Impact of changing policies on agricultural productivity

Int. J. Sustainable Agricultural Management and Informatics, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2015

Impact of changing policies on agricultural productivity: a case of the Gezira scheme, Sudan Eltigani Elnour Bashier Abdelgalil* and Ali Mohamed Adeeb Water Management and Irrigation Institute, University of Gezira, P.O. Box 20, Wad Medani, Sudan Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] *Corresponding author Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to explore the impact of changing agricultural policies on the productivity of agricultural crops and area in the Gezira scheme, Sudan. The study focuses on four major institutional changes namely, joint account system (JAS), individual account system (IAS), economic liberalisation (EL) and water users associations (WUAs) in the Gezira scheme. Data on productivity and area of the crops were collected for the period of 40 years from 1970s to 2009 to investigate the historical impact of policies on productivity in Gezira scheme. Data were statistically analysed using SPSS. The results indicate that sorghum productivity and area have been increasing owing to change in policies. Cotton productivity and area show decreasing trend with time. Groundnuts productivity gives mixed results. The accumulated impact of IAS, EL and WUAs gives positive results on sorghum but negative results for cotton. It can be said that change of institutional polices and arrangements in irrigated sector have an influence on productivity of agricultural crops. Keywords: agricultural management; crops productivity; changing policies; Gezira scheme; Sudan. Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Abdelgalil, E.E.B. and Adeeb, A.M. (2015) ‘Impact of changing policies on agricultural productivity: a case of the Gezira scheme, Sudan’, Int. J. Sustainable Agricultural Management and Informatics, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.49–60. Biographical notes: Eltigani Elnour Bashier Abdelgalil is an Assistant Professor of Water Management at the Water Management and Irrigation Institute of the University of Gezira. He holds a PhD on Water Management at the University of Gezira 2009, a MSc on Economics of Water Resources, 2003 and a BSc on Agricultural Science of the Faculty for Agriculture and Natural Resources at the University of Gezira. 1999. Currently, he is the Dean of Water Management and Irrigation Institute. Ali Mohamed Adeeb is a Professor of Irrigation Engineer, he holds a PhD on Irrigation Engineering from Colorado State University 1984, a MSc (Engineering) from Washington State University, 1981 and a BSc University of Khartoum (Agriculture – Mechanization), 1975. Currently, he is a staff member at the Water Management and Irrigation Institute of the University of Gezira.

Copyright © 2015 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

49

50

1

E.E.B. Abdelgalil and A.M. Adeeb

Introduction

Agriculture is the main economic sector and the most important potential contributor to economic growth in Sudan. It plays the major role in achieving food security by increasing food production and providing employment opportunities in the rural area. Various literature from Sudan provides numerical information on economic importance of agriculture such as it considered as the backbone of the Sudanese economy and provides about 80% of the country’s export, and employs 62% of the labour force, with about 80% of the population dependent on agriculture for livelihood and raw materials for the industries (MFNE, 2010). Agriculture is also one of the major sources of foreign exchange earnings. Yu and Nin-Pratt (2011) state that in spite of its central role in the economy, the agricultural sector has not experienced a performance as encouraging as that of other developing countries, as evidenced by the low cereal yield and high reliance on grain imports. Khalid and Babiker (2011) also confirmed that other sectors are growing faster than the agricultural sector in Sudan. At independence in 1956, the republic of Sudan had approximately 0.81 million ha under the command of irrigation canals. Almost all of this area was in Gezira scheme. Large scale gravity irrigation began during British Colonial period (1925) for the production of cotton in Gezira and the construction of dams such as Sennar and Roseries contributed immensely to the expansion of irrigated area in Sudan. The scheme is considered the main source of foreign currency (cotton export) and food security (food crops) in Sudan. Most of the irrigated schemes in Sudan are supplied with most of the inputs necessary for successful agriculture both quantitatively and qualitatively, however they failed to attain their objectives. This is due to inappropriate policies and degradation of the irrigation system due to lack of fund allocated by government to ensure regular operations and maintenance of the system. The agricultural sector in many developing countries has suffered from both a set of policy distortions and low productivity (Manitra, 2008). Issam (2010) stated that there are limitations of low productivity due to traditional technology, lack of rural savings and credit institutions, poor access to marketing services, inadequate infrastructure and safe water resources. Boundeth et al. (2013) found that the most important effect to maize production is a ‘policy push’ mainly variables of farmland, farmer organisation, support market and credit access. Ahearn et al. (2012) found that a farm structural change has an impact on productivity. Literature states that agricultural policies have positive and negative impacts on productivity (Hu and Antle, 1993). Polices and institutional changes in agricultural sector should emphasise technology of the system, the market and economics in which the system operates and the government agencies managing the system. This was confirmed by Dinar and Mody (2004) as just technology, agencies, and market alone generally fail to provide high performance of irrigation systems. Literature reviewed showed that agricultural productivity increases more in developed countries compared to less developed countries due to stability of agricultural policies in developed countries. Starting with the Gezira Land Act of 1927 and carrying on with the Gezira Land Act of 1984 up to Gezira Act of 2005, the scheme witnessed several transformations in policies and institutional set up. The management of the scheme had been changing over time, from direct government control, towards more farmers’ participation as embedded in the 2005 Gezira Act. While numerous studies have explored the scheme, but little attention had been made to policy and institutional changes over time (Ahmed et al., 2002; Basheir, 2009; Gismalla, 2013). Recent study

