Improving Livelihoods through Affordable Micro-Irrigation for Vegetable (AMIV) in Western Africa Final report

Niger component

ICRISAT/AVRDC NIGER
November 2009May 2010

Lennart Woltering, Dov Pasternak, Navid Dejwakh and Sanjeet Kumar August 2010

Contents
1. 2. Background............................................................................................................................... 1 Solar pumps for smallholder producers in Niger...................................................................... 3 Introduction Material and Methods Results and Discussion Conclusions and recommendations 3. Low head drip irrigation for farmers in Niger: a technical evaluation ..................................... 8 Introduction Material and Methods Results and Discussion Conclusions and recommendations 4. Economic performance of low pressure drip irrigation, hand watering and crop

husbandry on production of onion and hot pepper in Niger .......................................................... 14 Introduction Material and Methods Results and Discussion Conclusions and recommendations References...................................................................................................................................... 21

1.

Background

Niger has been rated among the least developed countries in the world for a long time. More than three-fifths of households live below the international poverty line of US$1 per day and 40% of children are malnourished (UNCTAD, 2005). The large majority of the population make their living from agriculture, mostly by production of rain fed staple crops. The rain fed production systems are neither sustainable nor profitable due to erratic rainfall, poor productivity and low commercial value of staples and overexploitation of cultivable land. Total GDP generated by the agricultural sector is 24% of which more than half is generated by less than the 1% of arable land that is the irrigated (World Bank, 2008). Most of that land is occupied by small-scale (0.1ha) privately-held gardens for the production of horticultural crops (Norman and Walter, 1994; Perry, 1997). Irrigation is essential in achieving food security, increasing household income and generating employment opportunities (Hussain, 2005). Yet, less than one-fourth of total 270,000 hectares irrigable land in Niger is being fully or partially irrigated, with easily exploitable water resources still abound along the Niger river and in the areas of the Dosso-Gaya Dallols, the Maradi Goulbis, and the Zinder Koramas, where ample renewable shallow aquifers remain largely untapped (World Bank, 2004). Development of the irrigation sector is held back by a lack of technologies (storage, water abstraction and efficient field application), access to credit, poor marketing arrangements and weak institutional support (World Bank, 2004, 2008). This report describes innovative technologies that demonstrate to save labour, water and other inputs, and improve profitability for smallholder farmers in Niger and other countries in the Sudano Sahel of West Africa. Major bottlenecks for smallholder farmers that are engaged in irrigated horticulture production are water abstraction, water application and crop husbandry. Water abstraction: Niger, and many other countries in the Sudano Sahel, has a large potential for further developing irrigation using renewable water resources. A large part of this water can be found in the sandy permeable soil at shallow depths. The most common method of abstracting water for irrigation in Niger is by hauling water from a well using a simple halfgourd with a long cord attached (Norman and Walter, 1994). This method is very labour intensive and often used when water is not deeper than 5 meters, because it will yield too little water at too much labour. Some farmers use small, gasoline-powered pump sets that can pump from maximum 7 meters deep. Fuel is not always available in rural areas and farmer cooperatives often have difficulties collecting funds for fuel when sharing a pump. Solar pumps, on the other hand, are independent of fuel availability and have hardly any operating costs. Submersible pumps are very efficient because they are placed under the water table and only push up water instead of sucking and pushing water as other types of pumps do. Therefore they can pump water from much greater depth than pumps that are situated above the water table. Chapter 2 describes the results of an experiment where water is pumped up using a submersible pump powered by solar panels. Water application: Surface irrigation methods are utilized in more than 80% of the worlds irrigated lands yet the field level application efficiency is often only 4050%. In contrast, drip irrigation may have field level application efficiencies of 8090%, as surface runoff and deep percolation losses are minimized (Postel et al. 2001). Besides that, surface irrigation methods are very labour intensive, whereas when the garden is equipped with drip irrigation it requires no more than ICRISAT/AVRDC Niger progress report AMIV project
1

opening a tap. For the above and many other reasons, drip irrigation is fast becoming popular in the developing world. Drip irrigation is made available to smallholder farmers in the form of standard drip kits that constitute a water reservoir, drip laterals and connectors. Different price-quality categories of these drip kits are being promoted in Africa. In Chapter 3 we show the results of an experiment where we compared 3 different types of drip laterals from 3 different sources. Crop husbandry: Another important determinant of a profitable gardening activity is the way farmers manage the crops. Knowledge on crop production is mostly based on their own initiative and knowledge sharing within the community. Generally in the region, extension services lack capacity in terms of both staff numbers and horticultural expertise (Drechsel et al., 2006). Production is seasonal and limited to only a few leading species and varieties that are marketed at times when supply is high and thus prices are low. Vegetable seeds are imported from abroad and therefore expensive and not always adapted to the hot and sometimes very humid climate of the region. Availability of farm inputs and knowledge on fertilizer use and disease and pest control is limited (Pasternak et al, 2006). These constraints result not only in low yields and low produce quality, but also lead to wastage of water, soil degradation and health hazard due to improper use of pesticides. ICRISAT in Niger developed the African Market Garden, that combines drip irrigation and improved crop husbandry practices in one production system. In Chapter 4 we compare the performance of the AMG, the improved management and the farmer practice in production of onion and hot pepper.

ICRISAT/AVRDC Niger progress report AMIV project

2.

Solar pumps for smallholder producers in Niger

2.1 Introduction Water lifting is a major limiting factor for development of the irrigation sector in the Sahel. Currently used technologies are expensive in operation as they require either a lot of labour or depend on fuel availability. Solar pumps have great potential in the Sahel. Solar pumps require no fuel and demand little maintenance compared to motorized pumps. The lifetime of solar pumps is estimated almost twice the lifetime of manual and motor pumps (8 vs. 4-5 years). However, solar pumps are more expensive than fuel based pumps. A solar pump set that can give 30 m3/day at 10m imported from Europe was quoted at 4600 Euro (6800 US$), while a conventional fuel pump would cost 350 US$. In recent years, China and India have emerged as big producers of solar panels and submersible pumps, bringing prices down dramatically. When asked for prices from China we found out that we could order a complete solar pumping unit with similar qualifications from China at only US$ 3800, almost half of the conventional price. The pumping system contains a submersible pumps that allows pumping water from deep wells. Manual lifting methods are used until a maximum depth of 5 meters (Norman and Walter, 1994) and ordinary fuel based pumps can pump up water until 7 m depth. The submersible pump opens up opportunities for farmers to irrigate areas where the water table was considered too deep to be used. In this experiment we tested this solar pumping system in terms of technical performance as well as socio-economic factors affecting potential adoption by smallholder farmers. 2.2 Materials and methods The solar pumping system was completely manufactured in China and was sent as a kit that could be assembled by laymen. It consisted of: Lorentz PS150-Centric centrifugal submersible pump (12.5 kg) Controller C-SJ5-8 Metal frame with screws and bolts Cables, electrical floats, run-dry sensor and other accessories. 4 SUNPOWER SPJS075-12S 75W solar modules with 2 modules connected in series and two sets connected in parallel Figure 2.1: Submersible pump and control box

