops).
In assessing the effects of irrigation schemes, the likely consequences of not building them should also be considered. The‘without project’ scenario contains its own possible environmental effects (Winpenny, 1991, p. 26).

ATPS WORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 43

10

Design and administration of questionnaires and interview instruments
This stage involved a careful and detailed design of structured questionnaires and unstructured(informal) interview instruments, to elicit information relevant to the analysis. This was done by theprincipal researcher, in collaboration with the management staff of the irrigation projects being
studied and in dialogue with key informants in the study areas. The focus of the structured
questionnaires is to elicit baseline information on:
1. the on-farm impact of the irrigation and its influence on the social andeconomic life of participant farmers;
2. the off-farm impact of the irrigation process on non-participant neighboring farmers andother users of the irrigation facility; and3. the socio-economic, productivity and environmental differentials between the participant
and non-participant farmers in the project areas.
The unstructured (informal) interviews are designed as a follow-up to the structured questionnaireadministration to seek clarifications on certain responses, or elicit other information not captured in
the questionnaires. In order to elicit information on the edaphic impact of the irrigation process, soil
samples were collected from each farm plot surveyed for suitable laboratory tests and analysis. The
same set of data collection instruments was administered in both countries.
Data collection technique
Personal administration of structured questionnaires, interviews, field observations and focus group
discussion techniques, were used for primary data collection. In Nigeria, this was carried out by the
Principal Researcher, one Research Assistant (selected from Enugu State Agricultural Development
Project, ESADEP), and a team of ten enumerators (selected from Graduate Students of Soil Science,
Agronomy, and Agricultural Economics in the University of Nigeria). Four of these enumerators wereselected from among the indigenes of the selected project areas to enhance access to farmers andto assist in interpretation of questions to respondents.
Data analysis methods
The data collected was analyzed with relevant statistical tools, econometric techniques and laboratory
tests. Specifically, the first objective was realized by suitable descriptions and review of literature on
irrigation development in both countries. Parts of objective 2, 3, 4 and 5 were achieved throughsuitable descriptive statistics (means, modes, frequency tables, charts and graphs). The remaining
part of objective 2, the ordinary least square (OLS) multiple regression technique was employed
explicitly, for comparing factor productivity between the two systems using the Cobb-Douglas
production function.

S OCIAL -ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY

11

We compared the marginal productivity of factors between the irrigated crops (treatment)5 andupland rain-fed crop (control) using the Cobb Douglas production function. The goal was to test fordifferences in returns to factors while controlling for the potential effects of other general changes such as
in climate or ecology6.
The stochastic form of the Cobb Douglas production function employed is as specified below:
Y = AX 1β 1 X 2β 2 X 3β 3 e µi[1]Where:
Y = Rice output (000’kg per hectare per year)
A = Scale factor7 (level of technology)
X1 = Amount of farm labour (000’N per hectare per year) measured as the value of the number of
mandays employed per hectare per year
X 2 = Cost of land and water resources (land and water charges ‘000N per hectare per year)
X 3 = Variable capital costs (machinery hiring costs, fertilizers, herbicides, and insecticides, etc.)

used (‘000N per hectare per year)µ = Stochastic error term, which takes account of unexplained factors affecting rice production inboth systems
e = Base of natural logarithm.
The exponents, β1 ,..., β3 , represent the relative proportion of rice output contributed by thevarious inputs X1 through X 3 defined above and indicate the elasticity of output with respect tochanges in the input variables through. The Cobb-Douglas Production function provided the basis
for estimating a multiple-log linear model, in which the parameter estimates of the explanatory
variables were their partial production elasticity coefficients, holding other variables constant (Gujarati
1995, p. 247, Kidsom 2003, p. 4).
Despite the restricted econometric model assumed in the Cobb Douglas production function(Kidsom 2003, p. 14), this approach utilises the basic framework that has been applied in similar
studies (Okereke 1991) and provides a basis for comparability of empirical results. Due to its simplicity

5
6

7

To control for scale effects of farm size, the model was estimated on a per hectare basis.
Molnar, (1965); Bernnet and Murphy, (1991); and Luck and Martin, (1988) for instance have used a similar technique tomeasure cost of land degradation in Victoria, the benefits of lower noise levels in factories, and the cost of road congestion
respectively.
To control for scale effects of farm size, the model was estimated on a per hectare basis.

12

ATPS WORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 43

and convenience, the Cobb Douglas production function has been widely used in agricultural
economic research (Molnar, 1965: Luck and Martin, 1988: Marcours and Swinnen 1997; and Smaleet al., 1998)8.
The difference in marginal output between the two systems computed from the production function
was regarded as the rough estimate of the physical effect of the irrigation project on the soil. This will
be a cost if negative and a benefit if otherwise. In addition, the cost and returns of production andproductivity of the two systems (with- and without-irrigation), are determined. Statistical tests ofdifferences between means are also employed in comparing the participant and non-participant
farmers’ statistic on crop productivity, production costs and returns per hectare.

8

Molnar, (1965); Bernnet and Murphy, (1991); and Luck and Martin, (1988) for instance have used a similar technique tomeasure cost of land degradation in Victoria, the benefits of lower noise levels in factories, and the cost of road congestion
respectively.

Chapter Three
Literature Review
Introduction
This chapter reviews literature on some of the basic concepts underpinning the study and integrates
empirical evidence on the environmental impacts of irrigation technology9 in countries where they
exist. This aims to inform the methodological and analytical focus of the case studies in Nigeria andSwaziland.

Definition of concepts
The concept of technology: Technology as defined by Banjo (1988) is the application of scientificknowledge, including the skill necessary to deploy principles, procedures and processes that canbe used to modify, manipulate and otherwise produce changes in the specific features and behaviourof the physical world, to serve human or social purposes. In other words, technology connotes
scientific knowledge and skills, whose application leads to the solution to practical problems existingin society.
Ernst et al. (1994) further emphasizes that technology is not all machines, but rather the knowledge,
partly embodied in machines, and otherwise embodied in organizational structures and processes,
an interplay of machines, skill and processes through which organizations adapt means to ends.
However defined, the distinguishing feature of technology is that it refers to stock:
1. the stock of the ways of doing things;
2. the stock of the knowledge partly embodied in machines, organizational structures andprocesses; and3. the stock of physical capital, depository of practical and tacit knowledge.
More importantly the technology debate in Africa centers not on the definition of the term, but rather
on the “appropriateness” of the available technologies to the socio-economic conditions of African

9

Technology as defined by Banjo (1988), is the application of knowledge, including the skills necessary to deploy
principles, procedures, and processes that can be used to modify, manipulate and otherwise produce changes in thespecific features of the physical world to serve human or social purposes.

13

14

ATPS WORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 43

agriculture. In this connection, Agboola, (1991) opines that the potentials of most agricultural
technology (e.g. tractorization), are indeterminate. As the definitions of what appropriate technology
is continue to grow, all terms used in describing an appropriate agricultural technology are often
person, institution, regional and sometimes country specific. However defined the appropriatenessof technologies are always assessed based on the following development principles: productivity,
profitability, stability, suitability, sustainability, and equitability (Agboola et al., 1991). Okigbo, (1989)
and McNamara, (1990), consider appropriate “an agricultural technology in which resources are
utilised in such a way as to provide increasingly cost effective level of productivity with minimum
adverse effects on the resource base. Obakin, (1991), consider appropriate an agricultural technology,
only if it satisfies the criteria for optimum adoption.
The concept of agricultural sustainability: There are many definitions of sustainable development inliterature. Pezzy (1989) for instance lists almost sixty definitions of the term, while the Pearce Reportexhibits thirty in its gallery of definitions (Pearce et al., 1989). However, despite the divergent views on
the specific boundaries of the term, recent definitions seem to have crystallized around the Brundtland
Commission’s definition that:development is sustainable when it meets the needs of the present withoutcompromising the ability of the future to meet their own needs (WCED, 1987, p. 43).
After the report, and subsequent definitions of the term (Tisdell, 1988; Babier, 1987; Perace et al.,
1990; Lele, 1991; Pearce, 1993), the theoretical and operational significance of sustainability havecentered on two basic concepts underpinning the management of human activities: oneconcentrating on development goals and the other on limiting the harmful impact of human activities
on the natural environment. The basic concensus has therefore been that, while development
projects should meet the current basic needs of man, it should also secure the availability of natural
resources for future generations, rather that “asset-stripping” them for growth today. There are,however, many problems associated with the interpretation and application of the sustainability
concept in practical terms (Dasgupta and Maler 1990, p. 16).
In this study, we define a project as sustainable its patterns of production and consumption canbe reproduced indefinitely without depleting essential natural resources and ecosystems, on which
future productivity depends. Attempts to translate sustainability concepts into the language of
economics are not often very easy, because mainstream neo-classical economists have had little to10

Some notable exceptions include the pioneering work of A.C. Pigou (1920) and Hotelling (1931).

S OCIAL -ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY

15

say about it10. The paper therefore adopts the characterization of sustainable agricultural systems of
Serageldin, (1993, p. 9):
An agricultural system is sustainable if it protects fish stocks from irreplaceable
depletion, aquifers from irreplaceable depletion and pollution, fertility of soils fromdepletion, erosion and waterlogging, the atmosphere from excessive accumulationof greenhouse gasses and ozone layer depletion, and encourages forest
ecosystems.
Sustainable agriculture is therefore not only a matter of short-term increases in output, it is also amatter of conserving the natural resource base on which future productivity depends, (i.e. nondeclining physical resource flows from natural environment)11.
A simple attempt to operationalize this model of sustainability is that of the neo-classical school:an essential extension of optimal growth and capital accumulation concepts to include natural
capital. Integrating concerns for exhaustible natural resources depletion and/or pollution externalities
into the traditional growth models is therefore a neo-classical concept. A statistical faction ofrequirements for sustainability is most often ensured by assuming a secular improvement over timein factor productivity; but the validity of such a hypothesis is still controversial. Many other models ofsustainable development are discussed in the literature: Evolutionary models, ecological economic
models, Neo-Ricardian models (see Faucheux et al., 1996, pp. 3-7), but the current study restricts its
concept of sustainability to the basic neo-classical model. It therefore seeks to internalize theenvironmental effects “externalities” of development into the traditional neo-classical economic
production models, to balance the trade-off between output growth (material throughout), andenvironmental quality and inter-temporal equity. Sustainable agriculture is therefore simply defined
as an agricultural system that ensures a non-declining physical flow of resources from the agroecosystem and in per capita social welfare. This could serve as a paradigm for environmental
choice and policy in agrarian economies.
The concept of externality: Externalities are simply defined as costs and benefits of production or
consumption, which are not reflected in market prices (Babier, 1995, p. 3). This is the basic conceptthat underpins evaluation of environmental effects of projects. It is the primary cause of the divergenceof private cost from social costs of projects (Koutsoyiannis, 1991, p. 542). Social welfare is therefore
often not maximized due to project externalities (Figure 3.1).

11

Bogo et al (1996, page 14) also opine that “Economic development in a specified area (region, nation, the globe) issustainable if the total stock of resources does not decrease over time”.

ATPS WORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 43

16

Costs
Benefits

Costs
Benefits

MSC = MPC + MEC
MPC

MPC

C
B

t*

S*

A
MPB
0

Q* Q0

(a): A Case of External Costs

MPB

Q

0

Q0 Q*

MSB =
MPB + MEB

Q(b): A Case of External Benefits

Figure 3.1: Divergence of market from private optimum due to externality costs.
The triangle A + B represent the loss of social welfare due to the marginal externality costs (MEC).
Attaining social optimum, thus requires internalisation of project externalities either by a quantitative
restriction of output at Q*, or imposing a pigouvian tax t* on the production activity that lead to the
MEC. In cases where marginal external benefits exists, and marginal social benefits exceeds themarginal private benefits (Figure 2.3b), social welfare maximisation requires encouragement of the
production activity up to Q*, for instance by means of production incentives, like Pigouvian subsidization
S*12. In order words, social welfare can be optimsed if the net externalities of the project are fullyinternalized. By definition, internalization of an external effect involves the removal of its external
character, making it ‘internal to the economic process’ (Mishan, 1971, p. 3). In order words, anexternality is internalized if a market for the effect comes into being (Verhoef, 1999, p. 205).
The presence of externalities, therefore make the difference in the results that emerge fromstandard classical production functions. Models which ignore these externalities will no doubt

12

It is important to consider both MSC and MSB in agricultural project valuation studies especially due to the mulitifunctionality of agriculture (see: Hodge 2000).

S OCIAL -ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY

17

produce high, but unsustainable benefit forecasts that might be misleading to policy. The conflicts
between environmental sustainability and conventional economic optimality should therefore becentral to policy. Internalizing the externalities (socio-economic and environmental consequencesof irrigation) into the main frame of its cost benefit analysis, may thus offer a good framework forconsidering the real economic trade-off in agriculture.
The concept of the environmental effects: The term environment has been defined by the New
Collegiate Dictionary as “the aggregate of all the external conditions and influences affecting the lifeand development of organisms”. It is, however, more relevant for environmental economists to conceive
the environment as systems within which living organisms interact with the physical elements ofnature (see Sada, 1988; Abrams, 1971). These external physical factors of interaction could bebiological, social or cultural (Keller, 1976). In recent literature of the developing discipline of ecologicaleconomics, the environment is often alluded to as natural capital, which is conceived to comprise ofrenewable and non-renewable resources. Thus defined, the environment is considered as degraded,
when injurious substances (pollutants) are introduced, which, by fouling it, reduce the satisfaction or
utility derivable from it, by organisms growing in, developing and interacting with it.
These definitions make the conceptualization of “environmental effects” controversial. For
ecological economists, of the infinite consequences of present actions, processes or projects, onboth intergenerational equities and intra-generational/inter-temporal distribution of natural capital isindeterminate due to irreversibility and non-substitutability of impacts. Conceived as such,measurement of the effects of projects on the environment is constrained by ontological andepistemological ignorance as well as the chaotic patterns of environmental change — “a low
probability high risk event”. Monetization of effects of projects on the environment and internalizingthem into policies, are therefore necessary but not sufficient conditions for sustainable environmental
management.
On the other hand, environmental economics, as a paradigm on which the current study isconceived, perceives environmental effects of projects as an ‘externality concept”. These aremeasurable in terms of the neo-classical models of optimal resources allocation (the Pareto Criterion).
‘Environmental effect” is therefore a social welfare concept.

