Use of Water-Saving Agricultural Practices in Imo State, Nigeria

FAO Aquastat [1] reported a 55% drop in the globally available fresh water per capita since 1960. By 2030, global demand for water is expected to grow by 50% (United Nations, n.d.). Furthermore, by 2050, an additional 2.3 billion people are expected to be living in areas with severe water stress particularly in Africa (OECD, 2012). However, 70% more food will be needed by (2050) (FAO, 2009). Climate change projections suggest that water scarcity will be more severe in the future [2]. According to [1] agriculture is the largest user of water, consuming about 70% of the total water withdrawals which is equivalent to 2700km3/year..

The majority of developing countries have shortage of renewable freshwater resources [3]. The sub-Saharan African region is the most vulnerable because of the high reliance on rainfed agriculture (95%), an enormous lack of access to clean water (340 million people) and fragile institutions (Steinfeld, 2019). According to [4] a one-standard deviation decreases in the values of a drought index (drier conditions) might increase the probability of riots by 8.3% in this region. According to [5] the shrinking of the Lake Chad basin and erratic rainfall evidence the growing scarcity of fresh water in Nigeria. This is expected to induce migration of humans and animals, conflicts and general reduction in agricultural production. However, this will have particularly high impact on rural households whose vulnerability is exacerbated by their low income, lack of resources, inadequacy of social amenities and reliance on agriculture.

Guppy and Anderson [6] argued that enhanced water security can stabilize food production and prices. This can be achieved through the use of water-saving techniques. According to [7] many resource-conservation technologies like minimum tillage, no/zero tillage, direct seeding, bed planting and alternate wetting and drying have been developed and practiced over the decades globally. They save water by reducing water application in the fields with resulting lower percolation and groundwater recharge [8]. For example, the alternate wetting and drying (AWD) method saves between 15% and 60% of water compared to continuous standing water rice system [9,10] reported that mulching optimizes water use.

Adoption of improved agricultural technologies have been associated with higher earnings and reduced poverty, improved nutritional status, lower staple food prices, increase in employment opportunities as well as earnings for landless laborer’s [11] stated that agricultural technology embodies a number of important characteristics that may influence adoption decisions. Akudugu [12] classified the determinants of adoption of agricultural technologies into social, economic and physical factors. Mwangi and Kariuki [13] reported a positive relationship between farm size and adoption of agricultural technology. Sennuga [11] found that access to agricultural information enhanced the adoption of agricultural technology. While there is a growing need for efficient water utilization especially in agriculture, studies are scarce on water-saving practices used by rural farmers in Imo State, Nigeria. This scarcity affects the availability of evidence-based information for policy. To fill this gap, the study sought to provide answers to the following research questions: what are the agricultural activities of the farmers? What are the farmers’ perceived causes of water scarcity? How do the farmers perceive water scarcity? What practices do they use in coping with water scarcity? And what challenges do they face in using water-saving practices.

The broad objective of the study was to examine on-farm water-saving agricultural practices used by farmers in Imo State, Nigeria. Specifically, the study identified agricultural activities of the farmers, ascertained perceived causes of water scarcity by the farmers, determined the severity of water scarcity, identified the effects of water scarcity on agricultural production, identified onfarm water-saving practices used by the farmers and determined challenges to the use of the practices.

The socioeconomic characteristics of the farmers did not influence the use of water-saving agricultural practices in their farms.

The study was conducted in Imo State, Nigeria. Imo State is located within latitudes 4 °45’N and 7 °15’N and longitudes 6 °50’E and 7 °25’E with an area of about 5,100 km2 (https://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Imo_State.). The state is bounded in the east by Abia State, in the west by River Niger and Delta State, in the south by Rivers State and north by Anambra State. Farming is the major occupation of the people. The prominence of agriculture as a major occupation of the inhabitants of the state makes it vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. In Nigeria, Dagash (2018) reported that land use accounts for 52% of greenhouse gas emission and is largely contributed by deforestation and agriculture. Climate change has altered the frequency of precipitation and drought in many parts of the country including Imo State. This is demonstrated by the decreasing crop yields.