Impact of changing policies on agricultural productivity

51

conducted by Ahmed et al. (2013) showed that the adoption of WUAs policy resulted in no significant improvement and suggesting that the performance of WUAs policy is not promising. Khalid (2009) found that economic liberalisation system (ELS) was the major policy which affected livelihoods of farmers in Gezira and confirm that, the best farmers’ income was obtained during IAS period. Thus, history indicates that governance of the scheme has changed considerably as confirmed by Bashier (2009). Increasing productivity of crops is crucial which should be taken into account when irrigation and agricultural policies are set. One of the irrigation management problems in Sudan is low productivity, therefore impact of these changes on productivity of crops needs to be investigated. This study focuses on the impact of four major institutional changes on the productivity of main crops. The four major periods are joint account system (JAS) which extended from 1970 to 1981, individual account system (IAS) which extended from 1982 to 1991, economic liberalisation (EL) from 1992 to 2001 and lastly the interval of water users associations (WUAs) from 2002 to date. The policies of IAS, EL and WUAs are interconnected and their effect was accumulated. This study investigates the impact of policies and institutional changes on agricultural productivity and area considered good indicators for corrective decisions. Productivity may influence by many factors such as crop varieties, changing weather and water supply. These factors are assumed to be embedded in these policies. This paper is organised in six sections. Section 1 (foregoing) includes the introduction. The study area, which represents the location of Gezira scheme, is detailed in Section 2. Section 3 deals with the methodology used in this paper. The results are presented in Section 4. Results are discussed in Section 5 and Section 6 provides the conclusion.

2

Study area

Gezira scheme lies in the dry zone as shown in Figure 1. The scheme has an area of 0.88 million hectares. It annually consumes one third (6 * 109 m3) of the Sudan share from the Nile Waters Agreement of 1959. Topographically, the land has a gentle slope from south to north at 15 cm per km and drops faster in the east-west direction toward the Blue Nile or the White Nile. The soil of Gezira scheme is clay soil, with clay content of 56% in depth between (0 to 65 cm) and field capacity of 43% (Elias et al., 2001). It has a very high water holding capacity and a low permeability. The irrigation system is by gravity from Sennar Dam through a huge network of canalisation system carrying water from the dam to the fields. There are two main canals with a combined capacity of 354 m3 per second carrying water from Sennar dam to a distance of 57 kilometres (K57) where they form a common pool. Gezira main canal continues northward with several branches form Managil main canal. The distribution system then forms branches, majors, and minor canals down to field ditches carrying water to the fields (Barnett, 1977; Gaitskell, 1959; Faki et al., 1984; Plusquellec, 1990). There are two seasons in Gezira; summer season runs from June to October with the crops of sorghum, groundnuts, cotton and summer vegetables. The winter season extents from November to March with the crops of wheat, cotton and vegetables (cotton continues through the winter season). There are about 130,000 farmers in the scheme.

