Case Study

Evaluation and Proposals for Improving Irrigation

Performance Around Small Reservoirs in Burkina Faso
Donkora Kambou 1; Aurore Degre, Ph.D. 2; Dimitri Xanthoulis, Ph.D. 3; Korodjouma Ouattara, Ph.D. 4;
Jean-Pierre Destain 5; Stéphan Defoy 6; and Didier De L’escaille 7

Abstract: Irrigation of crops using water from the Savili and Mogtédo reservoirs in Burkina Faso provides an opportunity to increase rural
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Newcastle University on 04/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

incomes. In order to ensure the sustainability and improvement of the irrigation infrastructure, it is necessary to monitor and evaluate its
technical performance. To this end, the authors evaluated crop water use efficiency, water application, and conveyance efficiencies; modeled
theoretical irrigation schedules for comparison with actual irrigation schedules; and assessed overall water management. The results show that
water application efficiencies were less than 20% at Savili, and between 41% and 55% at Mogtédo. Water use efficiencies ranged from 1.12 to
3.4 kg m−3 for Allium cepa (onion) in three networks, 0.31 kg m−3 for Zea mays (corn) at Mogtédo, and 0.34 kg m−3 for Phaseolus vulgaris
(green beans) at Savili. Poor irrigation management resulted in significant water loss, estimated to be 2,999,923 m3 =year for the Mogtédo and
Savili sites. The main reason for this underperformance seems to be related to technical and organizational failures by producers. Strength-
ening local farmers’ technical and organizational capacities could help improve network performance and achieve significant water savings.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0001386. © 2019 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Water application efficiency; Water use efficiency; Water management; Cropping calendar.

Introduction The main constraint for irrigation development is the availability

Globally, irrigated areas account for 20% of cultivated land, but
provide 40% of the world’s food supplies because of their higher
yields (FAO 2011). These areas increased from 139 million hec-
tares in 1960 to 301 million hectares in 2009 and are set to reach
341 million hectares in 2030. This increase in irrigated area will
be accompanied by an increase in the demand for water for
agriculture, estimated to rise from 2,672 km3 =year currently to
2,900 km3 =year in 2030 (FAO 2011).
1 that in dry areas small reservoirs can be an important source of food
Ph.D. Student, Dept. of Bio System Engineering, Soils-Plant-Water
Exchanges, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, Liège Univ., P.O. Box 2, Gembloux
5030, Belgium (corresponding author). Email: kdonkora@yahoo.fr
2
Professor, Dept. of Bio System Engineering, Soils-Plant-Water
Exchanges, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, Liège Univ., P.O. Box 2, Gembloux
5030, Belgium. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6912-6136. Email:
aurore.degre@uliege.be
3
Professor, Dept. of Bio System Engineering, Soils-Plant-Water
Exchanges, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, Liège Univ., P.O. Box 2, Gembloux
5030, Belgium. Email: d.xanthoulis@ulg.ac.be
4
Senior Scientist, Director of the Environmental, Agricultural Research
and Training Center, Institut de l'Environnement et de Recherches Agricoles,
Gestion des Ressources Naturelles/Systèmes de Production, P.O. Box 476,
04 BP 8645 Ouagadougou 04, Burkina Faso. Email: korodjouma_ouattara@
hotmail.com
5 In Burkina Faso, climatic conditions have become increasingly
Engineer, Walloon Agricultural Research Centre, P.O. Box 2,
Gembloux 5030, Belgium. Email: destain@cra.wallonie.be
6
Engineer, Dept. of Bio System Engineering, Soils-Plant-Water
Exchanges, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, Liège Univ., P.O. Box 2, Gembloux
5030, Belgium. Email: stephan.defoy@hotmail.com
7
Engineer, Dept. of Bio System Engineering, Soils-Plant-Water
Exchanges, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, Liège Univ., P.O. Box 2, Gembloux
5030, Belgium. Email: d.delescaille@gmail.com
Note. This manuscript was submitted on February 15, 2018; approved
on December 4, 2018; published online on April 3, 2019. Discussion period
open until September 3, 2019; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Irrigation
and Drainage Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9437.
of water. In many sub-Saharan African countries, water resources
are a limiting factor for economic growth and development, given
the importance of agriculture in the economy of these countries
(Barbier et al. 2006; de Fraiture et al. 2014). However, since there
has been a lack of development of some reservoirs in this part of
Africa (Fowe et al. 2015), this view should be relativized. Fowe
et al. (2015) concluded that there is underutilization and low per-
formance for small reservoirs in Burkina Faso, as well as the dam at
Bourra in Burkina Faso.
de Fraiture et al. (2014) and Fowe et al. (2015) agree, however,
security for rural populations. In Africa, after the severe droughts of
the 1970s and 1980s, which led to acute food crises (Cecchi et al.
2009; Druyan 2011; Venot and Krishnan 2011), many small res-
ervoirs were built in an attempt to overcome water shortage prob-
lems and initiate irrigation development.
Small reservoirs are widespread in southern Africa, including
Zimbabwe, Zambia, and Mozambique, which have more than
9,000, 2,000, and 600 small reservoirs, respectively (Evans et al.
2012). Of all the countries in West Africa, Burkina Faso has built
the greatest number of small reservoirs in recent decades, between
1,300 and 2,000 (Cecchi et al. 2009; Leemhuis et al. 2009). Ghana
is second, with at least 900 small reservoirs (Annor et al. 2009;
Venot and Cecchi 2011).
severe in recent years, with a greater occurrence of floods and
drought periods (Sally et al. 2011), which has justified the accel-
eration in building small reservoirs for irrigation development.
Small-scale irrigation networks are often associated with small
reservoirs. In 2004 in Burkina Faso, typical irrigation networks
(TNs) supplied by reservoirs covered an area of 32,258 ha, but only
24,300 ha were cultivated (MAHRH 2004).
In addition to typical networks, the areas surrounding small res-
ervoirs are also the site of illegal irrigation networks (INs) built by
farmers themselves. These areas have been developed illegally and
haphazardly around water points, with the farmers each having

© ASCE 05019004-1 J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.

