http://www.fao.org/docrep/W3094E/w3094e00.

htm#TopOfPage

Small-scale irrigation for arid zones

Principles and options

© FAO 1997
Preface

This publication is an attempt to distil current information on irrigation methods that might be
appropriate, and to offer some ideas on the possible adoption and adaptation of such methods by
small-scale farmers in the semi-arid areas of sub-Saharan Africa. At issue is a vast region greatly in
need of enhanced and more stable agricultural production. Yet the irrigated sector here has, to date,
suffered from underdevelopment. Numerous efforts to develop the sector have foundered in the past,
possibly because the approach has been inappropriate to the physical and socio-economic conditions
prevailing in the region.
There can be no single panacea to the problem of ensuring food security in Africa, nor to the task of
developing irrigation there. The continent is too varied for any single approach to apply in all cases. A
multiplicity of possibilities exists, and the most appropriate ones depend in each case on local
agronomic, economic and social conditions. In some cases, large-scale systems, centrally controlled
(by commercial or government enterprises) may be the quickest way to increase production.
Concurrently, however, the development of irrigation should take place on small-scale farms operated
by individual farmers or by associations of farmers. It is to promote the latter form of development that
this publication is primarily directed.
A positive and realistic approach, in awareness of the real problems but undeterred by them, is called
for. The aim of this publication is to present practical options that are consistent with such a new
approach. An effort is made to do so in simplified but not simplistic terms, in a manner that may be
useful to a wide spectrum of potential readers, from policy-makers to extension workers in the field,
and that is consistent with FAO's Special Programme for Food Security in Africa.
As the reader will quickly notice, this presentation is not a purely technical how to handbook. It is,
rather, a what and why elucidation of the conceptual foundations of modern irrigation that should
underlie decision-making in the area of irrigation development. Whereas ready-made prescriptions
tend to be specific and inflexible, and hence rarely apply as new problems arise in changing
circumstances, a basic understanding of principles should enable practitioners to adjust their thinking
and actions to unforeseen situations. The ultimate purpose is therefore to foster an informed
awareness of both the potentialities and the limitations of modern irrigation methods, and thus to guide
the selection and adaptation of appropriate technologies for greater sustainable production and better
resource utilization.
In taking this approach I have avoided dealing with traditional surface irrigation methods (including
border, basin and furrow methods) that have been described repeatedly in the past and are generally
well known in the region. Such methods have long served for the irrigation of crops such as rice, sugar
cane and cotton. Rather, attention is concentrated on the development of irrigation for such food crops
as fruit, grain, legume and vegetable crops (including root crops) that can be grown in water-scarce
semi-arid or arid areas. It is in such areas of sub-Saharan Africa that small-scale, low-volume, low-
cost, partial-area, high-frequency irrigation methods appear to offer considerable possibilities that are
yet to be realized.
Daniel Hillel
Acknowledgements
As author of this report, I wish to express my gratitude, first of all, to Dr Jacques Diouf, Director-
General of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, whose personal interest and
determination to make the work of FAO more relevant to the field have inspired this project.
I also acknowledge the valuable advice and encouragement of Messrs Wim Sombroek, formerly
Director of the Land and Water Development Division, Robert Brinkman, present Director, and Hans
Wolter, Chief of the Water Resources Development and Management Service within that Division.
Other members of the Division - especially Messrs Lucien Vermeiren, Arum Kandiah and Bo
Appelgren - offered information and advice as well. The drawings were made with the able and willing
assistance of Mr Han Kamphuis, who deserves special thanks. So does Dr Cynthia Rosenzweig, who
gave much of her time to help in shaping this publication.
Finally, I acknowledge with deep appre-ciation the support granted me by the Rockefeller Foundation
of New York.
1 Chapter 1: Food security and irrigation
The outlook for the food security of many developing nations is a cause for serious concern.
Widespread denudation and accelerated erosion diminish the productivity of both cultivated and
grazed rain-fed lands. Especially vulnerable are semi-arid regions to climatic instability and frequent
droughts. At the same time, depletion and pollution of limited freshwater resources and competing
demands for water - among neighbouring states as well as between different sectors within each state
- constrain the further expansion of irrigation.
The problem of food security is exacerbated by the rapid growth of population and hence of the
demand for food. In fact, the prices of foodstuffs in the world market have recently begun to rise.
Beyond that looms the spectre of a fundamental change in climate (a consequence of the enhanced
greenhouse effect), that may increase the severity and variability of weather and thus disrupt
established systems of production. Such a change could require expensive invest-ments in modifying
existing systems and establishing new ones.
All these problems are particularly acute in the continent of Africa, parts of which are already in the
throes of a severe population-environment crisis. The population of sub-Saharan Africa, now nearing
600 million, is projected to double by the year 2020. Therefore, a much greater effort must be made by
the international community to assist the African nations in the difficult task of improving their
prospects for food security (Figure 1).

FIGURE 1
Water availability in Africa
Source: Irrigation and water resources potential for Africa, FAO (1987).
Clearly, irrigation can and should play an important role in raising and stabilizing food production,
especially in the less-developed parts of Africa south of the Sahara. There are, however, many
obstacles to the rapid development of irrigation there. Large parts of the region have only limited
freshwater resources. In other areas, potential resources are insufficiently known to permit reliable
planning. Even where water resources are definitely known to be substantial, other conditions may not
be conducive to irrigation development. Such conditions may include unfavourable topography and
soils, distant markets and inadequate infrastructure, as well as lack of credit, labour, information and
other services to farmers.
These problems, while real, do not entirely explain the historical failure to develop the full irrigation
potential of sub-Saharan Africa. The data available (Table 1) on that potential suggest that it is
considerable. By some estimates it may be as great as 30 million hectares, whereas other estimates
project less than 10 million hectares. A reasonable figure may be in the order of 15 to 20 million
hectares which, if fully developed and properly managed, could contribute significantly to the food
security of the African continent. The fact that some earlier efforts at irrigation development produced
disappointing results may be more the consequence of flaws in approach and implementation than of
truly insurmountable obstacles. The time is ripe for a new approach.
Irrigation is the supply of water to agricultural crops by artificial means, designed to permit farming in
arid regions and to offset drought in semi-arid regions. Even in areas where total seasonal rainfall is
adequate on average, it may be poorly distributed during the year and variable from year to year.
Where traditional rain-fed farming is a high-risk enterprise, irrigation can help to ensure stable
production.
1.1 TABLE 1
Sub-Saharan Africa: estimates of irrigated areas in relation to
potential, 1991
Country Irrigation potential Area under irrigation Total in % of potential
(ha) (ha)
Angola 3 700 000 75 000 2.0
Benin 300 000 10 236 3.4
Botswana 14 640 1 381 9.4
Burkina Faso 164 460 24 330 14.8
Burundi 185 000 14 400 7.8
Cameroon 290 000 20 970 7.2
Cape Verde 2 990 2 779 92.9
Central African Republic 1 900 000 135 0.0
Chad 835 000 14 020 1.7
Comoros 300 130 43.3
Congo 340 000 217 0.0
Côte d'Ivoire 475 000 72 750 15.3
Djibouti 1 000 674 67.4
Equatorial Guinea 30 000 - -
Eritrea 187 500 28 124 15.0
Ethiopia 3 637 300 189 556 5.2
Gabon 440 000 4 450 1.0
Gambia 80 000 1 670 2.1
Ghana 1 900 000 6 374 0.3
Guinea 340 000 15 541 4.6
Guinea-Bissau 281 290 17 115 6.1
Kenya 353 060 66 610 18.9
Lesotho 12 500 2 722 21.8
Liberia 600 000 2 100 0.4
Madagascar 1 500 000 1 087 000 72.5
Malawi 161 900 28 000 17.3
Mali 566 000 78 620 13.9
Mauritania 165 000 49 200 29.8
Mauritius 20 000 17 500 87.5
Mozambique 3 072 000 106 710 3.5
Namibia 47 300 6 142 13.0
Niger 270 000 66 480 24.6
Nigeria 2 330 510 232 821 10.0
Rwanda 159 000 4 000 2.5
Sao Tome and Principe 10 700 9 700 90.7
Senegal 340 000 71 400 21.0
Seychelles 1 000 - 0.0
Sierra Leone 807 000 29 360 3.6
Somalia 240 000 200 000 83.3
South Africa 1 445 000 1 270 000 87.9
Sudan 2 784 000 1 946 200 69.9
Swaziland 93 220 67 400 72.3
Tanzania, United Rep. 990 420 150 000 15.1
Togo 180 000 7 008 3.9
Uganda 202 000 9 120 4.5
Zaire 7 000 000 10 500 0.2
Zambia 523 000 46 400 8.9
Zimbabwe 388 400 116 577 30.0
Sub-Saharan Africa 39 366 490 6 181 422 15.7
Source: Irrigation in Africa - a basin approach, FAO (in press).
Irrigation has long played a key role in feeding expanding populations and is undoubtedly destined to
play a still greater role in the future. It not only raises the yields of specific crops, but also prolongs the
effective crop-growing period in areas with dry seasons, thus permitting multiple cropping (two or
three, and sometimes four, crops per year) where only a single crop could be grown otherwise. With
the security provided by irrigation, additional inputs needed to intensify production further (pest control,
fertilizers, improved varieties and better tillage) become economically feasible. Irrigation reduces the
risk of these expensive inputs being wasted by crop failure resulting from lack of water.
The practice of irrigation consists of applying water to the part of the soil profile that serves as the root
zone, for the immediate and subsequent use of the crop. Well-managed irrigation systems are those
which control the spatial and temporal supply of water so as to promote growth and yield, and to
enhance the economic efficiency of crop production. Such systems apply water in amounts and at
frequencies calibrated to answer the time-variable crop needs. The aim is not merely to optimize
growing conditions in a specific plot or season, but also to protect the field environment as a whole
against degradation in the long term. Only thus can water and land resources be utilized efficiently and
sustainably. On the other hand, poorly managed irrigation systems are those which waste water and
energy, deplete or pollute water resources, fail to produce good crops and/or pose the danger of soil
degradation.
The vital task of increasing and stabilizing food production in drought-prone regions must therefore
include a concerted effort to improve on-farm water management. Some traditional irrigation schemes
need to be modernized so as to achieve higher yields as well as better resource utilization. New
schemes being planned should likewise be based on sound principles and techniques for efficient
water use and for optimizing irrigation in relation to all other essential agricultural inputs and
operations.
In recent decades, revolutionary developments have taken place in the science and art of irrigation. A
more comprehensive understanding has evolved regarding the soil-crop-water regime as affected by
climatic, physiological and soil factors. These conceptual developments have led to technical
innovations in water control that have made possible the maintenance of near-optimal moisture and
nutrient conditions throughout the growing season.
Foremost among these innovations are techniques for high-frequency, low-volume, partial-area
applications of water and of nutrients at rates calibrated to satisfy crop needs. Such methods are now
applied on a large scale in industrialized countries, where they tend to be highly mechanized and to
rely on energy-intensive labour-saving technologies. However, they need not necessarily depend on
expensive manufactured equipment and intensive energy inputs. Instead, they can be simplified to fit
the special low-capital circumstances of the less-developed countries. Moreover, they are flexible
enough to permit downscaling in order to fit the requirements of small-scale farmers.
Properly applied, the new irrigation methods can raise yields while minimizing waste (by runoff,
evaporation and excessive seepage), reducing drainage requirements and promoting the integration
of irrigation with essential concurrent operations (fertilization, tillage and pest control). The use of
brackish water has become more feasible, as has application to sandy, stony or steep lands
previously considered unirrigable. Other potential benefits include increased crop diversification and
cropping intensity.
Despite all the new advances and promising possibilities, wasteful practices still persist in many
irrigated areas. In some places, inefficiency is perpetuated by fixed, institutionally imposed standards
that foster unmeasured and typically excessive applications of water. Such inflexible regimes offer
farmers no incentive to improve water management and even discourage them from taking
independent initiatives to do so. However, institutional inertia and rigid patterns are only part of the
problem. Some of the new irrigation systems developed in the industrialized countries are in fact too
complex, energy-intensive, dependent on expensive imported equipment and large in scale to be
directly applicable to the low-capital, low-technology circumstances of the less-industrialized countries,
where farming is often practised on a small scale and the relative costs of labour and capital are very
different.
Hence, ready-made modern technology often fails when introduced arbitrarily into developing
countries. Elaborate and expensive systems (such as large centre-pivot booms and even drip-
irrigation assemblies complete with automated pumps, filters, pressure regulators, metering valves
and fertilizer injectors), imported and installed in the grand hope of achieving instant modernization,
typically fail for lack of expert maintenance and spare parts. Such installations can quickly become
white elephants - idle monuments to hasty "progress" relying on ill-adapted technology.
Instead of introducing prepackaged hardware systems, developers should apply the best principles of
efficient irrigation, in so far as possible using indigenous skills and materials. Rather than simply
transfer Western technology as such, the aim should be to adapt or redesign technology flexibly so as
to suit the prevailing conditions and requirements.
FIGURE 2
Distribution of basement aquifers in Africa
2 Chapter 2: Principles of appropriate irrigation development
Why is it that irrigated farming in some areas fails to achieve its potential benefits? The problem is not
inherent in the principle of irrigation as such, but in the frequently inappropriate practice of it. More
often than not the fault lies in the unmeasured and generally excessive application of water to land,
with little regard either for the real cost of extracting the water from its source and delivering it to the
farm, or for the cost of restoring the water resource after it has been depleted or polluted. By
deliberately maintaining a low price for water, governments perpetuate the false notion that fresh
water is a free good, rather than the scarce and expensive resource that it really is. It is the universal
fallacy of humans to assume that if a little of something is good, then more must be better. In irrigation
(as indeed in many other activities), just enough is best, and by that is meant a controlled quantity of
water that is sufficient to meet the requirements of the crop and to prevent accumulation of salts in the
soil, no less and certainly no more. The application of too little water is an obvious waste, as it fails to
produce the desired benefit. Excessive flooding of the land is, however, likely to be still more harmful,
as it tends to saturate the soil for too long, inhibit aeration, leach nutrients, induce greater evaporation
and salin-ization, and ultimately raise the water-table to a level that suppresses normal root and
microbial activity and that can only be drained and leached at great expense.
Apart from wasting water, therefore, excessive irrigation contributes to its own demise by the twin
scourges of water-logging and soil salinization. Instead of achieving its full potential to increase and
stabilize food production, irrigation in such cases is in danger of becoming unsus-tainable. The
ultimate economic and environmental consequence of poorly managed irrigation is the destruction of
an area's productive base. The cost of rehabilitating the land after it has been degraded may be
entirely prohibitive.
From the point of view of water use, some large-scale irrigation projects operate in an inherently
inefficient way. Where water is delivered to farmers on a fixed schedule and charges are set per
delivery regardless of the actual amount used, irrigators tend to take as much water as they can while
they can. This typically results in overirrigation, which not only wastes water but also contributes to
project-wide problems associated with the disposal of return flow and elevation of the water-table.
Especially difficult to change are management practices that lead to waste, not necessarily because of
insurmountable technical problems or lack of knowledge, but simply because it appears more
convenient or economical in the short term to waste water rather than to conserve it. Such situations
occur when the price of irrigation water is lower than the cost of the labour or of the equipment needed
to avoid overirrigation.
The classical method of irrigation, which evolved in the major river valleys of the Near East, South
Asia and East Asia, consists of flooding the land to some depth with a large volume of water so as to
saturate the soil completely, then waiting some days or weeks until the moisture thus stored in the soil
is nearly depleted before flooding the land once again. In this low-frequency, high-volume, total-area
pattern of irrigation, the typical cycles consist of repeated periods of excess soil moisture alternating
with periods of likely insufficiency. Optimal conditions occur only briefly in transition from one extreme
condition to the other (Figure 3).