F Figure 2.2: Solar pumping system set up. Four solar panels, control box and testing the pump (left). Pumping from the well to higher elevation (right) ICRISAT/AVRDC Niger progress report AMIV project
3

The experiment was conducted on the outskirts of Niamey city in the direction of the ICRISAT research station (South-East side) in a pilot farmers garden. The water table in the garden was 3m deep. The pumping system was lowered into a well, keeping 0.75m clearance from the bottom of the well to prevent any dirt from being sucked in. A water meter was installed to allow discharge measurements. The discharge was recorded hourly until the 4th of June and daily afterwards. The water was elevated another 2 meters to simulate a pumping depth of 7 meters. At this pumping depth people generally abandon irrigation as it is too heavy to lift water by hand and ordinary motor pumps cannot pump from this depth. Solar radiation data from the Agrhymet meteorological station 3.5 km west of the garden was used to correlate the pumping rate to solar activity. 2.3 Results and discussion Technical performance The solar pumping system was fairly simple to install. It can be lifted by two persons, moved around in the field, and transported in a pick-up. The connections from the solar panels to the controller appeared to be faulty, and the pumping data collected until the faulty connection was discovered (about one month) had to be discarded. The connectors could be easily replaced by simple connectors widely available in the market. Solar radiation data from the weather station was only available until the 16th of June 2010. Only the data collected between the 21st of May and 16th of June was used in this analysis. Figure 2.3 shows that the pump pumps between 9 and 21 cubic meter per day depending on the solar radiation. The correlation coefficient between pump discharge and solar radiation was found to be 0.87. Figure 2.4 shows the hourly solar radiation and pump discharge between 7h in the morning until 21h in the evening. The pumping is irregular, it stops when clouds block the sun, and reaches a maximum (2.5-2.8 m3/hr) between 11h and 16h, after which it decreases to zero at 18h. This irregular flow over the day and dependence on solar radiation requires the pumping system to be connected to a reservoir. This reservoir can be filled over the day, and used at once, especially in combination with a drip irrigation system. At the same time the water stored in the reservoir will function as a battery - storage of energy for a later time. In the pumping set-up there is no battery- as this requires maintenance and has proved to be the weakest link in many solar projects. The solar radiation peak is reached at 14h, while the pump pumps more or less constant between 11h-16h. The solar radiation is effectively converted to pumping energy up to 2.5 MJ, after that the maximum pumping rate of 2.8 m3/hr is reached and the additional radiation is not used. This suggests that with another configuration of panels and pumps the performance of the solar pumping system might improve.
30 25 20 15 10 5 0
6-2 6-4 6-6 5-21 5-23 5-25 5-27 5-29 5-31 6-8 6-10 6-12 6-14 6-16

Pump discharge (m3/day)

Solar radiation (MJ/m2/day)

Figure 2.3: Daily solar radiation and pump discharge (7 meters head)

ICRISAT/AVRDC Niger progress report AMIV project

Pump discharge (m3/hr)

Solar radiation (MJ)

0
24-5 26-5 28-5 30-5 1-6 3-6

Date and time of day

Figure 2.4: Hourly solar radiation and pump discharge (22nd May to 4th June 2010) The pilot farmer testing the solar pumping unit was impressed by the silent running of the pump, and was happy with the savings in fuel cost. The submersible pump could be easily installed in existing wells that were used for water abstraction by small gasoline powered pumps. The well had to be cleaned and covered to prevent any dirt from blocking the submersible pump. Operation was very easy as the pumping system was always switched ON, so that it starts pumping in the morning and automatically switches off in the evening. The farmer and experts were wary that the control box contained too much electronics that would be vulnerable to the many dust storms and extreme heat of Niger. It is recommended to use submersible pumps that have in-built control boxes in the pumping unit, so that the control box is under the water table at a constant temperature and away from shocks at the surface (for example the Grundfos SQF pumps). Economic analysis The solar pumping system pumps about 20 cubic meters per day. The irrigation requirement for vegetables in Niger is commonly set at 8 mm/day. This means that this solar pumping system can provide water for about 0.25 hectare intensive vegetable production. Table 2.1 compares the 3 most common methods of water abstraction in Niger, that is, manual water lifting, using a treadle pump and using a motor pump to costs for using the solar pumping system. In this case it is assumed that a producer irrigates 200 days per year. Two alternative labour costs are included in the analysis, that is labour at 2 and 1 US$ per day. The annual amortization of the solar pumping system is lower than when lifting water by hand, or using motor pumps. The treadle pump is the most economic alternative at current cost levels. However, costs of solar pumping systems are expected to decrease even more. At a cost of 2800 US$ for the solar pumping system it becomes more economic than the treadle pump (at labour cost of 2 US$ per day).

