Agricultural Water Management 97 (2010) 520–527

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Agricultural Water Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agwat

Agricultural water management and poverty linkages

Regassa E. Namara a,*, Munir A. Hanjra b, Gina E. Castillo c, Helle Munk Ravnborg d,
Lawrence Smith e, Barbara Van Koppen f
a
International Water Management Institute (IWMI), IWMI Regional Office for Africa and Subregional Office for West Africa, PMB, CT 112, Cantonments, Accra, Ghana
b
International Center of Water for Food Security, Charles Sturt University, Australia
c
Novib, Netherlands
d
Natural Resources and Poverty Research Unit, Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS), Strandgade 56, DK - 1401 Copenhagen K, Denmark
e
Centre for Environmental Policy at Imperial College, London, United Kingdom
f
International Water Management Institute, Southern Africa Regional Program, PBag X813, Silverton 0127 Pretoria, South Africa

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: Water is critically important to the livelihoods of more than 1 billion people living on less than $1 a day,
Available online 5 July 2009 particularly for the 850 million rural poor primarily engaged in agriculture. In many developing
countries, water is a major factor constraining agricultural output, and income of the world’s rural poor.
Keywords: Improved agricultural water management can contribute to poverty reduction through several
Irrigation pathways. First, access to reliable water improves production and productivity, enhances employment
Investments opportunities and stabilizes income and consumption. Secondly, it encourages the utilization of other
Livelihoods
yield-enhancing inputs and allows diversification into high-value products, enhances nonfarm outputs
Multiple uses
Water rights
and employment, and fulfils multiple needs of households. Third, it may contribute either negatively or
positively to nutritional status, health, societal equity and environment. The net impact of agricultural
water management interventions on poverty may depend individually and/or synergistically on the
working of these pathways. Improved access to water is essential, but not sufficient for sustained poverty
reduction. Investments are needed in agricultural science and technology, policies and institutions,
economic reform, addressing global agricultural trade inequities, etc. But how best to match the
agricultural water management technologies, institutions and policies to the needs of the heterogeneous
poor living in diverse agro-ecological settings remains unclear. This article provides a menu of promising
pathways through which agricultural water management can contribute to sustained poverty reduction.
ß 2009 Published by Elsevier B.V.

1. Introduction depth of poverty is worse in SSA. Poverty prevails in all farming

1.1. The state of poverty
While the proportion of poor people may be falling, more than 1
billion people still live on less than $1 a day, and 2.8 billion live on
less than $2 a day (OECD, 2001). According to the UN Millennium
Project (2005), the number of people living on $1 a day barely
dropped from 1990 to 2001, declining from 1.218 billion to 1.089
billion. In some countries the absolute number of poor people is
still rising. In sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) in particular, the number of
poor people living on $1 a day or less increased from 227 million in
1990 to 313 million in 2001 (UN Millennium Project, 2005).
Poverty is highly regionalized. South Asia and SSA are the core
areas for absolute poverty, with 70% of the world’s poor. South Asia
has 44% of the people under the 1$ per day poverty line, but the
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +233 21 784753/4; fax: +233 21 784752.
E-mail address: r.namara@cgiar.org (R.E. Namara).
systems and in all regions of the developing world, with varying
severity and intensity.
A comprehensive estimate of the net welfare impact of
investments in agricultural water management (AWM) that takes
into consideration the total benefits (including the multiplier
effects) and the corresponding total costs (including social,
environmental, and health costs) is not yet available (Faures
et al., 2007). This article intends to (a) clarify the mechanisms
through which investment in AWM ultimately impacts poverty, (b)
provide empirical evidence of these impacts from different regions
of the developing world, and (c) present some promising pathways
for improving the poverty impacts of AWM.
1.2. Definition of concepts
Before addressing the poverty and agricultural water manage-
ment nexus, we clarify their meanings. Over the last 25 years, the
understanding of poverty has advanced and become more holistic.
Once understood almost exclusively as inadequacy of income,

0378-3774/$ – see front matter ß 2009 Published by Elsevier B.V.

doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2009.05.007
 R.E. Namara et al. / Agricultural Water Management 97 (2010) 520–527
consumption and wealth, many dimensions of poverty and their
complex interactions are now widely recognized (Smith, 2004).
These include isolation, deprivation of political and social rights,
lack of empowerment to make or influence choices, inadequate
assets, poor health and mobility, poor access to services and
infrastructure, and vulnerability to natural hazards such as
droughts and floods.
Often, distinction is made between absolute and relative
poverty. Relative poverty measures the extent to which a
household’s income falls below an average income threshold for
the economy. Absolute poverty measures the number of people
below a certain income threshold or unable to afford certain basic
goods and services. Absolute poverty is a state in which one’s very
survival is threatened by lack of resources. Consideration is also
necessary of the dynamics of both chronic1 and transient poverty,
and of the processes that lead people to escape from, or fall into and
remain trapped in poverty.
Equity is usually understood as the degree of equality in the
living conditions of people, particularly regarding income and
wealth. Social norms often describe desired levels of equity. Thus
equity is broader than poverty and is defined over the whole
income distribution, not just below a certain poverty line. The
meaning of equity encapsulates ethical concepts and statistical
dispersion, and encompasses both relative and absolute poverty.
Hence, any assessment of how improvements in AWM can affect
poverty must consider impacts on these varied dimensions of
poverty and their interactions. For example, it must consider
whether changes are in absolute or relative terms, and whether
they are long lasting or transient. Similarly, it must encompass the
other dimensions of poverty beyond income, consumption and
wealth.
AWM embraces a wide range of practices including in situ
moisture conservation, water harvesting, full and supplementary
irrigation and various techniques of wetland development. All
forms of AWM are practiced in the arid and semiarid zones and are
intended to overcome a main constraint to cropping or livestock
keeping: low and unreliable rainfall. They are also practiced to
overcome problems related to excess water that have equally
deleterious effects on crops.
2. Understanding water poverty
Water is used in both productive and consumptive activities
and contributes to rural and urban livelihoods in complex ways.
Crop and livestock production, agro-processing, fishing, ecosys-
tems, recreation and human health are all influenced by the quality
and quantity of available water. In many cases, poor people do not
have access to enough water for both productive and consumptive
uses, simply because the resource is physically scarce (Molden
et al., 2007). In other cases, water is available but does not produce
potential gains due to lower water productivity or because people
are unable to access the resource for lack of infrastructural
investments. This is referred to as economic water scarcity.
Problems of mismanagement of water resources also contribute to
poverty, as is the case with groundwater overdraft. Droughts,
floods and changes in water allocation also increase poverty and
vulnerability (Carter et al., 2007).