The population for the study comprised all farmers in the state. The sample was selected using multistage sampling technique. From each of the three agricultural zones of the state – Orlu, Okigwe and Owerri, two local government areas were selected using purposive sampling technique. The local governments were Orlu and Ideato North local government areas in Orlu zone, Ikeduru and Isiala Mbano in Okigwe zone and Aboh Mbaise and Ngor Okpala in Owerri Zone. This was done to ensure the selection of areas prone to water scarcity. In the next stage, two communities were selected from each of the local governments using simple random sampling technique. The communities were Ibeme and Amaraku from Isiala Mbano LGA, Iho and Inyishi from Ikeduru LGA, Amaifeke and Eziachi from Orlu LGA, Akokwa and Obodoukwu from Ideato North LGA, Obiangwu and Umuekelem from Ngor Okpala LGA and Enyiogugu and Okwuato from Aboh Mbaise LGA. In the third stage, 10 farmers were selected from each of the selected communities using snowball sampling technique. A total of 120 farmers participated in the study.

Agricultural activities were measured by listing possible agricultural activities and asking farmers to indicate the ones they engaged in. Causes of water scarcity were identified by listing conditions that could lead to that and asking the farmers to indicate the ones they perceived as causes. The severity of water scarcity was measured on a nominal scale of ‘very severe’, ‘moderately severe’, ‘severe’ and ‘not severe’. Effects of water scarcity on agricultural production was measured by providing a list of likely effects of water scarcity on agriculture and requesting the farmers to indicate the ones applicable to them. Water-saving practices used by the farmers were measured on 3-point Likert type scale of 3 = highly used, 2 = used and 1 = not used. The mean of the scale was obtained by summing the values assigned to the scale and dividing by the number of scales to obtain a discriminating index of 2.0. Thus, any item with x̄ > 2.0 was taken as a practice used by the farmers. Challenges to the use of water-saving practices was measured on 3-point Likert type scale of 3 = very serious, 2 = serious and 1 = not serious. The mean of the scale was obtained by summing the values assigned to the scale and dividing by the number of scales to obtain a discriminating index of 2.0. Thus, any item with x̄ > 2.0 was taken as a challenge to use of water-saving practices.

Data for the study were collected using interview schedule and were analyzed using mean score and percentages. The hypothesis was tested using multiple regression model expressed as:

Y = f (X1 + X2 + X3 + X4 + X5 + X6 + X7 + X8 + e)

where:
Y = Use of water-saving technologies (measured on 3-point Likert type scale of highly used = 3, used = 2 and not used = 1)
X1 = Age (Years)
X2 = Sex (Male = 1, Female = 0)
X3 = Educational level (educated = 1, uneducated = 0)
X4 = Marital status (married = 1, unmarried = 0)
X5 = Farming experience (Years)
X6 = Household size (No. of persons/household)
X7 = Annual income (N/Year)
X8 = Membership of social organizations (Member = 1, nonmember = 0)
e = error term

Socioeconomic characteristics of the farmers

Table 1 shows that a greater proportion (45.8%) of the farmers were aged between 20 – 49 years followed by 43.3% whose ages were above 50 years. The mean age was 53.1 years. This suggests that the agricultural workforce in the study area is ageing. Absence of young people in farming has serious consequences for food security. For example, agriculture is still rudimentary and relies mostly on the use of human power in most parts of Nigeria. Thus, aged farmers might lack the physical strength required for increased food production. Also, age has been reported by many studies to influence the adoption of technologies [14]. Aged farmers are sometimes hesitant to adopt innovations.

Table 1: Distribution of farmers by socioeconomic characteristics.

Source: Field Survey Data, 2021

The result showed that most (67.5%) of the farmers were married. Marriage could raise the need for increased food production. A household that engages in agriculture at the subsistence level may have the need to increase food production so as to secure the household’s food security. For market-oriented production, marriage can serve as a source of farm labour which will help minimize production cost. These two situations can promote the use of water-saving agricultural practices as a way of boosting agricultural yield and income.

Educational qualification of the farmers showed that the majority (65.8%) acquired secondary education whereas 10.8% had no formal education and 9.2% received primary school education. Acquisition of education enhances decision making. Educated farmers are more likely to adopt efficient agricultural practices than their uneducated counterparts.

The result also showed that most (80.8%) of the farmers earned above the minimum wage in Nigeria. This showcases the lucrativeness of agriculture in the area. Many studies [15,16] have reported the growing shift away from agriculture-related businesses by people particularly the youths in Nigeria. Aphunu and Akpobasa [15] reported that young people perceived agriculture as stressful and meant for less privileged people. This finding however contradicts the report of [17] which found that youths are positively inclined towards agriculture.

