Agricultural water management and poverty in Ethiopia

Authors

  • Fitsum Hagos,

    Corresponding author
    1. International Water Management Institute (IWMI) Sub Regional Office for the Nile Basin and East Africa, P.O. Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Gayathri Jayasinghe,

    1. International Water Management Institute (IWMI) Sub Regional Office for the Nile Basin and East Africa, P.O. Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Seleshi Bekele Awulachew,

    1. International Water Management Institute (IWMI) Sub Regional Office for the Nile Basin and East Africa, P.O. Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Mekonnen Loulseged,

    1. International Water Management Institute (IWMI) Sub Regional Office for the Nile Basin and East Africa, P.O. Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Aster Denekew Yilma

    1. International Water Management Institute (IWMI) Sub Regional Office for the Nile Basin and East Africa, P.O. Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
    Search for more papers by this author

  • Data Appendix Available Online A data appendix to replicate main results is available in the online version of this article. Please note: Wiley-Blackwell is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing material) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.

Tel.: + 251-11-6172191; fax: +251-11-6172001. E-mail address: f.hagos@cgiar.org (F. Hagos)

Abstract

The main focus of this article is to explore whether access to selected agricultural water management (AWM) technologies has led to significant reduction in poverty and, if they did so, to identify which technologies had higher impacts. In measuring impact we estimated the average treatment effect for the treated on crop income and measured the differences in consumption expenditures per adult equivalent of those with access and without access using matched data. The estimated average treatment effect was significant and amounted to USD 82 per season. Moreover, there was 24 less poverty incidence among users of AWM technologies compared to nonusers. All technologies were found to have significant poverty reducing impacts with micro dams, deep wells, river diversions, and ponds leading to 37%, 26%, 11%, and 9% reduction in poverty incidence compared to rainfed system. Finally, our study identified the most important correlates of poverty on the basis this we made the policy recommendations to build assets (AWM technologies, livestock, etc); to enhance human resource development and improve the functioning of labor markets for enhanced impact of AWM technologies on poverty.

Ancillary