ICRISAT/AVRDC Niger progress report AMIV project

Table 2.1: Economic comparison of different water supply alternatives used in Niger for irrigation at two labour costs: 2 and 1 US$ per man day
Hand lifting Treadle pump
/ g r o . n g i s e d h c e t p p a

Motor pump

Solar pump

qty Equipment Well Water distr. network Maintenance Fuel Labor@2 $/manday Labor@1 $/manday Total
@Labor 2$/day

3 3 0

unit cost total amortz $ $ $/year 10 30 15 30 90 23 0 3 0

qty 1 1 1

unit cost total

$ 70 100 75

$ 70 100 75

unit unit amortz qty cost total amortz qty cost $/year $ $ $/year $ 18 1 400 400 80 1 3,800 10 8 11 0 1 1 200 100 200 100 20 10 40 480 20 10 660 640 1 1 200 100

total $ 3,800 200 100

amortz $/year 380 20 10 10 0 5 3 428 423

556 556

2 1

1,111 556 1,152 596

139 139

2 1

278 139 324 185

Total
@Labor 1$/day General assumptions

Water need: 80 m /day/hectare for 200 days/year equals 4,000 m /year 3 Site characteristics: assume >40 m /hr well recharge, water table at 5m depth Well types: Hand dug well at 30US$ lifetime 4 years; Washboard well 50 US$; Tube well at 200 US$ lifetime 10 years 2 Water distribution network: Underground pvc pipe system from pump to multiple field outlets used to irrigate 800 m area 3 Hand Lifting: at 5m depth Q= 0.25 L/s= 7.2 m /day/person. Hand dug well. Require 3 water lifting points. 3 Treadle pump: Q= 1 L/s= 28.8 m /day/person. Washboard well. Requires 1 water lifting point. 3 Motor pump: 3 hp uses 0.12 Liter of fuel to move 1m water. Fuel cost 1 US$/liter. Tube well. Labor 1h/day Solar pump: Tubewell. Installation cost 3800US$ incl import, transport and installation. Labor 0.25h/day Lifetime Hand lifting 2, Treadle pump 4, Motor pump 5 and Solar pump 10 years 1 US$= 500 CFA

Table 2.2 shows the enterprise budget for a smallholder producer cultivating vegetables on 0.25 ha. Apart from the solar pumping system the producer needs a fence, reservoir tools and other equipment to set up a vegetable garden. Then he saves fuel costs, but still needs to pay for farm inputs, maintenance and labour. Gross revenues from the sales of vegetables are assumed 5500 US$ per year. In the second column, it is assumed that the producer uses the African Market Garden (AMG) production system developed by ICRISAT in Niger. This system is based on low pressure drip irrigation. The AMG requires a higher investment in drip kits and a reservoir, and higher cost for farm inputs. However labour cost is significantly lower. In both cases the payback period is 2 years.

ICRISAT/AVRDC Niger progress report AMIV project

Table 2.2: Enterprise budget for a 2500 m2 vegetable garden using the solar pumping system and irrigated traditionally by hand or using the African Market Garden (AMG) technology
Traditional US$ Investment Solar pumping system Fence, well, reservoirs, tools, etc Production cost Farm inputs, maintenance, etc Labour Gross revenues Vegetable production Payback period (years) 3800 1522 AMG US$ 3800 3372

676 2025

1293 675

5500 1.9

5500 2.0

2.4 Conclusion and recommendations This study focused on the experience in designing, installation and operation of solar pumps for smallholder farmers. A mobile solar pumping system developed for smallholder farmers was tested in Niger and found economically and technically feasible. The system can be considered cheap at half the conventional price of a solar pumping system. The pump deliver 20 m3/day at a 7m pumping head, this is enough to irrigate 0.25 ha intensively. Solar pumping systems can and should be kept as simple as possible, this means with as little electronic components as possible (batteries, control box, automatic switch, etc). The flow is irregular over the day and therefore the solar pump should be combined with a reservoir. The reservoir serves as battery- storage of energy in the form of water elevated above the field. Under current prevailing prices, the solar pumping system would be economically more feasible than manual water lifting and motor pumps. The payback period of the solar pumping system is 2 years.

ICRISAT/AVRDC Niger progress report AMIV project

3.

Low head drip irrigation for farmers in Niger: a technical evaluation

3.1 Introduction Drip irrigation offers a viable alternative to traditional, inefficient, irrigation practice of vegetable producers in the developing world. Drip irrigation allows uniform and efficient distribution of water and nutrients to all plants in the irrigated field. Uniform irrigation improves crop yields because it averts adverse effects of under- or over- watering, such as plant stress or leaching of plant nutrients, in certain parts of the irrigated area. Besides that, energy, fertilizer and other chemicals are used more efficiently when the correct amount of water is applied everywhere in the field. Because irrigation uniformity relates to crop yield and the efficient use of resources and energy (i.e. to pump water), engineers regard it as an important factor to be considered in the selection, design and management of irrigation systems. Other important factors that influence the performance of a drip kit are emitter flow rate, occurrence of clogging, maximum lateral length, costs, lifetime and ease of operation/installation. Conventional drip irrigation systems are fairly complex and expensive, mainly because hardware components are optimized for fields of four hectares or larger and designed to minimize labour and management costs (Postel et al., 2001). Furthermore, the drip lines are relatively long (200400 meters) and the drip emitters are designed to be compact and to not interfere with mechanical cultivation of fields. This requires: relatively large-diameter drip line tubing; sophisticated emitters that operate at relatively high pressures (2 bar) while having flow paths that are large enough so they do not clog easily, and expensive filters to minimize clogging of the emitters. Drip systems on larger fields also require careful engineering and design to assure that the relative pressure differences among the emitters are small so that the application (drip rate) throughout the field is uniform. By contrast, early drip systems were simple and used micro-tubes instead of sophisticated emitters. These simple designs were abandoned because they did not fit the needs of modern medium- and largescale farming in the developed countries. Since the 1970s, experiments have been carried out on drip kits that serve small areas for smallholder farmers. These kits have short drip lines and pressure is provided by water containers elevated 1 meter above the field. The elevation difference within the plot is typically minimal, so pressure losses are small. IDE is the largest promoter of drip kits for smallholder farmers. Drip kits, suitable for 10-500 m2 are made available for smallholder farmers. The major differences between the kits are in the quality of the laterals and connectors, and command area. IDE incorporated the micro-tubes in their drip kit. ICRISAT in Niger is promoting the use of high quality drip lines with in-build drippers that are normally used for high pressure drip systems. A third major type of drip lines is drip tape, where in-build drippers are incorporated in thin-walled PE laterals. ICRISAT in Niger is designing drip irrigation systems for smallholder farmers. Technological features of drip kits that are important to smallholders include low investment and operation cost, and simple operation and maintenance. Obviously one should find the right balance between affordability and simplicity on the one hand and quality and longevity of equipment on the other. This study will evaluate the technical performance of these three main types of drip laterals and give recommendations on application in West Africa. The effect of water supply head, lateral length and other parameters important in design of drip irrigation systems will be evaluated. The results of this study will be of interest to farmers,

