12.Challenges of - agri

International Journal of Agricultural Science and Research (IJASR) ISSN 2250-0057 Vol. 2 Issue 4 Dec 2012 111-120 Š TJPRC Pvt. Ltd.,

CHALLENGES OF UPSCALING WATER PROVISION AMONG FARM HOUSEHOLDS IN SELECTED RURAL COMMUNITIES OF ENUGU STATE, NIGERIA ENWELU. I. A Department of Agricultural Extension University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Enugu State, Nigeria

ABSTRACT The study highlighted the challenges of upscaling water provision among farm households in selected rural communities of Enugu State. Interview schedule was developed and administered to 114 respondents. The study revealed that the main natural source of water to the communities was streams which were located far from the communities. This posed enormous challenges to average farm households in the communities in terms of health, socio-cultural and economic activities of the people. The mechanisms for upscaling water provision through other sources were: water vendors (through motor tankers), rainwater harvesting and ponds. The main challenges in upscaling water provision in the communities were finance, labour and water pollution. High level of effects of water scarcity was expressed in the areas of disease outbreaks, thirst/hunger/starvation, poor sanitary condition, reduction in household income etc. The study concluded that finance, labour and environmental pollution were the main challenges in upscaling water provision in the communities.

KEY WORDS: Challenges, Farm Households, Mechanism, Provision, Upscaling, Water INTRODUCTION Water is crucial for existence and optimal performance of every living thing. According to Nigerian National Policy on Water Resources (NPWR) (2004), water is central to life and civilization. Among the five basic human needs (water, food, health, education and peace) water is a common factor to the other four. Enwere and Ani (2011, 73-79) stressed that reduction in food production, changes in quality and quantity of foods and the characteristics of the natural micro-flora of foodstuffs and environments is a function of water. Thus, water quality and availability poses great challenges to food processing in Nigeria. The efficiency of food production is currently measured on the basis of a unit increase in the volume of water. It is also a very important factor in settlement development in any country where it usually serves as human settlement boundaries (NPWR, 2004).

Nigeria had made considerable investment in water schemes and related activities. However, the desire to improve access to this resource was becoming more and more elusive because of the rapidly increasing demand for water. This rise in demand that was outstripping supply is consequent upon high population growth rate of 1.94% (CIA World Fact Book 2011) coupled with increasing urbanization and rising living condition as a result of economic growth. Other challenges facing Nigeria with respect to managing its water resources are shortages of water in urban and rural areas, competing water uses, lower level of irrigation, degrading watersheds and water courses, fragmented and uncoordinated water resources development, poor data and lack of cooperation on co-riparian use of international waters (NPWR, 2004).

In Enugu state, some communities are not naturally endowed with water resources. Farm households are adversely affected by scarcity of water. The situation is chaotic during the dry season. Farming which is the main occupation of rural dwellers almost grounds to a halt because of cessation of rainfall and lack of irrigation facilities. People resort to non farm activities and in some cases few watershed resources are devastated by hungry men and women (including the youths). They embark on excessive excavation of sand/stones at the river beds/banks, deforesting trees and

112

Enwelu. I. A

farming very close to the watersheds (Ingwu, 2006). These unsustainable activities worsen the future supply of water at the long run.

In some of the communities in Enugu state, boreholes sunk by the government are usually dysfunctional during the dry season when they are mostly needed. At best they render skeletal services which cannot sustain dry season farming even at the backyard where such facility exists. This is most unfortunate because according to World Bank Operations Evaluation Department (OED, 2002,), the most effective way to improve farm family health and increase agricultural productivity is to ensure that there is adequate clean water in each village. This situation is lacking in Enugu state.

Therefore, the main purpose of the study was to ascertain the challenges of upscaling water provision among farm households in selected rural communities of Enugu State. Specifically, the study sought to: ascertain the challenges of various sources of water; describe mechanisms of upscaling water provision among farm households; examine the challenges in upscaling water provision; and determine respondents’ perceived level of effects of water scarcity on farm households.

METHODOLOGY The study was conducted in Enugu State of southeast, Nigeria. The state has good soil for agricultural purposes.

The state is characterized by a tropical climate with marked wet and dry season and mean annual rainfall of about 1700mm (Ahamefule and Mbagwu, 2007). The population of Enugu State according to 2006 population census is 3,257,298.