J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 2019, 145(6): 05019004

 their own water pumping and irrigation mechanisms. These illegal
networks compete with the typical ones for water and are wide-
spread in Burkina Faso. de Fraiture et al. (2014) estimated that
illegal irrigation networks around the Korsimoro reservoir cov-
ered 230 ha, compared to 32 ha covered by the typical network.
Padounou and Sarr (2009) reported that the illegal irrigation net-
work around the Mogtédo reservoir covered 477 ha, compared
to 93 ha covered by the typical network.
In the dry season in 2013, the area under irrigated crops in
Burkina Faso was estimated to be about 62,000 ha, with illegal ir-
rigation accounting for more than 52% of this area (MASA 2013).
The surface area covered by the typical networks was about
40,300 ha, of which 29,800 ha were cultivated and irrigated.
Despite the benefits associated with these reservoirs, they have
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Newcastle University on 04/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The same applies to water management within the networks and
irrigated areas, which have often been overlooked. When these issues
are discussed, they are addressed at the reservoir scale (Sally et al.
2011; de Fraiture et al. 2014; Poussin et al. 2015).
The objective of this study was to evaluate the technical perfor-
mance of the TNs and INs around two small reservoirs in Burkina
Faso: Savili and Mogtédo. The study provided indicators for
assessing the technical performance of irrigation networks and
water allocation for agriculture, and discussed options for improv-
ing water management.
Materials and Methods

been shown to be inefficient and suboptimal in irrigation schedul-

ing and management (Mdemu et al. 2009; Dembélé et al. 2012;
de Fraiture et al. 2014; Fowe et al. 2015).
To date, most studies on irrigation network performance have
focused on agronomic (yield, production, cropping intensity) and
economic (income generation, labor productivity, economic profit-
ability, and productivity) issues (Dembélé et al. 2012; de Fraiture
et al. 2014; Poussin et al. 2015). Indicators related to the technical
performance of these networks (water use efficiency, water applica-
tion efficiency, conveyance efficiency) have rarely been studied.
Description of Study Sites
Fig. 1 shows the locations of the two sites.
Mogtédo Site
The Mogtédo is about 90 km east of Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso,
in the Central Plateau region in the Sudano-Sahelian belt. Average
annual rainfall is about 800 mm, with strong annual variation.
Average daily temperatures vary between 21.5°C and 34.3°C, with
an annual reference evapotranspiration of about 1,900 mm.

Fig. 1. (Color) Location of study sites in Burkina Faso.

© ASCE 05019004-2 J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.