ICRISAT/AVRDC Niger progress report AMIV project

NGOs and decision makers that have a range of options to invest in several types of drip kits in Niger. 3.2 Materials and methods Experimental set-up The field experiment was conducted at the ICRISAT Sahelian research station (1315N. 217E) in Niger, situated 40 km South East of the capital Niamey. Three different drip laterals were tested; Micro tubes, in-line emitters and drip tape. Micro tubes are being promoted by the biggest supplier of small scale drip kits, the International Development Enterprise (IDE). IDE has one representation in West Africa in Ghana that sells very low cost drip kits for 10-1000 m2 command area using micro tubes. The NaanDan-Jain company in Israel is providing its high quality in-line drip laterals in a 500 m2 drip kit through the MANOMA Company in Niger. MANOMA sells the kits mainly in Niger, Burkina Faso and Mali. Drip Tape (D Tape or T Tape) is a third drip line brand being evaluated. It is made of thin flexible PE material with built-in low quality drip emitters. Table 3.1: Characteristics of three different drip laterals tested
Supplier Origin Irrigated area for kit Cost Niger Per meter 4. Jain IDE DTape 5. Israel/India India Thailand 6. 500m2 100m2 Laterals 0.04 USD in Emitter type Wall thickness mm Lateral diameter mm Emitter spacing cm

0.3 USD

In-line Micro- tube Drip tape

1.2 0.17 0.26

12 16 16

30 30 30

The drip laterals are connected to an open 200 litre barrel on an adjustable stand. The height of the barrel can be varied from 0.5m, 1m, 1.5m to 2m to give different hydraulic pressures. The operating head is a measure for the pressure in the irrigation system. At high pressure, we expect less difference in pressure along the lateral length due to hydraulic losses, and hence, higher uniformity of water distribution. The barrel is kept full at all times to have a constant water level, as water is released by gravity at the bottom of the barrel into the drip line lateral. The length of the laterals was varied from 5m to 30m in steps of 5m by simply folding and tying the line securely. The emitter discharge was measured by catching water in recipients placed under the drip emitters every 1.5m for lateral lengths less or equal to 15m and every 3m for longer lateral lengths. The first emitter discharge was measured at 0.3m from the source. Volume measurements were taken over 15 minute time periods. For each combination of drip line type, hydraulic head and lateral length, the measurement is repeated 3 times. Criteria The emission uniformity (EU) is the most widely used indicator for drip line efficiency. It gives an indication of the uniformity of the discharge of all emitters in a drip system (Senzanje et al., 2004). Irrigation uniformity is related to crop yields through the agronomic effects of under- and over-watering.

ICRISAT/AVRDC Niger progress report AMIV project

The emission uniformity is dependent on the combined effects of: 1. The water supply head available; 2. The elevation differences throughout the irrigated area; 3. The friction losses in the pipe distribution network; and 4. The discharge characteristics and uniformity of the water emission device EU = Qmin/Qmean (1-1.27CV) * 100 Where EU is the Emission Uniformity in %, Qmin is the average of 25% emitters with lowest discharge, Qmean is the average discharge, and CV is the coefficient of variation of emitter discharge The flow variation (Qvar) measures the variation in emitter discharge rates throughout a drip system (Senzanje et al, 2004). The emitter flow variation Qvar is defined as: Qvar = Qmax - Qmin Qmax where: Qmax = average of 25% of emitters with highest discharge Qmin = average of 25% of emitters with lowest discharge The equations have been widely used in evaluation of different drip irrigation systems (American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE), 1999; Senzanje et al., 2004). The ASAE general performance evaluation criteria for EU values are: >90%, excellent; 80 90%, good; 7080%, fair; and <70%, poor. The ASAE general criteria for Qvar values are: <10%, desirable; 1020%, acceptable; and >20%, not acceptable. 3.3 Results and discussion The emitter discharge of the Jain in-line emitters and drip tape was not much affected by lateral length. Both for 5 and 30 m long laterals the emitter discharge of the Jain emitters ranged between 0.4 and 0.45 L/hr (Figure 3.1) at one meter hydraulic head (H). The drip tape discharge lies around 0.7 to 0.8 L/hr under the same conditions. The discharge of the IDE microtubes was very much affected by lateral length and not very uniform over the lateral length. At short lateral length (5m) discharge lies around 4-4.5 L/hr while at long lateral lengths (30m) the discharge lies between 1.5 and 2.5 L/hr. It can also be seen that emitter discharge is higher at the end of the lateral than at the beginning of the lateral. At the beginning of the lateral the water velocity is high and pressure low, whereas at the end of the lateral the water velocity is low and pressure is high. The absolute difference in emitter discharge at the beginning and end of the lateral is 0.6 L/hr for the IDE microtubes, 0.15 for DTape and 0.1 L/hr for Jain. The discharge of the IDE microtubes was 4 to 10 times higher than for the Jain in-line emitters and 2 to 6 times higher than for the D-Tape. Low emitter discharge has shown to increase yields and decrease nutrient leaching as compared with high emitter discharge (Assouline, 2002; Pasternak and Bustan, 2003). Low leaching of nutrients is a very important trait of low pressure drip irrigation systems in places where soluble

ICRISAT/AVRDC Niger progress report AMIV project

10

fertilizers are unavailable and low solubility NPK fertilizer is applied as a basic dressing together with manure to provide all nutritional needs for a whole production cycle.
1

D-Tape (H=1m)
emitter discharge (L/hr)

5 4,5 4 3,5 3 2,5 2 1,5 1 0,5 0 30

IDE Microtubes (H=1m)

emitter discharge (L/hr)

Jain in-line emitters (H=1m)

0,5

30 0 0 3 6 9

25

20

15

10

25

20

15

10

12

15

18

21

24

27

30

12

15

18

21

24

27

30

distance along lateral (m)

distance along lateral (m)

Figure 3.1: Emitter discharge at 1 meter hydraulic head for three different lateral types and laterals varying from 5 to 30 meter in length The discharge decreases at lower hydraulic head. Figure 3.2 shows that at 5m long lateral the discharge of the IDE microtubes goes down from 6 L/hr to 3 L/hr when the hydraulic head is decreased from 2m to 0.5m. This trend is much less apparent for the DTape and Jain inline emitters; the average discharge stays rather constant for all lateral lengths. This is due to the fact that the emitters function as resistors, forcing the water to build up pressure before water is released through the emitters.
(a) H=2m
6 5 4 6
Jain Dtape IDE

(b) H=1.5m
Jain

5 4

Dtape IDE

q (L/hr)

q (L/hr)

3 2 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

3 2 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Lateral Length (m)

(c) H=1m 6 5
Jain Dtape IDE

Lateral Length (m)

(d) H=0.5m 6 5 4
Jain D Tape IDE

q (L/hr)

4 3 2 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

q (L/hr)

3 2 1 0 5 10 15 20

Lateral Length (m)

Lateral Length (m)

Figure 3.2. Plots of average emitter discharges along 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30m lateral lengths with hydraulic heads (pressure) H of 2m (a), 1.5m (b), 1m (c) and 0.5m (d) for drip line types of Jain (squares), D Tape (triangles) and IDE (crosses).