This study was carried out during the dry season with a view to ascertaining the challenges of water scarcity in the selected communities. The population of the study comprised all farmers living in the selected rural communities.

Politically, Enugu State is divided into three senatorial zones namely Enugu East, Enugu West and Enugu North. Out of the three senatorial zones, two were purposively selected namely Enugu East and Enugu West. The reason for purposive selection was based on farming activities and degree of water availability in the selected communities. Enugu East Senatorial zone has six local government areas (LGAs) with their respective population as follows: Enugu East (279,089); Nkanu East (148,774); Enugu North (244,852); Enugu South (198,723); Nkanu West (146,695); and Isi-Uzo (148,415) while Enugu West has five LGAs [Ezeagu (169,718), Udi (234,002), Aninri (133,723), Awgu (198,134) and Oji River (126,587); Census, 2006]. One LGA was purposively selected from each zone namely Nkanu East LGA from Enugu East zone and Udi LGA from Enugu West zone. Similarly, from each of the selected LGAs, two town communities were purposively selected viz: Nkanu East LGA- Nara-Unateze and Nkerefi and Enugu West LGA- Umuabi and Obinagu.

Both LGAs and town communities were purposively selected because of observed water scarcity in the areas.

Each town community is made up of villages, clans and hamlets. A list of 100 heads of households was compiled in each town community based on the farmers belonging to the villages, clans and hamlets. Thereafter, 30 heads of households were randomly selected from the list in each town community for interview. However, in Umuabi and Obinagu, only 27 samples each were found analyzable leaving a total sample size of 114 for the study.

Data were collected using interview schedule. The interview schedule contained relevant questions required to address the objectives of the study while in-depth interview with properly selected key informants such as renowned farmers (Eze-obas) traditional rulers and chiefs helped to clarify certain ambiguous issues in the study.

In the measurement of the variables, the respondents were asked to identify natural sources of water in the community and to rate the relative distance of each source on a three point Likert type scale of very far (more than 2 kilometres) (3), far (500 metres-1kilometre) (2) and near (below 500 metres) (1). The values were summed up to 6 and divided by 3 to give a mean score of 2. Any mean scores of 2 and above were regarded as far while mean scores below 2

Challenges of Upscaling Water Provision among farm Households in Selected Rural Communities of Enugu State, Nigeria

113

were regarded as near. The respondents were also asked to tick various mechanisms for upscaling water provision from the list provided and to rate the effectiveness of each mechanism on three point Likert type scale of very effective (3), effective (2) and not effective (1). The respondents were also requested to identify the challenges in upscaling water provision. The level of effects of water scarcity on farm households was measured at two levels-high effect and low effect. The effects with scores of 50% and above were high and those with less than 50% were low. Percentage and mean scores were used in the analysis of data.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS Challenges of Natural Sources of Water Table 1 reveals that the main natural source of water in the communities was streams (100%). The other sources of water such as rivers (25%) and spring water (25%) were found only in Nkerefi and Obinagu town communities respectively. The streams which are main source of water to all the communities are constantly polluted by floods and therefore unsafe for drinking. This can be a source of water-borne diseases. This fact is corroborated by Mloza-Banda, Chikuni and Singa (2006) when they state that these sources of water provide the most important source of water-borne diseases.

Also, data in Table 2 show that the relative distance (500m-1km) of communities to the streams which are the main source of water is far (M=2.40). The river source is also far (M=2.40) to the Nkerefi community while only the spring water is near (M=1.71) to Obinagu community (less than 500m). Therefore, it was established that the communities under the study were located far away from their sources of water. The Malawi Government/UNDP (1993) in Mloza-Banda, Chikuni and Singa (2006) reports that the planned optimum distance that a woman should carry water is 500 metres but in the study, streams are up to one kilometre. Moe and Rheingans (2006) confirm that the amount of water use varies with distance from the source.

Where people must work farther than one kilometre or spend 30 minutes for total water collection time, per capita water use drops to between five and 10 litres per day. It was discovered during the in-depth interview that some of the streams are seasonal in nature supplying water (only during rainy season) when water is not highly needed. The spring water at Obinagu Udi called Iyi-uba serves obinagu community and her neighbouring community Umuabi but far to her.

The only river in Nkerefi community called Evuna was constantly polluted by petroleum products from pipeline vandalization in the area.