J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 2019, 145(6): 05019004

 The Mogtédo reservoir was built in 1963 on a tributary of
Nakambé (Bomboré) and is located at 12°18′20″ N latitude and
00°45′25″ W longitude. At its construction, the reservoir capacity
was estimated to be 6.56 × 106 m3 (IWMI 1997).
This reservoir is the main source of water for the socioeconomic
activities of rural populations living along the river. After its con-
struction, a rice TN covering 93 ha was created downstream in
1967, with 74 ha on the left bank and 19 ha on the right bank.
In recent years, most producers here have focused on vegetable pro-
duction in the dry season (from November to the end of April) and
rice production in the wet season (from May to September) because
the water in the reservoir dries up around March (notably 2008
and 2012).
The TN in this downstream irrigated area is based on surface
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Newcastle University on 04/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
irrigation, with two valves that control the water supply, one gate
each for the left and right banks. The network has lined primary and
secondary channels and clay tertiary channels. At the time of
construction there were water control structures on the secondary
channels, but these have disappeared. The individual plots vary in
size from 0.20 to 0.50 ha. The plots were allocated to heads of
households and the total area of plots was determined according
to the size of the household. Water management in this area oper-
ates, theoretically, on a rotational system with farmers receiving
water every 5 days. The TN is currently managed by the farmers
themselves.
In addition to the TN, illegal schemes have developed gradually
and haphazardly upstream and around the reservoir. From 1979 to
1992, the area under these INs increased by 473%, from 100.8 to
477 ha (Padounou and Sarr 2009). These INs pump water from
irrigation channels and cover mainly vegetable crops. The brand
and capacity of the pumps vary from one farmer to another.
Savili Site
Savili is in the central west region and, like Mogtédo, lies in the
Sudano-Sahelian belt. It is about 80 km west of Ouagadougou,
Burkina Faso.
The Savili reservoir was built in 1979 and is located at 12°04′54″ N
latitude and 02°01′40″ W longitude. With an estimated capacity of
2,280,000 m3 , the reservoir is surrounded by an upstream TN
covering 42 ha that is supplied by pumping. The pumping station
comprises seven turbo diesel pumps (Rhino, New Delhi, India, cen-
trifugal type), three with a theoretical capacity of 80 m3 =h and four
with a theoretical capacity of 100 m3 =h. A main pipe (diameter
300 mm) is connected to the pumping system and a manifold con-
nects seven buried submain pipes (diameter 160 mm) that lead to
seven supply terminals for the seven blocks of the network. Control
valves are positioned at the head of each submain pipe for directing
flow to the desired blocks to be irrigated.
At Savili, the IN areas are scattered upstream of the reservoir
and cover about 40 ha, mainly cropped with vegetables. They
are irrigated by diesel motor pumps.
As in the case of Mogtédo, water distribution in the Savili TN is
organized on a turn basis and the scheme is managed by the farmers
themselves.
Data Collection
For data collection, the approach of Dembélé et al. (2012),
de Fraiture et al. (2014), and Fowe et al. (2015), who evaluated
of the performance of the irrigated areas around small reservoirs,
was followed. A survey was conducted in the study sites, site ac-
tivities were monitored, field measurements were taken, and aux-
iliary data were used. The data collection phase covered the dry
season production periods in 2011–2012 and 2012–2013.
© ASCE 05019004-3
J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 2019, 145(6): 05019004
Survey
A survey was conducted at the two sites using semistructured inter-
views. It involved 225 farmers, including 25 from the Mogtédo and
Savili TNs, 50 from the Savili IN, and 150 from the Mogtédo IN.
These samples represented 30% of the farmers in Savili’s TN and
31% in its IN, and 38% of the farmers in the Mogtédo TN and 32%
in its IN. The farmers were selected randomly. The survey topics
were water management across the networks and at the plot level,
irrigation scheduling and water metering type, the crops (cycle,
calendar), and the size of individual plots. The interviews also in-
volved water user committees at the two sites, the Rice Cooperative
at Mogtédo and the Green Bean Producers Union at Savili, as well
as the water guards at Mogtédo and the pumping station manage-
ment committee at Savili.
Measurements
The measurements focused on the amount of water applied per plot,
crop production (yield), irrigation duration, soil hydrodynamic
characteristics (infiltration rate and water retention curves), and
an assessment of water conveyance efficiency in the Savili TN.
At both sites, flow measurements at the entrance to 10 plots,
each 0.25 ha, were conducted using the volumetric method. Irriga-
tion duration was used to determine the water volume applied. This
method was used because of its simplicity and its accessibility for
farmers. Conducting the measurements provided an opportunity to
train farmers in how to estimate the volume of water applied to each
plot. The farm areas were measured and the yields estimated using
a yield evaluation square. The daily constant infiltration rates were
determined from basic infiltration rate measurements using the
double-ring infiltrometer method.
Soil available water holding capacity was evaluated using the
Richards apparatus with undisturbed soil samples, collected from
each of the 10 plots at the two sites at depths of 10, 20, and 40 cm.
The samples were taken with 100-cm3 sample rings.
After saturation, and once the balance is reached, the sample wet
weights were measured. This operation was repeated point by point
for increasing pressures. Samples were successively subjected to
pressures of 0.98, 3.92, 6.98, 9.81, 29.42, 68.64, 98.06, 490.32,
and 1,470.96 kPa, corresponding to pF values of pF1.00, pF1.65,
pF1.85, pF2.00, pF2.48, pF2.85, pF3.00, pF3.70, and pF4.18, re-
spectively, where the pF values are the log of the absolute value of
the matric potential (cm), or in this case the applied pressure (cm).
After the last measurement point, the dry weight of the sample
was determined after drying in an oven at 105°C.
In Burkina Faso, the National Soil Office (BUNASOL 1985)
recommends a field capacity matric potential value of pF2.5 for
coarsely textured (sandy loam or loamy sand) and medium (loam,
loamy-sandy-clay) soils, and a matric potential of pF3.0 for fine-
textured soils (sandy clay, clay loam, clay). Following this guid-
ance, matric potential at field capacity was assigned based on
the results of the soil textural analysis.
The permanent wilting point (pwp) value was set at pF4.2.
Thus, soil available water holding capacities were determined
between the field capacity (θfc) and the permanent wilting point
(θpwp) using soil water release curves.
Soil samples taken at 10-cm depth were used to represent the
soil available water holding capacity between 0 and 20 cm; those
taken at 20-cm depth were used to represent soil available water
holding capacity between 20 and 40 cm; while samples taken at
40-cm depth were used to represent the soil available water holding
capacity between 40 and 100 cm. The results of this analysis were
used to produce soil time series plots of soil-water content.
J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.
 The soil available water holding capacity was calculated as
WR ¼ ðθfc − θpwpÞ · BD · Z ð1Þ
where WR = soil available water holding capacity; BD = bulk den-
sity; Z = depth or the thickness of the soil in decimeters; θfc =
soil water content by weight at field capacity; and θpwp = soil
water content by weight at permanent wilting point. The National
Soil Office (BUNASOL 1985) recommends using a value of
1.7 g · cm−3 for the bulk soil density of Burkina Faso.
Thus, the average values of the soil available water holding
capacity for each site and each layer considered were determined.
In order to assess the conveyance efficiency of the Savili TN,
measurements were conducted along the main pipe using an
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Newcastle University on 04/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Ultraprobe flowmeter (KROHNE, Romans sur Isère Cedex,
France) and at each outlet port using the volumetric method. There
were three repetitions for each of the measurements.
Meteorological Data, Performance Indicators, and
Modeling of Water Needs
Meteorological Data
The 10-day 30-year (1980–2010) average climatic data (rainfall,
minimum and maximum temperatures, relative humidity, wind
speeds, and actual duration of bright sunshine) obtained from
the General Directorate of Meteorology of Burkina Faso were
used to calculate reference evapotranspiration (ETo ) based on the
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
Penman-Monteith equation (Allen et al. 1998) computed as
900
0.408ΔðRn − GÞ þ γ Tþ273 u2 ðes − ea Þ
ETo ¼ ð2Þ
Δ þ γð1 þ 0.34u2 Þ
where ETo = reference evapotranspiration (mm day−1 ); Rn = net
radiation on the surface of the crop (MJ m−2 day−1 ); G = density
of heat flux in the soil (MJ m−2 day−1 ); T = average daily air tem-
perature at 2-m height (°C); γ = psychometric constant (kPa °C−1 );
u2 = wind speed at 2-m height (m s−1 ); es = saturation vapor pres-
sure (kPa); ea = actual vapor pressure (kPa); es − ea = saturation
vapor pressure deficiency (kPa); and Δ = slope of the curve of the
vapor pressure (kPa °C−1 ).
Wind data used were measured at 10-m height and were con-
verted to 2-m height, using the conversion formula of Allen et al.
(1998) given by
4.87
u2 ¼ uzh ð3Þ
lnð67.8zh − 5.42Þ
where u2 = wind speed 2 m above the ground (m s−1 ); uzh = wind
speed measured at zh m above the ground (m s−1 ); and zh = height
of measurement above ground (m).
CropWat version 8.0 uses Eq. (2) to calculate ETo . Then, crop
evapotranspiration (ETc ) using crop data was calculated as
ETc ¼ K c ETo ð4Þ
where ETc = crop evapotranspiration (mm); K c = crop coefficient;
and ETo = reference evapotranspiration (mm).
Performance Indicators
Many indicators have been proposed in the literature for evaluating
the performance of irrigated areas (Merriam and Keller 1978;
Walker 1999; IWMI 1997; van Halsema and Vincent 2012;
Lankford 2012). These indicators, however, are perceived and de-
fined differently (Kambou et al. 2014). At the plot level, the indica-
tors used to measure the performance of an irrigation system were
© ASCE 05019004-4
J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 2019, 145(6): 05019004
application efficiency (Ae), water use efficiency (Wu), and water dis-
tribution uniformity (DU).
Merriam and Keller (1978) defined DU (in furrows, patches, or
basins) as the ratio between the average minimum depth infiltrated
and the average depth infiltrated, computed as
D̄inf;min
DU ¼ ð5Þ
D̄inf
where DU= distribution uniformity; D̄inf = average infiltrated depth;
and D̄inf;min = minimum average infiltrated depth.
The minimum average infiltrated depth was calculated by taking
the average of the lower quarter of all values obtained from infil-
trated depths at the furrow level.
Lankford (2012) defined Ae as the ratio of gross irrigation re-
quirement (GIR) to water applied (wa), and it was defined by
Bos and Nugteren (1990) and van Halsema and Vincent (2012)
as the ratio of crop evapotranspiration (ETc ) to wa given by
ETc
Ae ¼ 100 ð6Þ
wa
where Ae is in percentage.
Water use efficiency has been defined as the ratio of yield pro-
duction (P) to the total wa (Playán and Mateos 2006; Flexas et al.
2010) computed as
P
Wu ¼ ð7Þ
wa
where Wu = water use efficiency (kg m−3 ); P = crop yield (kg);
wa = water applied (m3 ); and ETc = crop evapotranspiration (m3 ).
For this study, Ae was estimated using Eq. (6) and water use
efficiency was estimated using Eq. (7). Water applied was mea-
sured using the average depth water applied per irrigation, irriga-
tion frequency, and crop cycle. The value of ETc was calculated in
CropWat using ETo and crop coefficients.
Modeling Water Needs of Crops and Optimum
Irrigation Scheduling
CropWat version 8.0 software enables the water needs of crops to
be assessed and cropping calendars to be developed. It has been
widely used (Nazeer 2009; Ayu et al. 2013) and was selected
for this study. The irrigation management strategy considered in
CropWat was based on irrigation timing and irrigation application.
For irrigation timing, the option used in CropWat was to irrigate at
critical depletion. For irrigation application the option used in
CropWat was to refill soil to field capacity.
Data on planting dates and crop cycles were obtained through
surveys and monitoring.
For the evaluation of ETc , because the study site is in an arid
area, in order to take into account the relative impact of climate and
crop height on K c mid and K c end, crop coefficients (K c ) for stan-
dard climatic conditions in the subhumid area were used and ad-
justed with the method presented in Allen et al. (1988). Corrections
have been made to K c at the stage of midseason (K c mid ) and to K c
at the stage of the end season (K c end ) as
 0.3
h
K c midc ¼ K c mid þ ½0.04ðu2 − 2Þ − 0.004ðHRmin − 45Þ ð8Þ
3
 0.3
h
K c endc ¼ K c end þ ½0.04ðu2 − 2Þ − 0.004ðHRmin − 45Þ ð9Þ
3
where K c midc = corrected K c value at the midseason stage of
the crop; K c endc = corrected K c value at the end season stage
of the crop; K c mid = value of K c at the midseason stage of the crop
J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.
 Table 1. Crop coefficient Table 2. Crops grown in the dry seasons and irrigated areas in 2011–2012
and 2012–2013 (survey data)
Crop Kc K c ini K c mid K c end
Site
Corn K c in subhumid area under nonstressed 0.3 1.2 0.35
conditions Crops TN-Mo IN-Mo TN-Sa IN-Sa
Corrected K c values 0.3 1.30 0.49
Green bean — — 14.5 2.5
Onion K c in subhumid area under nonstressed 1.05 0.75 0.4
Onion 24.15 156 6 10.75
conditions
Cucumber — 49.5 — —
Corrected K c values 0.70 1.06 1.06
Chili pepper — 64 — —
Green K c in subhumid area under nonstressed 0.5 1.05 0.90
Zucchini — 15.5 — —
bean conditions
Eggplant — 32.5 — 2
Corrected K c values 0.5 1.11 0.98
Carrot 7.85 13.5 — —
Note: K c = crop coefficient; K c ini ¼ K c value at initial growth stage of the Pepper — 41.5 — —
crop, K c mid = value of K c at the midseason stage of the crop; and K c end = Cabbage — 24.5 — 2.75
value of K c at the end season stage of the crop. Maize 4.25 17.5 — 5.3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Newcastle University on 04/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Tomato 3.87 38 — 10.5