52


Figure 1

Gezira scheme map (see online version for colours)

Source: Abdelhadi et al. (2004)

3

Methodology

The study was based on secondary data collected from the Gezira scheme board. Data on productivity and area of the main crops (cotton, groundnuts and sorghum) were collected for the period of 40 years from 1970s to 2009 to investigate the historical impact of policies on productivity in Gezira scheme. During these 40 years, four policies and institutional arrangements have been implemented as follow: JAS which extended from 1970 to 1981, IAS which started in 1982, EL that started in 1992 and lastly the WUAs have been effective from 2002. The policies of IAS, EL and WUAs are interconnected since night storage system started to collapse during IAS. Therefore, the effects of these least three policies were accumulated. Bashier (2009) conducted research with special focus on impact of WUAs on water management in Gezira scheme. Khalid (2009) investigated impact of institutional changes on the livelihood of farmers in the Gezira scheme using similar methodology. Ahmed (2004) conducted research on challenges of agricultural technology transfer and productivity increase in the Sudan. The literature during these periods was reviewed and documented. Table 1 summarises characteristics of each period. Mean area and mean productivity per each changing policy were analysed. Statistical analysis for social sciences (SPSS), particularly analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyse the collected data. Trend of productivity of main crops in Gezira scheme across institutional periods from 1970 to 2009 has been investigated. ANOVA technique was used to determine the existence of differences in the mean productivity of crops among four institutional policies. Then, statistical differences of variance across periods were examined. These analyses were conducted to determine whether mean productivity per crop differed with respect to different polices.

Impact of changing policies on agricultural productivity Table 1

53

Characteristics of various institutional arrangements in Gezira scheme

Period name

From to

Main characteristics

Joint account system (JAS)

1970 to 1981

Cotton was the major crop. The night storage system (NSS) was strictly implemented to irrigate the scheme. The period of intensification and diversification. The income from cotton was distributed between farmers, Sudan plantation syndicate and the government.

Individual account system (IAS)

1982 to date

More crops were introduced and dramatically NSS has begun to collapse. The account system was changed from JAS to individual account system (IAS) and water charges were introduced.

IAS + economic liberalisation (EL)

1993 to date

The government liberalised the economy and expressed its inability to finance irrigation schemes. A consortium of banks was formed to finance the irrigated schemes.

IAS + EL + water users associations (WUAs)

2002 to date

Institutional arrangement for water management took place. Operation and maintenance of minor canals have been transferred to farmers, and the process of establishing WUAs was completed. In 2005 the Gezira new Act was approved by the Sudanese National Assembly with clear statement in the Act identifying the WUAs as a legal entity with responsibilities to carryout O&M and management of minor canals. Crop choice system has been implemented.

Source: Gezira scheme documents

4

Results

4.1 Trend of productivity in Gezira scheme 4.1.1 Cotton productivity Mean productivity of cotton was low during JAS. Mean productivity shows highest value for IAS. Cotton productivity declining during the periods of IAS, EL and WUAs as shown in Figure 2. This declining trend is mainly attributed to the accumulation effects of IAS, EL and WUAs. Figure 2

Mean productivity of cotton per policy period (see online version for colours)

54


4.1.2 Groundnuts productivity During JAS, the mean productivity of groundnuts was relatively high compared to IAS. The trend of mean productivity of groundnuts shows increasing trend starting from JAS as shown in Figure 3. The period of IAS shows the lowest productivity for groundnuts compared with other institutional periods. During IAS, groundnut was introduced and dramatically the irrigation night storage system began to collapse. WUAs interval shows the highest productivity of groundnuts. Figure 3

Mean productivity of groundnuts per each policy period (see online version for colours)

4.1.3 Sorghum productivity The period of IAS showed the lowest productivity for sorghum compared with other institutional periods. During IAS, sorghum has been newly introduced in the scheme. The period of EL showed the highest productivity of sorghum in Gezira scheme. Sorghum is a food crop and its productivity varied for the all periods as shown in Figure 4. Figure 4

Mean productivity of sorghum per policy period (see online version for colours)

4.2 Area of crops versus institutional policies in the Gezira scheme The mean area of cotton during JAS is 226.4 thousand hectare. The area was decreasing to only 88,000 hectare at the period of WUAs. Decreasing rate in area of cotton is 30%