The above scenarios pose enormous challenges to average farm households in the communities in terms of health, socio-cultural and economic activities of the people. The women and children face the challenge of providing water for domestic services. The full time farmers are compelled to seek alternative non-farm means of sustaining the farm households. As a result of scarcity of water, considerable amount of resources and energy are wasted which indirectly also affect other livelihood activities.

Mechanisms for Upscaling Provision of Water to Communities Various mechanisms for upscaling provision of water to the communities are presented in Table 3. Water supply through water vendors (88.0%) and rainwater harvesting (87.3%) were the major mechanisms in upscaling water provision in the area. Another mechanism for upscaling provision of water in the communities was through construction of ponds (70.0%). Boreholes (23.8%) and deep wells (12.5%) were not popular mechanisms for upscaling of water provision in the communities.

114

Enwelu. I. A

The use of water vendors by farm households in upscaling provision of water in the communities was not desirable but inevitable means of last resort. On the other hand, the mechanism of upscaling water provision through rainwater harvesting is cherished by farm households in the communities except that it has a time lag and the high cost of constructing water reservoir/ purchasing plastic or metal tank. According to Mloza-Banda, Chikuni and Singa (2006), many people who would like to harvest rainwater lack the resources and technical know-how to store it. Only a few use boreholes and deep wells. Boreholes were usually individual efforts by well-to-do members of Umuabi and Obinagu communities while digging of deep wells were undertaken by individuals in Nara-Unateze and Nkerefi. However, sometimes the wells got dried up in Nara-Unateze while wells in Nkerefi faced contamination by oil spillage. The implication of these factors is lack of adequate water for use among households which can lead to serious sanitation/health problems.

Effectiveness of Mechanisms for Upscaling Water Provision in the Communities The study revealed that water supply through water vendors (M=2.55) and rainwater harvesting (M=2.50) were the only effective mechanisms for upscaling of water provision in the communities (Table 4). The use of boreholes (M=0.71), deep wells (M=0.95) and pond (M=1.75) were not effective mechanisms for upscaling water provision in the communities.

The supply of water by water vendors (motor tankers) in the dry season was effective and reliable when water is highly needed during festivals or burial/funeral ceremonies in the communities but usually beyond the reach of average farm household. Rainwater harvesting was also effective in the communities. Through in-depth interviews, the respondents confirmed that some households constructed storage tanks while others had plastic (metal) tanks, drums, earthen pots etc which helped them to store reasonable quantity of water which could last into the dry season. However, they reported that majority of the rural dwellers did not have the resources to embark on that kind of project individually. This assertion was similar to the findings of Mloza-Banda, Chikuni and Singa (2006) in their study in Lilonge, Central Malawi where they found out that 93% of the respondents were willing to contribute in cash or kind if the structures belonged to a group rather than to individual households.

Ponds were however only effective in their specific locations. However it was found that a lot of improvement had taken place in construction and managements of ponds to ensure adequate supply and proper sanitary conditions.

Borehole was not effective mechanism in upscaling of water provision probably because borehole constructed in Nara-Unateze was aborted due to hydrological problems while only boreholes owned by individuals in Umuabi and Obinagu were functional. This has serious implications to majority of members of the communities who have no access to such facilities. The present water related project cycle in the communities can be characterized as “build, neglect, rebuild� and as such where the technology deployed is remote from the users’ capacity to maintain, operate and pay for it, prospects of sustainability of the service are equally remote (European Commission, 1998). Long-term sustainability of facilities in low-income communities given their typically dispersed nature might not be guaranteed without a concerted effort to inculcate a sense of community responsibility and ownership.

The Commission also stressed the need to balance technological considerations and community resources with local management capacities. Furthermore, both the potentials and the limitations of community involvement need to be recognized. Long-term sustainability of facilities in low-income communities given their typically dispersed nature might not be guaranteed without a concerted effort to inculcate a sense of community responsibility and ownership. Local knowledge, cultural values, indigenous practices, lifestyles and habits relating to water management and its use need to be

Challenges of Upscaling Water Provision among farm Households in Selected Rural Communities of Enugu State, Nigeria

115

respected and, where appropriate, supported. Furthermore, both the potentials and the limitations of community involvement need to be recognized.

Challenges in Upscaling Provision of Water to the Communities The main challenges in upscaling provision of water to the communities in Table 5 were finance (86.7%), labour (73.9%), water pollution (68.2%), limited groundwater (58.1%) and conflicts (58.0%). These challenges cut across all the communities with finance and labour coming on top of the challenges.