for standard climatic conditions in the subhumid area; K c end =
value of K c at the end season stage of the crop for standard climatic
conditions in the subhumid area; u2 = average value of the daily
wind speed at 2 m (m s−1 ) for values between 1 and 6 m s−1 ;
HRmin = average of value of the minimum daily relative humidity
(%) for values between 20% and 80%; and h = average height of
plants during the stage of the end of the crop cycle (m). The con-
verted K c values used are presented in Table 1.
The measured basic infiltration rates and soil available water
holding capacity were used to develop irrigation schedules. For
each site, the sum of the water holding capacity of the three
soil layers was considered to take into account the average
depth of rooting of the crops involved in the study. Allen et al.
(1998) estimated maize rooting depth between 100 and 170 cm,
onion between 30 and 60 cm, and green beans between 50 and
70 cm.
Results and Discussion
Crops, Cropping Season, and Irrigation Performance
Crop and Cropping Season
Table 2 shows the crop development at the sites. The main crops
were vegetables, dominated by onions in both the TN and IN at
Mogtédo, accounting for 32% and 44% of the cultivated area, re-
spectively. In the Savili TN, green beans and onions were the main
crops, accounting for 69% and 28.6% of the cultivated area, respec-
tively. In the IN, the vegetable crops have more diversity, and
onions and tomatoes (Solanum lycopersicum) were the dominant
crops.
The farmers in the Mogtédo TN selected vegetable crops since
poor water management makes it impossible to produce rice in the
dry season. In addition, vegetable crops have been economically
more profitable than cereals (Barbier et al. 2006).
In 2013, the irrigated areas (dry season crops only) in Burkina
Faso were estimated to cover about 60,000 ha, of which 66% was
under vegetable crops, 14% under cereals, and 20% under other
crops (MASA 2013). Survey results confirmed the farmers’ pref-
erence for growing vegetables.
Fig. 2 shows that, for vegetable crops, the cropping period in dry
seasons at both sites runs from the first half of November to the
second half of February, at the latest. Maize is usually planted be-
tween the latter half of January and late February, after the vegeta-
ble crops have been harvested. Fig. 2 also shows the wet season
crop growing and harvesting periods. Crops are produced at this
Other 14.55 32 0.5 6.75
Total (ha) 54.67a 484.5 21a 40.55
Surface area developed (ha) 93 — 42 —
Development rate (%) 58.78 — 50 —
Note: TN-Mo = typical network at Mogtédo; IN-Mo = illegal network at
Mogtédo; TN-Sa = typical network at Savili; and IN-Sa = illegal network
at Savili.
a
Irrigated land in typical area.
time without supplemental irrigation. Producers agree unanimously
on this general calendar of irrigated crops.
At Savili and Mogtédo, there is a single crop production cycle
in the dry season, with the sowing and transplanting spread over
4 months from November. Delaying of sowing and transplanting
leads to crops developing during periods that are increasingly
hot and dry. Fig. 3 shows that the longer the delays in sowing
and transplanting, the greater the crop water need. This phenome-
non of spreading sowing and transplanting (IWMI 1997) reflects
the lack of production plans in both the TNs and INs. The ideal
would be that the main crop development period falls in November
in order to take advantage of residual moisture and reduce soil
evaporation.
Agronomic Performance
Table 3 presents some agronomic performance data for both
TNs in the dry season, showing poor development rates (50.00%
for Savili and 58.78% for Mogtédo). The development rate is the
ratio between the surface area developed and the irrigated area.
The onion yields obtained from the Mogtédo IN were higher
(24.88 t=ha) than those from the Mogtédo (17.25 t=ha) and Savili
(23.15 t=ha) TNs. The green bean yield at Savili was 7.15 t=ha and
the maize yield at Mogtédo was about 3.61 t=ha. The Mogtédo IN
had the highest onion yield and the Mogtédo TN the lowest.
These yields were low given the genetic potential of these
crops. The potential yields for green beans is 10–12 t=ha, for maize
(Bondofa) it is 7–9 t=ha, and for onion (Violet Galmi) it is
40–50 t=ha (Barbier et al. 2006). The low yields reported in this
study might have been due to the inappropriate supply of water
to the crops, assuming all other appropriate crop management
methods had been followed.
Technical Performance
Table 4 gives some technical performance data for irrigation at
the plot level. For all the schemes, irrigation efficiency was
low (16% ≤ Ae ≤ 55%). For onion, the Mogtédo IN showed the
best technical performance, with an Ae of 55% and a Wu of
3.4 kg · m−3 , followed by the Mogtédo TN, with an Ae of 41%
and a Wu of 1.74 kg · m−3 . In the Savili TN, for onion Ae was
21% and Wu was 1.15 kg · m−3 . Efficiency for green beans was