55

from JAS to IAS, 45% from IAS to EL and 7% from EL to WUAs. The total reduction in area of cotton in 40 years since establishment of the scheme to 2009 is 82% as shown in Figure 5(a). The reduction in area of cotton can be indicated by the strong trend line (R2 = 0.92) shown in Figure 5(a). Figure 5

(a) Average area of cotton per policy period (b) Average area of groundnuts per policy period (c) Average area of sorghum per policy period (see online version for colours)

(a)

(b)

(c)

56


For groundnuts area the general trend is decreasing from JAS to IAS. For the periods of IAS, EL, and WUAs the average area of groundnuts is fluctuating around the mean of 60,000 hectares as shown in Figure 5(b). This is because of the accumulation effect of IAS, EL and WUAs. Sorghum area is increasing at a rate of 40% from JAS to IAS and 11% for the period from IAS to EL. From WUAs the area of sorghum is decreasing compared with other institutional policies as presented in Figure 5(c). This is mainly due to the crop choice system introduced with WUAs and accordingly farmers deduct some areas for cash crops.

4.3 Productivity of crops in Gezira scheme, descriptive statistics Table 2 provides some descriptive statistics, including the mean productivity, standard deviation and 95% confidence intervals for the dependent variable (productivity) for each separate group (JAS, IAS, EL and WUAs), as well as when all groups are combined. Difference in mean productivity of main crops for various institutional policies in Gezira scheme. Table 2

Productivity of main crops vs. institutional and polices change in Gezira (descriptive statistics)

N

Std. Mean deviation

Std. error

11

1.33

.364

10

1.54

.222

Economic liberalisation

11

1.44

Water users associations

7

1.30

Total

39 11

95% confidence interval for mean Lower bound

Upper bound

.110

1.08

1.57

.070

1.38

1.70

.266

.080

1.26

1.61

.245

.093

1.07

1.53

1.41

.289

.046

1.31

1.50

1.88

.969

.292

1.23

2.53

10

1.30

.279

.088

1.10

1.50

11

1.80

.335

.101

1.58

2.02


7

1.84

.757

.286

1.14

2.54

Total

39

1.70

.666

.107

1.49

1.92

Cotton Joint account system productivity Individual account system

Groundnut Joint account system productivity Individual account system Economic liberalisation

Sorghum Joint account system productivity Individual account system

11

1.47

.478

.144

1.15

1.79

10

1.10

.200

.063

.96

1.24

Economic liberalisation

11

2.03

.400

.121

1.76

2.30


7

1.99

.485

.183

1.54

2.43

Total

39

1.63

.547

.088

1.45

1.80

4.4 Productivity of crops in Gezira scheme, statistical analysis Table 3 shows the differences in productivity trends across institutional changes based on the examined total period of 40 years. A smaller F (1.386 and 1.764) for cotton and groundnuts respectively in Table 3 indicates that there is no significant difference between groups (institutional periods) for the mean productivity of both cotton and


57

groundnuts. On the other hand a larger F (11.77) for sorghum productivity in Table 3 indicates that there is difference between groups (institutional periods) than within groups for mean productivity of sorghum. The ANOVA (p-value 0.000) for sorghum productivity shows that there is statistically significant difference in mean productivity between institutional periods. Table 3

ANOVA for mean productivity of main crops in Gezira scheme per periods (groups)

Cotton productivity Groundnut productivity Sorghum productivity

5

Between groups

Sum of squares

df

Mean square

F

Sig.