It was further revealed that a large majority (95.8%) of the farmers were members of social organizations. The average number of organizations they belonged to was eight. Membership of social organizations is a social capital. According to [18] social capital plays the role of information flow which could enhance the adoption process. Pannell [19] described adoption as a learning which involves the accumulation of information and acquisition of skills. Micheels and Nolan [18] found a positive correlation between farmer’s social capital and adoption of agricultural technologies.

The result showed that most (55.3%) of the farmers had been in the business of farming for 6 – 10 years while 34.2% had farmed for over 10 years. The farmers have farmed for an average of about 16 years. It can be inferred from this result that the farmers have in the business of farming for a reasonable length of time.

Agricultural activities of the farmers

Figure 1 shows that crop production (91.0%), agro-produce sale (81.0%), livestock production (78.0%) and agro-processing (56.0%) were the major agricultural activities the farmers participated in. The result suggests diversification of agricultural enterprises by the farmers perhaps to adapt to water scarcity. The involvement in many agricultural enterprises would reduce the risks farmers are exposed to as a result of water scarcity. FAO [20] stated that by diversifying, farmers increase the range of potential food and income sources available to them. Waha and McCord [21,22] stated that by increasing the range of agricultural products for markets or subsistence, farmers cope with the effects of climate change.

Figure 1:Agricultural activities of the farmers.

Farmers’ perceived causes of water scarcity

Table 2 shows that the farmers described water scarcity as being caused by many factors. The major factors however included population growth (94.2%), dilapidation of water infrastructure (83.3%), climate change (82.5%) and water pollution (75.8%). This suggests that the causes were mainly man-made. Zhou [23] confirmed the effects of human activities on the environment. According to Luo and Zhang the impacts of human activities on natural ecosystem are particularly serious in arid areas where landscape ecology is very fragile due to limited water resources. Jimoh and Ifabiyi [24] reported that bush burning, deforestation, overgrazing, burning of fossil fuels and air pollution have caused heavy rainfall or flooding, high air temperature and warm wet climate.

Table 2: Farmers’ Perceived causes of water scarcity.

Source: Field Survey Data, 2021
*Multiple response

Severity of water scarcity

Result in Figure 2 shows that most (41.0%) of the farmers described water scarcity as being severe, 23% indicated that it is not severe while 16% described it as being very severe. This shows varying perceptions of water scarcity by the farmers. However, the description of water scarcity by a large proportion of the farmers suggests negative implications for agriculture. Olalekan [14] stated that the world is running out of clean and fresh water to feed and nourish the increasing global population. Ringler [25] reported that nearly 2.4 billion people which is more than one-third of the world’s current population live in regions with scarcity of water and projections indicate that by 2050 more than half of the global population could be at risk of water stress. Olalekan [26] noted that overexploitation of water resource as a result of the rising population and rapid economic development mounts pressure on water availability.

Figure 2:Severity of water scarcity.

Effects of water scarcity on agriculture

Table 3 shows that loss of agricultural crops and livestock (92.5%), violent clashes (81.7%), not planting all year round (80.0%) and reduced crop yield were the major effects of water scarcity on agriculture as perceived by the farmers. Musse found that water scarcity reduced crop yields, reduced soil fertility, caused weight loss and increase in animal death, formation of hardpans and sale of livestock as a buffer in Uganda. Khan [3] found that water scarcity reduced the productivity of some water-intensive crops like sugar cane, rice, and cotton in Pakistan. In, Nigeria, the drying of the Lake Chad Basin and other inland waters has led to a drastic reduction in agricultural yields and migration of animals and humans and in most cases violent clashes over natural resources. In the southern part of Nigeria, many cases of water-related conflicts have been recorded. It is estimated that in the next 25 years, water will remain the source of conflict in Nigeria as many countries it shares water resources with will continue to struggle for the scarce resource [14]. Aromolaran [27] confirms that water scarcity had effects on rural livelihoods in Ogun State, Nigeria. According to them, the types crops grown, the farming system practiced and water quantity available for fish farming.

Table 3: Effects of water scarcity on agriculture.