FIGURE 3
Flood irrigation wets the entire root zone to saturation
In contrast, the newer irrigation methods are designed to apply a small, measured volume of water at
frequent intervals to where the roots are concentrated. The aim is to reduce fluctuations in the
moisture content of the root zone by maintaining moist but unsaturated conditions continuously,
without subjecting the crop either to oxygen stress (from excess moisture) or water stress (from lack of
moisture). Moreover, applying the water at spatially discrete locations rather than over the entire area
has the effect of keeping much of the soil surface dry, thus helping not only to reduce evaporation but
also to suppress proliferation of weeds (Figures 4, 5, 6 and 7).

FIGURE 4
The pattern of wetting under furrow irrigation: if furrows are closely spaced the entire root zone is
wetted to near-saturation

FIGURE 5
The pattern of wetting under sprinkler irrigation: to compensate for the uneven distribution of water
around each sprinkler, adjacent sprinklers are spaced closely enough to overlap (thus tending to
equalize the spatial distribution of water)

FIGURE 6
A portable hand-move sprinkler irrigation system
FIGURE 7
Partial-area wetting around orchard trees under drip irrigation
This optimization of soil moisture is difficult to achieve with the traditional flood irrigation methods still
dominant in many river valleys. As a result, the new approach to irrigation management has not yet
been adopted very widely in developing countries. Although it is gaining ground gradually, its progress
should be encouraged and accelerated wherever appropriate.
Ideally, the new irrigation systems should convey water to the field in concrete-lined channels so as to
avoid seepage losses, or preferably in closed conduits that avoid pollution and allow pressurizing of
the water thus delivered. In the field, the water can be distributed via low-cost, weathering-resistant
plastic tubes, and be applied to the root zone by means of drip emitters, microsprayers or porous
bodies placed at or below the soil surface. Human labour and local materials may substitute for
industrially produced devices where such are unavailable or too expensive, while retaining the
principles of efficient irrigation.
As the frequency of irrigation increases, the infiltration period becomes a more important part of the
irrigation cycle. With small daily (rather than massive weekly or monthly) applications of water, the
pulses of added water are damped down within a few centimetres or decimetres of the surface, so the
flow below that depth is essentially steady. A skilled irrigator can control the moisture content of the
root zone as well as the rate of internal drainage by adjusting the rate and quantity of application
according to the soil's infiltrability, the soil solution's concentration, and the climate-imposed
evaporative demand. Thus the irrigator can manage the system optimally so as to both increase yields
and conserve water (Figures 6 and 7).
The long-accepted notion that the entire volume of the root zone must be wetted to capacity at each
irrigation has been contradicted by recent experience proving that a crop can fare well when the
wetted zone is restricted to a fraction of the soil volume - 50 percent, or even less. This is on condition,
of course, that the supply of moisture and nutrients in that partial volume is sufficient to satisfy full crop
needs.
Since a high-frequency irrigation system can be adjusted to supply water at very nearly the exact rate
required by the crop, the irrigator no longer needs to depend on the soil's ability to store water during
long intervals between irrigations. Hence water storage properties, once considered essential, are no
longer decisive in determining whether a soil is irrigable. New lands, until recently believed to be
unsuited for irrigation, can now be brought into production. Examples are coarse sands and gravels,
where moisture storage capacity is very low and where the conveyance and spreading of water by
surface flooding would cause too much seepage. Such soils can now be irrigated even on sloping
ground by means of drip, trickle, microsprayer or soil-embedded porous emitters that apply the water
frequently or continuously to the root zone at a controlled rate.
Though they offer many advantages, high-frequency partial-volume systems have shortcomings too.
With only a fraction of the potential root zone wetted, there is less moisture storage in the soil, so the
crop depends vitally on the continuous operation of the system. Any short-term interruption of the
irrigation (whether caused by neglect, mechanical failure or water shortage) can quickly result in
severe distress to the crop. The imperative to maintain continuous operation is difficult to meet if the
system depends on costly and vulnerable equipment imported from abroad. The system must
therefore be simplified so as to make the local farmers self-reliant.
In general, it is difficult to change a pre-existing pattern of human behaviour and institutional norms.
An infrastructure designed for one mode of operation cannot readily be converted to another. Habits
and traditions, once established, acquire an inertia, with vested interests in maintaining the status quo
and a resistance to reforming it. That is why it is considered so important to start new irrigation
projects appropriately by instituting efficient practices from the outset.