.336

3

.112

1.386

.263

.081 1.764

.172

11.770

.000

Within groups

2.831

35

Total

3.168

38

Between groups

2.216

3

.739

Within groups

14.654

35

.419

Total

16.870

38

Between groups

5.702

3

1.901 .161

Within groups

5.652

35

Total

11.354

38

Discussion

IAS policy encouraged farmers to produce cotton because it gave farmers 40% from the net revenue and the remaining 60% was divided between the government for supplying of irrigation water and providing other agricultural inputs and Sudan Plantation Syndicate as the cotton company. This result agrees with Khalid (2009) which stated that the best farmers’ income was obtained during IAS period. For the interval of WUAs, mean productivity of cotton has the lowest value because of the free crop choice system. Farmers almost unanimously refused growing cotton because of high cost and lack of transparency of accounts therefore farmers replaced cotton by other immediate cash crops such as vegetables. Farmers made some changes in the structure of farms which in turns impacted productivity as Ahearn et al. (2012) confirmed this result. Also free crop choice system has highly contributed to the reduction of productivity of cotton crop because farmers introduced new and short cash vegetable crops instead of cotton. Because of WUAs, responsibilities of agricultural decision transferred to farmers groups in hurry. This result is agreed with Boundeth et al. (2013) which states that policy push and farmers’ organisations are part of the factors influencing productivity. Also declining trend of cotton is mainly attributed to the change in production policies as the policies of JAS, EL and WUAs discouraged farmers to produce cotton. Groundnut is considered both cash and food crop and it is producing through share cropping system. During IAS, groundnut and sorghum have been introduced and dramatically irrigation night storage system has begun to collapse. During WUAs the free crop choice system gave farmers strong encouragement to growing groundnut and sorghum for food security purpose. Also, sorghum can be maintained by rainfall but not other crops. The crop choice system combined with the willingness of government to increase irrigated sorghum cropped area to secure food supply is mainly behind high

58


average productivity of sorghum during WUAs. This result is in line with Hamid et al. (1995), Farah et al. (1997), and Guvele (2002) who indicate that government encouraged farmers to focus on producing food crops. During IAS, the account system was changed from JAS to IAS and water charges were introduced. The period of EL is a period of mismanagement of water as Ahmed et al. (2002) stated that misuse of water is observed in Gezira scheme particularly during the periods of EL and WUAs. The results indicate that WUAs as a policy is not promising in terms of producing cotton as confirmed by Ahmed et al. (2013). Changing policies in Gezira scheme have clear impact on areas of the crops. Increasing trend of sorghum area can be explained by the government policy that targeted the food security agenda. Therefore, most of cotton area was replaced by sorghum and groundnuts. Most of cropped area in the scheme was invested towards producing sorghum as food crop. Statistically, the results confirm that the institutional polices and arrangements implemented in Gezira scheme had no significant impact on productivity of cotton and groundnuts crops but significantly impacted productivity of sorghum. Bashier (2009) stated that, generally, there is no significant difference in productivity of groundnuts in the Gezira scheme for the period of WUAs. This result coincides with the results obtained by Samad and Vermilliom (1998) that irrigation management transfer was predicted to result in increasing productivity, but this increase has rarely happened. It has been observed that because of transfer programmes in Gezira scheme, the agricultural staff size diminished both at system and administrative levels. It can be said that change of institutional polices and arrangements in irrigated sector influenced productivity of food crops more than cash crops. This is mainly attributed to the government’s policies which are targeting food security as priority in the country’s policy agenda.

6

Conclusions

The study concludes that changing of agricultural policies has a positive impact on both productivity and area of sorghum and a negative impact on productivity and area of cotton. Impact of various policies on productivity of agricultural crops is highly influenced by the government’s policies which target food security as priority in Sudan policy agenda. The study focused on irrigated sector subsector, but the impact of changing policies on rain-fed and traditional subsectors needs to be investigated. It can be recommended that institutional changes should be combined with appropriate policy, focused technology and economic forces to ensure higher and sustainable productivity of agricultural sector.

References Abdelhadi, A., Adam, H., Mohamed, A. and Takeshi, H. (2004) ‘Participatory management: would it be a turning point in the history of the Gezira scheme?’, Journal of Irrigation and Drainage, Vol. 53, pp.429–436, SJR-SCImago Journal & Country Rank [online] http://www.scimagojr.com (accessed 11 December 2013). Ahearn, M., Yee, J. and Huffman, W. (2012) ‘The impact of government policies on agricultural productivity and structure: preliminary results’, Paper prepared for presentation at the American Agricultural Economics Association Meetings, Long Beach, California, 28–31 July [online] http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/19865/1/sp02ah02.pdf (accessed 10 February 2013).


