Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Linkages between Irrigation, Nutrition, Health and Gender
Elizabeth BryanSenior Research AnalystEnvironment and Production Technology DivisionInternational Food Policy Research [email protected]
Potential Pathways through which Irrigation Influences Nutrition and Health Outcomes and Women’s Empowerment
Production pathway* Income pathway* Water supply pathway* Health risks pathway* Women’s empowerment pathway* Irrigation lowers global food prices, makes all foods cheaper,
reduces need for deforestation and related heat stroke/air pollution and other effects but increased emissions from energy in irrigation (balance toward increased health from irrigation through this particular pathway)
*Gender plays a key role in most pathwaysSource: Domenech 2015; Rosegrant et al. (2009)
Potential Pathways through which Irrigation Influences Nutrition and Health Outcomes and Women’s Empowerment
Source: Domenech 2015
Irrigation Production Pathway• Higher yields due to use with improved varieties & complementary
inputs (e.g. Burney et al 2010: microirrigation yield gains, Benin)• Growing in the lean season (e.g. Aseyehen et al 2012: crops
planted 2-3 times compared to rainfed production in Ethiopia)• Depends on crop choices—greater diversity, nutritious crops?
– Greater crop diversity? (Namara et al. 2005, India), no difference? (Namara et al. 2011, Ghana), more monocropping? (Hossain et al. 2005, Bangladesh)
– Production diversity does not always led to dietary diversity (Sibhatu et al. 2015), and dietary diversity is not the same as nutritional improvement
– More production of vegetables and fruits (Fraiture and Giordano 2014) and cash crops (Burney et al 2013; Nkonya et al 2011)
– Increased production of animal foods through irrigated fodder (Frenken 2005; Murphy and Allen 2003)
Production Pathway
• Some evidence that greater production/more crop diversity as a result of irrigation leads to greater intake or improved diets:– Consumption of more vegetables among irrigating
HH in the Sudano-Sahel led to less food insecurity (Burney et al. 2010)
– HH in Mali with irrigation had greater calorie intake (Dillon 2008)
Link between share vegetables in calories and irrigation in Africa?
Chad
EthiopiaGhana
Kenya
Lybia
MadagascarMauritania
Niger
SenegalSudan and South Sudan
UgandaMaliNigeria
Tanzania
Togo
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Vege
tabl
e su
pply
(%)
Irrigated land as percentage of agricultural land (%)
Source: FAOSTAT 2013
2005-6
Jan Feb Mar April
May
June
July Aug
Sept
Oct Nov
Dec
Height-for-Age Z-Scores of children under 3 in
India
NFHS Data
Lokshin and Radyakin 2012
Issue of Seasonality and Climate Change: Potential for irrigation to address these challenges
0.2 is the median impact of complementary feeding interventions
Production Pathway Influenced by Gender
• Impact of irrigation on production outcomes depends on who adopts and for what purpose – Gender differences in crop choices: men may plant
cash crops while women may focus on homestead gardens
– Cash crops have potential nutrition linkages through income effect
– Direct potential for irrigated homestead garden production to improve nutrition outcomes (Olney et al. 2009; Iannotti et al. 2009)
Income Pathway• Irrigation as a source of income through market sales
of surplus– Food expenditures higher among irrigating HH in South Africa
(Sinyolo et al. 2014)– Greater health spending (e.g. malaria treatment and prevention)– Market access/infrastructure is key (Chazovachiii 2012—lack of
market access limits income generation potential of irrigation, Zimbabwe)
• Employment generation due to increased productivity and expanded production calendar
• Again gender is key—who controls the income from sale of crops and from ag employment will influence health and nutrition outcomes
Potential increase in gross revenue per hectare from small-scale irrigation
Source: IFPRI (2010)
Irrigation can impact millions in Africa
SSA: motor pumps • 185 million potential rural beneficiaries• Net revenues up to US$22 billion/yr
Tanzania: motor pumps could benefit 2-4 million people (8-12% of rural households)
Crop Low-input, rainfed yield (t/ha)
High input, irrigated yield increase (%)
Maize 1.0 141-195
Paddy 0.9 270-283
Groundnuts 0.7 238-251
SSA: Potential yield improvements from AWM investments
Source: http://awm-solutions.iwmi.org
Water Supply Pathway
• Irrigation water may be used for other purposes such as drinking, washing, bathing or other productive purposes (e.g. livestock watering, aquaculture)
• Multiple uses of irrigation water may be unplanned or by design (van Koppen et al. 2009)
• Greater water for domestic purposes as a result of irrigation resulted in lower diarrhea and stunting in Pakistan (Van der Hoel et al. 2002)
*The extent to which women are involved in the design of irrigation systems may encourage more multiple uses of irrigation water
Health Risks Pathway• Increased risk of vector-borne diseases such as malaria and
dengue– Microdam construction in Ethiopia led to more malaria
(Ghebreyesus et al. 1999; Ersado 2005)– Ijumba and Lindsay (2001) find irrigation does not increase
malaria, except in areas of unstable transmission– Relationship depends on many factors: socioeconomic status,
vector control programs, presence of cattle• Negative health outcomes from increased pollution (especially
pesticides)– Clarke et al. 1997 found greater symptoms of headache, blurred
vision, nausea/vomiting among irrigation workers in Ghana
*Any gender-differentiated outcomes depend on gender distribution of labor
Estimated global loadings of BOD, N and P
Source: IFPRI-Veolia (2015).