3 Chapter 3: Improving water-use efficiency

In general, the term efficiency is used to quantify the relative output obtainable from a given input.
Referring to the use of water in irrigation, efficiency may be defined in various ways, depending on the
nature of the inputs and outputs to be considered. An economic criterion of efficiency, for example,
might be the financial return obtained from irrigation in relation to the investment made in the water
supply. The problem here is that costs and prices fluctuate from year to year and vary widely from
place to place. Another problem is that some of the costs of irrigation and some of the benefits cannot
easily be quantified in tangible economic or financial terms, especially where a market economy is not
yet fully developed. Often, only the short-term costs and immediate benefits are seen, whereas the
long-term advantages or disadvantages are not fully realized at the outset. How is it possible to
assess the economic value, for instance, of saving the population of a region from the potential effects
of a drought, if the probability or severity of future drought events is not known? To some degree,
therefore, it is necessary to operate in a state of uncertainty.
In more restricted technical terms, what irrigation engineers often call conveyance efficiency is defined
as the net amount of water delivered to a farm, as a fraction of the amount taken from some source.
The difference between the two amounts represents the seepage and evaporative losses incurred en
route from source to field. Not generally considered in the term conveyance efficiency is the possible
loss of water quality through pollution - such as that caused by wading animals or by human use of the
canal water for washing and waste disposal.
The term on-farm application efficiency or field application efficiency generally refers to the fraction of
the water volume applied to a farm or a field that is "consumed" by a crop, relative to the amount
applied. Crop consumption consists of the amount of water actually absorbed by the crop, most of
which is generally transpired to the atmosphere (only a small fraction, often less than 1 percent, being
retained in the vegetative biomass). There is much evidence that, in a given climate, the growth of
many crops is directly related to the amount of water they transpire. The explanation is that both
carbon dioxide (CO2) for photosynthesis and transpiration occur concurrently through the same
stomatal openings in the leaves, so the two processes should be roughly proportional.
In actual practice, however, the volume of water reported to be consumed in the field consists of
evapotranspiration rather than of transpiration alone. Evapotranspiration includes, in addition to the
amount of water transpired by the plants, the amount evaporated directly from the soil surface without
being taken up by the plants. In addition, evapotranspiration
often includes the amount of water intercepted by the foliage (e.g. under overhead sprinkler irrigation)
and evaporated without ever entering either the soil or the plant. The reason why the term
evapotranspiration is taken to be consumptive use is that, in practice, direct evaporation is difficult to
measure separately from transpiration, so the two terms are lumped together merely for the sake of
convenience.
Clearly, however, much of the water evaporated without entering the plant is consumed non-
productively. Therefore, any method of irrigation that minimizes evaporation (but not transpiration) is
likely to increase the efficiency of water utilization by the crop. Some of the irrigation methods
described in this publication are capable of doing just that: they introduce water directly into the root
zone without sprin-kling the foliage or wetting the entire soil surface. Such partial-area irrigation
methods offer the additional benefit of keeping the greater part of the soil surface (between the rows of
crop plants) dry. This discourages the growth of weeds, that would otherwise not only compete with
crop plants for nutrients and moisture in the root zone and for light above ground, but also hinder field
operations and the control of pests.
Even with total evapotranspiration considered as consumptive use, field application efficiency in most
traditional irrigation schemes is still very low: typically less than 50 percent and often as low as 30
percent. Excessive application of water generally entails losses due to surface runoff from the field as
well as to deep percolation below the root zone within the field. Both runoff and deep percolation
losses are difficult to control under flood or furrow irrigation, where a large volume of water is applied
all at once. They can, however, be minimized where a controlled volume of water is applied at a slow
rate over an extended period of time directly to the root zone.
Even with the best irrigation practices, however, field application efficiency values cannot attain 100
percent. Nor should that be the aim, since a certain fraction of the water applied must be allowed to
1
seep downwards and leach the salts that would otherwise accumulate in the root zone. However, with
careful management, field water application efficiency values approaching 90 percent are possible,
and values of 80 percent are practicable, by some of the methods described in this publication.
A word of warning is in order at this point. No irrigation method or technology in itself guarantees the
attainment of high efficiency. How the system is operated is all important. With poor management,
even the most sophisticated system can result in water loss and inefficiency. Only knowledgeable,
experienced and caring management can ensure that appropriate irrigation systems achieve their full
potential benefits (Figure 8).

FIGURE 8
Typical crop root distributions
Quite different from strictly technical criteria of efficiency is the physiological index, known as crop
water-use efficiency. The relevant measure here is the response of the crop to irrigation, not in
percentage terms but as total biomass produced (above-ground dry matter) per unit mass of water
taken up by the crop. Since, as mentioned above, well over 90 percent of the water taken up by plants
in the field is normally transpired, crop water-use efficiency is in effect the reciprocal of what has long
been known as the transpiration ratio. The latter is defined as the ratio of the amount of water
transpired to the amount of dry matter produced (tonnes per tonne). That ratio can be of the order of 1
000 or more in a dry climate of high evaporative demand.
An alternative way to characterize crop water-use efficiency is in terms of the marketable crop
produced per unit volume of water. This expression is identical to the above-ground biomass in the
case of crops grown and harvested for forage, but it is quite different where the marketable product is
only the fruit, seed or fibre. Generally, but not always, the yield of such products is proportional to total
growth, hence also to transpiration.
To maximize crop water-use efficiency, by either of the above criteria, it is necessary both to conserve
water and to promote maximal growth. The former requires minimizing losses through runoff,
seepage, evaporation and transpiration by weeds. The latter task includes planting high-yielding crops
well adapted to the local soil and climate. It also includes optimizing growing conditions by proper
timing and performance of planting and harvesting, tillage, fertilization and pest control. In short,
raising water-use efficiency requires good farming practices from start to finish.
3.1 Box 1
Summary of ways to improve water-use efficiency
Conservation of water
• Reduce conveyance losses by lining channels or, preferably, by using closed
conduits.
• Reduce direct evaporation during irrigation by avoiding midday sprinkling. Minimize
foliar interception by under-canopy, rather than by overhead sprinkling.
• Reduce runoff and percolation losses due to overirrigation.
• Reduce evaporation from bare soil by mulch-ing and by keeping the inter-row strips
dry.
• Reduce transpiration by weeds, keeping the inter-row strips dry and applying weed
control measures where needed.
Enhancement of crop growth
• Select most suitable and marketable crops for the region.
• Use optimal timing for planting and harvesting.
• Use optimal tillage (avoid excessive cultivation).
• Use appropriate insect, parasite and disease control.
• Apply manures and green manures where possible and fertilize effectively (preferably
by injecting the necessary nutrients into the irrigation water).
• Practise soil conservation for long-term sustainability.
• Avoid progressive salinization by mon-itoring water-table elevation and early signs of
salt accumulation, and by appropriate drainage.
• Irrigate at high frequency and in the exact amounts needed to prevent water deficits,
taking account of weather conditions and crop growth stage.

Finally, all the above indexes of efficiency may be combined in a single concept, the overall agronomic
efficiency of water use, Fag:

where P is crop production (total dry matter or the marketable product, as the case may be) and U is
the volume of water applied.
As only a fraction of the applied water is actually absorbed and utilized by the crop, it is necessary to
consider the various components of the denominator U:
U = R + D + Ep + Es + Tw + Tc (2)
where R is the volume of water lost by runoff from the field, D the volume drained below the root zone
(deep percolation), Ep the volume lost by evaporation during the conveyance and application to the
2
field, Es the volume evaporated from the soil surface (mainly between the rows of crop plants), Tw the
volume transpired by weeds, and Tc the volume transpired by the crop. All these volumes pertain to
the same unit area.
Accordingly:

Under flood irrigation as commonly practised in river diversion schemes, excessive water application
often results in considerable runoff, evaporation from open water surfaces and transpiration by weeds.
In the experience of the author, these losses commonly amount to 20 percent or even 30 percent of
the water applied. In addition, the loss of water due to percolation below the root zone may be of the
order of 30 percent or even 40 percent of the water applied. Consequently, the fraction actually taken
up by the crop is often below 50 percent and may even be as low as 30 percent.
FIGURE 9
The water balance of a field
If runoff and direct evaporation of free water are prevented, and if evaporation from the soil surface is
minimized (as under partial-area irrigation that avoids wetting the areas between rows) and weeds are
effectively controlled; and if, furthermore, water is applied in measured quantities commensurate with
crop requirements so as to avoid excessive percolation, all the losses can be reduced to less than 20
percent of the water applied. Irrigation efficiency can then attain or even exceed 80 percent.
Finally, and no less important, the numerator of the equation (namely, the yield attainable) can be
greatly enhanced by judicious selection of crops and varieties, optimal fertilization and tillage and
proper timing of planting and harvesting. All in all, the agronomic efficiency of water use in irrigated
farming can be significantly increased relative to the low efficiency characteristic of traditional practice.
1
Irrigation water, even if it is of high quality, invariably contains some salts, and these are mostly left
behind as crop roots absorb water from the soil.
2
Evaporation may take place from exposed bodies of water in the case of surface irrigation, or from
wind-drift and intercepted water in the case of sprinkler irrigation.
4 Chapter 4: Criteria and options for appropriate irrigation methods
The aim of modern irrigation development must be to make the best use of water in conjunction with
land and human resources, as well as with all other essential inputs (energy, machinery, fertilizers and
pest control measures) so as to enhance and sustain crop production. The selection of an appropriate
irrigation technology for any given combination of physical and socio-economic condition involves
complex and sometimes conflicting considerations. Where water shortage is acute, the obvious
overriding need is to raise the efficiency of water utilization. Where capital is short, the major
requirement might be for an irrigation method with minimal de-pendence on capital investment or
expensive equipment. In other cases, the deciding factor may be energy require-ments, labour
availability or maintenance costs.
Since the economic considerations, along with the physical conditions and cropping patterns, are
necessarily specific to each location, an irrigation system that may seem most appropriate in one
country or region may not be so in another. In particular, it is a mistake to assume a priori that a
modern system proved to work in an industrialized commercial economy will necessarily succeed in
the context of an emerging economy.
The following sections describe and compare the various alternatives with respect to their possible
applicability in developing countries, particularly in Africa. Physical factors generally involved in system
selection include soils, crops, climate, topography, water quality and availability, drainage, field size
and general system performance. Human factors include labour and management, training and skills.
Economic factors include the costs of labour, capital and energy in relation to expectable returns. Not
all of the relevant factors can be defined or weighed quantitatively in each case, so often the decision
as to which system to select rests in part on subjective preferences rather than explicit analysis.

4.1 Box 2
Five ways to apply water to crops
1. Surface irrigation
Running or impounding water over the surface and allowing it to saturate the soil to some depth.
2. Sprinkle irrigation
Spraying water into the air and allowing it to fall on to plants and soil as simulated rainfall.
3. Drip irrigation
Dripping water on to a fraction of the ground surface so as to infiltrate it into the root zone.
4. Subsurface exuders
Introducing the water directly into the root zone by means of porous receptacles.
5. Subirrigation
Raising the water-table from below (in places where the groundwater is shallow and controllable) so
as to moisten the root zone by capillary action.

There is, altogether, no "best system" for various crops, soils and farm unit sizes. The aim should be
not the "best system" but a spectrum of options that may be appropriate for the circumstances. The
search for appropriate methods is necessarily guided and constrained by available knowledge as well
as by local trial and error.
The first criterion for selecting and adapting one or another of the modern irrigation methods to the
special needs and circumstances of developing nations in Africa is to reduce the capital costs
associated with the installation of such systems. In the industrialized countries, commercial systems
are designed to minimize labour requirements by substituting mechanical power and automation for
human labour, and by enlarging the systems so as to achieve economy of scale. In many developing
nations, the economic equation is reversed: labour is often more readily available while capital and
fuel are in shorter supply. Farming operations are typically carried out by individual farmers or families
who generally cannot afford major investments in machinery, especially if such machinery must be
imported from distant sources. The appropriate irrigation systems for such farmers should be based,
to the extent possible, on self-reliance - that is to say, on local materials and labour. The process of
adaptation must also include a downscaling of the system so as to fit the size of a family holding,
generally no larger than several hectares and often less than one hectare.
A wide spectrum of options exists for introducing irrigation methods consistent with the principles
described. The range of possibilities includes, at one end, systems of water conveyance, distribution
and application that can be fabricated entirely locally, of a sort that even small-scale subsistence
farmers can adopt them and be self-sufficient in their maintenance. At the intermediate level are
systems based in part on manufactured components, preferably of a type that can be fabricated by
workshops or factories within each country or region. Only in the special circumstances where high-
value cash crops can be produced in a well-developed market economy will systems relying entirely
on imported equipment be justified.
In no case can blind acceptance be assumed of any technology or methodology designed and
introduced entirely from the outside. Local trial and error (guided, to be sure, by sound basic
principles) will be necessary, as systems must be proved in practice to fit the circumstances and
preferences of their intended users. Local experience will evolve gradually and will take time to
become local expertise. The region's own farmers should be involved from the outset and encouraged
to participate and innovate. Local entrepreneurs may then develop the capability to improvise
essential components and service irrigation systems.
There can be no short cut to the process of adoption and adaptation; it should not be rushed and must
not be imposed from above. Rather, it should be nurtured by means of positive incentives. Extension
services can provide information, demonstrations and guidance to farmers where needed, while
financial institutions can offer them credit on favourable terms to invest in appropriate irrigation
technology. Such technology will only be accepted if it produces adequate returns, that is to say, if its
benefits clearly justify the costs. Since the benefits will depend in each case on marketing
opportunities and other local factors, they cannot be predicted ahead of time by outsiders.
The HELPFUL (High-frequency, Efficient, Low-volume, Partial-area, Farm-Unit, Low-cost) irrigation
methods described in this section can be divided into two broad categories: first, below-ground
application methods, and second, above-ground application methods.