Theoretical background to technology-environment nexus: the sustainability debate
The last two decades have witnessed prolific growth in the literature on the relationship between
technological innovations and environmental sustainability. These concerns are however not new in
economic literature. Malthus (1834) stressed the importance of capital as a vehicle of economic
growth, Engels (1959) argued for the significance of technological progress, in his trenchant attackon the Malthusian theory of limits to growth. Ricardo (1817), on the other hand describes labour andcapital as paramount in the production process. Subsequently, most economic growth theories ofthe mid Twentieth Century seemed to favour only capital and labour as the main determinants ofproduction. In 1959, technological change was explicitly included as an exogenous variable inproduction functions (see Solow Swan Model, 1956, 1957). The neo-classical theorists paid
increasing attention to natural resources as a factor of production, but it was generally believed that

18

ATPS WORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 43

such factors are unlikely to pose limits to growth (Solow 1974, 1986). There was a general optimism
about the role of technological innovations on the growth-environment nexus (see for example,
Johnston and Cownie, 1969; Ruttan and Binswanger, 1978).
In the early 1970s, endogenous growth theories incorporated human capital (such as production
and transmission of knowledge) into production models and allowed for possible effects of external
economies on output growth (see Romer, 1986 and 1994). The possibility of environmental andnatural resources diminution limiting growth and productivity of factors, were, however, not welldefined.
This technology driven economic growth model immediately came under criticism within thesame period (1970s), mainly by ecologists and environmental economists, based on the idea that
continued exploitation of the natural resource base will eventually undermine the sustainability of theworld economy (see for example, Maler, 1974; Pearce et al., 1990, 1993; Pearce and Turner, 1990;
Pearce and Warford, 1993; Perrings, 1995; Turner et al., 1993). Yet these views also vary amongst
the different proponents of the precautionary principle to growth. To date, the argument is best
described as inconclusive. Tieternberg (1996), however, identifies two extreme models: the pessimist
and the optimist models.
The pessimist model: Drawing on the basic assumptions of Malthusian theory, the pessimists perceive
the environment as a fixed stock of resources that is inversely correlated with output growth. Economic
growth can therefore not go on indefinitely due to environmental constraints and externalities. Raising
the levels of output through technological growth will therefore, not only deplete the stock of capital,
but, will also exacerbate discharge of “production residuals” (pollutants) and inevitably disrupt thenatural ecosystem on which economic growth depends.
These views are typified in the statement of the United States Ecologist Commissioner at the 13th
National Conference of the US Commission for UNESCO in 1969:“The ecological facts of life are grim. The survival of living things, including man,depends on the integrity of the complex web of biological processes which comprisethe earth’s ecosystem. However, what man is now doing on earth, violates thefundamental requisite of human existence... Modern technologies act on theecosystem which supports us in ways that threaten its stability: with tragic perversity
we have linked much of our productive economy to precisely those features oftechnology which are ecologically destructive”.
Other publications which called into question the feasibility and sustainability of technological growth
on environmental grounds were Ehrlich and Ehrlich, (1970); and Goldsmith et al., (1973).
Subsequently, the pessimist model assumed a central position in growth modeling with the “doomsday
message” of the 1970s typified in the limits to growth published by Meadows et al., (1972).
Using historical values from 1900 and 1970, the model shows that food, industrial output andpopulation, grow exponentially until the rapidly depleting resource base forces a slow-down inindustrial technological process. These views were relatively ignored until 1970s and more recently
when the OECD, in their Paris Summit re-iterated that:S OCIAL -ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY

19

Widely replicated present technologies and practices would choke the world in
waste and pollutants... A significant increase in these wastes as developing
economies expand would severely exacerbate waste disposal and health problems
in urban areas, increase pollution damage to crops and forests and the potential for
global warming. These cannot be sustained indefinitely (OECD, 1991, p. 33).
This shifted the emphasis from resource depletion to pollution problems that are associated withtechnology packages. Since then, the limits to growth thesis have spawned an immense literature.
Summarily, the extreme views of the pessimists are essentially Malthusian, with the basic argumentthat the fixed environmental resource base would limit growth in the near future. Attempts to increase
output through technological innovations would instead exacerbate pollution and natural resource
degradation, which in turn, limits growth. This is therefore not sustainable.
The optimist model: Contrary to the pessimists, the optimists view technological innovations as theengine of economic growth, agricultural productivity improvement and international competitiveness,
especially in less developing countries (LDCs) (Kahn, 1976; David, 1992; Kayode, et al., 1995;
Wright, 1995).
The basic assumption of the optimist is mainly that continuing technological evolution would
serve to push back the natural limits to growth, envisioned by the pessimists, until they are no longer
limiting (Tieternberg, 1996, p. 8). Painting a scenario for America and the world, Kahn et al. (1976)
proposed an S-shaped logistic curve for growth of the world economy. The basic conclusion of themodel is summarized in Kahn, (1976, p. 1):...200 years ago, almost everywhere human beings were comparatively few, poor
and at the mercy of the forces of nature, and 200 years from now, we expect, almost
everywhere they will be numerous, rich and in control of the forces of nature.
He therefore argues that natural resources would not limit growth, since the availability of physicalresources can be expanded through the use of better technologies, such as irrigation. If soils become
depleted or scarce, food production can be raised with hydroponics and single cell protein
technologies.
The set of arguments has been summarized by Tieternberg (1996, page 9):
Substantial increases can be expected in conventional food produced byconventional means, conventional food produced by unconventional means,unconventional food produced by conventional means, and unconventional foodproduced by unconventional means.
In 1981, Professor Zschau further buttressed the optimists’ views by referring to Professor R. Solowís
model. The optimists therefore believe that the depletion effect of natural resource exploitation
would be controlled by technical change, which will augment the quality of capital and labour, andallow for, among other things, the extraction of lower quality non-renewable resources (Pearce andTurner, 1990, p. 13).

20

ATPS WORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 43

From the foregoing, it is clear that controversies surrounding theories on technology-environment
nexus are best described as inconclusive. In the 1870s to 1970s, mainstream economists (withsome exceptions) believed that economic growth was indefinitely sustainable due to the “buffering
effect” of technological innovations on natural resources diminution. A number of views in the 1970s,
1980s, and 1990s have crystallized with environmentalism providing the background for emerging
contradictions to these theories. Even in Ricardo’s model, economic growth peters out in the longrun, because of the relative scarcity of natural resources. He acknowledges the fact that diminishingreturns to production sets in not so much, because of lack of technical progress, but rather anecessary outcome of production. On balance, it is now widely recognized that technologyenvironment relationships can be very delicate, and that ruthless pursuit of growth can cause
substantial irreversible damage to the environment. While the “Malthusian pessimists” see a global
system of diminishing returns as imminent, the “technological optimists” are convinced that this will
be overcome by new technologies that will maintain the momentum of ever greater productivity of all(classical) factors of production (land, labour, and capital). Building the capacity of societies tomonitor and/or mitigate the externalities of specific technologies is therefore an important long term
strategy to sustainable development.

Irrigation process and environmental degradation: evidence from other countries
Like most projects, irrigation has a wide range of beneficial and harmful effects on the environment.
The beneficial effects are often reflected on the welfare gains by farmers due to increased crop
output and the multiplier effect of this on national incomes and food security. On the other hand, its
numerous deleterious effects have been documented as either “on-site” and “off-site” effects (WRI1992). For the purpose of this paper, the environmental impacts of irrigation are classified as:• On-site edaphic impact including soil salinization, leaching, erosion and water logging,which reduces soil fertility and the carrying capacity of arable land.
• Off-site aquatic impacts including effects on water flow and water quality, fish stock and otheraquatic resources and pharmaceuticals. These are reported in form of varying degrees ofnitrate pollution and run-off of fertilizers and agrochemicals into aquifers and water courses.
They impose external costs on water users and damage ecosystems.
• Off-site biotic effects including impacts on human and livestock health. These are reported
in form of pesticide pollution of air and domestic water sources, pesticide residues oncrops and livestock and breeding of water borne disease vectors. All these cause varying
levels of illness and disease epidemics in irrigated areas.
• Off-site effect on bio-diversity including effect on wildlife and genetic diversity of crops. Theseoccur in form of desiccation and pollution of available water sources, causing depletion in
the stock and species of aquatic life (fish, algae).
• Off-site climatic effects including greenhouse effects at local and regional levels.
On-site effect on soils: Since irrigation permits growth of two or three annual crops on the same
piece of land, such an intensive cropping regime will necessarily deplete soils. Shrivastava (1994, p.

S OCIAL -ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY

2152) for instance, argues that such an intensive cultivation of land would ultimately lead to springing
up of deserts. Salts contained in surface water also become concentrated on irrigated land throughevaporation and seepage, thus causing soil salinity.
Empirical evidence on this has been documented in many case studies. Yudelman (1989) for
instance, reports cases of salinity affecting crop yields in irrigated zones of the Indus River (Pakistan),
the Nile Delta in Egypt, parts of Iraq, Peru, Mexico and the interior communities of North East Brazil.
Mustapha and Pingali (1995, pages 733-750) also report similar productivity trends in irrigatedareas of Pakistan, due to soil salinity and water logging. In India, over 87% of irrigated farms werereported to be water logged and saline, forcing 29% of cropland out of production and reducing rice
and wheat yields by over 50% and 78%, respectively (Joshi and Dayanatha (1990). The Science
Council of Canada (1986) also reports cases of salinization that lowered crop yields and made land
unsuitable for cultivation in Canada. On the basis of this evidence on salinizing effects of irrigation,
ISRIC (1990) defines salinization as increase in the salt content of soils due to poorly managed
irrigation schemes in semi-arid zones, salt-water intrusion into the ground water and the accumulationof salt from saline ground water or parent rock, because of high moisture evaporation in intensively
irrigated areas.
Off-site effects(1) Impact on water flow and water quality, fish stock and other aquatic resources
Irrigation schemes inherently divert water flows and interfere with the previous flow patterns throughthe catchment area. Irrigation is reported to account for over 86% of water withdrawals in Asia and inmany countries of North Africa and the Middle East, occurring at unsustainable rates (UNEP 1991, p.
176-177). This has various effects on aquatic life (fish stocks for example), and leaching and/or
return waters from irrigated farms also pollute surface and ground water bodies with agro-chemicals.
Various upstream irrigation dams in the Euphrates are reported to have increased the salinity of therivers downstream and also reduced their volumes (Winpenny, 1995, p. 26). The use of fertilizers andpesticides also contaminated drinking water in Egypt (Yudelman, 1989). In a study of 26 zones of theUnited States, Engberg and Feltz (1998) report higher concentrations of trace elements and pesticide
residuals in irrigated areas of the study. Irrigation return water in the upper Euphrates catchment ofTurkey and Syria as also reported to be highly saline up to twice the concentrations found in theriver’s natural flow (Beaumont 1996). In comparison, the salinity of the water courses in this study
area before irrigation, were significantly lower (Beaumont 1996). According to Myers et al. (1985,p.10):
public water quality related effects including run-off of fertilizers and pesticides into
surface waters and leaching of these into ground water, constitutes a very significant
effect of irrigation on human welfare.
These appear to be even more costly than the on-farm impacts on soils and crop productivity(Chapman et al., 1985, p. 7).

ATPS WORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 43

22(2) Impact on human and livestock health
Irrigation has both positive and negative effects on human and livestock health. The positive effect isthe derived benefit of increased supply of food for human nutrition and livestock feed, farm income
for health expenditures accruing from the effect of irrigation on crop productivity and employment
opportunities as irrigated farming intensifies (Winpenny, 1995, p. 28). However, the negative risks topublic health of irrigation seem to dominate the literature on the health impacts of irrigation. These
are documented under three broad categories:(a) The effect of chemical residues on soils, crops, water bodies and atmosphere
Residues on soils and crops can enter the food chain and cause different levels of debilitation anddiseases for both man and livestock, but polluted air and water bodies have caused respiratory
diseases in many places. It is estimated that over 10,000 people die and 400,000 suffer acutely frompesticide poisoning caused by irrigation every year (Repetto, 1985)16. According to the WHO (1990,
p. 86):“the incidence of pesticide poisoning is poorly documented, but is considerably
significant, causing 20,000 deaths and one million illnesses per year in irrigatedareas world-wide”.
Vanderhoek et al., (1998) also identifies pesticide poisoning as a major health problem in irrigatedareas of Sri-Lanka.
(b) The effect of water-related tropical diseases/pests encouraged by the anthropic environment in
irrigated areas
This is the most widely documented of the health impact of irrigation (Winpenny, 1995; Tiffen, 1990;
Cifuentes et al., 1993; Forattini et al., 1993a, 1993b, 1994). The first type of health risk arises fromwater borne diseases and pests, whose growth and development is encouraged by the anthropic
environments associated with irrigated agriculture. Cifuentesí study in Mexico, shows that irrigating
farmers had more problems with diarrhoea diseases and parasitic infections like ascarids andlumbricoides than farmers in unirrigated areas (Watts et al., 1998, pp. 755-765; Cifuentes et al.,
1993, pp. 614-619). Wild (1997, p. 1252) also identifies irrigation as a hydrokinetic factor causing
urinary catheter disease in the United States of America (USA).
The second type of health risk comprises diseases passed to humans by insects (vectors) thatbreed on water surfaces. Malaria and schistosomiasis (bilharzia) are the most widespread of thiscategory (Winpenny, 1995, pp. 29). In certain places, lymphatic filariasis (elephantiasis),onchoceroiasis (river blindness) and Japanese encephalitis are reported as the main dangers(Tiffen 1990). Forattini et al. (1993b, pp. 316-325) also reports cases of increased breeding ofmosquitoes (Diptera culicidae) and Anopheles albitarsis species in flooded rice fields in southeastern Brazil. The findings of the study suggest a hypothesis that the development of irrigation
schemes may be a factor in the emergence of Anopheles albitarsis species (a primary causative
agent for malaria), some other mosquito species and the cause of increased transmission of mosquito

S OCIAL -ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY

23

borne diseases in Sri-Lanka. Forattini et al. (1993a, pp. 227-236) also established a linear relationshipbetween a rice irrigated system and mosquito breeding in Riberia valley, Brazil. Compared withunirrigated areas of the valley, the study shows that most disease vectors, especially Anopheles
nyssorhynchus and Culex melanoconion, show high degrees of adaptation to anthropic environmentsof the irrigated zones.
(c)

Disease infestation risks caused by overcrowding and multiple use of irrigation waters

The third source of health risk arises from overcrowding of people and livestock in irrigated areas,causing epidemics of contagious and zoonotic diseases in project areas (Carruthers, 1968, p. 7).
(3) Effect on wildlife and genetic diversity
The creation of irrigation canal networks involves river diversion and flooding, and destroys previous
habitats, to create new ones (Edo and Compadre, 1995, p. 61). The diffusion of new, geneticallyuniform, high yielding crop varieties, also reduces crop diversity over large areas. This makes crops
more susceptible to disease. Irrigated agriculture was reported to have contributed significantly to
deforestation, adversely affecting flow velocity of rivers and indigenous fish species and replacing
200,000 ha of natural wildlife habitat in Sri-Lanka (see Imbulana et al., 1996, pp. 1 and 11). This
aspect has not been empirically evaluated in most countries. What is found in literature are reportsof biodemographic alterations, caused by irrigation in some countries (see Edo and Compadre,
1995, pp. 61-70; Parasuraman, 1995, pp. 227-242; Shettima, 1997, p. 66-70) for Northern Spain,
Karnataka and Nigeria, respectively.
(4) Effects on climate
Like other schemes that entail the creation of extensive new surface water bodies, irrigation cantemper local climates through the cooling effect of water. The vegetation associated with irrigation
also provides welcome shade in arid conditions and its green house effect is also minimal. According
to Winpenny (1995, p. 30):on the global scale, methane production from irrigated fields is believed to be a minor
contributor to green house effect (adding only 5% or less to green house gas emissions)
Like the impact of irrigation on biodiversity, its contribution to climate change is mentioned only
fleetingly.

