Sociale Inclusie in Waterallocation planning (Awash-Basin, Ethiopia)
Gaining insights in reasons why different irrigation user types are deprived from getting equal access to water in the Awash basin, Ethiopia
Blue Deal-project overview
In the Awash Awash project area and downstream areas millions of people depend on reliable access to water for their livelihoods, food security and wellbeing. Every year water scarcity puts challenges on their existence. In the Blue Deal Project named “the Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle in water allocation planning” we capacitate the responsible governments to make the planning and allocation process of water more effective, equitable and transparent . In the planning process, we have developed a very strong focus on monitoring, evaluation and learning. We have enriched the water allocation planning process with instruments and each year we implement lessons-learned from previous years.
We carried out a huge assessment under appr. 127 users and governments on experienced exclusion factors. The main objective of the assessment was to get a “Better understanding and awareness of problems and interests of disadvantaged groups, like downstream smallholder water users.
Within our PDCA-approach the insights gained by our social inclusion project enable us in the coming years to make the water allocation planning more inclusive and fair for all users, for each cycle in each year.
SI objective and relevance
Every year, irrigation water users in Ethiopia’s Awash Basin are challenged by water scarcity. The Awash Basin Administration Office (AwBAO) is responsible for allocating the available water among competing irrigation users. The user types are: smallholder farmers, irrigation Water User Associations (iWUAs), private investors and State Farms. In practice, some of these users seem to be better positioned to serve their interests and to get access to scarce water than others.
In our pilot project, we aimed to improve our understanding behind this unbalanced situation, obtaining answers to questions like: Who is marginalized in the current water allocation arrangement? What are the exclusion factors faced by these users? Can we prioritize exclusion factors per user type and also inventorize some of their preferred solutions?
SI-approach & activities
We carried out an extensive survey among approximately 127 irrigation water users and governments representatives involved in water allocation planning.
Our approach is visualized in the above figure. We developed questionnaires for users and governments, both in English and local languages. We validated/tested our questionnaires among respondents and trained a group of government experts on data collection. In 4 work sessions in different areas in the Awash basin the users and government experts filled in the questionnaires and elaborated on their answers through key informant interviews (KII) and focus group discussion (FGD).
The data was analysed by a social scientist. In 2 one-day work sessions with approximatelt 60 respondents, we validated and prioritized the exclusion factors. At the same time these workshops were used for raising awareness and collecting desired solutions.
Results, insights and lessons learned
In the survey we gained insights into the relevance of 25 exclusion factors for smallholder farmers, iWUAs, private investors and state farms. Per user type we determined the top 5 exclusion factors.
4a: The general findings
Some interesting general findings from our study are:
In the irrigation user profile, a pronounced male dominance exists; with 91.5% of respondents being men. This imbalance reflects broader societal norms in the region, where men primarily control strategic irrigation infrastructure and decision-making.
Gaps in irrigation information create uneven access among irrigation users.
Participation remains largely consultative, with power asymmetries limiting meaningful influence.
Financial and resource constraints mainly weaken smallholders’ and IWUAs’ capacity to involve in Water allocation planning.
Fragmented institutional roles and political influence reinforce structural exclusion and inequity in water allocation.
4b: Findings related to iWUAs
The iWUAs are marginalized users and at the same time institutionalized, organized and collective, and are therefore in our main focus. That’s why we dedicate specific attention to this user group in this article.
The problem of inequality in water allocation is strongly felt among the iWUAs (and smallholders). Governance in water allocation is characterized by pronounced power imbalances; the overwhelming majority of the smallholders and iWUAs feel they have limited influence. The experienced exclusion factors reflect a top-down system that prioritizes commercial users, forcing smaller users for remaining flows.
Out of the 25 exclusion factors, the main exclusion factors for iWUAs are:
Access to Knowledge and information
Representation
Communication and support
Challenges in resources for small actors
Access to finance
Weak institutional capacity
We diversified within the iWUAs and assessed the most relevant exclusion factors based on the diversification, mainly based on size and location of the iWUA (refer table below).
4c: Solutions to reduce exclusion based on lack of access to information
TIn a closing workshop, water users validated our analysis, prioritized the exclusion factors and brought in possible solutions. Some directions and suggestions from iWUA members for improving inclusion are:
Make information accessible and timely, especially around key milestones: Initiation phase and during rationing in the dry season. Prior to important meetings like General Assembly.
Train IWUAs on data interpretation and understanding allocation schedules
Require quarterly public reports and independent audits (phase 4 MELT and enforcement)
Avoid late and jargon‑heavy communication and use clear language that all members can understand
Develop culturally sensitive communication materials in local languages.
We have secured funding for a follow up project in which we will implement some of the suggested improvements on improving access to knowledge, information and good communication, mainly directed at iWUAs. Furthermore, the improvements will be part of BlueDeal Phase 2b and therefore over the course of 4 years, we can work on embedding the results in the organizational structures for long term sustainability.
5. Personal Story
“My name is Tadesse Zenede. I am the chair-person of the Bata Tagata irrigation Water User Association. In the past we had no information on our water resources, so we didn’t consider it as a resource. The most important gap for most users is lack of information and awareness. Since I participated in the General Assembly meeting and in the Monitoring Evaluation Learning Team, I learned how important water is for our life and I started educating others on this.”
Conclusion
This assessment provided us with a huge information basis to improve social inclusion in the water allocation planning cycle in the coming years. For different user types we have identified the top 5 exclusion factors and (mainly) for iWUAs we will start improving access to knowledge, information and good communication. This exclusion factor was weighed highest by several user groups in our survey.
It’s crucial to understand what drives exclusion and who is affected in what way. We have a much better understanding now and we will apply our insights the coming years to realize our ambition in our Blue Deal project on water allocation planning: a 'Fair share for all!'.