4.2 Box 3
Definition of HELPFUL irrigation
H High-frequency
E Efficient
L Low-volume
P Partial-area IRRIGATION
F Farm-
U Unit
L Low-cost

4.3 BELOW-GROUND APPLICATION METHODS

In this group of methods, water is applied directly to the root zone via porous or perforated receptacles
that are embedded in the soil to some depth (from 10 to 50 cm), with their openings protruding above
the soil surface. These receptacles, which are filled with water periodically or kept filled continuously,
exude the water through their permeable walls into the surrounding soil. The moisture applied in this
manner feeds the roots of the crop. When arranged in a grid, these embedded applicators produce a
pattern of wetting that can be optimized with respect to the spacing and rooting habit of the crop thus
irrigated.
The rate of infiltration and the distribution of moisture within the root zone also depend on the
properties of the soil itself. For example, in a coarse-textured (sandy) uniform soil profile, the water
would naturally tend to flow downwards, thus producing a carrot-shaped zone of wetting. On the other
hand, in a fine-textured (clayey) or layered profile, more water would tend to spread laterally in the
soil, thus producing an onion-shaped zone of wetting. If cylindrical porous containers are fitted to form
a continuous tube that is embedded horizontally in the soil, they can constitute a line-source capable
of irrigating an elongated bed. Soluble nutrients (fertilizers) can be injected into the water supply, to
enhance the efficiency of fertilizer use as well as of water use by a row crop.
In principle, this type of irrigation can provide water steadily, as long as the receptacles contain water.
The frequency with which they must be refilled depends on their capacity (the volume of water they
can hold) as well as on the rate of water flow into the soil. The latter, in turn, depends on the
permeability of the receptacle walls as well as on the rate of soil moisture extraction by the
surrounding root system. If the applied water contains particulate matter (suspended sediment, either
mineral or organic), or if it contains precipitable chemicals (such as calcium salts), these may
eventually clog the pores of the receptacles. Algal or bacterial growth may also cause clogging. The
remedy is to flush out the receptacles periodically with an acidic or fungicidal solution, and to replace
them after some time (every few years).
In arid areas, where the upper zone of the soil is not leached by rains sufficiently, subsurface irrigation
may cause salt accumulation at the surface, especially if the irrigation water contains an appreciable
concentration of salts. Where this occurs, the topsoil must be leached each season by impounding
water over the surface prior to planting time.
Porous ceramic jars
The use of soil-embedded porous jars is one of the oldest of the partial-volume, high-frequency (or
continuous) irrigation methods. Although the origin and antiquity of the method cannot be established
with certainty, numerous reports have attested to its use by traditional farmers throughout North Africa
and the Near East (Figures 10 and 11).
FIGURE 10
The pattern of soil wetting around a single porous clay jar embedded between two crop rows

FIGURE 11
The pattern of soil wetting by a set of porous clay jars embedded between two crop rows
The method consists of placing porous clay jars (or pots) in shallow pits dug for this purpose. Soil is
then packed around the necks of the jars so that their rims protrude a few centimetres above the
ground surface. Water is poured into the jars either by hand or by means of a flexible hose connected
to a water source. The jars used are generally made of locally available clay, so they are of no
standard shape, size, wall thickness or porosity.
For best results, the jars should be fired at relatively low heat and without glazing, so they remain
permeable. Trial and error experience should lead to the manufacture of jars with optimal properties of
strength (to resist crushing), permeability (to exude water into the soil at a more or less steady rate),
and size (to hold enough water for at least a one-day supply).
The clay jar irrigation method appears to be most suitable for fruit trees, but it can also be used for row
crops. For young tree plantations, a single jar placed adjacent to each sapling should suffice initially.
For example, if a single 5 litre jar wets a soil volume having an effective cross-sectional area of, say, 1
square metre, and if the rate of exudation is such as to empty the jar within one day, then the supply
rate would be equivalent to 5 litres per square metre per day.
The pattern of lateral and vertical spreading of the water exuded from each jar depends upon soil
texture and profile stratification. It may also depend on the shape of the jars (whether slender and
long, or wide and shallow).
As each tree grows, its canopy covers a larger area and its roots tend to grow laterally and vertically to
tap a larger soil volume. A mature fruit tree whose canopy covers a ground area of about 10 square
metres may require roughly 30 to 50 litres per day during the dry summer period. To meet that
requirement, the irrigator can place several jars in a circular pattern around the trunk of each tree. The
porous jar irrigation method is flexible enough to permit adding porous jars gradually as the trees grow
and the need arises for more water per day and for a larger volume of wetted soil.
The example given above is hypothetical, of course. The actual amount and rate of water application
should be determined in each case in accordance with local experience. Careful observations and
trials are needed to optimize the system's controllable variables.
The exposed openings of the jars may attract thirsty land animals as well as birds, and these may in
turn damage the crop. For this reason, as well as to prevent clods of soil from falling into the jars and
reducing their effective volumes, irrigators should cover the tops of the jars between waterings. This
can be done simply by placing a stone over each jar.
The simplest but most laborious way to fill the jars with water is to do so manually, by using hand-
carried buckets fitted with spouts. A more efficient way is to use a flexible hose connected to a water
source. A still more labour-saving device for filling the jars is to set a narrow hose in place for the
duration of the season, with perforations made over each jar. At appropriate intervals of time (daily or
weekly, as the case may be) the hose can be connected to a water source so as to fill all the jars
along the line simultaneously.
How long the jars last depends on several factors, including the rate of clogging by turbid water
(containing suspended clay or organic matter), or by saline water. Acidity of the water as well as of the
soil may also affect the durability of the jars, especially if the material from which they are made
contains calcareous fragments. Careless trampling by humans or animals may crush the jars or fill
them with loose earth. Simple though it is, the porous jar irrigation system must be monitored
constantly if it is to be kept in continuous and satisfactory operation.
Porous and sectioned pipes
This is a variant of the porous jar method of irrigation, designed to spread water along a continuous
horizontal band in the soil, rather than at discrete locations. As such, the porous pipe method is more
suitable for closely spaced row crops grown in beds, such as vegetable crops. To allow water entry,
the pipe is bent at one end, and the orifice is made to protrude above ground.
A good demonstration of the porous and sectioned pipe method of irrigation has been carried out by
the British Institute of Hydrology in southeastern Zimbabwe, in cooperation with the Zimbabwe Ministry
of Agriculture and Water Development. They use locally made clay pipes, approximately 24 cm in
length and 7.5 cm in internal diameter, with a wall thickness of 2 cm. (These dimensions are arbitrary,
of course.) The pipes are placed at the bottom of a shallow trench (about 25 cm deep) representing
the centre-line of a 1 metre-wide bed, and are thus arranged to form a continuous horizontal tube, 3
metres long. The trench is then back-filled with earth.
To allow filling with water, an inlet is formed at one end of the pipe by tilting the first pipe section (the
lower end of which was slanted during manufacture to fit the second, horizontal section). As the pipe
sections are only abutted against one another but not sealed, water can leak into the soil at the joints
between adjacent sections as well as through the porous walls of each section (Figures 12-14).

FIGURE 12
The pattern of soil wetting under irrigation by means of subsurface porous clay pipes: pipe sections
are fitted to form parallel horizontal line sources for irrigating a row crop

FIGURE 13
The pattern of soil wetting by a horizontal porous pipe embedded between parallel crop rows

FIGURE 14
Planting a crop in rows directly above horizontal porous pipes
Experience shows that a single pipe, so arranged, can irrigate two rows of a vegetable crop, planted
on each side of it. The amount of water applied is the equivalent of 6 to 8 mm per day during the
growing season for a crop of rape. Okra and tomato were also grown successfully using this method
of irrigation (Murata et al., 1995).
Perforated plastic sleeves
An interesting variant of the subsurface exuder method of irrigation is the use of thin plastic sheeting
to form a sleeve-like casing. The chief advantage of the method is its low cost. However, the method
has several distinct disadvantages that restrict the range of its applicability (Figure 15).