© ASCE 05019004-5 J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.

J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 2019, 145(6): 05019004

 Month in (1) 1st and (2) 2nd half
J F M A M J J A S O N D
Site Crops 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
Vegetables
Mogtédo
FN Maize
Rice
Vegetables
Mogtédo
IN
Othercrops
Gardening
Savili
Rice
FN and IN
Othercrops
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Newcastle University on 04/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Sowing/transplanting
Harvesting

Fig. 2. (Color) Crop cultivation period (survey data).

the lowest (Ae ¼ 16% and W u ¼ 0.34 kg · m−3 ). For maize, Ae was
43% and Wu was 0.31 kg · m−3 .
These low application efficiencies at the plot level indicate
excessive water application that did not take the crop water require-
ments into account. Based on the theoretical net crop water require-
ments, the excess of water applied was, on average, 1,700 mm in
the Savili TN, 625 mm in the Mogtédo TN, and about 335 mm
in the Mogtédo IN. For the irrigated areas at the study sites, the
water losses were 1,051,274 m3 =year for the Savili TN and IN,
325,574 m3 =year for the Mogtédo TN, and 1,623,075 m3 =year
Fig. 3. Effect of delaying the sowing and transplanting date on irriga-
for the Mogtédo IN (Table 5). This water is not actually lost be-
tion requirements.
cause it contributes to groundwater recharge by deep percolation

Table 3. Agronomic performance

Yield of main blocks (t=ha)
Development Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Average Coefficient Potential
Site rate (%) Crops (2.5 ha) (2.5 ha) (2.5 ha) yield of variation yield
TN-Sa 50 Green bean 6.8 6.95 7.7 7.15 0.003 10–12
Onion 23.95 21.95 23.55 23.15 0.003 40–50
TN-Mo 59 Onion 17.1 18.6 16.05 17.25 0.08 40–50
Maize 4 3.6 3.25 3.61 0.07 7–9
IN-Mo — Onion 24.75 25.25 24.65 24.88 0.006 40–50
IN-Sa — — — — — — — —
Note: TN-Mo = typical network at Mogtédo; IN-Mo = illegal network at Mogtédo; TN-Sa = typical network at Savili; and IN-Sa = illegal network at Savili.
Where illegal networks were not organized in blocks, a surface area of 2.5 ha was used for yield estimates.

Table 4. Technical performances of plot irrigation

Savili TN Mogtédo TN Mogtédo IN
Type of irrigation
Parameters Basin Furrow Furrow Furrow
Crop/cycle (day) Onion (90a) Green bean (80) Onion (90a) Maize (97) Onion (90a)
Average depth applied per irrigation (mm) 48 55 58 68 43
wa (mm) 2,064 2,090 986 1,156 731
ETc (mm) 396 324 396 495 396
Water lost (mm) 1,668 1,766 590 661 335
Ae (%) 19.5 16 41 43 55
Yield (kg ha−1 ) 23,150 7,150 17,250 3,610 24,880
Wu (kg m−3 ) 1.12 0.34 1.74 0.31 3.4
Note: ETc has been calculated using ETo and crop coefficients in CropWat; wa has been measured using the average depth applied per irrigation, irrigation
frequency, and crop cycle.
a
For onion, 90 days corresponds to the remainder of the cycle from transplanting. The nursery period, which lasts about 1 month, was not taken into account.

© ASCE 05019004-6 J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.

J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 2019, 145(6): 05019004

 Table 5. Estimation of lost water
Sites
Savili TN and IN Mogtédo TN Mogtédo TN Mogtédo IN
Parameter (all vegetables) (onion and other vegetables) (maize) (onion and other vegetables)
Water lost (mm) 1,708 590 661 335
Irrigated area (ha) 61.55 50.42 4.25 484.5
Water lost per site (m3 ) 1,051,274 297,478 28,096 1,623,075
Total water lost per year for Mogtédo 2,999,923
and Savili irrigated sites (m3 )

and can be useful to other irrigators using subsurface water. In contributed to water losses in the distribution network through
addition, these losses should be considered in the context of each infiltration and overflow.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Newcastle University on 04/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