A third of the world’s people experience water scarcity as a
result of rising and competing demands for water due to increasing
population, the rapid expansion of irrigation, growth in industry
and power generation, and due to lack of investments in
1
Chronic poverty is an individual experience of deprivation that lasts for a long
time. In this sense, the chronic poor are those with per capita income or
consumption levels persistently below the poverty line. Transient poverty is
associated with a fluctuation of income around the poverty line.
521
infrastructure or capacity (Molden et al., 2007). The available
water supply and its productive capacity are further strained by
climatic change, land degradation, deterioration of quality, and the
need to preserve environmental flows to protect aquatic and
terrestrial ecosystems (Janmaat, 2004; Murgai et al., 2001; Postel,
1999). Much of this ‘‘water-scarce’’ population resides in the
semiarid regions of Asia and in SSA, where poverty is widespread.
It is likely that problems of water scarcity, mismanagement,
and water-related disasters will intensify due to increasing
population, the rising demand for water for agriculture and other
uses, and greater climatic variability or climatic change. Pressure
on coping structures will affect patterns of water ownership and
accessibility. Increasing scarcity is likely to deepen current
inequalities in access to water, to the detriment of the poor,
particularly women and marginal groups. For example, poverty in
the high-altitude Andean watersheds has been increasing because
water customarily used by peasants and indigenous peoples has
been diverted for hydropower projects or for high-profit users who
live outside the area (Boelens et al., 2005).
The prevalence of poverty and the availability of water are not
necessarily linked. Many other factors play a role. In fact, the water
resource endowment of the most poverty-stricken regions
compares reasonably well with that of better-off countries, and
the incidence and severity of poverty depend on the level of control
over water resources, rather than on the endowment. For instance,
eastern India, which was dubbed as India’s poverty square, is
endowed with a very large groundwater reservoir and substantial
surface water resources, but people lack the resources to exploit
these water sources (Shah, 2001).
Although the underlying causes of poverty vary by farming
system, the increasing scarcity and competition for water pose a
threat to future advances in poverty reduction in many countries.
Indeed, most of the areas of persistent poverty can be described as
‘‘water scarce.’’ However, many irrigated areas with large-scale
systems, particularly in India and Pakistan, remain home to large
numbers of poor people in both absolute and relative terms. This is
largely because of inequity in access to land and water resources
and the resulting low productivity, particularly in downstream
areas (Hussain, 2005).
3. The mechanisms through which AWM affects poverty:
impact pathways and empirical evidence
The effects of investments in AWM on poverty are transmitted
through 10 interrelated pathways (Table 1, Castillo et al., 2007),
which can be direct or indirect, and negative or positive. The net
welfare effects of investments in AWM depend individually and/or
synergistically on the workings of these pathways. However,
improved access to water is necessary but not sufficient.
Investments may be needed also in agricultural science and
technology and in other public goods. Similarly, policy reforms and
new institutions might be needed to address global trade
inequities or to protect public goods, such as the quality of
governance (e.g., the prevailing social power relations, gender roles
and degree of participation of the poor in the decision-making
process), enhancement of human capital, the natural resources
endowment, and the climate.
3.1. Production and productivity
Improved agricultural water management boosts total farm
output and increases farm income if the increases in yield are
greater than any decline in prices, due to the increase in aggregate
production, Increased output may arise from improved yields,
reduced crop loss, improved cropping intensity, and increased
cultivated area. Reliable access to water enhances the use of
522 R.E. Namara et al. / Agricultural Water Management 97 (2010) 520–527
complementary inputs, such as high-yielding varieties and
agrochemicals, which also increase output levels, improve farm
income and reduce poverty (Smith, 2004; Saleth et al., 2003;
Hasnip et al., 2001).
In some South and Southeast Asian countries, irrigated areas are
more than twice as productive as non-irrigated areas (Hussain,
2005). However, the productivity varies widely across agricultural
systems and depends on a range of factors including policy and
specific local conditions. Wood et al. (2004), in their analysis of the
spatial patterns of crop yields in Latin American and the Caribbean
countries, found that agricultural research and development in the
past several decades has been biased towards generating technol-
ogies for use in areas with better access to reliable water supplies.
For example, an estimated 275 new varieties of rice have been
released in Latin American countries during the past three decades.
About 90% of these varieties were targeted to irrigated and rain-fed
wetlands. Average yields in irrigated regions rose from 2.8 t ha 1 in
the mid-1960s to 4.4 t ha 1 in the mid-1990s, while average yields
in rain-fed regions have changed little over four decades. The
patterns of rural poverty follow this agricultural productivity
gradient, i.e., the incidence of poverty is higher in rain-fed areas
with lower agricultural productivity (Wood et al., 2004).
3.2. Employment
Investments in AWM also affect poverty through their effects
on employment by creating additional demand for labor (Damiani,
2003; FAO, 2000). In southern Palawan, in the Philippines,
irrigation has increased the intensity of labor use on lowland
farms and, as a result, local demand for labor climbed from
18 d ha 1 in 1995 to 54 d ha 1 in 2002 (Shively and Pagiola, 2004).
Increased farm output also stimulates both the demand for farm
labor during the main cropping season and the new cropping
seasons, made possible by improved water management, increas-
ing both the number of workers required and the length of
employment (Chambers, 1988). For example, the annual labor
requirement in the Ganges-Kobadak irrigation system of Bangla-
desh is about 100 d ha 1 greater than in nearby non-irrigated areas
(Hussain, 2005). In addition, water resources management projects
require labor for construction and ongoing maintenance of canals,
wells and pumps (Hussain, 2005), an important source of
employment for the landless rural poor and rural households
with excess labor.
The indirect effects may extend to urban areas if water
resources management projects reduce migration and thus relieve
the downward pressure on urban wages and the upward pressure
on prices of housing and other urban infrastructure (Smith, 2004).
For landless laborers, increases in cropping intensity and cultivated
area have the greatest impacts on employment. However,
irrigation benefits may approach a zero-sum game in the long
run without structural change in the economy, because areas with
intensive irrigation development act as magnets that attract more
people from their surroundings ultimately creating downward
pressure on living standards due to competition for resources and
services (Shah and Singh, 2004).
The employment impact of irrigation is also felt in rain-fed
areas. For example, 68% of upland households in southern Palawan,
in the Philippines had at least one household member working on a
lowland irrigated farm in 2002, and a substantial number of upland
households consider wage employment on lowland farms to be a
viable alternative to upland cultivation (Shively, 2006).
