What is the irrigation potential for Africa?

International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), IFPRI discussion papers 01/2010;
Source: RePEc

ABSTRACT Although irrigation in Africa has the potential to boost agricultural productivities by at least 50 percent, food production on the continent is almost entirely rainfed. The area equipped for irrigation, currently slightly more than 13 million hectares, makes up just 6 percent of the total cultivated area. Eighty-five percent of Africa’s poor live in rural areas and mostly depend on agriculture for their livelihoods. As a result, agricultural development is key to ending poverty on the continent. Many development organizations have recently proposed to significantly increase investments in irrigation in the region. However, the potential for irrigation investments in Africa is highly dependent upon geographic, hydrologic, agronomic, and economic factors that need to be taken into account when assessing the long-term viability and sustainability of planned projects. This paper analyzes large, dam-based and small-scale irrigation investment needs in Africa based on agronomic, hydrologic, and economic factors. This type of analysis can guide country- and local-level assessment of irrigation potential, which will be important to agricultural and economic development in Africa.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper explores long-term effects of microfinance, educational transfers and agricultural interventions within life-trajectories in rural Bangladesh. More than one-half of respondents had used microfinance for some kind of income-generating activity in their lives. For 18 per cent it was an important cause of well-being improvement, but about one-third had used microcredit to cope in crises. Educational transfers contributed positively for 29 per cent of participants, but its impact was limited by low monetary value of benefits. The life-histories showed little long-term benefit from the agricultural technology programmes, and a number of possible reasons are discussed in the paper.
    Journal of Development Effectiveness 01/2011; 3(2):263-280. · 0.92 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper reviews existing microeconomic empirical literature on gender differences in use, access, and adoption of nonland agricultural inputs in developing countries. This review focuses on four key areas: (1) technological resources, (2) natural resources, (3) human resources, and (4) social and political capital. In general, there has been more empirical research on inorganic fertilizer, seed varieties, extension services, and group membership than on tools and mechanization, life-cycle effects, and political participation. Across input areas, generally men have higher input measures than women; however, this finding is often sensitive to the use of models that control for other background factors, as well as the type of gender indicator implemented in the analysis. We find few studies that meet our inclusion criteria outside Sub-Saharan Africa. Finally, future directions, opportunities, and recommendations for microeconomic gender analysis of nonland agricultural inputs are discussed.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper investigates the long-term impact of Bangladesh’s Primary Education Stipend (PES) program on a range of individual and household welfare measures using a unique longitudinal study spanning the years 2000 to 2006. Using covariate and propensity score matching and difference-in-difference methods, the program is shown to have negligible impacts on school enrollments, household expenditures, calorie consumption, and protein consumption. At the individual level, the PES has a negative impact on grade progression, especially among boys from poor households who are ineligible to receive stipends at the secondary level. The program does, however, lead to improvements in height for age among girls and body mass index among boys. Nonetheless, the impacts of the PES are remarkably small for a program of its size. Poor targeting combined, in particular the program’s limited coverage and lack of geographical targeting, plus the declining real value of the stipend are the most plausible reasons for this lack of impact.
    Journal of Development Effectiveness 01/2011; 3(2):243-262. · 0.92 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 19, 2014