irrigation scheme. With regard to water use efficiency, cereal crops
can achieve a Wu of 2 kg m−3 (Passioura 2006; Molden et al.
2010). For vegetable crops the Wu can range from 5 to 20 kg m−3
for tomato, and from 3 to 10 kg m−3 for onion (Molden et al. 2010).
Such variation could be related to poor drainage with an excessive
application of water. As for performance and efficiency, the
Mogtédo IN had the highest Wu for onion, indicating that too
much water adversely affects yield, primarily by waterlogging the
soil.
The low level of performance in the TNs (as shown in Table 4)
and the low development rate (50% at Savili and 58.78% at
Mogtédo, shown in Tables 2 and 3) were related to irrigation
water wastage and inappropriate irrigation infrastructure and equip-
ment management.
Based on the areas irrigated and the volumes of water applied
per hectare per year, and given the current crops, the overall water
applied by producers at Savili and Mogtédo (both TNs and INs)
was about 1,278,400 and 4,087,900 m3 (Table 6). Thus, given
the theoretical capacity of the reservoirs (2,280,000 m3 at Savili
and 6,560,000 m3 at Mogtédo), if the filling level is sufficient then
the water supplied should be enough to meet the main agricultural
requirements.
Water Distribution Network
Observations at Mogtédo showed that some secondary channels
were supplying plots that should have been served by other secon-
dary channels. Some drainage system trenches had been destroyed
by irrigated agriculture activities. There was no regulation of water
flow by control structures in the network, and grass had grown
along the tertiary and secondary channels and shrubs along the pri-
mary channel, causing concrete-lined channels to crack. This all
In addition, every day and throughout the day, people pumped
water both for domestic purposes and for the INs, neither of which
is allowed. In the primary channel we counted 25 illegal pumps in
2012. These activities led to water flow variations in the irrigation
network.
Given these conditions, a calculation of water conveyance effi-
ciency would not show water losses that reflect the quality and type
of distribution network. Therefore, water conveyance efficiency
was not assessed.
At Savili, water conveyance efficiency (Table 7) was estimated
to be 97.6%, showing that water loss was relatively low in this dis-
tribution network.
In the INs, pumps of varying capacities were owned and oper-
ated by individuals, and the network generally included piping con-
nected to motor pumps. Water supplied by the pump was conveyed
through the network to the plot or a ditch supplying the plot. The
pipe length varied from one owner to another and depended on the
distance of the plot from the water source. Given this degree of
diversity, conveyance efficiency was not evaluated.
Modeling Theoretical and Actual Irrigation Scheduling:
Opportunities for Water Management Improvement
Irrigation Practices
Plot Design and Establishment of the Irrigation System. Infor-
mation was gathered on the development of the plots in terms of
plowing, creating the bunds, and establishing the irrigation net-
work. In both the TNs and INs, the plots were created without flat-
tening or leveling, resulting in frequent flooding of the low areas of

Table 6. Estimation of the volume of water applied

Sites
Savili TN and IN Mogtedo TN Mogtedo TN Mogtédo IN
Parameters (all vegetables) (onion and other vegetables) (maize) (onion and other vegetables)
Water applied (mm) 2,077 986 1,156 731
Surface irrigated (ha) 61.55 50.42 4.25 484.5
Total volume of water applied per site (m3 ) 1,278,394 497,141 49,130 3,541,695
Total volume of water applied (m3 ) 5,366,360

Table 7. Water distribution efficiency at Savili

Parameters Measure 1 Measure 2 Measure 3 Average Standard deviation
Flow main channel (L=s) 9.98 9.96 9.98 9.97 0.011
Cane output flow rate (average) (L=s) 9.74 9.70 9.76 9.73 0.015
Efficiency (%) — — — 97.6 —

© ASCE 05019004-7 J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.

J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 2019, 145(6): 05019004

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Newcastle University on 04/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 4. (Color) Multiple furrows (Mogtédo INs). (Image by Donkora
Kambou.)
plots. The design of furrows, bunds, and basins appeared not to take
account of the soil or slope and varied from one farmer to another.
The irrigation furrows were single or multiple (Fig. 4), depending
on the farmers. For multiple furrows, water circulated at different
rates and in a loop, increasing water infiltration and water loss
by deep percolation. The furrows and bunds were relatively short
(Table 8), resulting in low water flow.
Irrigation Frequencies
Fig. 5 shows irrigation frequency. In Savili, more than 85% of the
farmers irrigated once every 2 days, whereas in Mogtédo 65% of
the farmers growing maize irrigated every 5 days, while 49% of the
farmers growing onions irrigated every 5 days and 20% irrigated
every 2 days.
Mermoud et al. (2005) reported that the irrigation frequency for
onions was twice a week, but Bello et al. (2005) reported great
variation in irrigation frequency from one farmer to another within
the same irrigation network, especially for onions.
In the TNs the failure of the water distribution by turns could be
related to farmer absence on the farmer’s irrigation day. In addition,
the frequent variations in flow and distribution to the plots length-
ened the time of irrigation. The reduced flow rates could be
explained by the simultaneous distribution of water in the irrigation
network to all plots, as well as by the authorized and invoiced
pumping from the network. Observations of measured diversions
in contrast to computed crop water requirements showed that
the amount of water applied was greater than necessary and it
can therefore be assumed that the farmers took too long to irrigate
their plots.
A farmer’s failure to complete the irrigation for the plot affected
the irrigation schedule, with the farmer’s irrigation turn running
over to the next day, and thus disrupting the irrigation turns of other
farmers in the network. Farmers frequently found themselves in this
situation. Each farmer should have an irrigation turn when it is
Table 8. Dimensions of furrows, bunds, and basins
Type of Length (L) Width (W)
irrigation of furrows of furrows Rice basins
network and bunds (m) and bunds (m) (side in meters)
Collective 10 ≤ L ≤ 15 0.2 ≤ W ≤ 0.6 (furrows); 50
network 0.5 ≤ W ≤ 1 (bunds)
Individual 5 ≤ L ≤ 10 W  0.2 (furrows); — Savili
network W  0.5 (bunds)
© ASCE 05019004-8
J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 2019, 145(6): 05019004
Fig. 5. (Color) Irrigation frequency for typical networks (survey data).
due, with the assurance that the farmer’s irrigation frequency is
the same as other producers.
Regarding water management for plots at both sites, the survey
showed that the farmers each have their own irrigation schedule and
are responsible for water management at their plot levels. The sur-
vey showed that 100% of the water applications were made without
any estimation of actual water requirement. In the INs, the farmers
each had their own pumping equipment and met the costs of pump-
ing. These farmers tried to reduce costs by limiting pumping. In the
TNs, farmers paid a lump sum for pumping, regardless of the
amount of water they used. This resulted in greater water wastage,
and helped to explain why the performance of the INs appeared to
be better than the TNs.
Modeling Theoretical and Actual Irrigation Schedules
Infiltration rates (Table 9) and soil available water holding capacity
(Table 10) were used for modeling the irrigation schedules. Table 9
shows that the Savili soils have a lower infiltration rate than those at
Mogtédo. The coefficients of variation indicate high heterogeneity
of soils in the irrigation networks.
Table 10 shows that Mogtédo soil available water retention
capacity is slightly higher than that of Savili due to higher clay
content. Standard deviations also show soil variability, which is
more pronounced at depth. Table 11 shows that the soils of
Mogtédo are sandy clay and those of Savili are clayey sand. Studies
argue that soil heterogeneity is a major and common feature of
Burkina Faso soils (BUNASOL 1985; Dembélé and Somé 1991).
According to the National Soil Office (BUNASOL 1985), the
soil available water retention capacity in Burkina Faso varies with
the topo-sequence, generally being low at the top of the slope
(<60 mm=m of soil) and could exceed 150 mm=m in alluvial soils
along streams.
Figs. 6–8 present the theoretical and actual irrigation schedules
for onion cultivation in the Savili and Mogtédo TNs and the
Mogtédo IN, respectively. The actual irrigation schedule shows that
Table 9. Infiltration rate
Basic infiltration rate and
coefficients of variation
Site fo (mm h−1 ) Cvfo
0.002 0.14
Mogtédo 0.027 0.063
J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.
 Table 10. Value of matric potential and available water holding capacity
Soil depth (cm)
Site Parameters 0–20 20–40 40–100 Total
Mogtédo BD 1.7 1.7 1.7 —
Value of matric potential 2.3 2.25 2.28 —
at field capacity (pF)
θfc (%) 30.29 30.05 29.94 —
Value of matric potential 4.2 4.2 4.2 —
at the wilting point Fig. 6. Theoretical and actual onion irrigation schedule (typical
θpwp (%) 18.24 18.76 18.5 — network at Savili).
AW (%) 12.05 11.29 11.44 —
Standard deviation for 0.5 0.73 0.82 —
AW (%)
WR (mm) 40.97 38.39 116.69 196.04
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Newcastle University on 04/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Standard deviation for 1.7 2.48 8.34 —