3.3. Output and income stabilization
Access to agricultural water reduces transient poverty through
its effects on the variance of output, employment, and income at
the farm level. Two factors contribute to output fluctuations:
rainfall variability and the relative prices of inputs and outputs
(Smith, 2004; Lipton et al., 2003). Reliable access to agricultural
water not only raises crop output levels, but also usually reduces
variance in output over seasons. For instance, in Brazil, the entropy
index of rice yield dispersion, which is a measure of yield
variability, has declined from 5.3 in 1975 to 2.7 in 1995 in irrigated
areas, while in rain-fed areas it has increased from 8.0 to 13.7 over
the same period. Lower values of the entropy index mean lower
yield variability, while higher values indicate higher yield
variability. Moreover, the mean yield difference between irrigated
and rain-fed areas has also widened (Wood et al., 2004). However,
stabilization of farm output cannot be achieved merely through a
reliable system of AWM. The general environment for farming (e.g.,
input and output pricing policies, market access, agricultural trade
policies, information, etc.) must be improved to reduce risk and
improve predictability for farmers (Smith, 2004).
3.4. Consumption and food prices
If improved AWM leads to increases in food output, food prices
may fall. A decline in staple food prices is likely to be poverty
reducing because rural and urban purchasers of food will have
access to cheaper food. However, producers who fail to sufficiently
increase productivity may be harmed by falling prices, and may
even become poorer.
The poverty impact of the recent increase in food prices can be
assessed in two time horizons (i.e., in the short run and the long
run). The short-run supply responses to the current food price
increases may include putting more land under production,
changing the cropping pattern, optimizing the utilization of
existing AWM infrastructure and improving the productivity of
existing cultivated lands. These measures depend on the specific
biophysical and socioeconomic circumstances, and the prevailing
policy environment of countries. Though the impacts of these
short-run measures on rural and urban poverty vary by country,
their effects on the general food price trend are likely modest,
particularly in developing countries. The implication is that
farmers’ incomes will rise or poverty among farmers will be
reduced. The poverty status of the urban poor and rural net food
buyers may worsen or may remain unchanged at best.
The long-run supply response to the increase in food grain
prices might include investments in infrastructure for AWM and
for agricultural production, more generally. Such investments
were observed in response to the food shortages of the 1960s and
1970s when governments invested heavily in irrigation. Invest-
ments in infrastructure and other development projects, which
had been considered non-feasible in economic and financial terms,
would become feasible, encouraging governments to reengage in
the development of irrigation infrastructure. Over time, increases
in food production will bring food prices down to the affordable
range for both the urban and rural poor.
3.5. Backward linkages and second-round effects
Access to agricultural water has second-round effects on
poverty through output, employment and prices. Access to reliable
agricultural water encourages farmers to increase their use of
inputs, fertilizers, pesticides, improved seeds, and other agricul-
tural inputs and services (World Bank, 2005). Access also gives
farmers the opportunity to switch from staples to higher-value
market-oriented products and to apply more integrated
approaches, including incorporation of livestock and fisheries.
The exposure of smallholders to market forces may exacerbate the
poverty situation unless they have the capacity to manage the
market risks associated with price fluctuations. The switching of
 R.E. Namara et al. / Agricultural Water Management 97 (2010) 520–527
crops in irrigated areas may also create or expand the demand for
crops from rain-fed areas, leading to poverty reduction in those
areas (Lipton and Longhurst, 1989).
3.6. Nonfarm rural output and employment
As farm output and incomes rise and food prices fall, wealthier
farmers and workers will increase their expenditures on non-food
products, boosting demand and increasing employment opportu-
nities in nonfarm, income-generating activities. These may include
transportation, construction, secondary processing of animal
products, food preparation, and trading (Lange et al., 2007; Van
der Berg and Kumbi, 2006; World Bank, 2005; Hassan, 2003).
However, such effects are likely to be less effective under certain
conditions. One is when income and land distribution are highly
skewed and the consumption pattern of the better-off is oriented
to imports and capital-intensive goods and services rather than to
the offerings of rural nonfarm suppliers. Another is when the poor
face barriers to entry in nonfarm employment and micro-
enterprises due to ethnicity or caste, gender, skill and education
levels, access to information, mobility, transaction costs, and risks.
A third is when diversification requires investment in specific
assets for which the poor lack the necessary resources, without
functioning credit and insurance markets (Reardon et al., 2000).
3.7. Nutrition
Access to agricultural water may have positive impacts on
nutritional outcomes through diversification of crops, better
availability of staple food supplies (Lipton, 2001), and cleaner
water, thus ensuring a more balanced diet with adequate
micronutrients. For instance, a comparison of households in the
Mwea irrigation scheme in Kenya with surrounding households,
with respect to food security, revealed that about 13% and 33% of
households in and outside the scheme, respectively, were food-
insecure (Nguyo et al., 2002). Von Braun and Puetz (1989) in their
study of the impact of a rice irrigation project on production,
income, consumption and nutrition in the Gambia, concluded that
the project has increased real income by 13% and that an additional
10% increase in income leads to a 9.4% increase in food expenditure
and a 4.8% increase in calorie consumption. They further noted that
a 10% increase in calorie availability per capita increases the
weight-for-age indicator of nutritional status by 2.4%. The
nutritional impact of the adoption of micro-irrigation technologies
is particularly worth noting. Following the adoption of bucket kits,
the poor farm families in India and Nepal were able to improve
their consumption of vegetables and fruit (Namara et al., 2007;
Upadhyay and Samad, 2004).
Investments in AWM may adversely affect the nutrition intake
of the poor, however, when it leads to mono-cropping of cereals at
the expense of pulses, oilseeds, and coarse grains. For instance, in
Bangladesh, the rapid expansion in the area of boro rice and wheat
made possible by an expansion of irrigation infrastructure was
achieved partly by reducing the area and production of pulses and
oilseeds. These two crops were important sources of protein and
micronutrients, particularly for the poor (Hossain et al., 2005).
3.8. Multiple uses of agricultural water supply
Poor rural households may use water from infrastructure
developed for agricultural or domestic use in many ways, such as
for drinking, sanitation, homestead gardens, trees, livestock,
replenishment of aquifers, urban water supply, rural industries,
artisanal fishing and aquaculture. Examples of multiple uses are
abundant (Van Koppen et al., 2006; Nguyen-Khoa et al., 2005) and
are spreading rapidly (Alberts and Van der Zee, 2004). The benefits
523
may be especially critical for women or for other vulnerable
groups. There is a danger that these uses are seen as low value and
thus neglected (Bhatia, 1997; Meinzen-Dick, 1997). Evidence from
the Lower Mekong, Lake Chad Basin, Amazon, Lao PDR, and Sri
Lanka shows how inland fisheries provide 10–30% of income for
farmers (Nguyen-Khoa et al., 2005, p. 2). In South Africa the income
from productive uses of domestic water represents about 17–31%
of average household income in selected villages (Moriarty et al.,
2004).