FIGURE 15
The pattern of wetting by a sand-filled plastic sleeve, perforated on one side and placed vertically in
the root zone
Since the soft plastic material that serves for the making of a sleeve cannot retain its shape, the
sleeve must be filled with sand before being placed in the soil. The sand filling reduces the capacity of
the sleeve (i.e. the volume of water that it can hold) by some 50 to 60 percent. Moreover, the sand
itself tends to retain a significant fraction of the moisture given it and to resist outflow. Thus the
effective capacity is reduced still further.
Finally, since the plastic casing is essentially impervious (unlike the porous clay described above), it
must be perforated. The need to optimize the diameter and density of the perforations introduces
another variable into the system, the best solution to which must be established by trial and error. Too
many perforations can weaken the plastic sheath and reduce its life span (which in any case cannot
be expected to be as long as a clay jar or tube). In some cases, roots of the crop or of weeds may
penetrate the perforations. As a consequence of all these factors, the ability of the sand-filled plastic
sleeve to deliver water to the surrounding soil is limited, both in volume and in rate.
Notwithstanding these potential shortcomings, this method has been applied with apparent success to
the growing of manioc and other crops in sandy soils in Senegal. To define its comparative usefulness
better, however, the method should be tested side by side with alternative methods of irrigation. To
date, this has not been done systematically.
Below-ground drip
A much more sophisticated and hence more expensive method of subsurface irrigation employs
narrow plastic tubes of about 2 cm diameter. These are buried in the soil at a depth between 20 and
50 cm, deep enough so as not to interfere with normal tillage or traffic. The tubes are either porous
throughout, or are fitted with regularly spaced emitters or perforations. If porous, the tubes exude
water along their entire length. If fitted with emitters, they release water only at specific points. The
water so released then spreads or diffuses in the soil. The pattern of wetting depends on the
properties of the surrounding soil, as well as on the length of the interval between adjacent emitters
and their discharge rates (Figure 16).
FIGURE 16
A line-source drip emitter with closely spaced perforations
A potential problem here is that the narrow orifices of the emitters may get clogged by roots, particles,
algae or precipitating salts. Such clogging is difficult to detect as readily as when the tubes are placed
over the surface in above-ground drip irrigation. Occasionally injecting an acidic or herbicidal solution
into the tubes may help to clear some types of clogging, though the problem may recur periodically.
Slit sections of plastic tubes may also be used to cover the emitter and thus inhibit clogging by roots
without substantially reducing the discharge rate.
In underground drip irrigation, the delivery of water in the feeder tubes can be constant or intermittent.
For uniformity of application, there should be some means of pressure control. If the lines are long or
the land is sloping, there can be considerable differences in the hydraulic pressure and therefore in
delivery rate, unless pressure-compensated emitters are used. Such emitters tend to be expensive,
however.
Experience in Israel, California and elsewhere has shown that this method of subsurface irrigation is
feasible in plantations of fruit trees and other perennial row crops. It may also be applicable to annual
crops grown in regular beds.
4.4 ABOVE-GROUND APPLICATION METHODS
The methods described in this section are based on the steady or intermittent supply of water to a
fraction of the soil surface. This is usually done by delivering the water in closed conduits (e.g. plastic
tubes) to specific points, located and spaced in accordance with the configuration of the crop to be
grown. At these points, the water is released on to the surface at a rate that, ideally, does not exceed
the soil's infiltrability, so the water penetrates into the root zone without any of it either ponding or
flowing over the surface.
Closed-conduit (piped) irrigation distribution systems are generally capable of saving water by
increasing the uniformity of application and by avoiding losses of both quantity (resulting from seepage
and evaporation) and quality (resulting from contamination of water in open channels). But because
piped systems require pres-surization as well as costly installations, the water is saved often at the
expense of increased energy consumption and capital investment. Methods are needed, therefore,
that minimize those capital and energy costs.
Full-system drip
Drip irrigation is the slow localized application of water, literally drop by drop, at a point or grid of
points on the soil surface. As long as the application rate is below the soil's potential intake, termed
infiltrability, the soil remains unsaturated and no free water stands or runs over the surface.
Water is delivered to the drip points via a set of plastic tubes, generally weathering-resistant opaque
polyethylene or PVC. Lateral lines, supplied from a field main, are laid on the surface. They are
commonly 10 to 25 mm in diameter and are either perforated or fitted with special emitters. The latter
are designed to drip water on to the soil at a controlled rate, ranging from 1 to 10 litres per hour per
emitter.
The operating water pressure is usually in the range of 0.5 to 2.5 atmospheres. This pressure is
dissipated by friction in flow through the narrow passages or orifices of the emitters, so the water
emerges at atmospheric pressure in the form of drops rather than a jet or spray.
Commercial emitters are either in-line (spliced into the lateral supply tubes), or on-line (plugged on to
the tubes through a hole punched into the tubing wall). Commercial emitters are precalibrated to
discharge at a constant rate of 2, 4 or 8 litres per hour. The discharge rate is always affected by
changes in pressure, but less so in the case of pressure-compensated emitters. The frequency and
duration of each irrigation period are controlled by means of a manual valve or a programmable
automatic valve assembly. Metering valves are designed to shut the flow automatically after a pre-set
volume of water is applied (Figure 17).
FIGURE 17
A basic trickle irrigation system (schematic)
Water tends to spread sideways and downwards in the soil from the point where it is dripped. The
fraction of the soil's total volume that is actually wetted depends on the density of the drip points (the
grid), as well as on the rate of application and the internal water-spreading properties of the soil. The
wetted zone, and hence the active rooting volume, is usually less than 50 per-cent of what would be
the normal root zone if the entire soil were wetted uniformly.
Under frequent drip, the wetted portion of the soil is maintained in a continuously moist state, though
the soil is unsaturated and therefore well aerated. This creates a uniquely favourable soil moisture
regime. Drip irrigation thus offers a distinct advantage over flood irrigation and even over less-frequent
sprinkle irrigation, especially for sandy soils of low moisture storage capacity and in arid climates of
high evaporative demand. In contrast with sprinkle irrigation, drip is practically unaffected by wind
conditions. Compared to surface irrigation, it is less affected by soil texture, topography or surface
roughness.
If irrigation is applied in an amount that exceeds crop requirements, the wetted zone under each
dripper becomes elongated downwards, and may eventually form a "chimney" draining the excess
water beyond the reach of the roots (Figure 18).

FIGURE 18
The pattern of soil wetting under a drip emitter placed between closely spaced rows of a crop
With drip irrigation, it is possible to use somewhat brackish water (e.g. with a salt concentration of
about 1 000 to 2 000 mg/litre) for the irrigation of crops such as cotton, sugar beet, tomatoes or dates
that are not too sensitive to salinity. The brackish irrigation water does not come into direct contact
with the foliage, which is therefore not so prone to salt-scorching as in sprinkle irrigation. Because the
soil in the wetted zone is kept constantly wet, the salts are prevented from concentrating and the
salinity of the soil solution in the rooting zone does not significantly exceed that of the irrigation water.
If the irrigation water is brackish, however, a fraction of the salts carried by the water tends to
concentrate at the peripheries of the wetted circles, forming visible rings of salt around each drip point.
In areas that receive appreciable seasonal rainfall, such salt rings are usually leached away annually.
Full-system drip irrigation can greatly reduce labour costs, but its successful operation demands
constant supervision by skilled technicians with a ready supply of spare parts. It is certainly not a
system that, once installed, can continue to operate trouble free by itself. Drip emitters must be
inspected regularly and cleaned or replaced whenever any fail by clogging or mechanical damage.
Though the plastic tubing used in drip irrigation is weathering-resistant and flexible, it is vulnerable to
kinking and cracking when bent or trampled repeatedly, as well as to puncturing by tillage implements,
rodents and birds. Burying the tubes in the ground increases their longevity but makes them harder to
inspect and to repair when they are damaged.
The most important aspect of drip irrigation maintenance is the prevention of clogging by suspended
particles (silt), by biological organisms or their products and by chemical precipitation of salts. Algae
and other biological slimes can be controlled by chlorination. Special care is needed where the
irrigation water is drawn from open reservoirs that are turbid with silt and greenish with aquatic plants.
Salts such as calcium carbonate can be prevented from precipitating by acidifying the water
periodically.
Particles of various sorts can be removed from the irrigation water by means of screen filters, media
filters (containing gravel, sand or diatomaceous earth) and centrifugal separators. Filters of one kind or
another are, in fact, integral components of drip irrigation systems. Screen filters are rather delicate
and require frequent inspection and servicing. Gravel and sand filters are less expensive, but tend to
be bulky and to result in considerable loss of pressure. As the pores of the gravel or sand medium
become clogged with retained solids or slime, pressure loss increases and flow rate diminishes, so
these media require frequent back-flushing and periodic replacement.
The spacing between lateral tubes is determined by the spacing of the crop rows, as these tubes are
generally laid alongside each row. In crops with closely spaced rows, it is often possible to economize
in tubage requirements by using a skip-row arrangement or by placing a single lateral tube between a
pair of close rows grown on a bed. This is not possible, of course, in the case of widely spaced shrub
or tree crops. In principle, drip irrigation is most suited to orchard crops and to garden crops grown in
rows and beds, and least suited to close-growing field crops requiring uniform wet-ting of the entire
soil volume (Figure 19).

FIGURE 19
The pattern of soil wetting under drip emitters placed either side of a tree
The capital investment costs of drip irrigation systems are relatively high because large quantities of
pipes, tubes, emitters and ancillary devices are necessary to control the precise delivery of water to
specific sites in the field. Moreover, since standard drip-emitter orifices are narrow, expensive filtration
equipment is necessary to prevent clogging. Hence drip systems tend to be more expensive, at least
initially, than surface irrigation. Drip systems may prove to be economically justifiable in the long run if
they can indeed prevent the waste of water and the degradation of land that is so frequent under
traditional irrigation. However, to make drip irrigation more applicable to African conditions, ways must
be sought to simplify the system and make it less expensive to install and operate.
Simplified drip
The highly sophisticated equipment developed to serve drip irrigation systems in the industrialized
countries obscures the concept's essential simplicity. The main justification for such a capital-intensive
and generally energy-intensive approach is to reduce the costs of labour. Since the relative costs
involved in the promotion of irrigation for the developing countries of Africa are often the reverse of
those in the industrialized countries, consideration must be given to simplifying drip irrigation systems.
Efforts must be directed towards redesigning drip systems so as to facilitate installation and
maintenance, while retaining the basic principles of high-frequency, high-efficiency and low-volume
irrigation (Figures 20-24).

FIGURE 20
An on-line point-source emitter with a single dripper

FIGURE 21
An on-line emitter with multiple drippers

FIGURE 22
Section of an in-line emitter with capillary spiral flow path, and of an on-line (plug-in) narrow-orifice
emitter
FIGURE 23
The patterns of spreading moisture under drip irrigation in sandy, loamy and clayey soils

FIGURE 24
A method of promoting the penetration of water into tight sloping ground under drip irrigation by means
of a gravel-filled ring driven into the soil to a depth of several centimetres
Drip emitters need not necessarily be precision-fabricated. Instead, they can be improvised by
punching holes manually in the lateral tubes. To make such perforations as uniform as possible, the
use is recommended of standard round-edged cutters of the type used for leather belts. To prevent
excessive outflow or blockage of the perforations, users can cover the holes with tight-fitting collars
made by slitting short sections of the same tubage that is used for the laterals and slipping them over
the holes. With trial and error experience, a user can make adequate emitters for a fraction of the cost
of commercial emitters. Moreover, such emitters are easy to service, i.e. to clean or unclog whenever
necessary. Another way to make emitters is to insert sections of microtubes into holes punched in the
lateral tubes, then adjusting the microtube length to provide the desired discharge rate (Figures 25
and 26).