The respondents considered finance as one of the major challenges in upscaling water provision to farm households in the communities in view of many areas requiring financial attention. For instance, purchase of motor tanker, drilling of boreholes, construction of water storage tanks digging of deep wells and purchase of plastic/metal tanks/drums can gulp an estimated sum of ₦2 - 5m, ₦2 - 3m, ₦500,000.00 - 1m, ₦200,000.00- 500,000.00 and ₦30,000.00-100,000.00 respectively. This is a lot of capital beyond the reach of an average farm household to procure. This was similar to what was obtainable in Tigray, Ethiopia, in 2003 where brick tanks of 10 m3 capacity cost US Dollar 259.34 to construct (Mills, 2004). Based on simple extrapolation, this would translate to US Dollar 25.9 per m3 of stored water or US Dollar 1,297 for a 50 m3 tank (Mloza-Banda, Chikuni and Singa 2006) Again, provision of labour (73.9%) was one of the challenges in upscaling of water provision to the communities.

This is because Upscaling of water provision requires both skilled and unskilled labours. For example, drilling of boreholes and construction of storage tanks require some technical know-how to implement. According to Lazaro, Senkondo and Kajiru (2000), the efficiency of any rainwater catchment depends to a great extent on the gutter and down-pipes. Qualified tinsmiths’ (or plumbers’) work is required to fix gutters for catchment and indeed maintenance of the architectural look of ready-built structures especially needs precise workmanship.

Another challenge posed to farm households in upscaling water provision in the communities was water pollution (68.2%). The task of upscaling water provision was hampered by frequent pollution of the few streams in the area by toxic and hazardous substances. For example, the Evuna stream in Nkerefi occasionally got polluted by petroleum products from pipeline vandalization in the area. Other sources of water pollution included: bathing and washing in rivers and streams; synthetic organic chemicals like pesticides, detergents etc; inorganic chemicals and minerals from mining, oil field exploration, farming etc; sediments from erosion, construction sites and sewage and fertilizer applied to crops find their way into the water bodies either through surface run-off or underground seepage (Udeinya,1999).

Limited groundwater (58.1%) was another challenge in upscaling the provision of water in the communities.

Some communities without nearby natural sources of water resort to underground exploitation of water resources. The attempt to sink a borehole in Nara-Unateze failed due to hydrological problems. This means that the community was located out of the established eight hydrological areas in Nigeria which act as the basic units of water resources management (NPWR, 2004).

The provision of water sometimes provokes conflicts among the users and owners of water resource. Table 5 reveals that 58% of the respondents reported conflicts as one of the challenges in upscaling water provision in the communities. The conflicts could be in terms of ownership and/or use of watershed resources like water, land, trees, fishes, animals etc. A typical case of the conflict is between Hausa/Fulani cattle rearers and Igbo communities especially during dry season. Enwelu (2011) emphasizes that animal grazing around the watersheds is another unsustainable activity currently going on around the watersheds and a source of conflicts between Hausa/Fulani cattle rearers and some communities around the watersheds in the southeast.

116

Enwelu. I. A

Respondents’ Perceived Level of Effects of Water Scarcity on Farm Households The results in Table 6 reveal high level of effects of water scarcity on farm households in all the communities.

The respondents perceived high level of effects of water scarcity on farm households in terms of increase in disease outbreaks (78.5%), thirst/hunger/starvation (77.3%), conflicts arising from ownership/use of water (76.3%), poor sanitary condition (74.0%), reduction in household income (73.8%), reduction in man hour spent in other productive activities (72.8%) etc.

Poor sanitary condition (74.0%), increase in disease outbreaks (78.5%) and the resultant reduction in man hour spent in other productive activities (72.8%) had adversely affected the farm households in the communities. Scarcity of water has been linked to multiple health related problems in rural communities. Bradley (1977) observes that many “waterborne” diseases are actually “water-washed” diseases due to inadequate quantities of water available for washing hands, food, laundry and cooking utensils. In a more recent study, Fewtrell and Colford (2004) conclude that water supply interventions in developing countries are associated with a 24% reduction in diarrhoeal disease and hygiene interventions are associated with 42% reduction in diarrhoeal morbidity.

Also, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), (1996) confirm that typhoid and diarrhoea are caused by unsafe drinking water contributing to the deaths of approximately three million children annually.