3.9. Equity
Targeted investments in AWM can reduce societal inequity. For
example, large irrigation systems have been built to stimulate
economic development in poor regions and treadle pumps have
been introduced to help the disadvantaged. But investments can
increase inequity if powerful people capture most benefits or if
poor people are displaced (Cernea, 2003). The equity impacts of
AWM projects vary with time, in both the nature and number of
beneficiaries and the nature and extent of the benefits (Smith,
2004). Tail-end farmers, often the poorest, suffer a twin
disadvantage—less water and more uncertainty. Thus, as improved
AWM spreads, inequality tends to fall (Kerr and Kolavalli, 1999).
Huang et al. (2005) suggest that cropping income from irrigated
land has the highest marginal effect on reducing inequality. A 1%
increase in cropping income from irrigated land for all households
would decrease the Gini coefficient for total income by 0.1%. They
conclude that inter-household inequality is attenuated by the
presence of irrigation.
Factors that enhance equity impacts of AWM include equitable
land distribution, with secure ownership or tenancy rights;
efficient input, credit and product markets; access to information;
and nondiscriminatory policies against smallholder producers and
landless laborers (Hussain, 2005; Smith, 2004; Thirtle et al., 2001).
Absolute poverty for some may worsen if investments in AWM
reinforce processes of land consolidation in which poor households
lose rights to land and water, or if they are associated with
displacement of labor by mechanization. Poor people may be
displaced by the construction of reservoirs and canals, or their
livelihoods may be adversely affected by upstream or downstream
impacts (Hasnip et al., 2001). Larger and relatively resource-rich
water infrastructure users will benefit most, even if the poor
benefit in absolute terms (Smith, 2004).
Equity issues also arise between geographic areas within and
across households. Investments in AWM generally are better
suited to some regions than to others, and hence geographic
inequity may be unavoidable. Depression of output prices
following the introduction of irrigation may reduce the income
of poor farmers using rain-fed agriculture. Typically, women have
less access to productive resources such as land, water, credit,
training, fertilizer and marketing channels (Agarwal, 1994).
Women farmers often have less access to support services and,
hence, they may fail to make the most of AWM interventions. Thus,
AWM interventions may aggravate the existing inequity between
male and female farmers.
3.10. Environment and health
Investments in AWM have both negative and positive impacts
on the environment and health, and thus affect livelihoods of the
poor. Higher income due to better AWM can enhance farmers’
abilities to invest in land improvements that enhance sustain-
ability (or reduce vulnerability) and reduce the pressure on
surrounding marginal areas and hence avoid deforestation, land
degradation and loss of biodiversity (Shively, 2006; Morrison and
Pearce, 2000). The population absorption capacity of an irrigation-
524 R.E. Namara et al. / Agricultural Water Management 97 (2010) 520–527
led strategy may be greater, and pressure on natural resources less-
severe than for alternatives (Carruthers, 1996). Thus irrigation
development may lead to poverty reduction in urban areas through
mitigating distress-induced rural–urban migration. The negative
environmental impacts of water use in agriculture are extensively
documented (Urama and Hodge, 2004; Petermann, 1996; Dough-
erty and Hall, 1995; Goldsmith and Hildyard, 1992). Most
commonly cited are the upstream and downstream impacts of
dams or diversions, waterlogging and salinization within com-
mand areas, and increased agrochemical usage. Dam construction,
if not well planned, can reduce livelihood opportunities and
exacerbate poverty among the relocated or affected population.
AWM improves health status through better nutrition, avail-
ability of drinking water and increased revenue to combat diseases
like malaria. This can have a positive impact on livelihoods.
However, badly designed or mismanaged irrigation can harm
public health and human capital through the spread of waterborne
diseases, usually with greater impacts on the poor (Lautze et al.,
2007; Lire, 2005). Negative social and environmental conse-
quences often hurt the poor more than the non-poor because the
poor lack political clout and the financial resources to avoid the
potentially adverse impacts of irrigation from displacements to
health risks and land degradation (Hussain, 2005).
4. Promising policies and strategies for strengthening the
poverty impact of AWM
Improving agriculture and enhancing food production will
remain key challenges for achieving food security and poverty
reduction in most low-income countries because the rural poor
will continue to depend on agriculture, at least in the near future.
The increase in world food production over the past half century
has come from increased crop yields. Multi-dimensional strategies
are needed to lift out of poverty most of the 850 million people who
work on small farms. Secure access to water is essential, as are
improvements in technology and the right policies and institu-
tions. It is critical, in particular, to create awareness among
governments regarding the significance of water as a natural
resource and the need to protect it not only as a sustainable
strategy for economic development, but as a critical measure for
poverty alleviation. Broadly conceived, the poor must be given
better access to water so they can improve and diversify their
livelihood opportunities.
5. Making more water available to the poor
5.1. Ensuring secure access to water
The rising demand for limited water resources makes sharing
and prioritizing inevitable. This process can put the poor at greater
risk. Cremers et al. (2005) present security of access in terms of the
possibility of materializing water use rights now and in the future
and of avoiding or controlling the risks of unsustainable water
management. To secure these rights it is important to consider the
larger ‘‘bundle of rights’’ (water access and withdrawal rights,
operational rights, decision-making rights) of which they are a
part. People often try to materialize their claims by addressing
rules, rights and regulations that originate from different, and
sometimes, divergent rights systems that best represent their
interests (e.g., local or customary laws, religious laws, state laws,
international treaties and laws). But it is also essential that higher-
level institutions such as the national law and water administra-
tion provide mechanisms and policies that increase security of
access to users (Lautze and Giordano, 2006; Trawick, 2003).
Local norms are an important mechanism to guarantee that
everyone has access to water for drinking and for small-scale
productive uses and livelihoods. Individuals who take large
quantities of water and thus deprive others generally encounter
community resistance (Derham et al., 2005). However, formal
water legislation and priority setting under scarcity protect the
poor often only weakly. Even worse, superimposing permit
systems over customary water rights regimes can formally
dispossess customary title holders, many of whom are poor, from
their prior claims (Van Koppen et al., 2007). Local regulations and
solutions in water management tend to be overlooked by official
policies and intervention strategies. An equitable pro-poor
arrangement, as practiced for example in parts of India and Sri
Lanka, is to guarantee acceptable minimum quantities of water or
land for all and to set rules for the few who want to claim any
surplus (Van Koppen et al., 2002).