FIGURE 25
Making a simple drip emitter by perforating a plastic tube and covering the perforations with a sleeve
cut from the same tube
FIGURE 26
Making a simple drip emitter by tightly inserting a microtube of adjustable length into a lateral hose line
Hydraulic pressure in the delivery lines need not be created by means of mechanical pumps.
Elevating the reservoir just a few metres above the land to be irrigated may create a gravitational head
sufficient for drip-irrigating a small area. Larger-diameter tubes and wider emitter orifices, as well as
longer durations of irrigation, can compensate for the lower operating pressure. The need for precision
pressure-regulators is thereby obviated, especially where the land is fairly level and the laterals are
not too long or narrow.
Filtration can be accomplished by interposing a simple sand-filled container between the source of
the water and the irrigation lines. Incoming (turbid) water can be introduced at the bottom of the
container and made to flow upwards through the layered sand, so that the filtered water collects on top
and overflows into the irrigation lines. Such a filter can be assembled locally, using either a metal or a
plastic container of whatever size is found to be adequate for the flow rate and the turbidity of the
water. The sand to be used should be pre-washed to remove the finer particles, and it should be
rewashed or replaced at regular intervals as it gradually tends to clog.
Measurement of flow is an essential requirement of efficient water use. Where a system is not
equipped with flow meters or metering valves, the flow must be monitored by recording the duration of
each irrigation. The volume of discharge per unit time should be checked and rechecked periodically,
as should be the uniformity (or variability) of emitters within each lateral line and of the lines within the
field. This can be done by recording the time needed for the discharge to fill a vessel of known
volume. The volume of water in each irrigation application should conform to the estimated irrigation
requirement for the crop, given its stage of growth and weather conditions (rainfall and
evapotranspiration since the previous irrigation).
Microsprayer
Microsprayers, also called mini-sprinklers or spitters, are similar in principle to drip systems in that
water is applied only to a fraction of the ground surface. However, instead of dripping water from
narrow-orifice emitters, microsprayer systems eject fine jets that fan out from a series of nozzles. Each
nozzle can water an area of several square metres, which tends to be much larger than the individual
areas wetted by single drip emitters. Microsprayers can thus help to enlarge the volume of soil
available for the uptake of water and nutrients by crop roots (thereby obviating the need for multiple
drippers). Enlarging the wetted volume is especially important for large trees (Figure 27).
FIGURE 27
The pattern of soil wetting by a microsprinkler
Another significant advantage of microsprayers over drip systems is that, thanks to the larger nozzle
orifices and the greater rate of discharge, the hazard of clogging is reduced and the filtration
requirements are not as stringent as in the case of drip irrigation. For this reason the installation costs
may be somewhat lower. The pressure requirements, however, remain in the order of one to two
atmospheres - lower than those for regular sprinklers but still requiring pumpage or a commanding
reservoir elevation of 10 metres or more.
In other respects, microsprayer irrigation retains the potential benefits of drip irrigation: it permits high-
frequency, low-volume irrigation as well as the injection of fertilizers into the water supply. Moreover,
microsprayer systems can be scaled down readily to accommodate the small irrigation units prevalent
in developing countries.
The disadvantages of microsprayer irrigation relative to drip irrigation must also be considered. The
evaporation component of the water balance is increased because of the larger wetted area of ground,
the spraying of water into the dry air and the wetting of the lower foliage of the crop. Because of the
wetting of leaves, the use of brackish water and the incidence of fungal diseases can be more
problematic with microsprayer irrigation than with drip.
Microsprayer systems are served by the same tubing network as drip systems. A wide variety of
emitter units, generally made of durable plastic materials, is now available commercially. Such spray
nozzles are harder to improvise, however, so the irrigator in this case must depend on manufactured
components more than in the case of the simplified drip system described above.
Low-head bubbler
Bubbler irrigation is a partial-area, low-volume, high-frequency irrigation method based on closed-
conduit delivery. It is designed to reduce investment and energy requirements by using inexpensive,
thin-walled, corrugated plastic pipe of sufficient diameter that even the limited pressure available from
a low-head surface reservoir might suffice. Bubbler irrigation is essentially a modification of drip
irrigation, intended to make the system less dependent on industrially produced components (Figure
28).

FIGURE 28
The pattern of soil wetting by a low-head bubbler
In bubbler irrigation, no manufactured emitters of any kind are used, and the water is simply allowed to
"bubble out" of open vertical tubes. This does away with the need for filtration, which is a major
problem in drip irrigation. The vertical bubbler tubes (called risers or standpipes), roughly 1 to 3 cm in
diameter, are connected to buried lateral irrigation tubes having a diameter of at least 10 cm. The
bubblers are anchored to stakes or posts and their heights are adjusted up or down, by calculation or
by trial and error, so as to deliver water at the desired rate.
Bubbler systems are particularly suited to the irrigation of widely spaced crops, like fruit trees or
shrubs, in which a standpipe bubbler can be installed alongside each tree or group of shrubs. The
irrigation water delivered by each bubbler is distributed uniformly by filling small level basins,
surrounded by low ridges, with equal quantities of water. Such basins can be constructed by hand and
may be either circular or rectangular. By the simple means described, the principles of efficient
irrigation can thus be implemented.
Because of its simplicity and the absence of standardized manufactured components (such as
nozzles, fittings, pressure regulators and filters), bubbler irrigation has not been promoted as a
commercial product by equipment salesmen. Perhaps this is the reason why so many potential users
are unaware of its advantages, including its low cost and its ease of installation and operation.
A procedure for installing and calibrating bubbler systems was described nearly 20 years ago by
Rawlins (1977). Since that time, experience by the author of this publication and others has proved the
system to be practical. Such systems, or variations of them, can serve as attractive options for tree
crops, particularly on relatively level lands that can be converted from rain-fed farming or from
traditional surface irrigation methods.
Fertilizer injection
Many soils in Africa are inherently low in fertility. Soils of the humid tropics tend to be highly leached
and in places exhibit acidity, as well as aluminium or sulphate toxicity. Soils of the arid subtropics are
typically coarse-textured and have low organic matter content. Such soils often require chemical
amendments, manuring or fertilizing if they are to provide the higher yields needed for food security.
Conventional methods of applying fertilizers, as by broadcasting uniformly on the surface or by drilling
a continuous band of fertilizer alongside the row crop, are not compatible with partial-area or partial-
volume irrigation. For best results, the spatial distribution of the fertilizer in the soil should correspond
to the distribution of the water.
Where water is applied only to a fraction of the soil volume, crop roots concentrate in the wetted
portion of the soil. It is important, therefore, to ensure that the restricted rooting zone be endowed with
the nutrients essential for crop growth. Surface application of dry fertilizer may not ensure optimal
placement, especially in the case of below-ground irrigation methods. Experience has shown that
fertilizer-use efficiency, as well as water-use efficiency, are enhanced when the nutrients are applied
in the irrigation water.
The combined application of water and fertilizers has come to be known as fertigation. As such, it is a
particular variant of the more inclusive concept of chemigation, by which different agrochemicals are
introduced into the rooting zone in solution form via the irrigation system. Among the other types of
chemicals similarly applied are selective herbicides to suppress weeds, fungicides to control fungal
diseases and nematocides to protect crop roots against parasitic nematodes.
In closed-conduit irrigation systems, fertigation can best be accomplished by means of a fertilizer
injection tank connected to the main line (Figure 29). A fertigation unit is relatively easy to assemble. It
requires no specialized equipment, merely a container of appropriate volume (20 to 100 litres),
preferably of corrosion-resistant material, through which the water supply is made to flow. The
container should have a wide opening for pouring in and mixing the fertilizer and a watertight seal for
it. For systems requiring filtration, such as drip or microsprayer, the fertilizer tank should precede the
filter so that any insoluble particles originating in the tank are prevented from clogging the emitters.

FIGURE 29
A fertilizer-mixing tank for injecting soluble nutrients (fertigation) into a closed-conduit irrigation system
Of the essential plant nutrients, the one most often deficient is nitrogen, whose mineral forms (e.g.
ammonium sulphate, ammonium nitrate, potassium nitrate and urea) are generally readily soluble.
Applications of nitrogen often result in dramatic bursts of foliar growth and greening, especially in
plants growing on leached soils of low organic matter content. However, crops given only nitrogen
may soon exhibit deficiencies of the other major elements (phosphorus and potassium), as well as of
several minor elements.
Potash, when required, is also available in soluble formulations, including potassium chloride, sulphate
or nitrate. Fertilizers containing phosphorus may need to be acidified to make them readily soluble. In
tropical soils of very low fertility, deficiencies of minor elements may call for foliar application by
spraying.
Subirrigation by groundwater control
Subirrigation is the supply of water to the root zone of crops by artificially regulating the groundwater-
table elevation. The method can work where the water-table is naturally high, as it frequently is along
river valleys or in plains underlain by impervious strata (Figure 30).

FIGURE 30
Raising or lowering the water-table for subirrigation, by controlling the level of water in parallel ditches
Open ditches are usually dug to a depth below the water-table, and the level of the water is controlled
by check dams or gates. In this manner, the ditches can serve either to drain excess water and
thereby lower the water-table during wet periods, or to raise the water-table during dry periods and
thereby wet the root zone from below.
The disadvantage of open ditches is that they interrupt the field and interfere with tillage, planting and
harvesting. They also take a significant fraction of the land out of cultivation. An alternative is to place
porous or perforated pipes (now generally consisting of corrugated plastic tubes) below the water-
table, with controllable outlets. When open, the outlets serve as drains; when closed, they allow the
water-table to rise. Subsoil pipes are, however, more expensive to install and more difficult to
maintain, as they tend to clog with soil or with precipitated iron oxide.
Subirrigation may be used for field crops and pasture, as well as orchards. It is best suited to
hydrophilic crops such as sugar cane and dates. The uniformity of irrigation depends on how level the
land surface is and how uniform the soil.

4.5 Box 4
Summary of small-scale irrigation methods
Methods based entirely on local materials and workmanship
• Low-fired porous ceramic pots are placed on the surface or embedded in the soil
within the root zone. When filled with water and dissolved fertilizers, the permeable
clay receptacles ooze water and nutrients into the soil.
• Sectioned ceramic pipes constitute line sources that feed elongated beds.
Methods based on imported materials but local fabrication
• Moulded plastic pipes or extruded plastic tubing are perforated manually and lain over
the ground to simulate drip irrigation.
• Vertical sections of plastic pipes (or even discarded plastic containers such as
bottles) are embedded in the ground.
• Thin-walled plastic vessels are filled with sand or gravel to provide mechanical
resistance to crushing.
• Slit plastic sleeves cover the perforated sections of the tubes to prevent root
penetration into the outlet holes.
 • Sand filters prevent suspended particles or algae from clogging the outlets.
• Auxiliary containers are used to dissolve and inject fertilizer into the irrigation water.
• Vertical standpipes are used to deliver water from an underground pipe to small
basins.
Methods based on imported components*
• Manufactured drip emitters and microsprayer assemblies are carefully supervised
and maintained.
• Ancillary equipment such as screen and media filters, metering valves, pressure
regulators and fertilizer injectors are used in various combinations.
* These options will be justified only for cash crops in a stable market economy.