Sherbinin (1997) reiterates that a lack of adequate water and sanitation infrastructure contributes to water-borne illness and other health problems. Researchers agree that investments in rural water programmes have profound impact on the health of farm families. For instance, 37.0% of farm families in Sri-lanka on bank finance water project reported improvement in family health and increase in agricultural activities after a new water scheme began functioning, while 70.0% of the farm families surveyed increased their daily consumption of water [Parker and Skytta,2000; World Bank Operations Evaluation Department (OED), 2002].

The respondents also perceived that high effect of water scarcity was expressed through thirst/hunger/starvation by 77.3% of farm households. The fulfilment of humankind’s basic need for supply of safe-drinking water remains an important part of today’s challenge (European Commission, 1998). The scarcity of water and the resultant high cost affect the amount of water available to farm households for ingestion as well as for other farm activities especially during the dry season. Consequently, an average farm household cannot meet up with World Health Organization (WHO) water consumption recommendation of minimum of 7.5 litres per capita per day (Howard et al. (2003). Similarly, the farm households cannot provide the estimated 300 to 3000 litres of water required to produce one kilogramme of grain and 1300 cubic metres of water per person per year required for a balanced diet (SIWI et al. 2004) The high effect of water scarcity was also observed in conflicts (76.3%) among farm households in the dry season especially during the festive periods when population of the hinterlands increases. In some instances, the available water in the streams/river or even public water bore-holes become a source of conflict especially among the youths who may not abide by the standard rule of waiting for their turn. Debasset (2000), similarly narrated the natural resource based conflicts among the Karamojong over access, ownership and control of limited natural resources like water and pastures.

Water scarcity also manifested high effects on farm households by reducing farm activities (69.8%) and consequently household income (73.8%). Scarcity of water compel farmers to abandon farm activities such as vegetable production, processing of palm produce (as observed in Nara-Unateze), processing of meat, poultry/fish production etc.

Farm households who mainly depend on agriculture for their livelihood cannot make the required financial income through agricultural activities as a result of this problem. Kopen (2000) argues that water deprivation (lack of water) is part and

Challenges of Upscaling Water Provision among farm Households in Selected Rural Communities of Enugu State, Nigeria

117

parcel of poverty, which is defined as living below the standards that the society judges as minimally required for human well-being. Water scarcity jeopardizes health, income and freedom from drudgery. Another high effect of water scarcity on farm household was reduction in population of people through out-migration (70.8%) of people to areas with better sources of water. The strangers working in the communities such as teachers, traders, pastors etc prefer to live (outside the community) where there is water. According to Moench (2002) in Jiang et al (nd), water availability determines other types of human production and consumption, and changes the ecosystem and environmental conditions, which in turn affect human livelihood and become the main pull and push factor for population migration.

Other high effects of water scarcity on farm households were extra burden on parents/guardians for the education of children/wards and low educational attainments of children especially the girls. For the girl- or boy-child, and the girl in particular, it is the inordinate amount of time and energy taken away from school activities that is detrimental to their wellbeing and life-long vocational development. The time taken to fetch water and human energy required may affect performance of other livelihood activities (Mloza-Banda, Chikuni and Singa 2006). A major implication of labour constraint is the increased burden on women who are already severely stressed with their manifold responsibilities and the limited availability of affordable labour-saving technologies [Malawi Government/UNDP (1993) in Mloza-Banda, Chikuni and Singa 2006].The respondents’ perceived high effect of water scarcity on farm households was reflected in reduction of their social/religious activities (60.0%). Researchers agree that the way people live, relate to one another, organize and cope as members of the society is determined by the availability or non-availability of rural water supply and sanitation facilities (Mein Zen-Dick and Rosegrant,2001 and Ogba, 2005)

CONCLUSIONS / RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the findings of the study, it was established that the main natural source of water in the communities was streams and they were located far from the communities. The main mechanisms for upscaling water provision were supply of water through water vendors (through motor tankers) and rainwater harvesting. Some of the challenges in upscaling water provision were: finance, labour and environmental pollution. High level of effects of water scarcity was expressed through increase in disease outbreaks, thirst/hunger/starvation, poor sanitary condition, reduction in household income etc.

It is being recommended that the natural sources of water should be improved through effective watershed management. Water projects should be embarked upon in the communities through involvement of multidisciplinary team such as technical experts, water managers, extension workers, rural people (including women) etc. The farm households should form water users’ association or cooperatives to raise capital for construction of water storage tanks or other water catchment devices. Also both government and non-governmental organizations should be encouraged to embark on upscaling water provision to the communities on partnership bases in which community based organizations could be capacitated to manage the water project.