Although not recognized by formal legal frameworks in many
places, rights to water are often claimed on the basis of
landownership. Thus, where land distribution is skewed against
the poor, water is also likely to be unevenly distributed. Adding to
this, land with a water source tends to have a higher value than
land without one, making landownership-based rights to water
even more inaccessible to the poor.
5.2. Developing appropriate technologies and financing options
Basic needs are usually best met through the use of relatively
inexpensive, locally driven, culturally appropriate, and gender-
responsive technologies. Examples of successful development
and marketing of such technologies are the treadle pump in
Bangladesh during the 1980s and low-cost drip and sprinkler
systems and water storage devices in Nepal and India. In the late
1980s International Development Enterprises, an international
non-profit organization, implemented a program to stimulate
the rural mass marketing of treadle pumps, promoting the
emergence of 75 private-sector manufacturers, several thousand
village dealers and well drillers, and a variety of marketing and
promotion activities (Heierli and Polak, 2000). Over a 15-year
period, 1.5 million treadle pumps were purchased and installed
by small farmers at an unsubsidized price, putting 300,000 ha
under irrigation at a total investment cost of $49.5 million. The
cost of irrigating the same farmland with a conventional dam
and canal system would be at least $1.5 billion. This treadle
pump investment is generating $150 million per year in
continuing net income for poor smallholders (Sauder, 1992;
Shah et al., 2000). Many other organizations are now involved in
treadle pump programs in several countries in Asia and SSA (Kay
and Brabben, 2000).
Low-cost drip irrigation systems have been made available to
small-farm customers through a private-sector network of
manufacturers, village dealers, and farmer-technicians, who
can, for example, install a 1-ha drip system in 5 days for $10 in
rural India. In addition to providing a reliable source of water,
low-cost drip systems facilitate improved crop quality, higher
yield and lower water use, leading to agricultural intensification
and the cultivation of high-value marketable crops (Keller et al.,
2001). The impact of these technologies would be even larger, if
complemented by low-cost water storage facilities. In many
semiarid areas the greater part of annual rainfall occurs during a
few monsoonal months. As irrigation water is either scarce or
not available during dry months, when growing conditions are
favorable and vegetable and fruit prices are at their highest,
small-scale farmers are not able to compete in the market.
Capturing and storing monsoonal rainwater for future use are
constrained by the high price of conventional water-storage
systems. There is a need for cheap water tank systems,
particularly with increasing climatic variability (Polak et al.,
2004).
 R.E. Namara et al. / Agricultural Water Management 97 (2010) 520–527
5.3. Informal irrigation systems
In the uplands and hillsides of many countries, wetland farmers
have developed systems of irrigation without government support
to irrigate vegetables, green maize and paddy. These systems are
often important in making water available to the poor but are often
overlooked. On mainland Tanzania an estimated 5% of cultivated
land is irrigated, two-thirds of it under traditional irrigation
initiated by farmers with no intervention by external agencies
(FAO, 2005). In the Honduran and Nicaraguan hillsides 16–39% of
farming households have land on which there is a water source or
that borders a stream. But these households lack access to the
resources and technologies needed to make productive use of the
water. Poor people are also engaged in agricultural activities
involving marginal-quality water. For instance, in Ghana, informal
irrigation around cities in the center of the country covers an
estimated 40,000 ha, whereas the 22 formal schemes cover
5478 ha (Drechsel et al., 2006). The agricultural use of marginal-
quality water can be economically very attractive, but the risks to
the health of producers, consumers and the environment need to
be carefully managed through public policy interventions (Hussain
et al., 2001). Such informal irrigation systems are rarely adequately
reflected in official statistics or recognized by policy makers and
agricultural support services such as research and extension.
5.4. Using water better
Using water better means improving the productivity of
agricultural water in both irrigated and rain-fed systems, through
multiple-use water system design, integrated water resources
planning and targeted research.
5.5. Improving productivity and equity in existing large-scale
irrigation systems
Poverty is also prevalent in many large-scale irrigation systems.
Interventions that might improve the poverty reduction impacts of
these systems can be categorized as technical and institutional.
Technical interventions include promoting water-saving and
water-conservation measures, enhancing agricultural enterprise
diversification and introducing high-value crops, rehabilitating
infrastructure, integrating management of surface water and
groundwater, developing water-control structures, and improving
drainage management. These technical interventions need to be
complemented by institutional interventions, such as improving
collection of irrigation charges, improving head-end and tail-end
equity in water distribution, deepening the irrigation management
transfer process, and building the capacity of system officials and
water user members through targeted training (Merrey et al.,
2007).
5.6. Upgrading rain-fed systems
Low-yielding rain-fed systems in marginal areas hold the
highest potential for productivity gains. Moreover, the majority of
the rural poor depend on these systems for their livelihoods.
Upgrading these systems through soil and water conservation,
water harvesting, and supplemental irrigation can lift people out of
poverty through productivity gains (Hope, 2007).
5.7. Recognizing multiple uses of water infrastructure
A promising pathway to using water more effectively for
poverty reduction and gender equity is a multiple-use approach
that recognizes that rural water infrastructures are typically used
for many purposes: domestic water supply, sanitation, livestock,
525
horticulture, cropping, fisheries and aquaculture, tree-growing,
beer-making, and other small water-dependent businesses and
ceremonial uses. Communities also tap many conjunctive sources
of water (rainfall, surface streams and lakes, wetlands and
groundwater) to meet their seasonal water needs and to spread
risks and cope with extreme events.
Livestock rearing, fishing and small-scale aquaculture activ-
ities represent a significant share of farm production in most
farming systems of the developing world and are a major source of
cash income for households with inadequate landholdings
(Maltsoglou and Rapsomanikis, 2005; Thornton et al., 2002).
Promoting livestock production and integrating it into crop
production systems are effective ways to target the rural poor.
Similarly, integrated aquaculture–agriculture and inland artisa-
nal fisheries and related activities such as small-scale fish
processing and trading are usually operated by households with
limited land and other resources. In places where primarily
women engage in livestock activities, targeting the livestock
sector would also be a way of reaching rural women with income-
generating activities.
5.8. Enhancing water productivity through targeted research
Pro-poor research on low-cost and gender-sensitive technol-
ogies, crop improvements and improved agronomic and water
management practices can contribute significantly to poverty
reduction. Crop research should focus on issues relevant to the
circumstances of the poor in developing countries such as drought,
rainfall uncertainty, waterlogging, salinity, sodicity, pests and
diseases, and soil-nutrient deficiencies. The development of crop
varieties tolerant to these biotic and abiotic stresses would
improve water productivity (Rovere et al., 2006).