AW (mm)
Savili Value of matric potential 2.3 2.3 2.3 —
at field capacity (pF)
θfc (%) 20.77 21.48 20.83 —
Value of matric potential 4.2 4.2 4.2 —
at the wilting point
θpwp (%) 10.3 9.8 10.8 —
AW (%) 10.47 11.68 10.03 — Fig. 7. Theoretical and actual onion irrigation schedule (typical
Standard deviation for 0.82 0.4 0.55 — network at Mogtédo).
AW (%)
WR (mm) 35.60 39.71 102.31 177.62
Standard deviation for 2.8 1.37 5.61 —
AW (mm)
Note: AW (%) = soil water percent by weight between field capacity and
wilting point; θfc (%) = soil water content by weight at field capacity; θpwp
(%) = soil water content by weight at permanent wilting point; WR = soil
available water holding capacity; and BD = bulk soil density.

Table 11. Soil texture

Depth (cm)
Site Parameter 0–20 20–40 40–100 Mean Classification
Mogtédo Soil texture LCSa CSa CSa — Clayey sand
Clay (%) 29.41 39.22 37.25 35.29 Fig. 8. Theoretical and actual onion irrigation schedule (illegal
Total loam (%) 21.57 15.68 13.73 16.99 network at Mogtédo).
Total sand (%) 49.02 45.1 49.02 47.71
Savili Soil texture LSa LCSa LCSa — Sandy clay
Clay (%) 17.65 23.53 29.41 23.53
Total loam (%) 19.6 17.65 17.65 18.3 compared with the application of the theoretical schedule in
Total sand (%) 62.75 58.82 52.94 58.17
this study.
Note: L = loam; Sa = sand; and C = clay.

Farmer Organization and Hydraulic Infrastructure

irrigation continued until the readily usable reserves had been
exhausted.
Theoretical irrigation schedules, obtained using the software
CropWat version 8.0, show irrigation frequencies every 9–10 days
at the beginning of the crop cycle, and 7–8 days at the end of the
crop cycle.
Compared with the theoretical irrigation schedule, the actual
schedule in the TNs and INs applied irrigation too often, with crops
receiving water long before they had exhausted the available soil
water supply. The amount applied was similar at the two sites
(58 mm in the Savili and Mogtéto TNs, respectively, and 43 mm
in the Mogtédo IN) and the method of irrigation was also similar
(filling furrows or small basins).
Mermoud et al. (2005) concluded that an irrigation frequency of
twice a week for onion cultivation was sufficient, but this frequency
led to a higher level of water consumption than necessary when
Management
The survey showed that Savili and Mogtédo have cooperatives
and irrigator committees in the TNs and local water committees
linked to the reservoirs. The irrigator committees were created
in 2006 to oversee water and irrigation infrastructure management.
The cooperatives focus on the supply of inputs and providing
support for product marketing. Table 12 presents the water distri-
bution modes and shows that the irrigator committees are not very
active, and that in the TNs most issues are managed by the coop-
eratives. Table 13 shows the conditions of access to water resour-
ces. In the TNs, the recovery rates of fees for water access were, on
average, 90% at Savili and 65% at Mogtédo in 2011 and 2012.
These rates have fallen since the 1990s, when they were estimated
to be 96% at Savili and 75% at Mogtédo (IWMI 1997). Never-
theless, most farmers paid the access fees, benefited from group
access to inputs, and continued to cultivate their plots in the wet

© ASCE 05019004-9 J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.