ICRISAT/AVRDC Niger progress report AMIV project

11

The emission uniformity (EU) for all laterals were within the good (EU=80-90%) to excellent (EU>90%) ASAE performance labels for all lateral lengths and hydraulic heads (Figure 3.3). It can be seen that EU generally decreases at increasing lateral length and decreasing hydraulic head. The IDE curves followed the most expected trends with clear EU decreases with both lateral length (~10% decrease with 5-30m lateral length increase) and hydraulic head (~10% decrease with overall hydraulic 2-0.5m head decrease). These EU decreasing patterns were less evident with the DTape drip line and even less evident with Jain. Jain drip line had the highest EU values at H=1.5, reaching 100% at 5m lateral length. The highest EU values for DTape were measured at a 2m and 1m heads (highest of 95%). Overall, Jain and DTape had higher EU than IDE drip lines.
(a) H=2m 100%
Emission uniformity EU (%)
Jain

(b) H=1.5m 100%

Excellent!
95%

Emission uniformity EU (%)

Jain Dtape

Dtape IDE

95%

IDE

Excellent!

90%

90%

Good
85%

Good
85%

80% 5 10 15 20 25 30
Lateral Length (m)

80% 5 10 15 20 Lateral Length (m) (d) H=0.5m

Jain Dtape

25

30

(c) H=1m 100%

Emission uniformity EU (%)

100%

Jain Dtape

Emission uniformity EU (%)

95%

IDE

95%

IDE

Excellent!
90% 85% 80%

Excellent!
90%

Good
85% 80% 75% 70%

Good Fair

Fair

75% 5 10 15 20 25 30

10

15

20

Lateral Length (m)

Lateral Length (m)

Figure 3.3. Emitter emission uniformity along 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30m lateral lengths with hydraulic heads (pressure) H of 2m (a), 1.5m (b), 1m (c) and 0.5m (d) for drip line types of Jain (squares), D Tape (triangles) and IDE (crosses). 3.4 Conclusions and recommendations In this experiment it was expected that emitter discharge and emission uniformity would decrease at longer lateral length and lower pressure. This was clearly the case for the IDE microtubes where discharge from a 5 meter long lateral was found more than 2 times higher than for 25m long laterals. At the same time emitter discharge halved when the hydraulic pressure was reduced from 2 to 0.5 meter. The IDE microtube emitters gave 2 to 10 times higher discharge than D-Tape (~0.7 L/hr) and Jain emitters (~0.4 L/hr). High discharge can lead to excessive leaching of nutrients and reductions in yields, especially in poor sandy soils.

ICRISAT/AVRDC Niger progress report AMIV project

12

Emission uniformity could be rated Excellent at 2m pressure only and rated Fair at 0.5 m pressure and laterals longer than 5 meter. In terms of designing with IDE microtube laterals, this means that the discharge should be kept as low as possible while emission uniformity is high. This can be achieved at high pressure with long laterals, or low pressure and short laterals. The D-Tape and Jain in-line emitters are far less sensitive to variations in hydraulic head and lateral length. The average discharge stays rather constant for all combinations of lateral length and pressure head. Results for emission uniformity can be rated Excellent and Good, despite inconsistencies in performance at different pressure heads. Similarly, Senzanje et al (2004) observed a generally poor correlation between EU and lateral length for in-line emitters. Although Jains uniformity performance was superior to the other drip lines, other factors play a role in accepting drip kits with Jain drip laterals. Jain drip lines cost ~10 times more than its competitors (see Table 1), but quality and longevity are better as the walls of the laterals are thicker. High quality drip laterals give maximum longevity (estimated seven to ten years) and will avoid frequent changing of equipment, an advantage in regions where access to spare parts is poor. In addition, high quality equipment will allow for year-round exposure to the severe weather of the Sudano Sahel and to rough handling by non experienced producers. Farmers generally adapt drip kits to their own conditions, this means varying pressure heads, different lengths of laterals and size of the kits. Moreover, farmers generally neglect the problem of clogging and do not clean the filter allowing dirt to block, or partially block, the drip emitters resulting in varying pressure heads within the drip kit. Farmers prefer large drip kits (ITC, 2003) to experience a significant difference in labour requirement with manual watering. However for microtube drip kits this would mean high pressure to maintain uniform distribution over long lateral length. Achieving high pressure means lifting the water higher, and this involves a higher cost. Farmers can be found willing to lift small quantities of water (small areas) 0.5 or 1m by hand, but lifting it 2m high requires pumps. In this case, it would be wise to invest in good quality drip lateral equipment as well. The Jain laterals are much higher quality than the D-Tape and perform very well under varying pressure head and lateral length.

ICRISAT/AVRDC Niger progress report AMIV project

13

4.

Economic performance of low pressure drip irrigation, hand watering and crop husbandry on production of onion and hot pepper in Niger