Source: Field Survey Data, 2021
*Multiple response

Water-saving practices used by the farmers

Table 4 shows the diversity of water-saving practices used by the farmers. According to the result, they used several practices but to varying degrees. The mostly used included planting of early maturing crops (x̄ = 3.5, S.D = 0.5), growing water-efficient crops (x̄ =3.2,S.D.=0.4), growing crops in mounds of debris buried in soil (x̄ = 3.0, S.D. = 0.1), mulching (x̄ = 3.0, S.D = 0.7), regular weeding (x̄ = 3.0, S.D = 0.2), construction of pits (x̄ = 2.9. S.D = 0.4), planting droughtresistant crops (x̄ = 2.9, S.D. = 1.0) and planting cover crops (x̄ = 2.6, S.D. = 0.8). The use of several practices may be explained by the fact that one practice may not fit all situations. Also, the combination of practices increases effectiveness. However, the result implies that the farmers are using simple and cost-effective practices to cope with water scarcity in their agricultural enterprises. Their simplicity and affordability can encourage use. Farmers’ perceptions might be responsible for the high use of some practices more than the others. According to [28] farmers’ perception influences their adoption decision. Compatibility of a technology or practice is an important factor in the adoption decision. Cooper and Zmud [8] argued that if an innovation is compatible with current practices and infrastructure, its adoption is more likely. Also, the compatibility of a practice with the environment can facilitate its adoption.

Table 4: Water-saving practices used by the farmers.

Source: Field Survey Data, 2021 *Water-saving practices used

Challenges to use of water-saving practices

Figure 3 shows that several challenges constrained the use of water-saving technologies by the farmers. High ranking challenges included poor government support (92%), poor access to extension service (91%), inadequacy of infrastructure (84%), poverty (83%) and environmental factors (79%). It could be inferred from the result that the challenges to the use of water-saving practices in the area are mostly institutional. This portrays the inadequacy of Nigerian government’s supports and investments towards boosting local agricultural production. This can be blamed on the failure or incompetency of the organizations saddled with these responsibilities. Owolabi [29] reported low extension coverage in Kaduna State, Nigeria. Genius [30] asserted that access to timely agricultural information is useful for technology adoption. The presence of supporting infrastructure facilitates the adoption of agricultural technologies. They maintained that though other infrastructure is important, but irrigation is highly important because of the growing cases of climate change-induced water scarcity. It is projected that by 2030 about 80% of future production gains will be made from intensification of irrigation infrastructure [31]. Lack of resources both human and financial influence the adoption of technologies [32,33] stated that low-costs technologies are easily adopted unlike capital-intensive technologies. This is more important in rural settings where most of the farmers are resource-poor.

Figure 3:Challenges to use of water-saving practices.

Multiple regression result showing relationship between socioeconomic characteristics and use of water-saving technologies/

Table 5 shows that at p < 0.05, R2 value of 0.65 and F-value of 8.40, the socioeconomic characteristics of the farmers accounted for 65% of the variations in their use of water-saving practices. The socioeconomic variables that were significant included age (t = 1.93, p-value = 0.02), sex (t = 2.97, p-value = 0.03), marital status (t = 2.65, p-value = 0.04), household size (t = 2.18, p-value = 0.05) and annual income (t = 1.97, p-value = 0.04). Issa [34] many studies have confirmed the influence of socioeconomic factors on adoption of agricultural technologies [34-36]. According to them, these factors could have positive or negative influence on the adoption of agricultural technologies. Issa [34] found that age and farm size influenced the adoption of improved maize production practices in Kaduna State, Nigeria

Table 5: Regression table showing relationship between socioeconomic characteristics and use of water-saving practices.

P < 0.05, R2 = 0.65, Fvalue = 8.40 Source: Field Survey Data, 2021

This study has established that water scarcity is a threat to agricultural production in the study area. In response to this, the farmers used several water-saving technologies to sustain their agricultural production. However, the farmers grappled with mainly challenges which were many institutional. The study also established that socioeconomic factors influenced their use of the water-saving practices.

Based on the findings of the study, the following recommendations were made:
• The governments at all levels should step up their support for agricultural development in the country. This can be achieved through the formulation and implementation of effective agricultural policies and programmes.
• The public extension system should be revived. This can be achieved by increasing the funding, budgetary allocation to agriculture and the regular training of extension staff. More so, the emoluments of extension staff should be increased so as to motivate extension staff and promote the interest of young people in the job. Modern ICT tools should as well be fully integrated in extension service delivery so as to enhance, reach, spread and timeliness of information disseminated.
• Innovative approaches such the private public partnership should be harnessed in reviving the dilapidated infrastructural facilities in rural areas. This should pay more attention to waterrelated infrastructure because of their relevance in agricultural production.
• Routine skill enhancement programmes should be organized for local farmers on the use of
• water-saving technologies. This will improve the skill of farmers on these practices.
• Water-saving practices introduced to the farmers should be aligned to their socioeconomic characteristics. This is to their adoption by the farmers.