24

ATPS WORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 43

Discussion
From the foregoing, it is evident that irrigation projects have affected the environment in many
deleterious ways. However, the on-site effects on soil fertility, salinization and waterlogging, and its
impact on human health and water quality, dominate available literature on the subject. Several
other problems may also emerge from the technology that is yet to be documented. Observed effects
also varied with the types and location of projects. The long-term prognosis for the sustainability ofirrigated agriculture is not clear.

Chapter FourIrrigation Technology in Nigeria and Swaziland:
Research Findings and Limitations
Presentation of results and findings
This section presents the results and findings of this research project.
Irrigation systems in Nigeria
The major types of irrigation technology that presently benefits small farmers in Nigeria comprises
the small scale surface irrigation types (see Erhabor, 1977; Erhabor and Miller, 1981; Palmer Jones, 1977a; Abalu and D’silva, 1980; Norman, 1972; Nigeria’s Second and Third Development
Plans 1970-1974, and 1975-1980). According to Erhabor, (1982):
Irrigation development in Nigeria has largely been on small scale basis. From
1956-1965, the focus of irrigation development shifted from large schemes in Sokoto
and Middle Belt Provinces to small schemes. Throughout the 1960s, the easterndivision concentrated on small scale rice projects in the Niger valleys. Between
1955 and 1960 about 500,000 pounds, out of the total 1,863,000,000 pounds capital
expenditure, was allocated to these (small scale irrigation) schemes.
This buttresses the Federal government’s commitment to small scale irrigation technology forthe overwhelming majority of her farmer population - the small holder farmers.
The large scale irrigation schemes which were developed in the northern part of the country inline with the Food Agriculture Organization (FAO) recommendation (see First National Development
Plan, 1962 -1968), were variously criticised in the 1970s and 1980s (see Patrick et al., 1975; Palmer-Jones, 1977a; Erhabor, 1982), and hence, the present emphasis on small schemes. Such studies
uncovered that the large schemes were not suitable to Nigeria’s small farmers due to its cost
intensity, unsuitability to farmers’ small land holdings and the general farming systems, and otherdeleterious externalities accruing from its scale and the socio-demographic features of the small
farmers. Commenting on the weakness of the large scale irrigation projects, Abalu and D’silva(1980) noted that:25

ATPS WORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 43

26

even if the country could afford the heavy investment that would be involved, thetendency would be to create a landless class by displacing original owners of land
and replacing them with more wealthy individuals. In the absence of alternative
employment opportunities, the result would be abject poverty in rural areas andurban areas, which would experience heavy migration from the rural areas.
Norman (1972) opines that the persistence of small scale irrigation technology among African
farmers over the years is best summed up in their farming system - which reflects the attempts offarmers to adapt to their environment over periods of time. Since they have low levels of farm resources,
the level of technology they prefer has been biased towards the low risk and low productivity traditional
technologies that have been used by their ancestors for generations. There are, however, very soundreasons for the system of production they have adopted. Erhabor (1982) opines that this is because
the small scale schemes are relatively inexpensive, require little foreign investment and operation
with local resources and labour. His preliminary assessment of the northern states of Nigeria (1982),
thus underscores the dominance of the small scale traditional lift devices (with rivers, streams andwells as water sources).
Evidence from the survey shows similar trends. Rivers, lakes, streams and wells are the dominant
irrigation water sources in Nigerian small scale farms (Uguru, 1996). As enlisted by Uguru (1996),
the major types of small scale surface irrigation technology used by Nigerian small farmers include:
1

2.

3.
4

Basin irrigation is the simplest and most common of the surface irrigation technology. The
farmland is divided into two or more basins using earth bunds, and water that enters thebasin is retained until it infiltrates. The size and shape of a basin vary, depending on the typeof crop, soil and farming system. Every basin is usually level land.
Border irrigation involves splitting the land into strips, which slope uniformly away from thewater entry points or farm channels, in the direction of the water flow. They are long andnarrow shaped. Border irrigation can be adapted to suit many field crops, soils and farming
systems.
Furrow irrigation involves the making of small channels, known as furrows, through whichwater flows and infiltrates into the root zone of the crops that are planted in ridges.
Pressurised irrigation methods, unlike the other surface irrigation methods, are characterized
by the single factor that they apply water at the points where water is needed. There are twomain types, namely: sprinkler irrigation and trickle or drip irrigation.

The sprinklers are of three types, viz.: the rotating or rotary sprinklers, the spray-type nozzles, andthe perforated pipes. The rotary sprinklers are most common in developing countries, but becauseof the low level of technology in Africa, they are still being used sparingly.
The selected irrigation project in Nigeria uses only the basin irrigation technique with rivers
serving as the primary irrigation water source.. The project area is organized in 4 zones: north east(NE), north west (NW), south east (SE), and south west (SW) zones, respectively. The irrigation wateris drawn from the Anambra and Obina rivers, Omor and Adani of Anambra and Enugu States,
respectively, by means of two giant pumping engines located at the bank of each river. The waterS OCIAL -ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY

27

from the rivers is pumped into the main canal where it is distributed by gravity to the cropping zones
of each project. The zones are plotted out into units of 10 ha, which are further divided into fields of
0.5 ha, that are allocated to participant farmers on annual basis.
The major components of the irrigation infrastructure in both projects are:•••

The pumping station consisting of five pumps and an engine and an intake structure located16.5 km upstream on both rivers.
A head race canal measuring 16.7 km long, which bifurcates into the east and west main
canals with a total length of 23 km.
Irrigation canals made up of 12 km secondary canals, 50.6 km tertiary canals and 270.6
distribution canals, and drainage canals, totaling 450 km.

The RBDA does not engage in direct rice production, but in addition to providing irrigation water,
helps the farmers to obtain machinery, fertilizers, herbicides, and necessary advice on rice cultivation
under irrigation. Evidently, this type of irrigation if adopted will make its effects evident on theenvironment.
Irrigation systems in Swaziland
The systems of irrigation in Swaziland can be considered from the point of view of the scale ofoperation and the method of water application used. Irrigation systems largely follow the duality of
the land tenure system in Swaziland, namely, those operated on SNL and TDL. Much of the large
scale irrigation takes place on large TDL company estates, and private TDL farms that are engaged
in large scale production of sugar-cane, citrus, cotton, pineapples and trees for pulp and lumber
production. The farmers on this land, use surface, sprinkler and buried pipeline, with orchard valve
and drip irrigation systems.
Irrigation on TDL: Much of the large scale irrigation takes place on large TDL company estates andprivate TDL farms that are engaged in large scale production of sugar-cane, citrus, cotton, pineapples
and trees for pulp and lumber production. The farmers on this land use surface sprinkler and buried
pipelines with orchard valves, and drip irrigation systems.
Irrigation on SNL: Irrigation on SNL is generally at a small scale level and often takes the form of ascheme, either a cooperative, government run, or privately run (Sithole and Testerink, 1983). There
are basically three major methods of irrigation in use on farms on SNL, namely, furrow, sprinkler andhand watering. Flood or basin irrigation is also used on SNL farms, but most farmers use one of thethree methods mentioned earlier. Furrow irrigation is the common method in use on SNL, particularly
on association/cooperative farms. Most of the individual and some of the cooperative farms are
irrigated using sprinkler systems. Hand watering is used on individual farms where the method ofwater application varies from use of simple watering cans or buckets, to use of flexible hose-pipes

28

ATPS WORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 43

carried from plant to plant. Irrigation on SNL is under four irrigation schemes, namely, RDA programme,
cooperative or association of farmers, private SNL farmers, and Swaziland irrigation schemes.
RDA programme: RDAs are located in the SNL to develop agriculture and improve the rural
infrastructure (such as roads, social services and markets). There are 13 RDAs with 29 sub-areas ofpotentially good land for irrigation, all over the SNL. Most of these areas have suitable land for
irrigation. The government of Swaziland has established irrigation projects serving 10 to 25 small
scale farmers with farm sizes of 1 to 3 ha (Richardson, 1985). Most of the schemes are furrowirrigated, with a typical system consisting of a diesel or electric pumping plant, a reservoir, unlined
canals and land leveling. Canals and irrigated areas are normally fenced to keep animals away.
There is no rent or water charge in any of the schemes. The irrigation systems are designed andconstructed with the help of the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives (MOAC), but the farmers do
the maintenance of the canals themselves.
There are five irrigation methods commonly used in Swaziland (Booker Tate, 1997), namely,
furrow, dragline sprinkler, floppy sprinkler, centre pivot and drip irrigation:
Furrow irrigation is a simple, low energy method used by many smallholder irrigators in the
country (Atkins, 1998). However, while it is relatively simple to manage, the system iscomparatively inefficient and thirsty, and is not a suitable option for difficult or shallow soils,
and has the disadvantage of being labour intensive.
Dragline sprinkler method is relatively low cost option used by many new small holder
irrigation farmers. Application efficiencies are quite low and operating costs high to ensure
water is pumped to moderately high pressure nozzles. The major disadvantage is the needto move the sprinkler frequently, especially on shallow soils.
Floppy sprinkler method is a solid set design that has undergone considerable refinement
during the last few years. Due to its low nozzle pressures, the method uses less energy thanthe dragline and conventional solid set methods. A floppy sprinkler is simple and easy tomaintain It is easy, with low labour requirements and high water efficiency. However, thesystem has relatively high capital and installation costs and is untested, albeit on small
areas in Swaziland (Atkins, 1998).
Centre pivot irrigation method is popular in Swaziland, but expensive. It is automated andhas a high efficiency rating, with low energy and labour requirements. It is, however, difficult
to maintain. Since it irrigates along circular routes, land on field corners is left out. It isestimated that some 22% to 25% of the potential irrigable land area can be excluded fromthe installed system (Atkins, 1998).
Drip irrigation method is used mainly on tree crops. It provides high water use efficiency, but
is expensive to install and very difficult to manage, especially with buried system whereleaks and crop intrusions can remain undetected for some time. Another problem is that the

S OCIAL -ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY

29

system demands high quality water, and frequent flushing and chemigation to avoid system
malfunction.
Furrow irrigation on SNL: Furrow irrigation is the common method in use on SNL (Dunn, 1986),
probably owing to the fact that it is an effective, relatively inexpensive and simple method of water
delivery. Furrow irrigation is the sole method of water delivery for the associations/cooperatives (withthe exception of rice schemes) and is also used on many of the individual irrigated farms. The
current study focuses on furrow irrigation as a surface irrigation technology used by small scale
farmers on SNL.
During his irrigation research in Swaziland, Dunn (1986) observed that furrow irrigation systems
on SNL have five unique, but important characteristics that influence the performance of the systemand the level of crop production. The first characteristic is the common practice by farmers toirrigate only one furrow at a time, using all of the water available for the one furrow. After the furrow has
filled to certain level, the farmer shifts the water to the next furrow. The second feature is that furrows
are blocked at the end to prevent run-off of water. Essentially, this makes the furrow a long narrowbasin, which is filled with water to a certain level before the in-flow of water is shifted to the next
furrow. This is an important aspect of the system since the amount of water which infiltrates the soil
and fills the root zone to field capacity, depends on how long water is in contact with the surface. With
this system, water infiltration is insignificant and total volume of water applied is equal to the storage
capacity of the furrow. There is no run-off, hence, the delivery efficiency is close to 100%. However,
because the contact time and hence the infiltration time is insignificant, the crop water use efficiency
may be very low. The third feature is that farmers on many individual irrigated farms and all
associations/cooperatives break the irrigated field into crop/management blocks. These blocks areperpendicular to the length of the field and, hence, establish the furrow length. The blocks vary inlength according to the number of crops, planting dates, resources and field length. It is not uncommon
to find a 100m long field broken into five blocks, each approximately 20m long. The fourth feature isthat furrow lengths are relatively short and variable, ranging from 5m to 150m. This characteristic,
coupled with the practice of irrigating one furrow at a time and lack of run-off, accounts for lower
water use efficiency by crops. The fifth feature is the tendency of farmers with furrow irrigation to planton the sides or bottom of the furrow, rather than at the centre of the bed. This affects cultivation,
fertilization, and crop quality.

The impact of irrigation on crop productivity in the case study areas
Only a preliminary analysis is presented at this stage of the project. This is because during the follow
up surveys, it was observed that the present institutional framework in both countries does not warrant
adequate costing of factor inputs in both systems. However, since this institutional distortion of datais consistent in both systems and across the countries, we still reason that the results obtained fromthis analysis will not be affected in absolute terms. The accuracy of particular monetary estimatesused for the analysis is constrained by the present institutional framework. Subsequent research on
the subject should attempt to factor in these institutional variables into the analysis, in order to create
an updated database for detailed analysis as is necessary. This limits the scope of current analysis

ATPS WORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 43

30

and hence the level of conclusions reached from the available data. Nevertheless, this does nothamper the policy implications of the current research. As a baseline study, the aim of the analysis is
to explore the subject area, and possibly generate hypotheses that would direct further inquiry on thesubject. The present institutional framework: the irrigation land ownership/annual rental system, thesubsidization of other irrigation facilities, leaves the farmers blindsided as to the real cost of theirrigation facility, and prevents proper cost-benefit analysis of the system. As typical in most developing
countries, the farmers perceive that developed resource(s) are free goods and hence attribute no
personal cost to them. This affects resource use and stewardship in Africa.
Crop productivity trends in both systems in Nigeria
The trends in crop productivity in the Nigerian irrigated and upland farms sampled are presented in
Figure 4.1.

Tones/ha/Crop year (Years)

7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Corp years (Years)
Y/Ha (IRR Dry/Crop year)

Y/Ha (Rain-fed/Crop year)

Y/Ha (IRR.Rainy/Crop year)

Y(IRR Annual)

Figure 4.1: Trends in Output per Hectare in both Systems (1984 -1998)
Source: Historical yield data (1984 -98)

On a crop year basis, the figure shows that the output of rice paddy per hectare has been more stablein the upland systems than in the irrigated counterparts. A 5-year moving average of the annual yields
across the systems also confirms this claim (Table 4.1).

S OCIAL -ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY

31

Table 4.1: A 5-year Moving Average of Annual Yields in both Systems
Crop Years
Irrigation.
1984 - 88
1989 -92
1993 -97
Mean% Growth Rate
between 1984 & 97

Annual Yield (Tones per Hectare)
Irrigated
Upland% Change due to

2.88
2.04
2.03

2.46
2.59
2.0

+17.07-21.08
-1.33

2.60

2.39

+8.74

- 29.25-16.05(-) represents a decrease; and (+) represents an increase.
Source: Historical data collected from annual reports of the RBDAs studied.