4.1 Introduction Low pressure drip irrigation kits are promoted in Sub Saharan Africa as an alternative to inefficient traditional methods of irrigating vegetables on small plots. Commonly cited advantages of drip irrigation over hand watering methods of irrigation are higher crop yields and savings in water and labour. The few studies performed in Africa concluded that the drip kits did save water, but that technical, agronomic and marketing support were more important for improved returns from vegetable production (ITC, 2003; Kulecho and Weatherhead, 2006; Belder et al., 2007). Since 2001, the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) in Niger and partners invested in the development of an integrated horticultural production system called the African Market Garden (AMG) (Pasternak and Bustan, 2003). The AMG combines low-pressure drip irrigation with improved crop management. The latter helps the producer to apply the right amount of water, use improved vegetable varieties for year round production, and improve soil fertility, among others. This study assesses and compares the returns to investment on the African Market Garden (AMG), and watering can irrigation methods for vegetable production in Niger. The specific objectives of this experiment are to determine labour, production cost and water use of the AMG and the local hand watering vegetable production system. In addition, the performance of the improved crop husbandry package used in the AMG will be evaluated in combination with drip irrigation (AMG) and with hand watering. The results of this study will contribute to a better understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of the AMG, and the drip technology in general, and will be of interest to farmers, NGOs and decision makers that focus on income generation and improved nutrition in West Africa. 4.2 Materials and method Experimental set-up The field experiment was conducted between November 2009 and April 2010 at the ICRISAT Sahelian research station (1315N. 217E) in Niger, situated 40 km South East of the capital Niamey. Evapotranspiration rates average 8 mm day-1 and no rain fell during the experimental period. Two irrigation methods were used in combination with two crop husbandry practices. Three 500 m fields (20m x 25m) with ten planting beds each were prepared. The planting beds were 25 m long and 1.8 m wide, separated by a 0.2 m path. Onion and hot pepper were grown at the same time on five beds each, the two outer beds were considered border and not included in the analysis (Figure 4.1 and 4.2). Each field was considered a treatment, with each planting bed a repetition in a randomized complete block set-up. Figure 4.1: Onion and hot pepper in the AMG with drip
irrigation (front) with watering cans (back) and farmer practice (far back)

ICRISAT/AVRDC Niger progress report AMIV project

14

The treatments are summarized in Table 4.1 and defined as follows: 1. African Market Garden (AMG): Improved crop husbandry package and irrigation with low pressure drip irrigation. Drip laterals were 12 mm diameter in line drip emitters spaced at 30 cm interval. The daily water application is set at 8 L m-2 according with the maximum local evapotranspiration rate (Pasternak et al., 2006). The water is collected in a 4 m3 reservoir before it gravity feeds to a 500 m drip kit. Crops are planted on elevated planting beds that are prepared with a basic dressing of 4 kg/m manure and 0.1 kg m-2 NPK (15-15-15) before planting. Urea (0.8 gr m-2) is mixed daily with the water in the reservoir. Crops are irrigated by hand for the first 3 days after planting at 4 L m-2. Planting density is according to international guidelines. 2. Improved Management (IM): Improved crop husbandry package and irrigation with watering cans. The daily water application quantity, planting bed preparation and planting density is similar to the AMG treatment. However, water is applied by watering cans two times per day, two thirds in the morning (5.3 L m-2) and one third in the afternoon (2.7 L m-2). The total amount of urea applied per crop is equal to the quantity applied for the AMG, but it is applied through broadcasting and only twice during crop development, half is applied 21 days after planting and the other half at flowering stage. 3. Farmer practice (FP): Local crop husbandry practices and irrigation with watering cans. Information on water application regime, fertilizer use, planting density and other variables was collected through surveys in and around Niamey city. About 10 producers were interviewed per crop. Vegetable producers apply on average 12 L m-2 for hot pepper, and 10 L m-2 for onion (Table 4.1). Manure and urea is applied at the first grubbing, about three weeks after planting, and at flowering stage. For onion, producers use NPK instead of Urea.
Farmer Practice 2 m 3 wa ter basin Improved Management (IM) 2 m 3 wa ter basin AMG drip 4 m 3 water basin

20 m

8m

8m 25 m

8m

8m

8m 25 m

8m 25 meter crop 2 border

Pla nting beds:

crop 1

Figure 4.2: Schematic layout of treatments showing planting beds for two different crops and water basins used for irrigation

ICRISAT/AVRDC Niger progress report AMIV project

15

Table 4.1: Water application, fertility and crop management per treatment and crop
AMG Irrigation method Water applied Manure NPK Urea drip 8 4 100 0.8 day
-1

IM Hot pepper wat. can 8 4 100 0.8 day equivalent

-1

FP Onion wat. can 10 1.3 18 0 wat. can 12 3.2 0 30

(L m day ) (kg m-2) (g m ) (g m )

-2 -2

-2

-1

Plant density

(cm)

Hot pepper: 100 x 60 Onion: 15 x 15

50 x 50

15 x 15

This experiment was carried out on a field that has been used for the same experiment but with different crops since June 2008. The soil is characterized by a high sand content (91%), high acidity (Table 4.2) and the AMG and IM treatment have higher fertility due to frequent application of NPK and manure. Table 4.2: Chemical status of the soil in September 2009 measured over 0-10 cm, 10-20 and 20-40 cm depth for the three treatments
pH-H2O 0-10 10'-20 20-40 AMG IM FP 4.2 4.8 5.2 4.2 4.9 5.0 4.0 4.5 4.7 0.6 0.7 0.6 CO% 0-10 10'-20 20-40 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 P Bray1 (mg/kg) 0-10 10'-20 20-40 29.4 79.1 12.0 40.1 48.0 6.8 42.4 28.1 6.9 Exch base (cmol/kg) 0-10 10'-20 20-40 1.7 2.2 2.1 1.4 2.0 1.7 1.9 2.6 2.4

ICRISAT and the World Vegetable Center selected improved varieties of hot pepper and onion that are being recommended to producers in West Africa (Gowda et al., 2009). The hot pepper, safi variety was planted on the 8th of December and last harvested on the 29th of April 2010. The violet de Galmi onion variety was planted the 27th of November 2009 and harvested on the 8th of March 2010. Data collection and analysis Fresh fruit yield was recorded from four replications (planting beds) per treatment. Dry weight of weeds was collected per treatment per crop. Individual fruit weight, days to first and 50% flowering, days to 50% maturity and total dry matter were collected only for hot pepper. Labour time per person (expressed in man hour, m.h.) was recorded per activity from the installation of the gardens to the operational activities such as planting, irrigation, weeding and harvesting. Data on crop yield, input use and labour collected in this on-station experiment were complemented with farmer field and market data. Labour cost was set at US$ 2 per manday (field data; World Bank, 2008). Gross revenues are calculated at 60% of the consumer price of vegetables over the actual harvest period (data SIMA-System dInformation sur les Marches Agricoles and INS-Institut National de Statistique). This allows calculations on returns to investment in a garden setting representative for vegetable producers in and around Niamey, the capital of Niger. The returns to land, labour and water, and payback period were calculated using amortization over the crop period, production costs