5.9. Linking farmers to input and output markets
Improved agricultural water management and other produc-
tion technologies and services are useful for poverty reduction only
to the extent they enable smallholders to take advantage of market
opportunities (Maltsoglou and Rapsomanikis, 2005). Whether the
smallholders are raising labor-intensive cash crops or livestock or
fish, generating new income depends on removing constraints
regarding access to local, regional, or export markets. The
increasing concentration of global agribusiness supply chains
means that small farmers must find ways to link up commercially
with much larger players. Otherwise, they risk being squeezed out
of the fastest-growing domestic and export markets (Reardon
et al., 2003).
Many smallholders need assistance to gain better access to
supermarket buyers, in conjunction with training on measures to
meet new quality standards and satisfy market-volume require-
ments. Many can gain also by aggregating their production by
forming farmer organizations and cooperatives. Bundling products
and services for small-scale farmers in a vertically integrated
fashion might be a key strategy in catalyzing the participation of
growing numbers of poor rural producers in emerging, high-value
agricultural commodity markets (Reardon et al., 2003).
5.10. Diversifying livelihoods
Existing agriculture and diversifying income sources are seen as
viable strategies for escaping poverty (Dixon and Gulliver, 2001)
and indirectly reducing the pressure over local water resources
(Van der Berg and Kumbi, 2006). In many countries nonfarm
income sources already constitute a substantial share of rural
household income. In India, more than one-third of rural house-
holds derive their income from manufacturing and services
526 R.E. Namara et al. / Agricultural Water Management 97 (2010) 520–527
(Reardon et al., 2003). Reducing poverty therefore requires policy
support to enhance such developments.
6. Conclusions
Interventions to improve agricultural water management affect
poverty through several pathways: improved productivity and
production, employment generation, keeping food prices within the
affordable range for the rural and urban poor, multiplier effects,
reducing vulnerability, nutritional effects, equity impacts, multiple
uses, and effects on the environment and human health. The effects
of these pathways can be positive or negative, and there may be
winners and losers. The net poverty-reduction impacts of improve-
ments in agricultural water management depend individually and/
or synergistically on the working of these pathways. An overall
policy strategy should increase the number of those who benefit
while ensuring that those who lose are adequately compensated.
The agricultural water agenda for development involves
providing more water to the poor, using it better, and managing
it in a sustainable and equitable manner. Increasing overall water
productivity remains the main pathway to reduce poverty, but
how best to match the agricultural water management package
(technology, institutions, policies) to the needs of the hetero-
geneous poor living in diverse agro-ecological settings remains
unclear. Understanding and enabling changes in how improve-
ments in water management can reduce poverty are the most
important policy and research challenges for the coming decades.
In areas of physical water scarcity where further development
of water resources for poverty reduction is limited, improving the
management of existing systems is the preferred strategy. This is
particularly the case for many countries in Asia, the Middle East,
and North Africa.
Where exploitable water supplies are available, but people
have difficulty accessing them, investments in new agricultural
water infrastructure (both small-scale irrigation to upgrade rain-
fed systems and larger-scale irrigation) are recommended, but
care must be taken to avoid potentially negative social and
environmental impacts. Considerations for terrestrial and aquatic
ecosystems; integration of fisheries, aquaculture, and livestock,
and the application of the concepts of multiple-use systems (Van
Koppen et al., 2006) in the initial planning process will enhance the
positive impacts of investments in agricultural water manage-
ment on the livelihoods of the poor.
References
Agarwal, B., 1994. A Field of One’s Own: Gender and Land Rights in South Asia.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Alberts, J.H., Van der Zee, J.J., 2004. A multi sectoral approach to sustainable rural
water supply: the role of the rope handpump in Nicaragua. In: Moriarty, P.,
Butterworth, J., van Koppen, B. (Eds.),Beyond Domestic: Case Studies on Poverty
and Productive Uses of Water at the Household Level. IRC Technical Papers
Series 41.. International Water and Sanitation Centre, Natural Resources Insti-
tute, and International Water Management Institute, Delft, Netherlands.
Bhatia, R., 1997. Food security implications of raising irrigation charges in devel-
oping countries. In: Kay, M., Franks, T., Smith, L.E.D. (Eds.), Water: Economics,
Management and Demand. E & FN Spon and Chapman & Hall, London.
Boelens, R., Dourojeanni, A., Hoogendam, P., 2005. Improving water allocation for
user communities and platforms in the Andes. In: Bruns, B.R., Ringler, C.,
Meinzen-Dick, R. (Eds.), Water Rights Reform: Lessons for Institutional Design.
International Food Policy Research Institute, 2003, Washington, DC.
Carruthers, I., 1996. Economics of irrigation. In: Pereira, L., Feddes, R., Gilley, J.,
Lesaffre, B. (Eds.), Sustainability of Irrigated Agriculture. Kluwer Academic,
Dordrecht, Netherlands.
Carter, M.R., Little, P.D., Mogues, T., Negatu, W., 2007. Poverty traps and natural
disasters in Ethiopia and Honduras. Food Policy 35, 835–856.
Castillo, G., Namara, R., Munk Ravnborg, H., Hanjra, M., Smith, L., Hussein, M., 2007.
Reversing the flow: agricultural water management pathways for poverty
reduction. Chapter 4. In: Molden, D. (Ed.), Water for Food, Water for Life: A
Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture. Earthscan/
International Water Management Institute, London/Colombo.
Cernea, M.M., 2003. For a new economics of resettlement: a sociological critique of
the compensation principle. International Social Science Journal 55 (175), 37–
45.
Chambers, R., 1988. Managing Canal Irrigation. Cambridge University Press, Cam-
bridge.
Cremers, L., Ooijevaar, M., Boelens, R., 2005. Institutional reform in the Andean
irrigation sector: enabling policies for strengthening local rights and water
management. Natural Resources Forum 29 (1), 37–50.
Damiani, O., 2003. Effects on employment, wages, and labor standards of non-
traditional export crops in northeast Brazil. Latin American Research Review 38
(1), 84–112.
Derham, B., Hellum, A., Sithole, P., 2005. Intersections of human rights and customs:
a livelihood perspective on water laws. In: van Koppen, B., Butterworth, J.A.,
Juma, I. (Eds.), African Water Laws: Plural Legislative Frameworks for Rural
Water Management in Africa. Proceedings of a workshop held in Johannesburg,
South Africa. January 26–28, 2005. International Water Management Institute,
Pretoria.
Dixon, J., Gulliver, A., 2001. Farming Systems and Poverty: Improving Farmers’
Livelihoods in a Changing World. Food and Agriculture Organization/World
Bank, Rome/Washington, DC.