Table 4.1 shows that average yield in both systems have declined over the years, but the rate of
decline has been more in irrigated farms by about 13%. There was a 17% increase in crop yield due
to irrigation in the first 5 years of introduction, but this trend has continuously declined thereafter. On
the aggregate, irrigation has only increased output by 8.74% in the study area. This suggests that theirrigation scheme studied does not have a significant influence on crop yield. Based on the trendlines, crop productivity in the study area is predicted to rise by 13.34 % in the rain-fed farms each
decade, while decreasing by 19.15% in the irrigated farms. This represents a predicted crop loss ofabout 0.4813 tons per ha in irrigated farms and a gain of about 0.303 tons per ha of the upland farms
within the next decade. These results diverge strictly from the findings of Asadu et al. (1996), reporting
about 450% increase in rice output due to irrigation in the study area. There was a significant
increase in rice output (as reported in the study), due to introduction of irrigation at the onset of the
project life, but this may have been due to the external economies of the government presence(access to improved production inputs), brought about by the irrigation project location in the area,rather than by the technology per se. This hypothesis is explored further studies.
It is, however, acknowledged that the project is still young for conclusive claims to be made, butother studies have also reported similar trends. Based on his findings, Carruthers (1968: p. 14),concluded that there has been little or no general yield increase in the irrigated regions of IndoPakistan over the centuries. In a more detailed analysis of yield trends in more than fifty countries,
Collin Clerk (1960) reports that yield stagnation is fairly general in poor countries. Even in countries
obtaining high yield (Egypt and Japan), sustained yield increases were extremely rare. It is, however,not very expedient to transfer such claims to the Nigerian case. A more detailed country-wide study istherefore necessary to explore the real effects of the irrigation schemes on crop productivity, especiallyin the rain forest regions like Nigeria.

ATPS WORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 43

32

Comparing the productivity of factors between the systems:
The Cobb-Douglas production function was used to measure the effects of labour costs,(X1), irrigation
land rents and water charges (X2), and the cost of other variable inputs, including seeds and agrochemicals (fertilizers, herbicides, and insecticides), used (X3), on output. The following results wereobtained from the baseline data collected from our survey of eastern Nigeria and Swaziland, conducted
in 1998:
For irrigated farms in Nigeria:

LnY( IRRIG) = 5.51 + 0.04 ln X 1 + 0.18 ln X 2 + 0.39 ln X 3( 2.23) * ( 0.17)
R = 45%,2( 0.28)N = 40,( 0.08) *[1.1]

F = 9.98 *For upland farms in Nigeria:

LnY(UPL) = 8.85 + 0.34 ln X 1 − 1.04 ln X 2 + 0.62 ln X 3( 3.39) * (0.11)
R = 80%,2( 0.55)( 0.10) *N = 40, F = 47.09 *[1.2]
For irrigated farms in Swaziland:

LnY( IRRIG) = 8.67 + 0.17 ln X 1 + 0.23 ln X 2 + 0.63 ln X 3( 3.46) * ( 0.33)
R = 48%,2( 0.22)(0.11) *N = 229, F = 17.23 *[1.3]

For upland farms in Swaziland:

LnY(UPL) = 6.85 + 0.24 ln X 1 + 0.96 ln X 2 + 0.28 ln X 3(3.17 ) * ( 0.09) *R 2 = 74%,

( 0.31) *( 0.07) *N = 42, F = 27.44 *[1.4]

where (*) = Significant at 5%, ( ) = Standard error estimates.
The parameter estimates represent the relative proportion of rice output contributed by unit
increases in the respective variables.

S OCIAL -ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY

33

These results show that for Nigeria, only variable capital costs have significant contribution to
output, at 5% significance level, with a production elasticity of 0.39. This implies that a percentage
increase in investment on variable inputs, like improved seeds and agro-chemicals (fertilizers,
herbicides and insecticides) in the irrigated farms, would increase farm output by 39%, respectively.
The returns to labour, land and water resource use in the irrigated farms, are rather low and statisticallyinsignificant. In the upland farms, all three variables are statistically significant and their relative
elasticity of production, increase tremendously. The pattern of significance of variables is similar for
Swaziland, but the return to variable costs is higher in irrigated farms than in their upland counterparts.
These findings are of crucial importance to farm credit policy targeting and other farm management
policies in the affected projects. Increasing access to variable inputs (fertilizers, insecticides, fungicides
and improved seed varieties), is central to improved crop productivity in both irrigated and upland
rice producing farms in both Nigeria and Swaziland.
However, this has to be done with caution: the exogenous variables of the standard models
specified ( X 1 − X 3 ) can only explain 45% and 80% of the variation in the endogenous variable(output Y), in the irrigated and upland farms in Nigeria, respectively. About 55% and 20% of thevariations are therefore subsumed in the stochastic variable (µ) in the irrigated and upland systems,
respectively. The exogenous variables of the models specified ( X 1 − X 3 ) for Swaziland, can only
explain 48% and 74% of the variation in the endogenous variable (output Y), in the irrigated andupland farms, respectively. About 52% and 26% of the variations are therefore subsumed in thestochastic variable (µ) in the irrigated and upland systems, respectively. This suggests that themodels are either not completely specified or that the data collected are not robust, especially for theirrigated farms. A look at the moments (mean, mode and median) of the output data in both systems,
does however, suggest that the sample is normally distributed, thus shifting the hypothesis to theformer. The implication is that there is still more to the productivity problems that cannot be explainedin the present analysis.
Nevertheless, one clear result of the present analysis is that the influence of labour costs ( X 1 )and irrigation facility [land and water charges ( X 2 ) ] on irrigated farms in Nigeria, were not significant
even at 10%; on upland farms, they were significant at 5% and 10%, respectively. This may be due tothe management system of the project studied. Plots of land are developed by government andrented out to participant farmers at highly subsidized rates. The cost of land and mechanized labour
are therefore, not fully internalized in the private farmer’s cost streams, as included in the CobbDouglas model. On the other hand, the upland systems are more often personally run by local
farmers. The latter is therefore more amenable to the profit maximizing production scenario assumed
in the Cobb-Douglas model. The influence of other variable costs ( X 3 ) is positively significant at
5% in both systems and countries. One imminent policy intervention that could boost productivity inboth countries, would therefore, be improving the access to variable inputs (improved seeds, fertilizers,
insecticides and fungicides), by farmers. Government involvement in the development of irrigation
facilities may not be as crucial to improving productivity as presently perceived.

ATPS WORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 43

34

Computed means from field survey 1998

Tests for differences in means: The null hypotheses of zero difference in mean output and variable
inputs used between the two systems were tested using the Z-tests, since n > 30 in each case.
The results show that there is significant difference in crop output realized from the irrigated farms
and the upland farms, but that the cost of labour and land/water inputs were also significantly higher
in the irrigated systems at 5% levels of significance. The difference in the cost of land and water
charges is, however, significant at 1% level. This may have implications for water use efficiency inirrigated farms, especially when viewed in the context of the marginal difference in output. The nonsignificant difference in the use of other variable inputs like fertilizers and agro-chemicals between
the systems is also critical to understanding the impact of irrigation on crop productivity in the study
area. This is a possible explanation for the close nominal parity in yields observed since the introductionof irrigation in eastern Nigeria in 1984 (Figure 4.2).

MEAN X3

MEAN X2(UPL)(IRRIG)MEAN X1

MEAN Y

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

Mean values of output and input in both systems (1997/98)

Figure 4.2: Mean Values of Input and Output in both Systems (1997/98)
Source: Survey data 1998.

The figure shows that irrigation in Nigeria increased rice yield by only about 30% at over 38%
differential cost of land and water withdrawals in the study area. This already suggests that thesustainability cost of irrigated agriculture is negative (Figure 4.3).

S OCIAL -ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY

35

70000

Gross Returns/ha

60000
50000

y IRR = 2699.2x - 19108

40000
30000

y UPL = 2384.9x - 13070

20000
10000
0

y sus = 126.73x - 3193.7-10000-20000-30000-40000

Crop Years
Y.Py (N/Ha)IRR

Y.Py (N/Ha) UPL

Sustainability Cost (N/Ha)

Linear (Sustainability Cost (N/Ha))

Linear (Y.Py (N/Ha)IRR)

Linear (Y.Py (N/Ha) UPL)

Figure 4.3: Sustainability Cost of Irrigated Rice Production (1984-98)
Source: Historical Yield Data

Sustainability cost, as used in this context, is defined as the opportunity cost of not embarking on theirrigation project. What the country would lose if they chose to revert to upland rice production only.
In this study, this was measured as the value of crop output that would have to be forgone by thefarmers if irrigation projects are abandoned for the traditional system of upland rice production,
excluding the environmental externalities.
n∑ {P (YyIRRIG− YUPL )i =1[2]
Where Py is the farm gate price of crop output; Y IRRIG is the annual crop yield in irrigated farms,

YUPL is the annual crop yield in the rain-fed farms; and n is the number of years under consideration.
The computed figure above does suggest that the farmers stand to regain over 8% of their output
which has been lost to irrigation between 1984 and 1998. However, the respondents’ assessment of
the performance of irrigation has been only on annual basis, thus leading to the current “misguided”
perception of irrigation as increasing productivity in the study area. To explore this hypothesis further,
we looked at the computed value of output (Gross returns per hectare of cropped land) at Lower
Anambra irrigation project for the specified period in a counterfactual framework (See Figure 4.4).

ATPS WORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 43

3654303.5
77496.67
Net Annual Surpplous {{Py.(Y.IRR-Y.UPL) 1984-98
Net Annual Deficit {Py.(Y.IRR-Y.UPL) 1984-98

Figure 4.4: Net Annual Differences in Gross Returns between the Systems1984-98
Figure 4.4 shows that between 1984 and 1998, the Lower Anambra Irrigation project had a net
annual deficit of N77, 498.67 and net annual surplus of N54, 303.50. This represents a cumulativeloss of N23, 193.17 over the period of 14 years13. A graphical analysis of the above show that irrigatedfarms in the study area yielded gross returns per hectare more than their upland counterparts only in
1989/90, 1991/92, 1994/95 and 1996/96 crop years, while the Upland farms yielded more gross
returns per hectare for the rest of the period (See Figure 4.5).
40000{Py.(Y.IRRIG - Y.UPL)}

30000
20000
10000

y = 126.73x - 3193.7

01979-10000

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

-20000-30000-40000

Crop Years
Figure 4.5: Computed Differentials Gross Returns per Hectare between Irrigated and Uplandfarms (1984-98).
Source: Computed from historical data 1984-1998.

13

Computed from the operation performance reports of the Lower Anambra Irrigation Project (1998).

S OCIAL -ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY

37

This does suggest that the farmers stand to gain if they focused on proper management oftraditional rain-fed cropping system instead of embark on irrigation. It is however still necessary tointernalize other externalities of irrigation into the main frame of its Cost Benefit Analysis in order toguide policy simulations in these directions. Subsequent inquiries on the subject should seek tobalance the trade-offs and provide conclusive evidence that can be submitted in verification or
refutation of the ensuing hypotheses.
Despite these costs, irrigation plays a role in increasing food supply to rural households in bothcountries. The adoption of irrigation enabled farmers to access other productivity boosting farm
inputs like fertilizers, improved varieties, agro-chemicals, and contact with extension services. The
introduction of irrigation enhanced access of farmers to improved production facilities using frequencyof access to extension services by respondents, as a proxy. Only about 24% and 17% of upland andirrigating farmers in Swaziland had very frequent access to agricultural extension services, but thecorresponding figure for Nigeria was 100% and 79%, respectively. On the other hand, 57% and 49%
of upland and irrigated farmers had no access to such facilities, while all farmers in the irrigation
project zone studied in Nigeria (both participant and non-participants), have had access to extension
services at least once a year. This enhanced access by farmers to other productivity boosting inputs
like improved production practices and varieties of seeds, and agro-chemicals. This may serve to
explain the rise in output of rice in both systems in Nigeria, after the introduction of irrigation. What
may be needed to boost productivity in Nigerian rice farms may therefore be improving the availabilityof these productivity boosting inputs and land-saving technologies, rather than irrigation. The
sustainability cost of water abstraction for irrigation may be a waste, after all its deleterious
environmental implications notwithstanding. This though, is an issue that requires further research.

Environmental problems encountered in both countries
The major impacts of irrigation are classified as on-farm and off farm impacts below:
The on-farm environmental impacts documented from these exploratory surveys in both countries
are in Tables 4.2. As shown in Table 4.2, the major environmental problems observed in Nigeria
were waterlogging (91.25%), transboundary conflicts with pastoralists and other neighbouring farmers(86.25%) and decreased crop productivity (60.00%). Swaziland had a slightly different scenario withsoil erosion (69.50%) and decreased crop productivity (68.00%) taking the highest percentage of thereported problems. The case of recording a higher rate of soil erosion in Swaziland (69.50%) thanthat of Nigeria, (31.25%) may be explained by the differences in topography of the two countries.
While most irrigated areas in Swaziland are often sloppy hill sides that of Eastern Nigeria werelocated on flat terrains of Uzouwani and Ayamelum Local Government Areas of Anambra and Enugu
States, respectively. Much of the reported erosion cases in Nigeria are still restricted to canal beds,
side slopes and embankments.
Of greater relevance to this study is the fact that the rates of decrease in productivity in irrigatedareas of both countries were substantial. A 68% decrease for Swaziland, and 60% decrease for
Nigeria are significant enough to justify further statistical enquiry on the purported productivity boostingrole of irrigation, in both countries. In Nigeria, over 58% of the respondents also report desiccation ofWater logging
Soil erosion
Decreased crop
Productivity
Soil salinity
Transboundary
conflicts
Drowning of farmanimals
Descication ofwater resources

Environmental
Problems

37
33
72
12

23

33
30

65
11

21

8
10

31
53
14
17

53
91

%

No.

No.

%

Lower
Middleveld(Swaziland)

Lowveld(Swaziland)

26

31

12
29

No.

84

100

39
94

%

Highveld(Swaziland)

45
3

13
30

No.

86
6

26
60

%

Upper
Middleveld(Swaziland): On-Farm Environmental Problems Documented from the survey

Source: Survey data 1998. Multiple responses recorded

`

%
38.75
69.50
68.00
8.75

26.75

No.
89
142
149
24

47

Swazi Nation

5.00
58.75

47

86.25

69
4

60.00
38.75

91.25
31.25

%

48
31

73
25

No.

Nigeria38

ATPS WORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 43

water sources due to the irrigation development as major environmental problems that threaten thevery sustainability of irrigation in the area.