ICRISAT/AVRDC Niger progress report AMIV project

16

and potential revenues at the time of harvest. The water application efficiency is defined as fresh fruit weight (kg) obtained per unit volume of irrigation water applied (m). All calculations were done based on a unit area of 500 m2, the standard size of the drip kit. All data was analysed using Microsoft Excel and GenStat 10th edition. 4.3 Results and discussion Agronomic Fresh fruit yields were highest for the Improved Management treatment (Table 4.3). The AMG treatment showed even lower yields than the Farmer Practice. The crops in the AMG treatment were very much affected by the low pH of the soil, caused by daily application of urea by mixing it with the water and strong leaching. It became clear that onion and hot pepper are sensitive to high soil acidity and that irrigation and fertigation using drip irrigation in the sandy acid soil of Sadore significantly reduces soil pH (Table 4.2) causing the observed yield reduction. In Israel at soil pH of 7 and above drip irrigation increases onion yields by 50% (Pasternak, unpublished) and Kumar (et al., 2005) commonly finds 30% increase in onion yields over traditional irrigation practices. When irrigating with watering cans the application of improved management gave higher fruit yields and dry matter then when using the traditional farmer practice of managing crops. It was found that 40% to 50% less weeds were collected from the AMG drip irrigated garden. Drip irrigation delivers water directly to the plant roots, thus leaving the space between plants dry. In contrast, watering cans wet the entire planting bed helping weeds to develop. Despite much lower application of nutrients and higher cropping densities of hot pepper, most weeds were collected from the FM. Table 4.3: Fresh fruit yield, total dry matter and dry weight of weeds
AMG (kg m-2) 0.52 0.44 1.34 0.006 0.009 IM (kg m-2) 2.85 0.85 2.60 0.010 0.014 FP (kg m-2) 2.63 0.67 2.22 0.009 0.018

5. Fresh fruit yield

6. Onion Hot pepper Hot pepper Onion Hot pepper

F.prob 0.072 0.057 0.004

Dry matter Dry weight weeds

Labour Labour use is significantly less for the drip irrigated garden compared to the watering can treatments. This can be attributed to large savings in labour for irrigation when using drip irrigation. Figure 4.3 shows the labour used for the production of onion for the main activities; planting and harvesting, irrigation, soil improvement (fertilization and planting bed preparations), and weeding and grubbing. It can be seen that almost 90% of the labour time is spent on irrigation when using watering cans. The workload is about 7 times higher than when using drip irrigation. After all, it takes about 10 minutes per day to clean the filter, open the valve and check the drippers for clogging, whereas it takes 4 man hours to irrigate 500 m with watering cans. The average workload per day is 0.8 man-hours in the AMG against 5.2 man-hours in the Farmer practice for cultivation of onion on 500 m2.

ICRISAT/AVRDC Niger progress report AMIV project

17

Figure 4.3: Labour use for the production of onion (105 days) per main activity for a drip irrigated treatment (AMG) and two treatments irrigated with watering cans (IM and FP) Water application efficiency The water application efficiency is defined as the fresh fruit yield produced per quantity of irrigation water applied. Fresh fruit yield was very variable, and consequently the water application efficiency as well. The same amount of water was applied to the AMG and IM treatment. In the Farmer Practice, 50% more water was applied to hot pepper, and 25% more water to onion. So even though the fresh fruit yields of onion were not that much higher for the IM, much more onion was produced per cubic meter water applied (Table 4.4). Table 4.4: Water application efficiency
AMG (kg m-3) 0.62 0.52 IM (kg m-3) 3.43 1.01 FP (kg m-3) 2.17 0.64

7. Onion Hot Pepper

Set-up cost To set up vegetable garden producers need to invest in a pump, well, reservoir and water distribution system, as well as in tools and a fence. Table 4.5 shows the set up costs for a 500 m garden using AMG drip and watering cans for irrigation. It can be seen that, getting the water to the reservoir, purchasing tools and protecting the garden with a fence requires an investment of around US$ 800 irrespective if a vegetable producer uses watering cans or drip irrigation. The AMG requires an additional US$ 771 for a cylindrical concrete reservoir and a drip kit. Thus, irrigated vegetable production is a capital intensive undertaking of which the drip kit and reservoir constitute less than 50% of the total set-up costs.

ICRISAT/AVRDC Niger progress report AMIV project

18

Table 4.5: Set up cost of 500 m2 garden equipped with AMG drip or watering cans
AMG drip (US$) 371 400 420 160 104 110 1,565 264 22.01 Watering can (US$) 0 100 420 160 104 140 924 214 17.87

Drip kit 500 m Reservoir Pump and connections Well Fence Tools TOTAL Amortized value Monthly equivalent

Return to investment It should be noted that the calculations of return to investment are based on yield results in the current experiment. Here, yields in the drip irrigated plot were strongly reduced by the low pH in comparison with the two other treatments. These calculations are not applicable to situations of higher soil pH when yields are markedly increased by drip irrigation. Production costs dominate over costs for amortization. The production cost for the AMG are on average 30% lower than for the treatments irrigated with watering cans (Table 4.6). Cost for farm inputs are higher, but this is largely compensated by savings of up to 50% in water (fuel cost) and a 7-fold savings in labour when using drip irrigation (Figure 4.3). Energy is a major production cost (75%) when irrigating with watering cans, at 44% for human energy (labour) and 31% for pumping energy (Figure 4.4). The lower production cost for the AMG compensate to some degree the low revenues achieved due to the low yields. Under the yields achieved in this experiment, the production of onion and hot pepper was not profitable for any treatment. The Improved Management treatment gave the lowest economic losses. Table 4.6: Crop budget and returns to land, water and labour
Onion Hot pepper

8. Farm inputs Maintenance Fuel Labour Production cost Amortization Total cost Revenues Net benefit Return to land Return to labour Return to water

AMG US$ 105 21 67 21 213 77 290 74 -298 -0.6 -0.5 -0.5

IM US$ 105 21 67 127 319 63 382 295 -87 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2

FP US$ 56 21 97 138 311 63 374 271 -102 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2

9.