Dougherty, T.C., Hall, A.W., 1995. Environmental impact assessment of irrigation
and drainage projects. Irrigation and Drainage Paper 53. Food and Agriculture
Organization, Rome.
Drechsel, P., Graefe, S., Sonou, M., Cofie, O.O., 2006. Informal irrigation in urban
West Africa: An overview. IWMI Research Report 102. International Water
Management institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka, 40 pp.
FAO, 2005. AQUASTAT. FAO’s information system on water and agriculture. Country
profiles. Tanzania. Accessed August 15. http://www.fao.org/ag/agl/aglw/aqua-
stat/countries/tanzania/index.stm.
FAO, 2000. Socio-economic impact of smallholder irrigation development in Zim-
babwe: case studies of ten irrigation schemes. FAO Sub-Regional Office for East
and Southern Africa (SAFR), Harare, SAFR/AGLW/DOC/002.
Faures, J.-M., Svendsen, M., Turral, H., 2007. Reinventing irrigation. Chapter 4. In:
Molden, D. (Ed.), Water for Food, Water for Life: A Comprehensive Assessment
of Water Management in Agriculture. Earthscan/International Water Manage-
ment Institute, London/Colombo.
Goldsmith, E., Hildyard, N., 1992. The Social and Environmental Effects of Large
Dams. Volume III: A Review of the Literature. Wadebridge Ecological Centre,
Bodmin, UK.
Hasnip, N., Mandal, S., Morrison, J., Pradhan, P., Smith, L.E.D., 2001. Contribution of
Irrigation to Sustaining Rural Livelihoods. HR Wallingford, Wallingford, UK.
Hassan, R.M., 2003. Economy-wide benefits from water-intensive industries in
South Africa: quasi-input–output analysis of the contribution of irrigation
agriculture and cultivated plantations in the Crocodile River catchment. Devel-
opment Southern Africa 20, 147–156.
Heierli, U., Polak, P., 2000. Poverty Alleviation as a Business. Swiss Agency for
Development and Cooperation, Berne.
Hope, R.A., 2007. Evaluating social impacts of watershed development in India.
World Development 35, 1436–1449.
Hossain, M., Naher, F., Shahabuddin, Q., 2005. Food security and nutrition in
Bangladesh: progress and determinants. Electronic Journal of Agricultural
and Development Economics 2, 103–132.
Huang, Q., Dawe, D., Rozelle, S., Huang, J., Wang, J., 2005. Irrigation, poverty and
inequality in rural China. The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource
Economics 49, 159–175.
Hussain, I., 2005. Pro-poor Intervention Strategies in Irrigation Agriculture in Asia:
Poverty in Irrigated Agriculture—Issues, Lessons, Options and Guidelines. Inter-
national Water Management Institute and Asian Development Bank, Colombo.
Hussain, I., Raschid, L., Hanjra, M.A., Marikar, F., van der Hoek, W., 2001. A frame-
work for analyzing socioeconomic, health and environmental impacts of waste-
water use in agriculture in developing countries. Working Paper 26.
International Water Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Janmaat, J., 2004. Calculating the cost of irrigation induced soil salinization in the
Tungabhadra project. Agricultural Economics 31, 81–96.
Kay, M., Brabben, T., 2000. Treadle pumps for irrigation in Africa. Knowledge
Synthesis Report 1. International Programme for Technology and Research in
Irrigation and Drainage, Rome.
Keller, J., Adhikari, D., Peterson, M., Suryanwanshi, S., 2001. Engineering Low-Cost
Micro-Irrigation for Small Plots. International Development Enterprises, Lake-
wood, Colorado.
Kerr, J., Kolavalli, S., 1999. Impact of agricultural research on poverty alleviation:
Conceptual framework with illustrations from the literature. EPTD Discussion
Paper 56. International Food Policy Research Institute and Consultative Group
on International Agriculture Research, Washington, DC.
Lange, G.M., Mungatana, E., Hassan, R., 2007. Water accounting for the Orange River
Basin: an economic perspective on managing a transboundary resource. Eco-
logical Economics 61, 660–670.
Lautze, J., Giordano, M., 2006. Transboundary water law in Africa: development,
nature, and geography. Natural Resources Journal 45, 1053–1087.
Lautze, J., McCartney, M.P., Kirshen, P., Olana, D., Jayasinghe, G., Spielman, A., 2007.
Effect of a large dam on malaria risk: The Koka Reservoir in Ethiopia. Tropical
Medicine and International Health 12, 1–10.
Lipton, M., 2001. Challenges to meet: food and nutrition security in the new
millennium. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society (2001) 60, 203–214.
Lipton, M., Longhurst, R., 1989. New Seeds and Poor People. Johns Hopkins Uni-
versity Press, Baltimore.
 R.E. Namara et al. / Agricultural Water Management 97 (2010) 520–527
Lipton, M., Litchfield, J., Faures, J.M., 2003. The effects of irrigation on poverty: a
framework for analysis. Water Policy 5, 413–427.
Lire, E., 2005. Small-scale irrigation dams, agricultural production, and health:
theory and evidence from Ethiopia. Policy Research Working Paper 3494. World
Bank, Washington, DC.
Maltsoglou, I., Rapsomanikis, G., 2005. The contribution of livestock to household
income in Viet Nam: A household typology based analyses. Pro Poor Livestock
Policy Initiative (PPLPI). PPLPI Working Paper 21. FAO, Rome.
Meinzen-Dick, R., 1997. Valuing the multiple uses of irrigation water. In: Kay, M.,
Franks, T., Smith, L.E.D. (Eds.), Water: Economics, Management and Demand. E
& FN Spon and Chapman & Hall, London.
Merrey, D.J., Meinzen-Dick, R., Mollinga, P., Karar, E., 2007. Policy and institutional
reform: The art of the possible. In: Molden, David (Ed.), Water for Food, Water
for Life: A Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture.
Earthscan/International Water Management Institute, London/Colombo.
Molden, D., Frenken, K., Barker, R., De Fraiture, C., Mati, B., Svendsen, M., Sadoff, C.,
Finlayson, C.M., 2007. Trends in water and agricultural development. In:
Molden, D. (Ed.), Water for Food, Water for Life: A Comprehensive Assessment
of Water Management in Agriculture. Earthscan/International Water Manage-
ment Institute, London/Colombo.
Moriarty, P.,Butterworth, J.,van Koppen, B. (Eds.),2004. Beyond domestic: case studies
on poverty and productive uses of water at the household level. IRC Technical
Papers Series 41. International Water and Sanitation Centre, Natural Resources
Institute, and International Water Management Institute, Delft, Netherlands.