S OCIAL -ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY

39

Table 4.3 presents the off farm impacts. It is evident that the dominant environmental externality ofirrigation in both countries was mosquito infestation in the households. However, this problem wasmore pronounced in the Nigerian case (97.50%), than in Swaziland (39.00%). This disparity may
also be explained by the weather differentials in the two countries. While Nigeria is typically tropical,
thus favouring mosquito growth, Swaziland often experiences cold winter seasons, which suppress
mosquito growth. Other household externalities are generally more pronounced in Nigeria than in
Swaziland. This was however, clustered in the Lowveld and Upper Middleveld regions of Swaziland.
Over 86% of Nigerian respondents reported various degrees of malaria, and 42% of Swazilnad
farmers suffered malaria, and 43.5% reported cases of bilhazia. In Nigeria, over 90% of the farmers
also use the canal water for drinking and other domestic needs, and this made such diseases as
dysentry, exzema and typhoid commonplace in the project areas. Over 80% of such diseases wasrecorded among farmers at the Omor project zone of the LAIP.

Limitations of the Analysis and Areas for Further Research
The study was conducted as a baseline study to identify potential research on the social, economicand environmental impacts of irrigation in developing countries. Resource limitations meant that the
samples for the study were small. This limits the level of conclusions that can be reached based on
current data. Other technical problems that are always associated with farm production andenvironmental studies in developing countries were also observed. The value of farm output obtained
from the survey can at best be as reliable as the farmer respondents are, and their ability to reportfarm output in measurable units. Subsistent consumption, illiteracy and lack of farm records are
expected to have affected the reported output figure, significantly. We do, however, reason that thiswould not impair the results of our analysis, since we are comparing two systems within the samesocio-economic setting, hence the errors of measurement may cancel out. Further research is
required in this area.
The prevailing institutional framework where irrigation facilities are indirectly subsidized bygovernment made appropriate costing of irrigation inputs difficult. Most irrigation facilities like water
are not priced by respondents, since they pay only a fixed subscription fee for its use per plot,
irrespective of volumes consumed. We therefore believe that the X 2 variable in our production function
is an underestimate of the real cost of land and water extracted for irrigation. The impacts of irrigation
on soil and water quality and the contingent values of the observed irrigation externalities are notreported in this working paper. We strongly recommend follow-up studies to carry out full cost-benefit
analysis of the impacts of irrigation technology in both countries.

1.10
6.67
25.56
75.55
2.0

53.33

1
6

23

68

2

48
4

6

6.70

10.34

%

No.

No.

%

Lower
Middleveld(Swaziland)

Lowveld(Swaziland)

Source: Survey data 1998. Multiple responses recorded

Water logging
Soil erosion
Chemical foodpoisoning
Mosquito
Infestation
Income switing
Water pollution
Descication ofwater resources
Malaria
Bilhazia

Environmental
Problems

No.

%

Highveld(Swaziland)

7
30

4

20

1

No.

14.00
60.00

8.0

40.00

2.00

%

Upper
Middleveld(Swaziland)

Table 4.3: Off-Farm Environmental Problems Documented from the survey

%
0.44
2.62
12.23
41.05
0.00
2.62

24.02
14.85

No.
1
6
28
94
0
6

55
34

Swazi Nation

97.50
16.25
70.00
53.75
86.25

43
69

46.25

66.25
15.00

%

78
13
56

37

53
12

No.

Nigeria40

ATPS WORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 43

Chapter Five
Summary of Findings, Recommendations andConclusions
Summary of Findings
The study has reviewed the literature on the effects of irrigation technology on the environment andthe available methods that can be used to evaluate these effects. A clear framework for further
research on the subject is also developed and case study surveys conducted in Nigeria and Swaziland.
Available evidence in the literature shows that surface irrigation has affected the environment indiverse ways: ranging from “on-site” edaphic affects to “off-site” effects on biodiversity and climatechange, and on various forms of human welfare. However its “on-site” effects on soil fertility, salinization
and water logging, and its impact on both human and livestock health and water quality, dominate
the reviewed literature on the subject. Its effects on the global environments (climate change, green
house effects), are however, also documented. Like most environmental issues, no boundaries canbe put on the effects of irrigation on the environment.
“Sustainability” has been a watchword for much of recent work in environmental economics, butthere remains considerable disagreement in the conceptual and operational content of the term.
This has been largely due to diverse disciplinary perspectives, and the axiomatic foundations of the
dynamic models within which the concept has been explored. The net result is a debate in which thefundamental points at issue remain obscure. This study adopts the simple neo-classical operational
definition of the term: non-declining physical flow of resources, in an agro-ecosystem and in percapita social welfare of farmers.
The empirical findings from the survey are summarized as follows:••

The major type of irrigation practiced in the LAIP studied in Nigeria was of the basin type, andfurrow, dragline sprinkler, floppy sprinklers and centre pivot irrigation were practiced in Swaziland.
Furrow irrigation was, however, dominant.
The productivity gains of irrigation in the Nigerian project has been very marginal whencompared with adjacent upland counterparts, however, the true welfare gain of this productivity
increase is yet to be identified. Full environmental costs and benefits of the system are yet to befactored into the analysis. The trend of crop productivity is increasing by 13.34 % in the uplandsystems and decreasing by 19.15% in the irrigated systems each decade. This represents apredicted opportunity cost (crop loss) of about 0.7843 tons of paddy to the farmers, for adopting
irrigated agriculture for every decade.

41

42

ATPS WORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 43•

There is a strong hypothesis that there are yet some factors influencing productivity of factors in
the irrigated farms in both countries that are yet to be captured in the classical Cobb-Douglas
production function. This may be the environmental variables. Further research is required inthis area.
The sustainability cost of irrigation is the Nigerian project is negative. Eight percentage of total
value of crop output has been lost to irrigation since its inception in the study area. This represents
N23, 193.17 over the past 14 years of irrigation in the project areas. This implies that the rain-fed
system is even more economic in classical terms even if irrigation has no negative externalities
on the environment. Proper management of the traditional rain-fed cropping system may be abetter investment option.
Farmers’ access to agricultural extension services in Nigeria increased with the introduction ofirrigation in the study area. This has lead to the apparent parity in productivity of factors in both
systems and may serve to explain the apparent increase in rice output since irrigation was
adopted. Improving extension services may be a better policy option than further developmentof irrigation in the study area. In Swaziland, there is strong need for improving extension services
to the farmers in both categories. Access to extension by farmers in Swaziland is still poor.
The major environmental consequence of irrigation development in both countries, as reported
by respondents is mosquito infestation, causing malaria epidemic in farm households, andother water related diseases. Famers in Swaziland also reported few cases of bilhazia in project
areas. There is, therefore, need for a systematic monitoring of the incidence of these diseases
in irrigated areas for proper prevention and/or treatment.

•

•

•

Recommendations
This analysis provides empirical evidence from Nigeria and Swaziland, which corroborates theevidence in literature to underscore the deleterious effects of irrigation in areas where they exist.
However, it does not reach definite conclusions as to the total economic value of irrigation in the
study areas. It is also considered valuable in identifying areas for further inquiries on the subject:•

Irrigation water resources have been valued at a “zero” or “near zero price” in both countries.
What is often built into available “ex-ante” appraisals and “ex-post” analysis of the projects is the“water-provision charges”. At the micro levels, this constitutes only the cost of maintaining theirrigation infrastructures. Irrigation water is therefore, undervalued (treated as a non-tradedpublic good). Further research is therefore needed to estimate the real cost of the irrigationwater in the study area. It is hoped that this would improve the efficiency of water use in irrigatedagriculture. Babier and Thompson (1998) in their study of large scale irrigation projects in the
Hadejia-Jama’are River Basin of northern Nigeria, opine that the prevailing assumption thatwater is essentially “free” is a hypothesis that ought to be empirically verified. Evidence from thisstudy show that the irrigation river sources in Nigeria are currently being desiccated and casesof water poisoning is also recorded.

S OCIAL -ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY

43

We recommend that proper water resources management (the complex of measures and facilities,
which ensure the necessary quality and quantity of water for the whole economy), should beincorporated into irrigation planning and implementation in both countries. This is necessary,
especially in Nigeria where the rivers serve as a major source of water for both farm and household
uses in the surrounding communities. Such a management strategy should comprise:

•
•
•
•

routine data collection and evaluation on the quality and flow levels of water sources;
appropriate fiscal management research and development, to assess the cost and benefits ofalternative water uses;
meteorological data collection and management, to forecast water shortfall periods and irrigation
demand in project areas; andproper water pricing, regulatory and enforcement activities to ensure rational water use in project
areas. This would reduce the overflooding and consequent water logging problems encounteredin the study.

The following approaches tried out in Czechoslovakia, may be considered for policy in respective
countries:
•
•

•
•

Setting an order of priority for surface water use and abstraction. In economic terms, this can beachieved by comparing the costs and benefits of all alternative uses of surface water to see
which water demand alternative is most beneficial to society.
Introducing appropriate water pricing policy for both farm and domestic water uses. Effective
pricing of irrigation water is considered as the most effective way of saving water and preventing
overflooding of irrigation farms, because it will “certeris paribus” increase water use efficiency inproject areas. This will no doubt reduce the mosquito infestation and other water related
environmental problems reported during the survey.
Estimating and adopting minimum acceptable flow levels in irrigation river sources and in themain canals. Pressurized irrigation systems should be adopted instead of the canal systems
presently adopted in the LAIP, where they can be afforded.
Establishing and/or improving registration systems for surface water withdrawals than is presently
available in the study areas.

Conclusions
The findings of the study corroborate Rees’ argument that modern technologies reduce thecarrying capacities of ecosystems, while creating the illusion of increasing it (see Rees, 1996, p.
6):
We often use technology to increase the short-term energy and material flux throughexploited ecosystems. This seems to enhance systems productivity, while actuallypermanently eroding the resource base...energy-subsidized intensive agriculture may

44

ATPS WORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 43
be more productive than low input practices in the short term, but it also increases therate of soil and water depletion.

The presupposed productivity gains of irrigation technology in Nigeria and Swaziland may therefore
be illusory. However, the confines of this study prevent a complete analysis. The data collected fromthe survey could only allow a preliminary analysis, and as such, the propositions generated are atbest primary hypothesis, subject to further verification.
The conclusion of the study is therefore an identification of research gaps with respect to thecosts and benefits of irrigated agriculture in the study areas. The dominant assumptions in theeconomic analysis of projects also need re-assessment. The Cobb-Douglas model explains only
45% and 48% of the functional input-output relationships in Nigeria’s and Swaziland’s irrigatedagriculture. In the traditional upland systems, it still explained about 80% and 74% of the variations
in Nigeria and Swaziland, respectively. It is therefore hypothesized that environmental externalities
may be the missing factor(s). This may serve as a good framework for understanding the real tradeoffs between the perceived productivity gains of irrigation and its deleterious effects on the environment.
Further research on the subject is highly recommended. The on-farm and off-farm impacts ofirrigation in both countries have also been documented and mitigation measures recommended.
The productivity gains of irrigation have been marginal, but its impact on water availability andquality, health of farmers and farm animals and on irrigated soils are considerably significant. Landand water resources used for irrigation are also under-estimated in both countries.
We therefore hypothesize that the increase in productivity of irrigated agriculture depends on theunderestimation of environmental resource inputs and the low value given to its environmental
externalities. This is, however, a subject for further research. In the interim, the current policy for
intensifying smallholder irrigation development in Nigeria and SNL should be supported by soil andwater conservation programmes to mitigate observed environmental externalities of these projects.
In the Nigerian case, the sustainability cost of the irrigation projects studied is negative. Given thesubstantial financial loss incurred by the irrigation projects in comparison to adjacent upland (rainfed) plots, the prognosis for the sustainability of agricultural production of irrigated farms is bleak.
The opportunity cost of irrigation in the Nigerian case study, is highly significant and exceeds the net
production benefits gained from these projects.

Bibliography

Abalu, G.O.I. and B. D’silva (1979). “Socio-Economic Analysis of Existing Farming Systems andPractices in Northern Nigeria”, Paper Presented at the Workshop on Socio-Economic Constraints
to the Development of Semi-Arid Tropical Agriculture, ICRISAT, February 19 - 23, pp. 14.
Abalu G.O.I. and B. D’silva (1980). “Nigeria’s Food Situation: Problems and Prospects”. Food Policy,
February, 1980, pp. 49-60.
Adams, W.M. (1991). Wasting the Rain: Rivers, People and Planning in Africa. Earthscan, London,
UK.
Adeboye, T. O. Beganehwa, M.S.D. and Bamiro, O.A. (1995). “Effects of Reforms on Technology
Capability in Sub Saharan Africa: A Conceptual Framework”. ATPS Working Paper No. 1.
Agboola A.A. and H. Tijani-Eniola (1991). “Appropriate Technology Generation for Small-Scale
Farmers in Nigeria”, In Appropriate Agricultural Technologies for Resource-Poor Farmer, J.O.
Olukosi, A.O. Ogungbile and B.A. Kalu eds., NFSM Workshop, Calabar.
Ahmaed, I. and Doelman, J.A. eds. (1995). Beyond Rio: Environmental Crisis and Sustainable
Livelihoods in the Third World. Macmillan, London, UK.
Ahmed A.U. and Sampath, R.K. (1992). “The Effects Of Irrigation Induced Technology Change” In
Bangladesh Rice Production, American Agricultural Economics Association.
Aina, O.I. and Soetan (1991). “Sap, Gender, Technology: The African Experience”. A Paper Presented
at the International Conference of West African Technology Policy Studies Network, 9 - 10
December, Federal Palace Hotel, Lagos, Nigeria.
Allan, L. (1986). “On-Farm Research and Household Economics”, In Understanding Africa’s Rural
Households and Farming Systems. Moock J.L., ed., Westview Press/Boulder and London, UK.
Allauddin, M and Tisdel, C.A. (1986). “Market Analysis, Technical Change and Income Distribution
in a Semi-Subsistence Agriculture: The Case of Bangladesh”, Agricultural Economics 1 (1), pp.
1-18.
Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P., Leamer, E., Radner, R. and Schuman, H. (1993). Report of the NOAA
Panel on Contingent Valuation. Fed. Regist. 58 (10), 4602-4614.
Asadu C.L.A., (1996). “Soil Management for Conservation and Sustainable Rice Production in an
Irrigated Area of Eastern Nigeria”, Outlook on Agriculture., 25 (3) P.151-56.
Asano, T. and Pettygrove, G.S. (1988). Using reclaimed municipal wastewater for irrigation. In
Developing World Water. Grosvenor Press International, Hong Kong, pp. 242-246.
Asian Development Bank (1996). Economic Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: A Workbook, Parts
I and II , The Environment Division, Office of Environment and Social Development, ADB Manila,
Phillippines.