AMG US$ 96 30 68 14 207 99 306 143 -163 -0.3 -3.0 -0.4

IM US$ 96 30 68 117 310 80 391 276 -114 -0.2 -0.2 -0.3

FP US$ 60 30 84 128 303 80 383 218 -165 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3

ICRISAT/AVRDC Niger progress report AMIV project

19

Figure 4.4: Breakdown of production cost in drip irrigation (AMG) and hand watered (FP) garden for production of onion 4.4 Conclusions The AMG technology holds great promise to increase profitability of smallholder vegetable producers due to a combination of drip irrigation and improved crop management. Drip irrigation saves labour, water and energy, bringing production costs down, and improved crop management guidelines help the producer to improve growing conditions of the vegetables. In this experiment, the AMG did not perform better than alternative methods of irrigation because drip irrigation in combination with daily application of urea in the water amplified acidification in an already acid soil (pH 4.1), in turn having a detrimental effect on crop yields. Onion and hot pepper are sensitive to acid soils, while crops like okra and eggplant proved to do very well in previous experiments. Improved management through more intensive use of fertilizer, use of less water and respecting planting densities did improve crop productivity over the traditional farmer practice. Production costs for the improved management are only less than 5% more expensive. This way vegetable producer can already improve their productivity without having to invest in a new irrigation technology. Production costs in vegetable production are considerable and dominate over the amortized value of the investment cost. Labour takes up 44% of the production cost in vegetable gardens irrigated by hand. It was recorded that 85% of the producer time is spent on irrigation. Drip irrigation delivers water directly to the root zone of the crops without the need for manual labour. The average labour requirement for cultivation of onion on 500 m2 in the AMG is 0.8 man hours per day against 5.2 man hours per day for the Farmer practice. The comparative advantage of drip irrigation over hand watering is proportional to the labour that can be saved to irrigate the crop area. Hence, the larger the area the producer irrigates the more benefits he/she will get from drip irrigation. The returns to land, water and labour were negative for all treatments due to very low crop yields. However, in acid sandy soils, improved crop management strategies can improve profitability from vegetable production by smallholder producers.

ICRISAT/AVRDC Niger progress report AMIV project

20

References
ASAE, 1999. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Engineering Practice Standard EP458- Field Evaluation of Micro-irrigation systems. ASAE standards. St.Joseph, MI. USA. Assouline, S., 2002. The effects of microdrip and conventional drip irrigation on water distribution and Uptake. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 66: 16301636. Belder, P., Senzanje, A., Manzungu, E., Twomlow, S, Rohrbach, D., 2007. Can drip irrigation improve livelihood of smallholders? Lessons learned from Zimbabwe. Paper presented at SADC Sym. on Land and Water Management, 19-23 February, Gaborone, Botswana, pp. 245-256. Burney J., Woltering L., Burke M., Naylor R., Pasternak D., 2010. Solar-powered drip Irrigation enhances food security in the Sudano-Sahel. PNAS (USA) 107: 1848-1853. Chigerwe, J., Manjengwa, N., Van der Zaag, P., Zhakata, W., 2004. Low head drip irrigation kits and treadle pumps for smallholder farmers in Zimbabwea technical evaluation based on labouratory tests. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 29(1518): 10491059. Drechsel, P., Graefe, S., Sonou, M., Cofie, O., 2006. Informal irrigation in urban West Africa: An overview. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute. 40.p. (IWMI Research Report 102) http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/pubs/pub102/RR102.pdf Gowda, C.L.L., Pasternak, D, Kumar, S, Nikiema, A, Woltering, L. 2009. Crop diversification with horticultural crops for enhancing incomes and improving livelihoods of poor farmers in dryland areas. Lead Paper In: Intl. Hortic. Conf. (9-12 Nov.), PANAS, Bangalore, India Hussain, I., 2005. Pro-poor intervention strategies in irrigated agriculture in Asia. In: Poverty in Irrigated Agriculture: Issues, Lessons, Options and Guidelines, Asian Development Bank and IWMI. Colombo. ITC, 2003. Low-cost Micro Irrigation Technologies for the Poor. Final report to the UK Department for International Department, Knowledge and Research Programme (KAR) Project R7392, Intermediate Technology Consultants, Rugby, UK, www.itcltd.com/final_reports.htm Kabutha C., Blank H, Van Koppen B. 2000. Drip kits for smallholders in Kenya: experience and a way forward. In: Proc.6th Intl. Micro-Irrigation Congress,Micro-irrigation Technology for Developing Agriculture (2227 Oct.), Cape Town, South Africa, p. 7.. Kulecho, I.K., Weatherhead, E.K. 2006. Adoption and experience of low-cost drip irrigation in Kenya. Irrigation and Drainage 55 (4): 435444.

ICRISAT/AVRDC Niger progress report AMIV project

21

Kumar, M.D., Samad, M. Amarasinghe, U., Singh, O. P., 2005. Water saving and yield enhancing technologies: How far can they contribute to water productivity enhancement in Indian Agriculture? http://nrlp.iwmi.org/ Norman, W.R. and Walter, M.F., 1994. Small scale irrigation in traditional and private systems in Niger. Applied engineering in agriculture 10: 225-231 Pasternak, D, Bustan, A., 2003. The African Market Garden. In, Encyclopedia of Water Science. B.A. Stewart and T. Howell (eds). pp. 9-15. Marcel Dekker Inc. NY Pasternak, D., Nikiema, A., Senbeto, D., Dougbedji, F., Woltering, L., 2006. Intensification and Improvement of Market Gardening in the Sudano-Sahel Region of Africa. Chronica Hort. 46 (4): 24-28. ISHS Perry, E. 1997. Low-cost irrigation technologies for food security in Sub-Saharan Africa. In: Irrigation Technology Transfer in Support of Food Security. Proceedings of a subregional workshop Harare, Zimbabwe 14-17 April 1997. FAO Water Reports-14, FAO, Rome. Postel, S.L., Polak, P., Gonzales, F., Keller, J., 2001. Drip Irrigation for Small Farmers, A New Initiative to Alleviate Hunger and Poverty. Water International 26 (1): 3-13. Senzanje, A., Motsi, K., Rwakatiwana, P., 2004. Assessment of the technical performance and operational limits of a low cost drip irrigation system for peri-urban and smallholder farmers. Discov. Innov. 16(1/2) UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development) 2005. The Least Developed Countries. Report. New York and Geneva. p.320 World Bank, 2004. Agriculture and Rural Development Discussion Paper 9- Extension Reform for Rural Development. Volume 2. Privatization of Extension Systems. Eds. Rivera, W., Alex, G., p88 World Bank, 2008. Developpement de lirrigation au Niger: Diagnostic et Options Strategieques. Revue Sectorielle de lirrigation. Juin 2008. Agriculture et Developpement Rural, AFTAR.

ICRISAT/AVRDC Niger progress report AMIV project

22