None.

No conflict of interest.

1. FAO (2012) AQUASTAT Database. Available online.
2. Mancosu N, Snyder RL, Kyriakakis G, Spano D (2015) Water scarcity and future challenges for food production. Water 7: 975-992.
3. Khan TH (2014) Water scarcity and its impact on agriculture-case study of Layyah, Pakistan. Faculty of Natural Resources and Agricultural Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.
4. Almer C, Laurent-Lucchetti J, Oechslin M (2017) Water scarcity and rioting: disaggregated evidence from sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 86: 193-209.
5. Kamta FN, Schilling J, Scheffran J (2021) Water resources, forced migration and tensions with host communities in the Nigerian Part of the Lake Chad Basin. Resources 10: 27.
6. Guppy L, Anderson K (2017) Global water crisis: the facts. United Nations University-Institute for Water, Environment and Health, Halmiton Canada.
7. Mojid AM, Mainuddin M (2021) Water-saving agricultural technologies: regional hydrology outcomes and knowledge gaps in the eastern gangetic plains: a review. Water 13: 636.
8. Tabbal DF, Bouman BAM, Bhuiyan SI, Sibayan EB, Sattar MA (2002) On-farm strategies for reducing water input in irrigated rice: case studies in the Philippines. Agricultural Water Management 56: 93-112.
9. Tan X, Shao D, Gu W, Liu H (2015) Field analysis of water and nitrogen fate in lowland paddy fields under different water managements using HYDRUS-1D. Agricultural Water Management 150: 67-80.
10. Kader MA, Senge M Mojid MA, Ito K (2017) Recent advances in mulching materials and methods for modifying soil environment. Soil Tillage Resource 168: 155–166.
11. Sennuga SO, Conway JS, Sennuga MA (2020) Impact of information and communication technologies (ICTS) on agricultural productivity among smallholder farmers.
12. Akudugu MA, Guo E, Dadzie SK (2012) Adoption of modern agricultural production technologies by farm households in Ghana: What factors influence their decisions?
13. Mwangi M, Kariuki S (2015) Factors determining adoption of new agricultural technology by smallholder farmers in developing countries. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development 5(6): 208-216.
14. Aromolaran AK, Ademuliyi IK, Sotola AE, Wole-Alo FI, Aromiwura OA, et. Al (2019) Effects of water scarcity on households’ livelihoods in Iwoye-Ketu, Area of Ogun State, Nigeria. Journal of Water and Land Development 43(X-XII): 9-18.
15. Aphunu A, Akpobasa BIO (2010) Assessment of rural youths attitude towards agricultural production in Sapele Local Government Area of Delta State. The Nigerian Academic Forum 19(1): 1-4.
16. Bolanle L (2019) Understanding youth and their attitudes towards agriculture: a baseline study. STEP Planning Workshop September 10.
17. Abdullahi YM, Gidado AS, Jibril SA (2010) Attitude of rural youths towards family farming in Dass, Bauchi State, Nigeria, and implications for policy. Journal of Agricultural Extension 14(2): 14-23.
18. Micheels ET, Nolan JT (2016) Examining the effects of absorptive capacity and social capital on the adoption of agricultural innovations: a Canadian Prairie case study. Agricultural System 145: 127-138.
19. Pannell DJ, Marshall GR, Bar N, Cutis A, Vanclay F, Wilkinson R (2006) Understanding and promoting understanding of adoption of conservation by rural landholders. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 46: 1407-1424.
20. Food and Agriculture Organization (2017) Is crop diversification a panacea for climate change resilience in Africa? Welfare implications for heterogenous households. FAO Aviculture Development Economics. Policy Brief 2. FAO, Rome Italy.
21. McCord PF, Cox M, Schmitt-Harsh M, Evans T (2015) Crop diversification as a smallholder livelihood strategy within semi-arid agricultural systems near Mount Kenya. Land Use Policy 42: 738-750.
22. Waha K, Muller Bondeau A, Dietrich JPP, Kurukulasuriya P, Heinke J, et al (2013) Adaptation to climate change through the choice of cropping system and sowing date in sub-Saharan African. Global Environmental Change 23(1): 130-143.