45

46

ATPS WORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 43

Atkins, S.L. (1998). The economics of smallholder irrigation systems in Swaziland. Paper presented
at the Internaltional Association of Agricultural Economists Inter-Conference Symposium, August
10-16, 1998, Badplass, South Africa.
Ayoola, G.B. (1990). “Technological Progress in Agriculture: Some Issues”. Proceedings of 1990
Annual Conference, Nigerian Economic Society, May 23 (1990).
Babier, E.B. (1987). “The Concept of Sustainable Economic Development”, Environmental
Conservation, 14 (2),pp. 101-10.
Babier, E.B. (1995). “The Economics of Soil Erosion: Theory, Methodology and Examples”, IDRC,
Research Paper Presented to the Fifth Biannual Workshop of Economy and Environment inSouth Asia, Singapore. November 28-30, 1995.
Babier, E.B. and Thompson, J.R. (1998). The Value of Water: Floodplain Versus Large Scale Irrigation
Benefits in Northern Nigeria. Ambio, Vol 27 No. 6. Sept. 1998.
Babu, S.C., B.T. Nivas and G.J. Traxeer (1996). Irrigation Development and Environment Degradationin Developing Countries - A Dynamic Model of Investment Decisions and Policy Options. IFPRI,
No. 337.
Baker, R. (1993). Environmental Management in the Tropics. An Historical Perspective. CRC Press,
Tokyo, Japan.
Balogun, E.D. and E.U. Ukeje (1986). “The Impact of River Basin Development Authorities on Nigerian
Agriculture: A Case Study of Niger River Basin Development Authority. Economics and Financial
Review. Vol. 24 No. 2.
Banjo, A. (1988). “The Form and Concept of Policy”. A Paper Delivered at the Institute of Strategic
Studies, Kuru.
Bartick, T.J. and V.K. Smith (1987). “Urban Amenities and Public Policy.” In Handbook of Regionaland Urban Economics. E.S. Mills, ed., New Amsterdam: Elsevier Press, The Netherlands.
Bergman H. (1973). Guide to the Economic Evaluation of Irrigation Projects. OECD, Paris, France.
Bernnet, R. and, Murphy, S. (1991). “Occupational Noise: Cost-Benefit Analysis of a Reduction inStandard” Research Paper No.1, Bureau of Industry Economics, Canberra, Australia.
Bernett, J.W. (1991). Alternative Resource management Options for Fraser Island and the Great
Sandy Region: Aspects of an Economic Evaluation., In: Commission of Inquiry Into theConservation. Management and Use of Fraser Island and the Great Sandy Region, pp. 53-58.
Blake G.R. (1965). “Bulk Density”; In Methods of Soil Analysis, Agronomy No. 9. Part 2, American
Society of Agronomy, C. A. Black ed., Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Bishop J. and J. Allen (1989). “The On-Site Costs of Soil Erosion in Mali” Working Paper 21., World
Bank, Environment Department, Washington D.C., USA.
Biswas, A.K. (1993). Water for Agricultural Development: Opportunities and Constraints. International
Journal of Water Resources Development 9, 3-12.
Bogo J., K.G. Maler, and L. Umeno (1996). Environment and Development: An Economic Approach,
2nd ed. Kluwer Academic Publishers, London, UK.
Bouyoucos G.H. (1951). A Calibration of the Hydrometer for Making Analysis of Soils. Argon.J. (43) pp.
434-38.
Bray, R.H. and Kurtz, L.T. (1945). Determination of Total Organic and Available Forms of Phosphorus
in Soils. Soil Science (59), pp. 39 -45.

S OCIAL -ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY

47

Bremner, J.M. (1965). “Total Nitrogen” In Methods of Soil Analysis, American Society of Agronomy
No. 9. Part 2, C. A. Black ed., Madson, Wiscosin, USA.
Brookshire, D., W. Schultze and M. Thayler (1985). “Some Usual Aspects of Valuing A Unique Natural
Resource”, Mimeo, University of Wyoming.
Brookshire, D.L. Eubanks, and A. Randall (1983). “Estimating Option Prices and Existence Values for
Wildlife Resources”, In Land Economics, February.
Brown, L.R. and E. Wolf (1984) “Soil Erosion: Quiet Crisis in the World Economy”, Worldwatch Paper
No. 60, Washington D.C., USA.
Brundtland Commission (World Commission on Environment and Development) (1987). Our
Common Future, Jim McNeil, New York, USA.
Buzdugan, S. and Carroll, F. (1983). Environmental Assessment: Small Farmer Pilot Irrigation Project.
Ronco Consulting Corporation, Wanshington D.C., USA.
Caircross, S. and R.G. Feachem (1983). Environmental Health Engineering in the Tropics: An
Introductory Text. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Great Britain.
Caldwell, L.K. (1991). “Globalizing Environmentalision: Threshold of a New Phase in International
Relations, “Soc. Nat. Resour”. 4. 259-72.
Carr, M. (1988). Mass Production or Production by Masses? In The Greening Aid: Sustainable
Livelihood In Practice, C. Conroy and M. Litvinoff eds., Earthscam Publications Ltd., London,
UK.
Carruthers, I.D. (1968). Irrigation Development and Planning: Aspects of Pakistan Experience.
Department of Economics, University of London, UK.
Carson, R. (1991) “Constructed Markets.” In Measuring the Demand for Environmental Quality. J.B.
Barden And C.D Kolstard, Eds. Amsterdam, North Holland.
Cassam, M. (1983). An Assessment of the Market for Swazi Nation Land Farmers. Ronco Consulting
Corporation, Washington D.C., USA.
CGIAR (Consultative Group of International Agricultural Research) (1989). “Sustainable Agricultural
Production: Implications for International Agricultural Research”. FAO Research and Technology
Paper 4, Italy, Rome.
Chidebelu, A.N. and Nwike I. (1991). “Agricultural Technology Transfer: the Case of Imo State
Agricultural Development Area Programme” InAppropriate Agricultural Technologies for ResourcePoor Farmers. Olukosi, J.O., Ogungbile A.O. and Kalu, B.A. eds., National Farming Systems
Research Network.
Cifuentes, E., Blumenthal, U., Ruizpalacios, G., Bennett, S., Quigley, M., Pessey, A. and Romeroalarez,
H. (1993). “Health Problems Related to Irrigation With Waste Water in Mexico”, Salud Publica
De Mexico, 35 (6) pp. 614-619.
Collin, C. (1960). The Conditions of Economic Progress. 3ed., Macmillan Press, London, UK.
Common, M.S. (1996). Environmental and Resource Economics: An Introduction. Longman. New
York, USA.
Commoner B. (1963). Science and Survival. New York, Ballantine, USA.
Commoner B. (1972). The Closing Circle. Cape, London: Jonathan, UK .
Commonwealth of Australia (1995). Techniques to Value Environmental Resources: an Introductory
Handbook. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, Australia.

48

ATPS WORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 43

Conway G.R. (1986). Agroecosystem Analysis for Research and Development in Bangkok. Winrock
International.
Dailey, G. (1997). Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island Press,
Covelo, CA, USA.
Dasgupta, P. and Maler, K.G. (1990). “The Environment and Emerging Development Issues”,
Proceedings of the World Bank Annual Conference of Development Economics, 1990, World
Bank, Washington D.C., USA.
Dasmann, R.F., J.P. Milton and P.H. Freeman (1978). Ecological Principles for Economic Development.
John Wiley & Sons Ltd., London, UK.
David (1992). “Policy Induced Local Sourcing of Raw Materials and Technological Development in
Nigerian Industry” Kayode F., A. Oyejide and Afolabi S. eds., Interim Report Submitted to ATPS
Network, 1995.
Dubgaard, A. (1990). “Danish Policy Measures to Control Agricultural Impacts on the Environment”
Institute of Agricultural Economics, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Dunn, G.H. (1986). “Irrigation Research in Swaziland”. End of Tour Report: September 1982 toNovember 1986. Mbabane, Swaziland.
Economic Commission for Africa (1989). Role of Technology in Small Farmers’ Productivity in Africa.
July, U.N., Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
El Serafy, S. (1998). “Pricing the Invaluable”. Ecological Economics 25 (1), 25-27.
Enrlich, P.R. and Ehrlich, A.H. (1970). Population Resources Environment. W.H. Freeman, San
Francisco, USA.
Eremie, S.W. and H.R. Chheda (1991). “Technology Generation and Transfer in Nigeria: The Farming
Systems Research Network and the Agricultural Development Interface”. Journal of the West
African Farming Systems Research Network, Vol. 1 No. 1, 1991.
Edo, M.A. and Compadre (1995). “Biodemographic Alterations Derived from Reservoir Building in a
Rural Settlement in Spain”. Journal of Bioscience, 27 (1) pp. 61-70.
EEPSEA (1995). “Valuing the Health Impacts of Pollution” IDRC, Research Paper Presented to theFifth Biannual Workshop of Economy and Environment in South Asia, Singapore, November 2830, 1995.
Ehrlich, P.R. and Ehrlich, A.H. (1970). Population Resources Environment. San Francisco: W.H.
Freeman.
Ellis, G.M. and A.C. Fisher (1987). “Valuing the Environment as Input”. Journal of Environmental
Management (25) pp. 149-56.
Englels, F. (1959) “Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy”, In Economic and Philosophic
Manuscripts of 1844. K. Marx ed., Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, Russia.
Erhabor, P.O. (1982). “Efficiency of Resource Use Under Small Scale Irrigation Technology in Nigeria.”
Indiana Technical Report No. 148, Purdue University Water Resources Research Centre, West
Lafayette, Indiana.
Erhabor, P.O. and W. Miller, (1981). The Adoption of Small Scale Irrigation Technology in Nigeria.
Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University Water Resources Research Centre,
West Lafayette, Indiana.

S OCIAL -ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY49

Ernst, D., Mytelka, L. and Ganiatsos, T. (1994). “Technological Capabilities - A Conceptual Framework”
Chapter 1 of the Draft UNCTAD Six Country Research Project on Technological Development
in Smith and East Asia.
FAO/ICA, (1980). Agricultural Development in Nigeria 1965 - 1980. Rome, Italy.
Faucheux, S., Pearce, D., and Proops, J. (1996). Models of Sustainable Development: New Horizon
in Environmental Economics. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. Chetenham, UK.
Federal Ministry of Science and Technological (1986). National Policy on Science and Technology.
Federal Republic of Nigeria, Lagos, Nigeria.
Field, B.C. (1994). Environmental Economics: An Introduction. Mcgraw-Hill Inc., Singapore.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (1990). “Socio-Economic Aspects ofEnvironmental Policies in European Agriculture. Rome, Italy.
Forattini, O.P., Kakitani, I., Massad, E. and Marucci, D. (1993a). “Studies on Mosquito (Ditera,
Culicidae) and Anthropic Environment. 2. Immature Stages Research at a Rice Irrigation System
Location in South Eastern Brazil”, Revista Sao De Saude Publica 27(4) pp. 227-36.
Forattini, O.P., Kakitani, I., Massad, E. and Marucci, D. (1993b). “Studies on Mosquito (Ditera,
Culicidae) and Anthropic Environment. 3-Survey of Adult Stages at a Rice Irrigation System andthe Emergence of Anopheles Albitarsis in South Eastern Brazil”. Revista Sao De Saude Publica
27 (5) pp. 313-25.
Forattini, O.P., Kakitani, I., Massad, E. and Marucci, D. (1994). “Studies on Mosquito (Ditera, Culicidae)
and Anthropic Environment. 5-Breeding of Anopheles-Albitarsis in Flooded Rice Fields in South
Eastern Brazil”, Revista Sao De Saude Publica 28 (5) pp. 329-33.
Fowler, (1983). “Vegetable marketing in Swaziland”. A Paper Presented at Vegetable Production andMarketing Seminar. MOAC, Lobamba, Swaziland.
Frederick, K.D. (1992). “Managing Water for Economic, Environmental, and Human Health”, In:
Global Development and the Environmental Perspectives on Sustainability, Resources for the
Future. J. Darmstadter ed., Washington D.C, USA.
Gillen E.F (1974). “Social Indicators and Economic Welfare” Economic Papers 45 pp. 45-82.
Graves, P.E. and G. Fishelson (1982). “Estimation of Damage Coefficients: The Sulphur Dioxide
Example.” In Environmental Policy: Air Quality, Vol. 2. D.S. Tolley, P.E. Graves, and A.S Cohen,eds., Mass.: Ballinger, Cambridge, USA.
Greig, P.J and Devonshire, P.G. (1981). “Tree Removals and Saline Seepage in Victorain Catchments:
Some Hydrologic and Economic Results”, Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics 25 (2)pp. 134-48.
Gold Smith, E., Allen, R., Allaby, M., Davoll, J. and Lawrence, S. (1973). The Blueprint for Survival.
Tom Stacey.
Haile, T. (1988). Socio-economic Aspects of Small Scale Irrigation in Ethiopia. InIrrigatedAgriculture
in Africa. Vol. 2. P.N. G. van Steekelenburg ed., Conference Proceedings, 25-29 April 1988,
Harare Zimbabwe, CTA and ILRI.
Hanemann, M. (1984). “Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete
Responses”. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 67 (3) 332 –341.
Hanemann, M. (1989). Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete
Response Data: Reply. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 71 (3) 1057–1061.

50

ATPS WORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 43

Hanley, N. and C.L. Spash (1998). Cost Benefit Analysis and the Environment. Edward Elgar,
England, UK.
Hanley, N., Shogren, J.F. and White, B. (1997). Environmental Economics in Theory and Practice.
Macmillan Press, London, UK.
Hawercamp, A.J., E.H. Clark, Ii and W. Chapman (1985). Eroding Soils: The Off-Farm Impacts. The
Conservation Foundation. Washington, D.C., USA.
Heaton, G., Repetto, R. and Sobin R. (1991). Transforming Technology: An Agenda For Environmentally
Sustainable Growth in the 21st Century, World Resources Institute, Washington D.C, USA.
Hilllel, D. (1990). Irrigation Development. In Irrigation of Agricultural Crops. Agronomy Stewart, B.A
and D.R. Nielsen eds., No. 30, ASA, CSSA, and SSSA. Madison, USA.
Hodge, Ian (1998a). “Agri-Environment Policy in the United Kingdom: Progress Evaluation and
Potential”. Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge, UK, June 1998.
Hoehn, J.P., Berger, M.C. and Blomquist, G.C. (1987). “A Hedonic Model of Interregional Wages,
Rents, and Amenity Values.” Journal of Regional Science 27: pp. 605-619.
Hornsby, A.G. (1990). Pollution and public health problems related to irrigation. In Irrigation ofAgricultural Crops. Agronomy Stewart, B.A. and D.R. Nielsen eds., No. 30, ASA-CSSA-SSSA,
Madison, WI 53711 USA. Chap. 38 pp. 1173-1188.
Hottelling, H. (1931). The Economics of Exhaustible Resources”, Journal of Political Economy 39
pp. 137-75.
Hren, J. and R.F. Herman (1998). “Effects of Irrigation on the Environment of Selected Areas ofWestern United States and Implications to World Population Growth and Food Production”
Journal of Environmental Management 52, (Ev980182.), pp. 353.360.
Hufschmidt, M.M., James, D.E., Meister, A.D., Bower, B.T. and Dixon, J.A. (1903). Environment,
Natural Systems and Development: An Economic Valuation Guide. Johns Hopkins University
Press Baltimore.
Igbal, Muhammad (1975). Irrigation Projects of the Northern States of Nigeria, Vol. I. Iar/Abu Zaria,
August 3.
Igbozurike, U.M. (1983). Agriculture at the Cross Roads. A Comment on Agricultural Ecology. Universityof Ife Press, Ile-Ife, Nigeria.
Imbulana, K, Kouradsen, F. and Steele, P. (1996). “Irrigation Development in Srilanca: Some Healthand Environmental Impacts”. Marga, 14 (1) pp. 1-15.
International Monetary Fund (1989). “Balancing Development and the Environment”. Finance &Development 26:4.
International Soil Reference and Information Centre (1991). Wageningen. The Netherlands. Nov.
1991.
James, D. (1991). The Application of Economic Techniques in Environmental Impact Assessment:
Guide to Analysis and Procedures. David James Ecoservers Pty Ltd.
Japanese Ministry of International Trade and Industry (1991). “The New Earth 21” Action Paper
Presented at the U.S-Japan Conference on Global Warning. Atlanta, Uk, June 3.
Johnston, B.F. and Cownie, J. (1969). “The Seed-Fertiliser Revolution and Labour Force Absorption”,
American Economic Review 59 (4), pp59-82.