(a) BOD (b) Nitrogen (N)
(c) Phosphorus (P)
Loading (million ton/yr) Population at risk
BOD 209 1 in 8 people or 651 million
N 131 1 in 6 people or 973 million
P 10 1 in 4 people or 1,287 million
Largest Pollution levels in countries with largest irrigation, most rapidgrowth to 2050 in Africa and Asia
Women’s Empowerment Pathway• Gender roles in agriculture affect women’s ability to adopt irrigation and
the outcomes for women and men– What type of irrigation is being introduced? >>implications for women’s ability
to adopt irrigation, time use– Who is responsible for irrigating crops? Collecting water? >>implications for
time use– Do women control land and make productive decisions (e.g. what to plant, use
of inputs, etc.)? >>implications for women’s ability to adopt irrigation, crop choices
– Do women control irrigated output (from plots they manage, of certain crops)? >>implications for hh consumption
– Do they sell and keep income from irrigated production? >>implications for women’s income, asset accumulation, spending on food and health
• Women may be less likely to adopt irrigation given lack of assets such as land (van Koppen et al. 2012) or other constraints such as lack of labor (e.g. female-headed households in Ethiopia (Aseyehen et al. 2012) or social norms (Njuki et al. 2014—kickstart example)
Women tend to have less control over irrigation (Example smallholder irrigation Tanzania)
Hip pump SMMP Motorized pump Hose pipe0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Female Joint Male Source: Nkonya et al. (2011)
Irrigation technologies matter [Ex. Tanzania: Time spent irrigating (hrs/ha/yr)]
Women’s Empowerment Pathway• Irrigation projects targeted towards women may be an
important pathway for improved nutrition and health outcomes – Women may allocate resources gained from sale of irrigated
crops towards food and health expenditures– Women may use irrigation to grow more nutritious foods for
home consumption– Also contributes directly to women’s empowerment (e.g. increase
in assets owned by women, income controlled by women, etc.)e.g. homestead food production program in Burkina Faso increased assets and income controlled by women (van den Bold et al 2013)e.g. irrigation project targeting women’s groups increased food consumed (including vegetables and protein) and income from sale of irrigated crops (Burney et al. 2010)
IFPRI Projects Addressing these Issues
• Innovation Lab for Small-Scale Irrigation (ILSSI)– Funded by USAID, 5 years– 3 Countries: Ethiopia, Tanzania and Ghana– Led by Texas A&M with IWMI, ILRI, North Carolina
A&T– IFPRI leading household surveys/observational study
• WLE Ghana Experiment– Partnering with iDE to encourage adoption of motor
pumps among random set of farmer groups
WLE Ghana Activity
WEAI Modifications• We use a “Modified WEAI” for the ILSSI project in order
to better capture linkages between irrigation and gender• Modifications to the original WEAI include:
– Role in decisionmaking: on irrigated food crop and cash crop farming
– Autonomy in decisionmaking: types of crops to grow for irrigated vs. non-irrigated
– Productive capital: also includes irrigation tank/pond and irrigation equipment
– Access to information/extension: on irrigation methods– Time allocation: time spent irrigating/working with equipment– Added response options on irrigation topics for various
questions on credit, savings, group membership
Initial WEAI Results from Ethiopia and Tanzania
WEAI IrrigatorsNon-
irrigatorsContributors to disempowerment
Ethiopia 0.82 0.85
• Group membership• Leisure time• Speaking in public• Credit access• Control over use of income
Tanzania 0.88 0.86
• Group membership• Credit access• Leisure time• Speaking in public• Autonomy in production
IFPRI-ILSSI Tanzania, Ethiopia dataset
Decision-making on Irrigation in Ethiopia
Women’s Responses: EthiopiaHow much input did you have in making decisions
about…
How much input did you have in decisions on the use of income generated from…
Irrigated food crop farming
Irrigated cash crop farming
Irrigated food crop farming
Irrigated cash crop farming
No Input 0% 2% 0% 1%
Input into very few decisions 14% 15% 13% 16%
Input into some decisions 52% 53% 51% 53%
Input into most decisions 23% 16% 23% 15%
Input into all decisions 11% 15% 13% 15%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100%
IFPRI-ILSSI Tanzania, Ethiopia dataset
Women’s Responses: Tanzania
How much input did you have in making decisions
about…
How much input did you have in decisions on the use of income generated from…
Irrigated food crop farming
Irrigated cash crop farming
Irrigated food crop farming
Irrigated cash crop farming
No input 0% 0% 1% 0%
Input into very few decisions 9% 11% 11% 14%
Input into some decisions 23% 31% 26% 30%
Input into most decisions 30% 24% 29% 23%
Input into all decisions 37% 34% 34% 34%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100%
Decision-making on Irrigation in Tanzania
IFPRI-ILSSI Tanzania, Ethiopia dataset