23. Zhou S, Huang Y, Yu B, Wang G (2014) Effects of human activities on the eco-environment in the middle Heihe River Basin based on an extended environmental Kuznets curve model. Ecological Engineering.
24. Ringler C (2010) Role of water security for agricultural and economic development-concepts and global scenarios. In: C. Pahl-Wotl, A Bhaduri, J Gupta (Eds.), Handbook of water security. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Edgar Publishing Limited. Pp. 183-200.
25. Olalekan RM, Omidiji AO, Ayibatonbira AA, Anu B, Odipe EO, Sanchez ND (2019) Digging deeper evidence on water crisis and its solution in Nigeria for Bayelsa State: a study of current scenario. International Journal of Hydrology 3(4): 244-257.
26. Gusikit RB, Lar UA (2014) Water scarcity and the impending water-related conflicts in Nigeria: a reappraisal. Journal of Environmental Science, Toxicology and Food Technology 8(1): 20-26.
27. McRoberts J, Rickards L (2010) Social research: insights into farmers’ conversion to no-till farming systems. Journal of Farming Systems Research-Extension 6: 43–52.
28. Owolabi JO, Abubakar BZ, Amodu MY (2011) Assessment of f armers (women) access to agricultural extension, inputs and credit facility in Sabo-Gari local government Area of Kaduna, State, Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of Basic and Applied Science 19(1): 87-92.
29. de Haen H, Stamoulis K, Shetty P, Pingali P (2003) The world food economy in the twenty-first century: challenges for international cooperation. Development Policy Review 215(5-6): 638–696.
30. Prause M (2019) Challenges of industry 4.0 technology adoption for SMEs: the case of Japan. Sustainability 11: 5807.
31. Tornatzky L, Klein K (1982) Innovation characteristics and innovations adoption-implementation: a meta-analysis of findings. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 29: 28-45.
32. Issa FO, Kagbu JH, Abdulkadir SA (2016) Analysis of socioeconomic factors influencing farmers’ adoption of improved maize production practices in Ikara local government area of Kaduna State, Nigeria. Agrosearch 16(2): 15–24.
33. Bawa DB, Ani AO (2014) Analysis of adoption of improved maize production technologies among farmers in Southern Borno, Nigeria. Research on Humanities and Social Sciences 4(255): 43-54.
34. Olusegun AF, Dare A, Begh T (2011) Factors influencing adoption decisions of maize farmers in Nigeria. International Journal of Food and Agricultural Economics 2(3): 45-54.
35. Cooper RB, Zmud RW (1990) Information technology implementation research: a technological diffusion approach. Management Science 36: 123-139.
36. Food and Agriculture Organization FAO (2009) How to feed the world in 2050. FAO, Rome, Italy.
37. Ivory SJ (2013) Vegetation and climate of the African tropics for the last 500,000 years. Ph. D Dissertation, University of Arizona.
38. Jimoh H, Ifabiyi IH (2000) Contemporary issues in environmental studies. Haytee Press & Publishing Co. Ltd, Ibadan, pp.130-132.
39. Musse SA (2013) Assessing the impact of water scarcity on agricultural productivity: a case study of Gabiley District, Somalia. M.Sc. thesis, Kampala International University, Kampala Uganda.
40. Obayelu AE, Okuneye PA, Shittu AM, Afolami CA , Dipeolu AO (2016) Determinants and the perceived effects of adoption of selected improved crop technologies by smallholder farmers along the value chain in Nigeria. Journal of Agriculture and Environment for International Development 110(1): 155-172.
41. OECD (2012) Environmental outlook to 2050: the consequences of inaction, OECD Publishing, Paris.
42. Report of the Ministerial Conference on Water (2008) Water for agriculture and energy: the challenges of climate change. Sirte, Libya.
43. Steinfeld C (2018) Drought-related conflicts in sub-Saharan Africa in a context of climate change: drawing from interdisciplinary insight to model future risk and mitigation. Environmental Development Economics, 12.
44. Tabbal DF, Bouman BAM, Bhuiyan SI, Sibayan EB, Sattar MA (2002) On-farm strategies for reducing water input in irrigated rice: case studies in the Philippines. Agricultural Water Management 56: 93-112.
45. United Nations (n.d) Water.