S OCIAL -ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY

51

Jones, C.N. (1986). “Intra - Household Bargaining in Response to the Introduction of New Crops: A
Case Study of North Cameroon”, In Understanding Africa’s Rural Households and Farming
Systems. Moock J.L. eds., Westview Press Inc.
Joshin, P.K. and Dayanatha, Jha (1990). “Environmental Externalities in Surface Irrigation Systems
in India”, In Environmental Aspects of Agricultural Development. International Food Policy
Research Institute, Washington D.C., USA.
Jules, N.P. and G.R. Conway (1988). Agriculture as Global Polluter International Institute forEnvironment and Development. London, UK.
Kahn, H., Brown W. and Martel, L. (1976). “The Great Transition” In The Next 200 Years. William
Morrow & Co Inc. Publishers, New York, USA.
Kassinis, G.I. (1998). “A Model for Estimating Pollution Emissions for Individual Economic Activities”
Environmental Impact Assessment Review 18:pp. 417- 438.
Kayode, F., Oyejide, A. and Afolabi, S. (1995). “Policy Induced Local Sourcing of Raw Materials andTechnology Development in Nigerian Industry”. Interim Report Submitted to ATPS Network,
Sept., 1995.
Krause, R. (1993). Agricultural Technology and Environment in the Increasing Mechanization ofAgriculture in the Tropics and Subtropics. National Resource and Development. Institute for
Scientific Co-Operation. Tiibingen 37.
Koutsoyiannis, A. (1991). Modern Microeconomics (2nd ed.) Macmillan, London, UK.
Leitmann, J. (1994). “Rapid Urban Environmental Assessment”, Lessons From Cities in the Developing
World. Vol. 1, Methodology and Preliminary Findings.
Lele, S. (1991). “Sustainable Development: A Critical Review”. World Development I9 (6), pp. 60321.
Loomis, J., Kent, P., Strange, L., Fausch, K. and Covich, A. (1999). “Measuring the Total Economic
Value of Restoring Ecosystem Services in an Impaired River Basin: Results From a Contingent
Valuation Survey”. Ecological Economics 33 (2000) 103-117.
Luck, D. and Martin, I. (1988). Review of Road Cost Recovery. Occasional Paper 90, Bureau ofTransport and Communication Economics, Australian Government Publishing Service,
Canberra.
Lust, R.E., Huet, D.L. and Schmitz, A. (1982). Applied Welfare Economics and Public Policy. Englewood
Cliffs. Nj: Princeton-Hall.
Maddox, J. (1992). The Doomsday Syndrome. Mcgraw - Hill, New York, USA.
Maler, K.G. (1974). Environmental Economics: A Theoretical Enquiry. Baltimore, John Hopkins
University Press, USA.
Marx, K. (1956). Capital. Mosco: Progress Publishers.
Masuku, M.B. (1992). “Evaluation of the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)
Irrigation Schemes in Swaziland”. B.Sc. Dissertation, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Swaziland,
Luyengo, Swaziland.
Mcleans, E.O. (1965). “Aluminium” In Methods of Soil Analysis. Agronomy, C. A. Black ed., No. 9. Part
2, American Society of Agronomy, Madson, Wiscosin.

52

ATPS WORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 43

McNamra, R.S. (1990). African Development Crisis: Agricultural Stagnation, Population Explosion
and Environmental Degradation. An Address to the African Leadership Forum, Lagos, Nigeria,
June 21.
Meadows, D.H., Meadows, D.L. and Randers, J. (1992). Beyond the Limits: Global Collapse or A
Sustainable Future. Earthscan, London, UK.
Meadows, D.H., Randers, J. and Behaerens, W. (1992). The Limits of Growth : A Report of the Club of
Rome’s Projection on the Predicament of Mankind. Universe Books, New York, USA.
Molnar, I. (1965). “Production in Relation to Rainfall, Superphosphate and Erosion”. Australian Journalof Agricultural Economics Vol.9., No.2, Pp. 169-175.
Murdoch, G. (1968). Soils and Land Capability in Swaziland. Mbabane.
Mushala, H. (1989). “Small Scale Irrigation Farming in Swaziland: Status and Outlook”. Draft Paper,
CODESRIA Research Network, Swaziland.
Mustapha, U. and Pingali, P.L. (1995) “Intensification-Induced Degradation of Irrigated Infrastructure:
the Case of Waterlogging and Salinity in Pakistan”. Pakistan Development Review 34 (4) pp.
733-750.
Myers, C.F., Meek, J. and Stuart, T. (1985). “Non-point Sources of Water Pollution”. Journal of Soiland Water Conservation Vol. 40, No. 1.
Mytelka, L.K. eds. (1994). South - South Cooperation in a Global Perspective. Paris: OECD, France.
Nairn, R.J. (1971). “Community Involvement in the Noarlunga Freeway Review”. Paper Presented to
the Second Conference of Economists, Sidney.
Nigeria, Federal Ministry of Economic Development (1963). National Development Plan 1962 1968. Federal Government Printer, Lagos, Nigeria.
Nigeria, Federal Ministry of Economic Development (1970). Third National Development Plan 1970
- 1974. Federal Government Printer, Lagos, Nigeria.
Nigeria, Federal Ministry of Information, (1971). Second National Development Plan 1970 - 1974.
Federal Government Printer, Lagos, Nigeria.
Nkambule, S.V. and Ndlovu, L.S. (1988). “The Impact of Agriculture on the Environment: the Case
Study of Swaziland”. Paper presented to United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP),
Mbabane, Swaziland.
Norman, D.W. (1972). “An Economic Survey of Three Villages in Zaria Province”. Samara
Miscellaneous Paper No. 37. Zaria, Nigeria.
Norman, D.N. and D.C. Baker (1983). Components of Framing Systems Research: Credibility andExperience in Bostswana.
Obakin, F.O. (1991). “Appropriate Food Processing Technology Generation for Resource-Poor
Farmers in Nigeria: The Case of Small Scale Brown Sugar Processing Technology” In
Appropriate Agricultural Technologies for Resource-Poor Farmers, Proceedings of the National
Farming Systems Research Network Workshop. J.O. Olukosi, A.O. Ogungbile and B.A. Kalu,
eds., Calabar, August, 14-16.
Obasanjo, O. and A. Mabogunje eds. (1991). Elements of Development. African Leadership Forum.
Nigeria.
Obibuaku, L.O. and G.D. Hursh (1974). “Farm Practice Adoption in Eastern States of Nigeria”.
Agricultural Administration 12 (2).

S OCIAL -ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY

53

OECD (1991). The Economics of Sustainable Development: A Progress Report. Organisation for
Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, France.
OECD (1992). Benefit Estimates and Environmental Decision Making. OECD, Paris, France.
Oguntoyinbo, J.S. (1970). “Irrigation and Land Reclamation Projects in Nigeria”. Nigerian Agricultural
Journal 7(1).
Okereke, O. (1991). “Increasing Rice Output Through Tractor Use in Anambra State, Nigeria”. In
Issues in African Rural Development. C.R., Doss and C. Olson, eds., International Institute for
Agricultural Development, Arlington, Va: Winrock.
Okigbo, B.N. (1979). Cropping Systems and Related Research. African Association for the
Advancement of Agriculture and Science in Africa. Addis Ababa (Occasional Publication Serriesoti).
Okigbo, B.N. (1981). “Technical and Environmental Problems of Irrigation and Mechanization with
Some Possible Solutions in Nigeria’s Green Revolution Programme”, In The Green Revolution
in Nigeria (Proceedings of a National Seminar). G.O.I. Abalu, J. Abdullahi and A. Iman eds.,
Zaria: Ahmadu Bello University, Nigeria.
Oldeman, L.R. ed. (1988). Guidelines for General Assessment of the Status of Human-Induced Soil
Degradation. International Soil Reference and Information Centre, Wageningen, The
Netherlands.
Olson, R. V. (1984). “Iron Solubility”: In Soils as Affected by pH and Free Iron Oxide Content. Soil
Science. American Proceedings (12), pp. 153-54.
Olukosi, J.O., Elemo, Kumar, K.V. and Ogungbile, A.O. (1989). “Contribution of Farming Systems
Research to the Development of Improved Crop Mixture in the Nigerian Savanna”. Paper
Presented at the 2nd Conference of West African Farming Systems Network, Accra, Ghana.
Olukosi, J.O., Ogungbile, A.O. and Kalu, B.A. (1991), “Appropriate Agricultural Technologies for
Resource-Poor Farmers”. Proceedings of the National Farming Systems Research Network
Workshop, Calabar, Nigeria. 14-16 August.
Oomen, J.M.V., Wolf, J. de and Jobin, W.R. (1990). “Health and Irrigation”. ILRI Publication 45,
Volume 1, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Owusu, K.T. (1988). An Analysis of Buyer and Producer Constraint in the Fresh Produce Sector in
Swaziland: A Basis for Formulating Policies to Achieve Increased Market Penetration and
Production. Social Science Research Unit. University of Swaziland, Kwaluseni, Swaziland.
Oyaibevwen (1988). “A Conceptual Framework for an Environmental Management Policy”. In
Environmental Issues and Management in Nigerian Development. P.O. Sada and F.O. Odemerhoeds., Evan’s Brothers Ltd., Ibadan.
Palmer-Jones, R.W. (1977a). Irrigation Development and Irrigation Planning in the North of Nigeria.
Abu, Zaria, Nigeria.
Palmer-Jones, R.W. (1977b). “The Impact of Small Scale Irrigation on Small Farmers at Kano River
Project, Kaduna”. Progress Report for the Irrigation Cropping Scheme, Abu, Zaria, Nigeria.
Parasuraman, S. (1994). “Economic and Social Marginalisation of Irrigation Project Displaced
People”. Journal of Rural Development 13 (2) pp. 227-42.
Pearce, D. (1993). Blueprints 3: Measuring Sustainable Development. Earthscan, London, UK.
Pearce, D.W. Markandaya, A. and Babier, E.B. (1989). Blueprint for a Green Economy. Earthscan,
London, UK.

54

ATPS WORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 43

Pearce, D.W. and K.G. Maler (1991). “Environmental Economics and the Developing World”. Ambio
20 (2) pp. 52-54.
Pearce, D.W. and Turner R.K. (1990). Economics of Natural Resources and the Environment. BPC
Wheaton Ltd, Exeter, UK.
Pearce, D., Babier, E. and Markandaya, A. (1990). Sustainable Development Economics andEnvironment in the Third World. Earthscan, London, UK.
Pearce, D.W. and Warford J.J. (1993). World Without End: Economics, Environment and Development.
Oxford, Oxford University Press, UK.
Perrings, C. (1995). Incentives for Sustainable Development in Sub-Saharan Africa. In Ahmed andDoeleman eds., pp. 95-132.
Pezzy, J. (1992) “Sustainable Development Concepts: an Economic Analysis”. Environment Paper
No. 2, World Bank, Washington D.C., USA.
Pigou, A.C. (1920). The Economics of Welfare. Mcmillan & Co, London, UK.
Pinstrupp-Andersen, P. (1994). “Socio-Economic and Policy Considerations for Sustainable
Agricultural Development”. In Agriculture and Environmental Challenge. Proceedings of theThirteenth Agricultural Sector Symposium, Shricastava J.P. and Alderman, H. The World Bank,
Washington D.C., UK.
Poate, C. D. and Daplyn, P.F. (1993). Data for Agrarian Development. Cambridge University Press,
UK.
Remmelzvaal, A. (1993). Physiographic Map of Swaziland. FAO/UNDP/GOS Land Use Planning for
Rational Utilization of Land and Water Resources Project SWA/89/001. Field Doc. 41 Mbabane,
Swaziland.
Repetto, R. (1985 ed). The Global Possible. University Press, Newhaven, Yale.
Repetto, R., Margrath, W., Wells, M., Beer, C. and Rossini, F. (1989). Wasting Resources: Natural
Resources in National income Accounts. World Resources Institute, Washington D.C., USA.
Richardson, E.V. (1985). Water Management Synthesis II Project: Swaziland Activity Irrigation priorities.
Appraisal Report. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.
Romer, P.M. (1986). “Increasing Returns and Long-Run Growth”. Journal of Political Economy 94 (5)pp. 1002-1037.
Romer, P.M. (1994). “The Origins of Endogenous Growth”. Journal of Economic Perspectives 8 (1),
pp. 3-24.
Rosegrant, M.W. and M. Svendsen. (1993). “Asian Food Production in the 1990s” Irrigation Investment
and Management Policy Research Reprints, Vol. 18 No. 1, Feb., 1993.
Rukuni, M. (1988). Economic and Financial Aspects of Small Holder Irrigation in Zimbabwe. In
Irrigated Agriculture in Africa. Vol. 1. Conference Proceedings, P.N. G. van Steekelenburg, ed.,25-29 April 1988, CTA and ILRI. Harare, Zimbabwe.
Ruttan, V.M. and Binswanger H.P. (1978). “Induced Innovation and the Green Revolution”. In Induced
Innovation, Technology, Institutions and Development. Binswanger and Ruttan eds., Baltimore,
Md: John Hopkins University Press, USA.
Schramm, G. and Wartford, J.J. (1989). Environmental Management and Economic Development.
eds., Baltimore Md: Johns Hopkins/World Bank.