Precise control of shallow groundwater is a delicate and difficult task, and it involves some serious
hazards. The optimal depth of the water-table is some 30 to 60 cm below the root zone. A higher
water-table tends to waterlog the soil, restrict aeration and cause capillary rise and evaporation at the
surface, where salts can accumulate. On the other hand, keeping the water-table too low may deprive
the crop of essential moisture. As the crop grows, its rate of moisture extraction increases and its root
system extends downwards, so the water-table tends to fall, unless it is purposely maintained at a high
level.
Since the water source is below the root zone, the supply to the roots occurs by capillary action.
Hence the operation of the system depends on the sorption characteristics of the soil. A fine-textured
(clayey) soil tends to become waterlogged and to restrict aeration. Clay soil also slows the flow of
water both in subirrigation and in drainage. Such a soil requires closer spacing of the ditches or of the
underground pipes. On the other hand, a coarse-textured (sandy) soil may retain too little water and
tend to dry out excessively. As in other modes of irrigation, there can be no substitute for local
experience in water control, based on knowledge of the specific soil conditions and crop requirements.
5 Chapter 5: Simple estimation of crop water requirements
Irrigation scheduling is the term used to describe the procedure by which an irrigator determines the
timing and quantity of water application. Accordingly, the two classical questions of irrigation
scheduling are: when to irrigate? and, how much water to apply?
In conventional low-frequency irrigation by surface flooding or sprinkle methods, the answer to the first
question is generally: when the reservoir of available soil moisture in the root zone is nearly depleted.
In practice, that implies: when the crop is near the point of experiencing distress. With high-frequency
irrigation, in contrast, the farmer need no longer worry about when soil moisture is depleted or when
plants are about to suffer thirst. Such situations can be avoided entirely. To the old question, when to
irrigate? the irrigator can now answer: as frequently as possible, even daily. To the second question,
how much water to apply? the answer is: enough to meet current evaporative demand and to prevent
salinization of the root zone.
The evaporative demand is a variable imposed by weather conditions, which
fluctuate over time. It can be determined by monitoring relevant weather variables (e.g. temperature,
wind, atmospheric humidity and solar radiation) and then applying any of several functional equations
or formulae to calculate the potential evapotranspiration (Figure 31 and 32).
FIGURE 31
Weather variables affecting evaporation, transpiration and soil moisture uptake by roots

FIGURE 32
Radiation and water balances on a plant under localized irrigation
Alternatively, and more simply, the evaporative demand can be estimated from the evaporation rate
measured directly by means of a standard evaporimeter. One of the simplest and most useful of such
devices is the evaporation pan. It consists of a shallow water-filled container that is placed on the
ground within the irrigated area. The amount evaporated daily can be obtained conveniently by
measuring the volume of water per unit area of the pan that has to be added to the pan to bring the
water surface back up to a marked level. The pan evaporimeter gives an indication of the integrated
effect of radiation, wind, temperature and humidity on evapotrans-piration from an open field (Figure
33).

FIGURE 33
The standard Class A pan evaporimeter, developed by the US Weather Bureau
Of the various standardized pans, the one used most widely is the Class A pan, introduced by the
United States Weather Bureau. It is a circular container, 121 cm across and 25.5 cm deep, placed on
a slatted wooden frame resting over the ground. The pan is filled with water to a height about 5 cm
below the rim. This standard design is relatively easy to follow, yet it is not critical to do so precisely.
Any configuration that does not differ too radically from the Class A pan will, in the experience of the
author, give nearly the same results. However, while inexpensive and easy to install, maintain and
monitor, evaporation pans do have several shortcomings.
Although a crop field responds to the same climatic variables as does water in a pan, it does not
necessarily respond in the same way. A vegetated surface generally differs from a free water surface
in the reflectivity, thermal properties (heat storage), day-night temperature fluctuation, water
transmissivity and aerodynamic roughness of the plant canopy. Such factors as the colour of the pan,
depth and turbidity of the water and shading from nearby plants can all affect the measurement to
some degree.
Pan evaporation depends on the exact placement of the pan relative to wind exposure. Pans
surrounded by tall grass may evaporate 20 to 30 percent less than pans placed in a fallow area.
Rainfall may occur during the irrigation season and may add water to the pan, or thirsty animals
wandering in the area may drink from the pan, thus detracting from its usefulness. To avoid water loss
to drinking animals (especially birds), pans are often covered by screens. This may reduce the
evaporation rate by some 10 to 20 percent, thus requiring the use of a correction factor.
All these shortcomings notwithstanding, pan evaporimeters, if properly sited and maintained, can be
useful inasmuch as they tend to correlate with other measurements of potential evapotranspiration
3
(PET). The problem is how to translate pan evaporation into an estimate of the crop's PET, and in
turn into actual irrigation requirements.
The first step is to apply a correction factor to account for the fact that free water generally evaporates
more than does a crop stand, even if that stand is dense, well endowed with soil moisture and is
transpiring at its full potential rate. Many
experiments have shown that the appropriate correction factor can vary from 0.5 to 0.85. In the
experience of the author, based on direct measurements as well as a review of the literature, that
factor is typically about two-thirds (say, 0.66):
PETfull cover = 0.66 Epan (4)
The second step is to account for the stage of the crop's growth, as indicated by its fractional ground
cover. That can be estimated from ground observations of the area shaded by the crop. Since the
potential evapotranspiration, while a function of the crop's coverage, is not simply proportional to it, it
is proposed here to use the following empirical relationship:
PETpartial cover = 0.33 (1 + C) Epan (5)
where C is the fractional ground cover of the crop, varying from 0 (when the crop is first sown or
planted) to 1 (when the crop stand is full). In the latter case, equation (5) becomes equation (4).
The third step is to estimate the irrigation requirements (I), including the actual crop water requirement
(W), plus a leaching fraction (L), minus the rainfall that occurred since the previous irrigation (R).
Assuming that the actual crop water requirement is about 80 percent of PET and that the desirable
leaching fraction is 10 percent of PET (i.e. W = 0.8 PET, L = 0.1 PET), the result is:
I = {0.33 x (W + L)} Epan (1 + C) - R
= (0.33 x 0.9) Epan (1 + C) - R (6)
= 0.3 Epan (1 + C) - R
These relations should only be regarded as preliminary estimates. Actual field measurements of
specific crop responses to varying amounts of irrigation under local conditions should provide more
reliable guidance on optimal irrigation amounts. Furthermore, the estimates above refer only to a
crop's active growth stages. As a crop reaches maturity and its tissues become senescent, its water
requirements naturally diminish. Irrigation is discontinued when its further contribution to crop yield no
longer justifies its added cost.
3
Potential evapotranspiration (PET) has been defined as the volume of water per unit area of field
evaporated and transpired by a dense stand of actively growing short grass that is well endowed with
(never short of) water. Actual evapotrans-piration (AET) is usually less than PET, as a real field may
not be uniformly dense and well watered (Penman, 1948; Monteith, 1980).
6 Chapter 6: Environmental aspects of irrigation development
Irrigation development may have both positive and negative impacts on the environment. To be
sustainable, irrigation must avoid the negative impacts.
The positive aspect of irrigation is that, by intensifying food and forage production in the most
favourable lands, it can allow a country to reduce excessive pressure on marginal lands now under
rain-fed cultivation or grazing. Such lands are already undergoing a process of degra-dation (known,
in semi-arid areas, as desertification). The transition of people who have subsisted for generations on
rain-fed lands to irrigated farming may be a difficult social change. However, change will in any case
be unavoidable in areas where land degradation becomes acute. Where the opportunity exists for
irrigation devel-opment, it can serve as a constructive alternative to either famine or mass migration.
The potentially negative environmental impacts of irrigation development may occur off-site as well as
on-site. The off-site effects may take place upstream of the land to be developed, as where a river is
to be dammed for the purpose of supplying irrigation water. Another set of problems may be
generated downstream of the irrigated area by the disposal of excess water that may contain harmful
concentrations of salts, organic wastes, pathogenic organisms and agrochemical residues.
Of most direct concern are the potential on-site impacts. Irrigated lands, especially in river valleys
prone to high water-table conditions, typically require drainage. Otherwise, they are subject to the twin
scourges of waterlogging and salinization. Because groundwater drainage is a complex, exacting and
expensive operation (often more expensive than the initial development of irrigation itself), there is a
temptation to start new irrigation projects while ignoring the need for drainage or delaying its
installation until it is actually needed. The trouble is that, by the time the need for drainage becomes
inescapable, the cost of implementing it may be prohibitive.
A thorough discussion of drainage is beyond the scope of this publication. Suffice it to say here that
irrigation developers should be mindful of the potential need for drainage and make provision for it in
their plans. At the very least, irrigators in each area should monitor the position of the water-table as it
tends to rise, by means of observation wells (piezometers). Sampling the water in such wells will allow
monitoring of the quality of the groundwater towards which the leaching fraction of irrigation water
percolates. Such monitoring can provide an early warning of the eventual danger of salinization, and
can guide irrigation practice towards minimizing that danger. Although small-scale irrigation
development is less likely to cause waterlogging and salinization than large-scale development, the
danger of land degradation should never be ignored.
7 Chapter 7: Human aspects of irrigation development
Irrigation is not simply a mechanical task of delivering water to crops. It is a human activity and a
social undertaking. No consideration of irrigation development should fail to note that, ultimately, the
success of every project depends on the quality of the human effort invested in it. Moreover, an
irrigation project is not only a system for producing crops but also, and perhaps even primarily, a place
for a community of people and families to live healthy lives while working cooperatively and
contributing to the food security of their nation (Figure 34).
FIGURE 34
The consequences of irrigation
As in other human activities, the first requirement for success is that the workers engaged in the
activity be strongly motivated and committed to the task. The second requirement is that they be
properly informed, not merely trained in the performance of routine operations but enabled to
understand the fundamental principles of proper irrigation manage-ment. An investment in research
and in training personnel is even more vital in this respect than an investment in pipes or pumps. The
third requirement, of course, is that the irrigation workers be given access to (preferably, an
opportunity to acquire) the material inputs necessary for the best performance of their work.
One of the worst mistakes that can be made by irrigation developers or managers is to assume an
authoritarian role, expecting the workers to obey the instructions handed them from above without
question. Depriving intelligent human beings of any personal stake in their own work, and of the
challenge and incentive to apply their own creative ingenuity, is a waste of a resource even more
precious than soil and water. People who are given a sense of participation, and allowed to reap
rewards commensurate with their initiative and contribution, care much more for their work and devote
much more of themselves to its success. The incentives offered may be social, administrative,
economic, or, best of all, a combination of all three.
The greatest incentive is to allow, indeed to encourage, people and families to work for themselves, in
harmony with their neighbours, on their own plots of land and with access to assured supplies of water
and other essential means of production. To accomplish this aim, policy-makers and administrative
agencies need to resolve a complex set of problems involving land reform and tenure, water rights,
and the coordination of resource allocation and utilization among various competing sectors, all of
which, however, range far beyond the limited scope of this discussion.
In addition to providing workers with incentives, an irrigation scheme may also contribute to human
welfare in a larger sense. Many, perhaps most, irrigation systems in the developing world are used for
non-agricultural purposes as well as for raising crops: for domestic water needs, waste disposal,
power generation, transportation, fishing and recreation. Some of these needs may interfere or conflict
with the basic functioning of the irrigation project, particularly if they are not recognized at the outset
and included in the initial planning stages.
One of the most serious problems in irrigation projects is the potential health hazard resulting from the
use of open water channels for drinking, bathing, washing of clothes and the disposal of human and
animal wastes. It has been said that "wherever water goes, disease follows". Unfortunately, water
storage and convey-ance structures present favourable breeding grounds for disease vectors (such as
mosquitoes and snails) and for pathogens of some of the most debilitating illnesses rampant in the
developing world. Among these are schistosomiasis (bilharzia), onchocerciasis (river blindness),
malaria, cholera, dysentery and other intestinal diseases. Public health specialists should therefore
participate in the design and operation of all irrigation schemes, as well as in the rehabilitation or
modernization of existing schemes.
Among factors that may contribute to the control of water-borne diseases are the following:
• concrete lining and shaping of the conveyance and drainage channels to prevent
stagnation along the banks (as well as, incidentally, to reduce seepage losses);
• control of riparian vegetation within the channels, to prevent clogging, stagnation and
harbouring of diseases;
• protection of the channels from wading animals that may breach the banks and
pollute the water;
• control of waste disposal by humans, who must be provided with environ-mentally
safe sanitary facilities;
• treatment of the water used directly for human needs (filtration and, where necessary,
use of chemicals to control parasites).
All these measures can be carried out most effectively in systems that convey water in closed conduits
and that restrict access to storage reservoirs. Such convey-ance can also facilitate the adoption of the
HELPFUL (high-frequency, efficient, low-volume, partial-area, farm-unit, low-cost) irrigation methods
described in this publication.
It can thus be seen that the proper development and management of irrigation is a complex and
comprehensive undertaking, requiring attention to much more than hydraulics and agronomy. The
design and operation of each irrigation project is necessarily site specific not only because of variable
physical and agronomic conditions. A special combination of human and economic factors exists in
each case and must be recognized in any attempt to promote or improve the practice of irrigation.
8 Chapter 8: A look back
There was a time when experts in the industrialized countries believed that they had ready-made
solutions to the problems of underdevelopment in the so-called Third World. All that was needed, they
believed, was to transfer already existing expertise and equipment, and then development and
modernization would immediately ensue. Unfortunately, that was a costly fallacy, resulting all too often
in the hasty introduction, or even imposition, of systems that were at variance or conflict with the
existing environmental, cultural or socio-economic conditions. False starts and faltering initiatives have
plagued attempts at technology transfer. Huge investments of resources often led to disappointment
and disillusionment.
Most capital expenditures for irrigation in developing countries have been on large-scale projects, in
the hope of achieving quick and massive increases in production. Typically, a well-meaning national or
international agency would conceive and finance a showcase project, based on elaborate engineering.
Experts would be hired from abroad to design the system, then contracting and supplying firms would
be engaged to implement the design. Subsequently, the marvel of modern technology would be
assembled and demonstrated, with great pride and fanfare. The gap of centuries had been bridged, so
it seemed, in a single master stroke. Then the foreign contractors, having done their job and reaped
their profits, would disappear. Soon afterwards, the elaborate system would cease functioning,
because of the failure of a single cog or inexpert or uncaring operation. Lack of local resources and
the difficulty of obtaining replacements or expertise from abroad, exacerbated by an underpaid and
indifferent workforce deprived of incentives, would combine to delay the necessary repairs and to
perpetuate the failure. The entire expensive system would then stand idle, a mute monument to
inappropriate technology transfer.
A case in point are the large-scale centre-pivot sprinkler systems, prefabricated abroad and
assembled in various countries in Africa where the traditional scale of farming, the cost of energy and
the availability of equipment and technical services contrast sharply with those in industrialized
countries. In many places, these imposing machines have become white elephants.
Most organizations responsible for designing irrigation projects have a strong civil engineering
orientation, and therefore have tended to emphasize the design and construction of large-scale water
supply systems over the small-scale, on-farm management aspects of irrigation. In some countries,
there is still a dichotomy between the agency that is responsible for developing water resources and
for allocating and delivering the water via canals, and the separate agency responsible for utilizing the
water in the field by local farmers. Often the water resources agency is endowed with greater power,
funding and prestige than the on-farm management agency, so the first is unlikely to accept guidance
from the second on the proper options for water allocation.
Key decision-makers have tended to favour high-visibility capital projects with impressive works, while
neglecting the more modest needs of indigenous farm units, as well as the issues of training and
maintenance that are of interest to lower- level personnel without decision-making power. Top-level
decision-makers have also tended to harbour unrealistic expectations as to the time required for
irrigation development and have tended to be impatient with technical or human constraints. Some
have been insufficiently aware that the technology they were trying to transfer from the industrialized
countries had evolved in a capital-intensive market economy based on the ready availability of
technical services and a complex economic infrastructure. Moreover, financing agencies and
corporations serving as contractors have naturally tended to prefer large projects providing for the sale
of expensive hardware and services, whereas in reality it is often small pilot projects with major
emphasis on human skills and local labour that are more likely to achieve sustainable progress.