REFERENCES 1.

Ahamefule, H. E. and Mbagwu, J. S. C. (2007). Effects of phosphorus and four tillage mulch systems on the Physico-chemical properties of Ultisol in eastern Nigeria. Agro-Science Journal of Tropical Agriculture Food, Environment and Extension Volume 6 Number 1 pp. 25 - 32

2.

Dabasset, L. P. (2000). Natural resources based conflicts at Karamoja. Forest Action News. Forest Action Network: Vol. No. 1: 7-9.

3.

CIA World Fact Book (2011). www.indexmundi.com/nigeria/population-growth-rate.html

118

Enwelu. I. A

4.

Enwelu, I. A. (2011). Assessment of traditional watershed management system in

southeast,

Nigeria.

Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Agricultural Extension, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, p.79 5.

Enwere, N. J. and Ani J. C. (2011). Effect of climate change on the food supply system: implications for food processing in Nigeria. Agro-Science Journal of Tropical Agriculture, Food, Environment and Extension. Vol. 10, 1:73-79

6.

uropean Commission (1998). Guidelines for water resources development cooperation. towards sustainable water resources management: A strategic approach. United Kingdom. P.79

7.

Frewtrell, L. and Colford J. (2004). Water, sanitation and hygiene: intervention and diarrhoea- A systematic review and meta- analysis. Health, Nutrition and population Discussion Papers. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ the World Bank, Washington, DC

8.

Howard, G. and Bartram, J. (2003). Domestic water quantity: service level and health. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland

9.

Ingwu, A. (http://www.cen-rce.org/eng/projects/ace/agnes/-presentation.pdf). Development in Nigeria - who should govern our watershed: A case study from northern Cross River State, Nigeria. Retrieved February 4th 2006.

10. Jiang, L.; Tong, Y.; Zhao, Z.; Li, T. and Liao, J. (nd). Water resources, land exploration and population dynamics in arid area- The case of Tarim River Basin in Xinjiang of China. Asian MetaCentre Research PaperSeries. No. 18. Asia Research Institute, National University of Singapore (NUS: 6).

11. Kopen van, B. (2000). From bucket to basin: managing river basins to alleviate water deprivation. World Water Vision of the World Water Commission. International Water management Institue, Colombo, Sri Lanka.

12. Lazaro, E. A., Senkondo, E. M. and Kajiru, G. J. (2000). Fitting rainwater harvesting into the socio-economic environment: ensuring acceptability and

sustainability.

Rainwater

harvesting

for

natural

resources

management. A Planning Guide for Tanzania. Technical Handbook No. 22, RELMA/ SIDA, Nairobi.

13. Meinzen-dick, R.S. and Rosegrant, M. W. (2001). Overcoming water scarcity and Quality constraints. A 2020 vision for Food, Agriculture and Environment. IFRI Focus, a brief 1, Washinghton DC, October 14th : 1-2.

14. Mills, L. (2004). Evaluation of the water harvesting schemes in Tigray, Ethiopia. Working Paper 1. Water Harvesting Structures. EU SCR Framework Contract, Ethiopia.

15. Mloza-Banda, H. R., Chikuni, A. & Singa, D. D. (2006).Small scale rainwater

harvesting for combating water

deprivation at Orphan Care Centres in Peri- urban areas of Lilongwe, Malawi. African Technology Policy Studies network (ATPS). Working Paper Series No. 46. ATPS Communication’s Department.

16. National Policy on Water Resources (NPWR) (2004). Federal Ministry of Water Resources, Abuja, Nigeria.

17. Ogba, D. I. (2005). Agricultural and socio-economic impact evaluation of Water-Aid- Programme among farm families in Igede land of Benue State, Nigeria. M.Sc. Research Proposal Seminar, Department of Agricultural Extension, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.

18. Parker, R. and Skytta, T. (2000). Rural Water Projects: Lessons Learned. Washington D. C. Partnership and Knowledge Group: pp. 1-43.

119

Challenges of Upscaling Water Provision among farm Households in Selected Rural Communities of Enugu State, Nigeria

19. Sherbinin, A. (1997). Water and Population Dynamics: Local Approaches to a Global Challenge. IUCN and PRB. 20. SIWI and IWMI (2004). Water- more nutrition per drop: towards sustainable food production and consumption patterns in a rapidly changing world. Stockholm International Water Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.