S OCIAL -ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY

55

Science Council of Canada (1986). A Growing Concern: Soil Degradation in Canada. SCC, Ottawa,
Canada.
Serageldin, I. (1993). “Agriculture and Environmentally Sustainable Development”. In Agriculture
and Environmental Challenge. Proceeding of the Thirteenth Agricultural Sector Symposium,
J.P. Shrivastava and H. Alderman, The World Bank, Washington D.C., USA.
Shettima, K.A. (1997). “Ecology, Identity, Developmentalism and Displacement in Northern Nigeria”.
Journal of Asian and African Studies [Leiden], Xxxii (1-2), pp. 66-80.
Shrivastava, M.M.P. (1994). “Sustainable Development With Special Reference to Agriculture”. Journalof Rural Development 13 (1), pp. 47-55.
Sithole, V.M. and J. Testerink. (1983). “Irrigation and food security in Swaziland: current status andresearch priorities”. Paper presented at the 4th Annual University of Zimbabwe/Michigan State
University Conference on Food Security in Southern Africa, 31 October – 4 November, 1983.
Social Science Research Unit, University of Swaziland, Swaziland.
Solow, M. R. (1974). “Intergenerational Equity and Exhaustible Resources”. Review of Economic
Studies 41, pp. 29-46.
Solow, M.R. (1986). “On Intertemporal Allocation of Natural Resources”. Scandinavian Journal of
Economics 88(1), pp. 141-49.
Solow, M.R. (1956). “A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth”. Quarterly Journal of Economics
70 pp. 65-94.
Solow, M.R. (1957). “Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function”. Review of
Economics and Statistics 39, pp. 312-20.
Spash, C. and Hanley (1995). “Preferences. Information and Boidiversity Preservation”. Ecological
Economics 12, pp. 191-208.
Spiegel, M.R. (1972). Theory and Problems of Statistics: Schaum’s Outline Series. Mcgraw-Hill Co.
New York, USA.
Stark, L. (1990). Signs of the Hope: Working Towards Our Common Future. Oxford University Press,
New York, USA.
Stern, P.H. (1988). Operation and Maintenance of Small Irrigation Schemes. Intermediate Technology
Publications Ltd, London, UK.
Strand, J. (1981). “Valuing Fresh Water Fish as a Public Good in Norway”. Mimeo, University of Oslo,
Department of Economics, Oslo, Norway.
Strand, J. (1981). “Valuation of Freshwater Fish as a Public Good in Norway”. Mimeo, University ofOslo, Department of Economics, Oslo, Norway.
Sturgess, R. (1992). Socio-Economic Study of Central Highlands. Kew.
Swaziland Government (1983). The Fourth National Development Plan 1983/1984 – 1987/1988.
Ministry of Economic Planning and Development, Mbabane, Swaziland.
Swaziland Government (1994). Swaziland Annual Agriculture Survey 1993/1994 – Phase II. Central
Statistics Office, Mbabane, Swaziland.
Swaziland Government (1995a). Development Plan 1995/1996 – 1997/1998. Ministry of Economic
Planning and Development, Mbabane, Swaziland.
Swaziland Government (1995b). Swaziland Annual Agriculture Survey 1994/1995 – Phase II. Central
Statistics Office, Mbabane, Swaziland.

56

ATPS WORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 43

Swaziland Government (1996a). Development Plan 1996/97 – 1998/1999. Ministry of Economic
Planning and Development, Mbabane, Swaziland.
Swaziland Government (1996b). Swaziland Annual Agriculture Survey 1995/1996 – Phase II. Central
Statistics Office, Mbabane, Swaziland.
Swaziland Government (1997a). Economic and Social Reform Agenda (ESRA). Ministry of Economic
Planning and Development, Mbabane, Swaziland.
Swaziland Government (1997b). National Development Strategy (NDS): A Twenty-five year vision.
Ministry of Economic Planning and Development, Mbabane, Swaziland.
Swaziland Government (1997c). Swaziland Environment Action Plan: Volume I. Swaziland
Environment Authority, Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Communications, Swaziland.
Swaziland Government (1997d). Swaziland Environment Action Plan: Volume II. Swaziland
Environment Authority, Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Communications, Swaziland.
Swaziland Government (1998a). Annual Statistical Bulletin. Central Statistical Office, Mbabane,
Swaziland
Swaziland Government (1998b). Small-holder Agricultural Development Project, Appraisal Report.
Working Paper VI. Small-scale Irrigation Development. Ministry of Agricultural Economics Section,
Agriculture and Cooperatives, Mbabane, Swaziland.
Tanji, K.K. and Hanson, B.R. (1990). Drainage and Return Flows in Relation to Irrigation Management.
In Irrigation of Agricultural Crops. Stewart, B.A. and Nielsen, D.R. eds., No. 30, ASA-CSSA-SSSA,
Madison, WI 53711 USA. Chap. 35, pp. 1057-1087.
Thaler, R., and Rosen, S. (1976). “The Value of Saving a Life: Evidence from the Labour Market”, In
Household Production and Consumption. 40, Nelson T. ed., National Bureau of Economic
Research, Washington D.C., USA.
Thampapillai, D.J. (1988). “The Value of Natural Environments”, The Extraction of Finite Energy
Resources — A Method of Valuation. International Journal of Energy Research 12 pp. 527 - 38.
Tieternberg T. (1996). Environmental and Natural Resource Economics-4th ed. Haper Collins College
Publishers.
Tiffen, M. (1990). Guidelines for Inter-sectoral Cooperation to Improve Health Aspects of Irrigation.
World Health Organisation, Geneva, Switzerland.
Tillman, G. (1981). Environmentally Sound Small-scale Water Projects: Guidelines for Planning.
CODEL VITA Publication, USA.
Tisdell, C.A. (1988). “Sustainable Development: Differing Perspectives of Ecologists and Economists,
and Relevance to the LDCs”. World Development. 16 (3), pp. 373-84.
Turner R.K. Pearce, D. and Bateman, I. (1993). Environmental Economics. John Hopkins University
Press; Baltimore, USA.
Uguru M.I. (1981). Crop Production: Tools Technologies and Practice. Falladu Publishing Company,
Nsukka, Nigeria.
Ugwu, M.I. (1996). Crop Production: Tools, Techniques and Practice. Fulladu Publishing Company,
Nsukka, Nigeria.
United Nations Environmental Programme (1991). Environmental Data Report. 3rd Edition, Preparedfor UNEP by the Gems Monitoring and Assessment Research Centre in Collaboration With theWorld Resources Institute and the U.K. Dept of Environments. Basil Blackwell, Oxford, UK.

S OCIAL -ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY57

United Nations Conference on Environment Development (UNCED) (1991). “Conservation And
Development of Forests: Options for Agenda 21”, Third Draft, October 29 1991.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1990). Environmental Investment: The Cost of a Clean
Environment. US.EPA Washington D.C., USA.
U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) (1989). Serious Reduction of Hazardous
Waste: for Pollution Prevention and Industrial Efficiency. U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington
D.C., USA.
Vanderhoek, W., Konradsen F., Athukorala, K. and Wanigadewa, T. (1998). “Pesticide Poisoning: A
Major Problem in Sri-Lanka.” Social Science and Medicine, Feb.-March, 46 (4-5) pp. 495-504.
VanWaveren, E. and Nhlengetfwa, J.V. (1992). Agro-climatic Characterization of Swaziland. FAO/
UNDP/GOS Land Use Planning for Rational Utilization of Land and Water Resources Project
SWA/89/001. Field Doc. 1. Mbabane, Swaziland.
Walkley, A. and Black, I.A. (1934). Determination of Organic Carbon in Soils. Soil Science (37), pp. 29-38.
Watts, S ., Khallaayonne, K., Bensefia, R., Laamrani, H. and Gryseels, B. (1998). “The Study of
Human Behaviour and Schistosomiasis Transmission in an Irrigated Area of Morrocco”. Social
Science and Medicine 46 (6) pp. 755-765.
WCED (1987). Our Common Future. World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford,
Oxford University Press, UK.
Willig, R.D. (1976). “Consumer Surplus Without Apology”. The American Economic Review 66 (4), pp.
589-91.
Winpenny, J.T. (1991). Values for the Environment: A Guide to Economic Appraisal. London Hmso,
UK.
Woodhouse, P. (1992). “Environmental Degradation and Sustainability”. In Poverty and Developmentin the 1990s. T. Allen, and A. Thomas eds., Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
World Health Organisation (1990). Public Health Impacts of Pesticides Used in Agriculture. Geneva,
Switzerland.
World Bank (1984). “Sub-Saharan Africa: from Crisis to Sustainable Growth”. Washington, D.C., USA.
World Bank (1992). Development And The Environment, World Bank Report, New York, Oxford
University Press, USA.
World Resources Institute (1992). World Resources 1990-1991. New York, Oxford University Press,
USA.
Wright (1995). “Policy Induced Local Sourcing of Raw Materials and Technology Development in
Nigerian Industry”. Interim Report Submitted to ATPS Network, F. Kayode, A.O. Oyejide and S.
Afolabi.
Yaap, T.P. (1989). “The Cost of Degradation to the Community: Issues and Estimates”. Australian
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 2 (3) pp. 389-393.
Young, M.D. (1988). “Some Step in Other Countries”. EPA Journal April.
Yudelman, M. (1989). “Sustainable and Equitable Development in Irrigated Environments”. In Leonard
H.J (1989). Pollution and the Struggles for the World Product: Multinational Corporations,
Environment and Comparative Advantage. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

58

ATPS WORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 43

Zahlan, A.B. (1991). Acquiring Technological Capacity: A Study of Arab Consulting and Contracting
Firms. Macmillan, London, UK.
Zschau, E. (1991). Advancing Technology Innovation through Tax Policy. Technology in Society 30
Nos. 1 and 2.

Kevin C. Urama is at The Macaulay Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen, United Kingdom. EmmanuelMwendera is a Lecturer at the Department of Land Use and Management, Faculty of Agriculture in
Swaziland.

ATPS Working Paper SeriesATPS Working Paper Series
No.
1
2
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
22
23
24
25
26
27

Title and Author(s) of Publication
The Effect of Economic Reform on Technological Capability by T. Adeboye, M. S. D. Bafachwa, O. A.
BamiroMethodological Issues in Science and Technology Policy Research by T. Adeboye, N. Clark
Rehabilitation in the Manufacturing Sector in Tanzania by S. M. Wangwe
Agricultural Policy and Technology in Sierra Leone by C. Squire
Effectiveness of Agricultural Research Extension in Sierra Leone by A. K. Lakoh
Generation and Utilization of Industrial Innovation in Nigeria by O. Oyeyinka, G. O. A. Laditan, A. O.
Esubiyi
Irrigation in the Tuli Block, Botswana Water Conservation Techniques of Optimal Strategies by I. N.
MasondeEndogenous Technology Capacity and Capability under Conditions of Economic Policies of Stabilizationand Structural Adjustment by S. E. Chambua
Technology and Female-Owned Business in the Urban Informal Sector of South-West Nigeria by R. O.
SoetanTechnology Innovations Used to Overcome the Problem of Resource Scarcity in Small Scale Enterprises
by C. W. Ngahu
Financing of Science and Technology Institutions in Kenya during Periods of Structural Adjustment by M.
Mwamadzingo
Impact of Economic Liberization on Technologies in Enterprises Processing Agricultural Produce by P.
MadayaTechnology and Institutions for Private Small and Medium Firms by B. Oyeyinka
Institutiona Reform, Price Deregulation and Technological Change in Smallholder Agriculture by E. C.
Eboh
Adoption of Agricultural Technologies by Rural Women under the Women-in-Agriculture Program in
Nigeriaby D. S. Ugwu
Electrical Power Utilities and Technological Capacity Building in Sub-Saharan Africa by Brew-Hammond
Investigation into Factors that Influence the Diffusion and Adoption of Intentions and Innovations from
Research Institutes and Universities in Kenya by Bwisa, H. M. and A. Gacuhi
The effects of Economic Reforms on the Quality on the Quality of Technological Manpower Development
in Nigeria by H. E. Nnebe
Issues in Yam Minisett Technology Transfer to Farmer in Southern Nigeria by Michael C. Madukwe,
Damain Ayichi, Ernest C. Okoli
Technological Response to Telecommunication Development: A Study of Firms and Institutions in Nigeria
by Adeyinka F. Modupe
Technological Respone to Telecommunication Development: A Study of Firms and Instituions in Nigeria by
Adeyinka F. Modupe
Gender Differences in Small Scale Rice Farmers’ Access to Technological Inputs in Enugu State of Nigeria
by David Nwoye Ezeh
Adoption of Sustainable Palm Oil Mini-Processing Technology in Nigeria by Nkechi Mbanefoh
Domestic Energy Situation in Nigeria: Technological Implications and Policy Alternatives by Olabisi I. Aina
Technological Capability in the Nigerian Leather Industry: A Firm-Level Case Study by Uka Enenwe,Enwere Dike, Anthony Ihuoma, Mike Duru
Agricultural Research and Delivery in the South-Eastern Highlands of Ethiopia: A Case Study of the SG2000 Approach in Hitosa District by G. Yiemene

28
29
30
31
32
33
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.

41.
42.

Impact of Computer Technology Adoption on Banking Operations in Nigeria by A. I. Odebiyi
Agricultural Technology Adoption on Small-Holder Farmers: Policy Policy Options for Nigeria byJ. O. Olusi
Donor Funding and Sustainability of Rural Water Supply andSanitation Technologies in Swaziland by U. AjaOkorie and Aja Okorie, M. Mabuza
Promotion of Production and Utilization of Ceramic Roofing Materials in the Informal Housing Industry in Sierra
Leone by Tamba Jamiru
Technology Transfer and Acquisition in the Oil Sector and Government Policy in Nigeria by R.I.Chima, E.A.,
Owioduoki,R.I. Ogoh
Acquisition of Technological Capability in Africa: A Case Study of Indigenous Building Materials Firms in
Nigeria by Yomi Oruwari, Margaret Jev,Opuene Owei
Analysis of Indigenous Knowledge in Swaziland: Implications for Sustainable Agricultural Development byMusa A. Dube, Patricia Musi
Analysis and Comparison of the Agricultural Development Programme and University Agricultural Technol
ogy Transfer Systems in Nigeria by M.C. Madukwe, E.C. Okoli, S.O. Eze
Extension Services and Enterprise Development: Study of Technology Extension Services to Small nd
Medium Size Manufacturing Firms in by Frederick U. Ngesa, Justus M., Ombati, Milcah Mutuku
Women and Engineering in Nigeria: Towards Improved Policy Initiatives and Increased Female Participation
by A.J. Badekale
The Gender Variable in Agricultural Technology: A Case of Rural Farmers in Machakos District-Eastern
Kenya by Esther Njiro
The Impact of Information Technology on the Nigerian Economy: A Study of Manufacturing and Services
Sectors in the South Western and South Eastern Zones of Nigeria by David Ola Kajogbola
Socio-Economic Consequences of Technological Change on the Rural Non-Farm Igbo Women Entrepren
eurs of South-Eastern Nigeria: Implications for Farm and Non-Farm Linkages by Jonathan O. Alimba,
Justina, Uzoma Mgbada
The Role of Development Financial Institutions in the Acquisition of Technological Capabilities by Small andMedium Enterprises in Kenya by G.S. Namusonge
Engineering Education for Industrial Development: Case Studies of Nigeria, Ghana and Zimbabwe
by A.A. Afonja, K. Sraku-Lartey and S.A. Oni

For more information this series and ATPS Contact:

The Executive Director
The African Technology Policy Studies Network
3rd Floor, The Chancery, Valley Road
P.O. Box 10081 00100 General Post Office
Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: +254-2-2714092/168/498
Fax: +254-2-2714028
Email: info@atpsnet.org
Website: http://www.atpsnet.org