59

Ahmed, A. (2004) ‘Challenges of agricultural technology transfer and productivity increase in the Sudan’, International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp.136–150 [online] http://www.scimagojr.com (accessed 11 December 2013). Ahmed, I., Stigter, C., Adam, H. and Adeeb, A. (2002) ‘Water-use efficiency of sorghum and groundnut under traditional and current irrigation in the Gezira scheme, Sudan’, Journal of Irrigation Science, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp.115–125. Ahmed, S., Eltigani, E. and Adeeb, A. (2013) ‘Comparative performance of water user associations policy: a showed case of Gezira scheme, Sudan’, Journal of Gezira Engineering Science, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp.28–41. Barnett, T. (1977) The Gezira Scheme: An Illusion of Development, Frank Cass, London. Bashier, E.E. (2009) Impact of WUAs on Water Management in Gezira, Gash and White Nile Schemes in Sudan, PhD Thesis, Water Management and Irrigation Institute, University of Gezira, Wad Medani, Sudan. Boundeth, S., Teruaki, N. and Shigeyoshi, T. (2013) ‘Policies and socio-economic influencing on agricultural production: a case study on maize production in Bokeo Province, Laos’, Sustainable Agriculture Research, Vol. 2, No. 1, p.70. Dinar, A. and Mody, J. (2004) ‘Irrigation water management policies: Allocation and pricing principles and implementation from experience’, Natural Resources Forum, The World Bank, Washington, DC, USA. Elias, E., Salih, A. and Alaily, F. (2001) ‘Cracking patterns in the virisols of the Sudan, Gezira at the end of dry season’, Journal of International Agro Physics, Vol. 15, No. 3, Institute of Agro Physics, Polish Academy of Sciences. Faki, H., Osman, M. and Bailey, Ch. (1984) ‘The effect of farm location on cotton yields and farm incomes in the Gezira Scheme’, in Fadl, O. and Charles, B. (Eds.): Conference on Water Distribution in Sudanese Irrigated Agriculture: Productivity and Equity, University of Gezira, Wad Medani, Sudan. Farah, S., Salih, A., Taha, A., Ali, Z. and Ali, A. (1997) ‘Grain sorghum response to supplementary irrigations under post-rainy season conditions’, Journal of Agricultural Water Management, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp.31–41. Gaitskell, A. (1959) Gezira: A Story of Development in the Sudan, edited by K.D.D. Henderson, Faber and Faber, London. Gismalla, Y.A. (2013) ‘Sedimentation problems in the Blue Nile reservoirs and Gezira scheme: a review’, Gezira Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp.45–58, University of Gezira, Sudan. Guvele, C. (2002) ‘Gains from crop diversification in the Sudan Gezira scheme’, Journal of Agricultural Systems, Vol. 70, No. 1, pp.319–333. Hamid, F., Yousif, G. and Mohamed, I. (1995) ‘Potentials of the Sudan’s irrigated sector in cereals grain production: analysis of various policy options’, Journal of Agricultural Systems, Vol. 48, No. 2, pp.457–483. Hu, F. and Antle, J.M. (1993) ‘Agricultural policy and productivity: international evidence’, Review of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp.495–505. Issam, A. (2010) Assessment of the Role of Agriculture in Sudan Economy, MPRA Paper No. 33119 [online] http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/33119/1/MPRA_paper_33119.pdf (accessed 2 September 2011). Khalid, G. (2009) Impact of Institutional Changes on the Livelihood of Farmers in the Gezira Scheme, Sudan, MSc thesis, Water Management and Irrigation Institute, University of Gezira, Sudan. Khalid, H. and Babiker, I. (2011) Agricultural Efficiency Gains and Trade Liberalization in Sudan, Working Paper No. 1 [online] http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/112786/2/AgriculturalEfficiency-AgEcon1.pdf (accessed 3 August 2012).

60


Manitra, A. (2008) The Impact of Agricultural Policy Distortions on the Productivity Gap: Evidence from Rice Production Economist, ILRI-CGIAR selected paper prepared for presentation at the American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Orlando, FL. Ministry of Finance and National Economics (MFNE) (2010) The Annual Economic Report. Plusquellec, H. (1990) The Gezira Irrigation Scheme in Sudan: Objectives, Design and Performance, World Bank technical paper No 120, The World Bank, Washington, DC, USA. Samad, M. and Vermilliom, D. (1998) ‘Assessment of participatory management of irrigation schemes in Sri Lanka: partial reforms partial benefits’, Annual Conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property, Vancouver, Canada. Yu, B. and Nin-Pratt, A. (2011) Agricultural Productivity and Policies in Sub Saharan Africa, IFPRI Discussion Paper 01150 [online] http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/ifpridp01150.pdf (accessed 7 August 2012).