9 Bibliography
Bander, J. 1984. Scheduling irrigation with evaporation pans. Montana State Univ. Agr. Bull. 1262.
Montana, USA.
Barghouti, S. & Le Moigne, G., eds. 1990. Irrigation in sub-Saharan Africa: development of public
and private systems. Tech. Paper No. 123. Washington, DC, World Bank.
Bar-Yosef, B. & Sagiv, B. 1985. Potassium supply to field crops grown under drip irrigation and
fertigation. In Int. Potash Inst., Potassium Symposium, p. 185-188. Pretoria, South Africa.
Bos, M.G. & Nugteren, J. 1978. On irrigation efficiencies. Wageningen, the Netherlands, Int. Inst.
Land Reclam. Improve. (ILRI).
Bucks,D.A. & Nakayama, F.S. 1986. Trickle irrigation for crop production. Elsevier, Amsterdam, the
Netherlands.
Bucks, D.A., Nakayama, F.S. & Warrick, A.W. 1982. Principles, practices and potentialities of trickle
(drip) irrigation. In D. Hillel, ed. Advances in irrigation, Vol. I. New York, Academic Press.
Burman, R.D., Cuenca, R.H. & Weiss, A. 1983. Techniques for estimating irrigation and water
requirements. In D. Hillel, ed. Advances in irrigation, Vol. II. Orlando, Florida, USA, Academic Press.
Campbell, G.S. 1977. An introduction to environmental biophysics. New York, Springer-Verlag.
Chossat, J.C. 1992. Evaluation du procédé d'irrigation "Irrigasc". Ministère de la Coopération et du
Développement, France.
Copeland, M.C., ed. 1993. A manual for irrigation planning in developing areas. Pretoria, South
Africa, SECOSAF.
Dasberg, S. & Bresler, E. 1985. Drip Irrigation Manual. Bet Dagan, Israel, Int. Irrig. Info. Ctr.
Delgado, C.L. 1995. Africa's changing agricultural development strategies. Washington, DC, Int. Food
Policy Res. Inst.
FAO. 1977. Crop water requirements. By J. Doorenbos & W.O. Pruitt, FAO Irrigation and Drainage
Paper No. 24. Rome.
FAO. 1979. Yield response to water. By J. Doorenbos & A.H. Kassam, Irrigation and Drainage Paper
No. 33. Rome.
FAO. 1987. Irrigation and water resources potential for Africa. AGL/Misc/11/87. Rome.
FAO. 1989. NGO casebook on small-scale irrigation in Africa. R. Carter, ed. Rome.
FAO. 1991. Fertigation/Chemigation. E.D. Threadgill, ed. AGL/MISC/19/91. Rome.
FAO. 1995. Irrigation in Africa in figures. Water Report No. 7. Rome.
Gilley, J.R. 1983. Energy utilization and management in irrigation. In D. Hillel, ed. Advances in
irrigation, Vol. II. Orlando, Florida, USA, Academic Press.
Hanks, R.J. 1980. Yield and water use relationships. In Efficient water use in crop production.
Madison, Wisconsin, USA, Am. Soc. Agron.
Hillel, D., ed. 1972. Optimizing the soil physical environment toward greater crop yields. New York,
Academic Press.
Hillel, D. 1987. The efficient use of water in irrigation: principles and practices for improving irrigation
in arid and semi-arid regions. Tech. Paper. No. 64. Washington, DC, World Bank.
Hillel, D. & Guron, Y. 1973. Evapotrans-piration and the yield of maize. Water Resources Res., 9:
743-748.
Hoffman, G.J. et al. 1978. Minimizing salt in drain water by irrigation management. Agric. Water
Manage., 1: 233-252.
James, L.G. 1988. Principles of farm irrigation system design. New York, Wiley.
Kovach, S.P. 1984. Injection of fertilizers into drip irrigation systems for vegetables. Circular 606.
Coop. Extension Service, Univ. Florida, Gainesville, USA.
Merriam, J.L. & Keller, J. 1978. Farm irrigation system evaluation: a guide for management. Agr. and
Irrig. Eng. Dept, Utah State University, Logan, USA.
Miller, E. 1990. Low-head irrigation system for smallholdings. Agric. Water Manage., 17: 37-47.
Miller, R.F. et al. 1975. Drip application of nitrogen is efficient. Calif. Agric., 76: 16-18.
Mondal, R.C. 1974. Pitcher farming: a simple low cost method of irrigation. Appropri-ate Technology,
1: 7-8. London, Intermediate Technology Publ.
Monteith, J.L. 1980. Development and extension of Penman's evaporation formula. In D. Hillel,
Applications of Soil Physics. Orlando, Florida, USA, Academic Press.
Murata, M. et al. 1995. Development of small-scale irrigation using groundwater resources. 4th Int.
Rept. Min. Lands Agr. & Water Dev., Zimbabwe and Inst. Hydrology, Wallingford, UK.
O'Mara, G.T., ed. 1988. Efficiency in irrigation: conjunctive use of surface and groundwater resources.
Washington, DC, World Bank.
Penman, H.L. 1948. Natural evaporation from open water, bare soil and grass. Proc. R. Soc. London,
Ser. A, 193: 120-146.
Raju, K.S., Biere, A.W., Kanemasu, E.T. & Lee, E.S. 1983. Irrigation scheduling based on a dynamic
crop response model. In D. Hillel, ed. Advances in irrigation, Vol. II. Orlando, Florida, USA, Academic
Press.
Rauschkolb, R.S. et al. 1976. Phosphorus fertilization with drip irrigation. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J., 49:
62-68.
Rawitz, E. & Hillel, D. 1974. Progress and problems of drip irrigation in Israel. Proc. 2nd Intl Congr.
Drip Irrig., San Diego, California, USA.
Rawlins, S.L. 1977. Uniform irrigation with a low-head bubbler system. Agric. and Water Manage., 1:
167-178.
Rawlins, S.L. & Raats, P.A.C. 1975. Prospects for high-frequency irrigation. Science, 188: 604-610.
Rosegrant, M.W. & Perez, N.D. 1995. Water resources development in Africa. Washington, DC, Int.
Food Policy Res. Inst.
Shalhevet, J. et al. 1976. Irrigation of field and orchard crops under semi-arid conditions. Bet Dagan,
Israel, Intl Irrig. Info. Ctr.
Sharma, M.L. 1985. Estimating evapotranspiration. In D. Hillel, ed. Advances in irrigation, Vol. III.
Orlando, Florida, USA, Academic Press.
Sivanappan, R.K. 1994. Prospects of micro-irrigation in India. Irrig. Drain. Sys., 8: 49-58.
Van Bavel, C.H.M. 1966. Potential evaporation: the combination concept and its experimental
verification. Water Resources Res., 2: 455-467.
Vaux, H.J., Jr & Pruitt, W.O. 1983. Crop-water production functions. In D. Hillel, ed. Advances in
irrigation, Vol. II. Orlando, Florida, USA, Academic Press.
Withers, B. & Vipond, S. 1980. Irrigation: design and practices. Ithaca, NY, USA, Cornell University
Press.