21. Udeinya, N. N. (1999). Man and his Physical Environment. New Generation Books. Pp. 39-40.

22. United States Agency for International Development (USAID) (1996). Water and Population Dynamics: Local Approaches to a Global Challenge. Washington D.C. September, pp 3-30.

23. World Bank Operations Evaluation Department (OED, 2002). Rural Water Projects: lessons learnt. Washinghton DC. Partnership and Knowledge Group: 1-3.

Table 1: Percentage Distribution of Respondents’ Responses on Natural Water Sources in the Communities Sources of water* Streams Rivers Spring water *Multiple responses

Umuabi % 100.0 -

Obinagu % 100.0 100.0

Nara-Unateze % 100.0 -

Nkerefi % 100.0 100.0 -

Overall % 100.0 25.0 25.0

Overall=%+%+%+% divided by 4 Table 2: Mean Score Distribution of Relative Distance of Natural Water Sources in the Communities Sources of water Umuabi (M) Streams 2.40 Rivers Spring water Overall=M+M+M+M Divided by 4

Obinagu (M) 1.77 1.71

Nara-Unateze (M) 3.00 -

Nkerefi (M) 2.40 2.40 -

Overall (M) 2.40 0.60 0.43

Table 3: Mechanisms for Upscaling Provision of Water to the Communities Mechanisms for upscaling* Rainwater harvesting Boreholes Water vendors (Through motor tankers) Deep wells Ponds *Multiple responses

Umuabi % 85.0 55.0 85.0

Obinagu % 81.0 40.0 81.0

Nara-Unateze % 93.0 96.0

Nkerefi % 90.0 90.0

Overall % 87.3 23.8 88.0

100.0

100.0

30.0 -

20.0 80.0

12.5 70.0

Overall=%+%+%+% divided by 4 Table 4: Mean Score Distribution of Perceived Effectiveness of Mechanisms for Upscaling Provision of Water to the Communities Effectiveness of mechanisms Rainwater harvesting Boreholes Water vendors (Through motor tankers) Deep wells Ponds

Overall=M+M+M+M Divided by 4

Umuabi (M) 2.50 1.50 2.70

Obinagu (M) 2.19 1.35 2.07

Nara-Unateze (M) 2.70 2.79

Nkerefi (M) 2.55 2.64

Overall (M) 2.50 0.71 2.55

2.40

2.19

1.80 -

1.98 2.40

0.95 1.75

120

Enwelu. I. A

Table 5: Challenges in Upscaling Provision of Water to the Communities Challenges* Finance Labour Conflicts Limited groundwater Water pollution *Multiple responses

Umuabi % 88.9 70.4 55.6 48.2 66.7

Obinagu % 77.8 85.2 63.0 40.7 59.3

Nara-Unateze % 93.3 73.3 53.3 96.7 66.7

Nkerefi % 86.7 66.7 60.0 46.7 80.0

Overall % 86.7 73.9 58.0 58.1 68.2

Table 6: Respondents’ Perceived Level of Effects of Water Scarcity on Farm Households in the Communities Effects of water scarcity* Thirst/hunger/starvation Low educational attainment by girls Extra burden for education of children Reduction in farming activities

Umuabi % 77.0 66.0

Obinagu % 70.0 55.0

Nara-Unateze % 86.0 66.0

Nkerefi % 76.0 63.0

Overall % 77.3** 62.5**

62.0

62.0

66.0

70.0

65.0**

70.0

59.0

80.0

70.0

69.8**

Reduction in household income

77.0

62.0

80.0

76.0

73.8**

Poor sanitary condition Increase in disease outbreaks Increase in unemployment Reduction in population through out-migration Conflicts arising from ownership/use of water Reduction in man-hour spent in other productive activities Reduction in social/religious activities

70.0 74.0 74.0 59.0

70.0 70.0 59.0 48.0

83.0 80.0 76.0 93.0

73.0 90.0 70.0 83.0

74.0** 78.5** 69.8** 70.8**

77.0

55.0

90.0

83.0

76.3**

77.0

55.0

83.0

76.0

72.8**

66.0

55.0

63.0

56.0

60.0**

*Multiple responses **High effect Overall=%+%+%+% divided by 4