# **_2.4. Irrigation_**

<mark>This study refers to irrigation broadly as the supply of additional water used in agriculture to supplement rainfall and is, in a sense, better interpreted as water control. I</mark> rrigation functions as a yield-enhancing input through various different mechanisms: (1) allowing farmers to reduce the risk of crop losses from low or variable rainfall, (2) enabling farmers to cultivate year-round instead of at the whim of rainfall, (3) acting as a complement to fertilizer and modern seed varieties, and (4) permitting farmers to better time their harvests in order to take advantage of season price fluctuations (Burney and Naylor 2012; Rosegrant, Ringler, De Jong 2009). Using global data to study total factor productivity, Fuglie (2008) finds that irrigated land is twice as productive as rainfed land after controlling for other factors. In SSA specifically, Fuglie and Rada (2013) report that average yields on irrigated fields are 90 percent higher than on nearby rainfed fields. Further, Evenson, Pray, and Rosegrant (1999) find that one of the key factors in agricultural productivity growth in Green Revolution India was public investments in irrigation.

The lack of irrigation is generally assumed as a starting point in the discussion of low input use; however, most large studies on irrigation in Africa are either project specific, regional in nature, or very out of date (Biswas 1990; Moris, Thom, Humpal 1987; Rosegrant and Perez 1997). In one of the most recent and disaggregated looks at irrigation across the region, Svendsen, Ewing, and Msangi (2009) use FAO and AQUASTAT data to show that Sub-Saharan Africans withdraw about one-quarter as much water as the per capita global average. Similarly, Rosegrant, Ringler, and De Jong (2009) claim that less than 3.5 percent of all agricultural land in Sub-Saharan Africa is irrigated. This is in spite of claims that a huge potential exists (You et al. 2011; Pavelic et al. 2013). Kay (2001) estimates that irrigated areas expand by an average of 1,150 hectares per year in SSA, with rates above 2,000 hectares per year in Tanzania, Niger, and Nigeria.

Table 4: Area equipped for and actually irrigated

|||AQUASTA|T/FAOS|TAT<sup>~~1~~</sup> (variou|syears)||World Bank<sup>~~2~~</sup> (vari|ousyears)|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||Area Equ|ipped for Irri|gation|Area A|ctuallyIrriga|ted|Area ActuallyI|rrigated|
||Total ha|%of land|Year|Total ha|%of land|Year|%of agland|Year|
|Ethiopia|289,600|2.54|2001|-|-|-|0.5|2011|
|Malawi|73,500|2.15|2006|26,900|0.79|2006|0.5|2008|
|Niger|73,660|0.52|2005|65,610|0.46|2005|0.2|2011|
|Nigeria|293,200|0.81|2004|218,800|0.61|2004|-|-|
|Tanzania|184,300|1.81|2002|-|-|-|-|-|
|Uganda|14,420|0.16|2010|12,450|0.14|2010|-|-|

Sources:<sup>~~1~~</sup> AQUASTAT country data sheets for most recent year with available data. Percent of land values calculated using total arable land plus permanent crop land from FAOSTAT. See more details at FAOSTAT. For more on the AQUASTAT data and project, see Frenken (2005).<sup>2</sup> World Bank. World Development Indicators.

Table 4 provides a picture of the most recently available national-level statistics on irrigation by AQUASTAT, the same data used by Rosegrant, Ringler, and De Jong (2009), and from the World Bank’s World Development Indicators as a comparison. To our knowledge, comparable statistics from micro-level studies of household irrigation use do not exist. Most of the studies included in our review (Appendix 1) focus on particular areas of the country where irrigation schemes are found or focus on irrigated area under a specific crop. As we study smallholder irrigation use with the LSMS-ISA data, it is important to note the finding by Svendsen, Ewing, Msangi (2009) that large-scale irrigation projects currently make up the most significant portion 7