Morrison, J.A., Pearce, R., 2000. Interrelationships between economic policy and
agri-environmental indicators: An investigative framework with examples
from South Africa. Ecological Economics 34 (3), 363–377.
Murgai, R., Ali, M., Byerlee, D., 2001. Productivity growth and sustainability in post-
Green-Revolution agriculture: the case of Indian and Pakistani Punjabs. World
Bank Research Observer 16 (2), 199–218.
Namara, R., Nagar, R., Upadhyay, B., 2007. Economics, adoption determinants, and
impacts of micro-irrigation technologies: empirical results from India. Irriga-
tion Science 25, 283–297.
Nguyen-Khoa, S., Smith, L., Lorenzen, K., 2005. Impacts of irrigation on inland
fisheries: appraisals in Laos and Sri Lanka. Comprehensive Assessment Research
Report 7. Imperial College London and International Water Management Insti-
tute, Colombo.
Nguyo, W., Kaunga, B., Bezuneh, M., 2002. Alleviating Poverty and Food Insecurity:
The case of Mwea Irrigation Scheme in Kenya. Broadening access and strength-
ening input market systems. University of Wisconsin-Madison. Available at
http://www.wisc.edu/ltc/basis.html
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2001. Rising to
the global challenge: partnership for reducing poverty. The Development Co-
operation Directorate (DAC) guidelines. OECD. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/
47/14/2672735.pdf
Petermann, T., 1996. Environmental Appraisals for Agricultural and Irrigated Land
Development. German Foundation for International Development (DSE) and
Food and Agriculture Development Centre (ZEL), Zschortau, Germany.
Polak, P., Keller, J., Yoder, R., Sadangi, A., Ray, J.N., Pattanyak, T., Vaidya, S.,
Bembalkar, N., Chepe, S., Singh, D., Bezbaruah, P., 2004. A Low-Cost Storage
System for Domestic and Irrigation Water for Small Farmers. International
Development Enterprises, Lakewood, Colorado.
Postel, S.L., 1999. Pillars of Sand: Can the Irrigation Miracle Last? W.W. Norton, New
York.
Reardon, T., Taylor, J.E., Stanoulis, K., Lanjouw, P., Balisacan, A., 2000. Effects of
nonfarm employment on rural income inequality in developing countries: an
investment perspective. Journal of Agricultural Economics 51 (2), 266–288.
Reardon, T., Timmer, C.P., Barrett, C.B., Berdegue, J., 2003. The rapid rise of super-
markets in Africa, Asia and Latin America. American Journal of Agricultural
Economics 85 (5), 1140–1146.
Rovere, R.L., Aw-Hassan, A., Turkelboom, F., Thomas, R., 2006. Targeting research for
poverty reduction in marginal areas of rural Syria. Development and Change 37,
627–648.
527
Saleth, R.M., Namara, R.E., Samad, M., 2003. Dynamics of irrigation poverty linkages
in rural India: analytical framework and empirical analysis. Water Policy 5,
459–473.
Sauder, A., 1992. International Development Enterprises Evaluation of Marketing
Appropriate Technology Phase II. Canadian International Development Agency,
Quebec.
Shah, T., 2001. Wells and welfare in the Ganga basin: public policy and private
initiative in eastern Uttar Pradesh, India. Research Report 54. International
Water Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Shah, T., Singh, O.P., 2004. Irrigation development and rural poverty in Gujarat,
India: a disaggregated analysis. Water International 29 (2), 167–177.
Shah, T., Alam, M., Kumar, D., Nagar, R.K., Singh, M., 2000. Pedaling out of poverty:
social impact of a manual irrigation technology in South Asia. Research Report
45. International Water Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Shively, G.E., 2006. Externalities and labour market linkages in a dynamic two-
sector model of tropical agriculture. Environment and Development Economics
11, 59–75.
Shively, G.E., Pagiola, S., 2004. Agricultural intensification, local labor markets, and
deforestation in the Philippines. Environment and Development Economics 9,
241–266.
Smith, L.E.D., 2004. Assessment of the contribution of irrigation to poverty reduc-
tion and sustainable livelihoods. International Journal of Water Resources
Development 20 (2), 243–257.
Thirtle, C., Xavier, I., Lin, L., McKenzie-Hill, C., Wiggins, S., 2001. Relationship
between Changes in Agricultural Productivity and the Incidence of Poverty
in Developing Countries. UK Department for International Development, Lon-
don.
Thornton, P.K., Kruska, R.L., Henninger, N., Kristjanson, P.M., Reid, R.S., Atieno, F.,
Odero, A.N., Ndegwa, T., 2002. Mapping Poverty and Livestock in the Devel-
oping World. International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Nairobi, Kenya,
124 pp.
Trawick, P., 2003. Against the Privatization of water: an indigenous model for
improving existing laws and successfully governing the commons. World
Development 31, 977–996.
UN Millennium Project, 2005. Investing in Development: A Practical Plan to Achieve
the Millennium Development Goals. Earthscan, New York.
Upadhyay, B., Samad, M., 2004. Livelihoods and gender roles in drip-irrigation
technology: a case of Nepal. Working Paper 87. International Water Manage-
ment Institute, Colombo.
Urama, K.C., Hodge, I., 2004. Irrigation externalities and agricultural sustainability
in south-eastern Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Economics 55 (3), 479–501.
Van der Berg, M., Kumbi, G.E., 2006. Poverty and the rural nonfarm economy in
Oromia, Ethiopia. Agricultural Economics 35, 469–475.
Van Koppen, B., Giordano, M., Butterworth, J., 2007. Community based water law
and water resources management reform in developing countries. In: Com-
prehensive Assessment of Water Management Series 5, CABI Publishers, Wall-
ingford, UK.
Van Koppen, B., Moriary, P., Boelle, E., 2006. Multiple use water services to advance
the millennium development goals. IWMI Research Report 98. International
Water Management Institute, Challenge Program on Water and Food, and
International Water and Sanitation Center, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Van Koppen, B., Parthasarathy, R., Constantina, S., 2002. Poverty dimensions of
irrigation management transfer in large-scale canal irrigation in Andra Pradesh
and Gujarat, India. Research Report 61. International Water Management
Institute, Colombo.
Von Braun, J., Puetz, D., 1989. Irrigation technology and the commercialization of
rice in the Gambia: effects on income and nutrition. Research Report 75.
International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC.
Wood, S., Liangzhi, Y., Xiaobo, Z., 2004. Spatial patterns of crop yields in Latin
American and the Caribbean. Cuadernos de Economia 41, 361–381.
World Bank, 2005. Shaping the Future of Water for Agriculture: A Sourcebook for
Investment in Agricultural Water Management. The World Bank, Washington,
DC.