J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 2019, 145(6): 05019004

 Table 12. Water distribution and application modes at Mogtédo and Savili (survey data)
Network type Determination of water amounts Amount applied
Typical network Farmer’s choice Unknown
Illegal network Farmer’s choice Unknown
Table 13. Access to water resources for irrigation (survey data)
Sites Users Access rights
Mogtédo TN Water fee: €25.95=ha=year
IN Municipal development fee (€3.05=ha=year=motor pump)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Newcastle University on 04/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Other users Nonagricultural fee (€1.90=m3 =year)
Savili TN Water fee: €7.33=ha=year
Note: GRC = Gardening and Rice Cooperative; and GBPC = Green Bean Production Cooperative of Savili. Savili IN farmers paid no fee for water
access.
season. According to the cooperative managers, the penalty of re-
moving a farmer’s access to plots for nonpayment of fees had never
been implemented.
The survey showed that there were several farmer organizations
around the reservoirs with overlapping roles, as reported by
Sally et al. (2011). This led to some competition between these
organizations. The main obstacles to the proper management of
hydraulic infrastructures and improved productivity included prob-
lems with water turns and cropping schedules, lack of infrastruc-
ture maintenance, inadequate organization of farmers, and their
lack of experience in water distribution (IWMI 1997; Barbier et al.
2006, 2011).
In Mogtédo, 96% of the farmers surveyed said they could not
comply with the typical water turn scheduling; in Savili the figure
was 94%. The pumping station at Savili, installed in 1984, had
seven motor pumps, but by 2012 only two were still operating.
According to the manufacturer’s recommendations, these pumps
should be replaced after 10,000 operating hours. Given that they
operated for 8 h per day, they would have had reached their limit
after 9 years (i.e., in 1994).
This suggests that the farmers’ low technical and organizational
capacity accounted for the poor technical performance in the
Savili and Mogdéto irrigation schemes. Irrigation frequencies
were highly variable within the same scheme and for the same
crops, and few farmers knew how much water was being applied.
This poor irrigation management resulted in significant water
loss (350,000 m3 =year in the Savili TN, 341,000 m3 =year in the
Mogtédo TN, and 2,917,000 m3 =year in the Mogtédo IN). These
losses, due to deep percolation with waterlogging of soils, were
reflected by low productivity at these sites. Faced with these diffi-
culties in water management, 65% of the Savili farmers and 85% of
the Mogtédo farmers felt the government bodies that had stopped
providing support since the 1990s following the implementation of
the World Bank’s Structural Adjustment Program (SAP) should
start doing so again or find another mechanism for improving
the irrigation networks. Prior to the SAP, the government had over-
seen water distribution, water turns, and production plans and had
closely supervised the networks, including irrigation infrastructure
maintenance. Since the SAP, however, the irrigation networks had
been managed by the farmers themselves, with little support from
government bodies.
It is necessary to train farmers in irrigation water distribution
and scheduling, adapted to their particular areas and irrigation
networks. Lessons from successful experiences in providing water
© ASCE 05019004-10
J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 2019, 145(6): 05019004
Distribution mode of water Water access period
Flexible water; turn not strictly observed Opening of valves
(from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m.)
Pumping according to the proper At any time
schedule for each irrigator
Fee collection for water access
GRC
50% for the commune; 50% for the GRC
GRC
GBPC
to farmers via motor pumps should form the basis of further study
on the feasibility of separating roles and responsibilities in irri-
gation networks, with farmers being the recipients of water serv-
ices and infrastructures managed by qualified service providers
who help the farmers plan crop cultivation and irrigation sched-
uling in both TNs and INs, with fees being charged for these
services.
Conclusions
The Savili and Mogtédo irrigation networks performed poorly in
terms of water application efficiency and irrigated crop production.
Application efficiency was less than 20% in Savili and 31%–55%
in Mogtédo. Water use efficiency was 1.12–3.4 kg m−3 for onions,
0.31 kg m−3 for maize, and 0.34 kg m−3 for green beans. On onion
plots, irrigation frequency was every 2 days for 85% of the farmers
at Savili and every 5 days for 20% of the farmers at Mogtédo. The
Mogtédo IN performed better than both TNs. Major causes of the
poor performance of the irrigation networks were the organiza-
tional and technical inadequacies of farmers. Also, the lack of
knowledge to apply proper amounts of water and poor irrigation
scheduling results in the application of higher water doses, which
explains the significant water losses. Likewise, enhancing farmers’
capacities and providing them with appropriate irrigation schedules
would improve irrigation performance and water management
throughout the networks. Monitoring irrigation scheduling is essen-
tial for improving water management. Technical performance
would be improved if the roles and responsibilities in the irrigation
networks were separate and clear, with farmers being the benefi-
ciaries of irrigation water services and infrastructure that were
managed by qualified technicians.
Improving the performance of irrigated perimeters around small
reservoirs also means
• Developing and implementing, at the beginning of each dry
production season, a production plan based on available water
resources;
• Respecting crop technical itineraries;
• Considering drainage as an essential component in the practice
of irrigation to fight against waterlogging; and
• Establishing irrigated crops earlier, at the beginning of the dry
season (October–November).
This study updates some indicators of irrigation performance
and the current situation of irrigation in Burkina Faso. It highlights
J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.
 the waste of water for irrigation and the strong water competition
between typical and illegal irrigation networks. The study also pro-
poses reflection for better water management in irrigation.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
Ae = water application efficiency;
AW = soil water percent by weight between field capacity and
wilting point;
BD = bulk density;
D̄inf = average infiltrated depth;
D̄inf;min = minimum infiltrated depth;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Newcastle University on 04/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
DU = distribution uniformity;
ea = actual vapor pressure;
es = saturation vapor pressure;
ETc = crop evapotranspiration;
ETo = reference evapotranspiration;
G = density of heat flux in the soil;
HRmin = average of value of the minimum daily relative
humidity;
h = average height of plants during the end stage of the crop
cycle;
K c = crop coefficient;
K c end = value of K c at the end season stage in the subhumid
area under nonstressed conditions;
K c endc = corrected K c value at the end season stage of the crop;
K c mid = value of K c at the midseason stage of the crop in the
subhumid area under nonstressed conditions;
K c midc = corrected K c value at the midseason stage of the crop;
P = crop yield;
Rn = net radiation on the surface of the crop;
T = average daily air temperature at 2-m height;
uzh = wind speed measured at z m above the ground;
u2 = wind speed at 2-m height;
WR = soil available water holding capacity;
Wu = water use efficiency;
wa = water applied;
Z = depth or the thickness of the soil;
zh = height of measurement above ground;
γ = psychometric constant;
Δ = slope of the curve of the vapor pressure;
θfc = soil water content by weight at field capacity; and
θpwp = soil water content by weight at permanent wilting
point.
References
Allen, R. G., L. S. Pereira, D. Raes, and M. Smith. 1998. Crop evapotran-
spiration. Guidelines for computing crop water requirements. FAO
Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 56. Rome: Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations.
Annor, F., N. van de Giesen, J. Liebe, P. van der Zaag, N. Timant, and
S. N. Odai. 2009. “Delineation of small reservoirs using radar imagery
in a semi-arid environment: A case study in the upper east region of
Ghana.” Phys. Chem. Earth 34: 309–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce
.2008.08.005.
Ayu, I. W., S. Prijono, and Soe Marno. 2013. “Evaluation of soil moisture
availability in root zone: Case study in Unter-Iwes drylands, Sumbawa,
Indonesia.” Int. J. Eecosystem 3 (5): 115–123. https://doi:10.5923/j.ije
.20130305.03.
© ASCE 05019004-11
J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 2019, 145(6): 05019004
Barbier, B., Y. Dembélé, and L. Compaoré. 2006. L’eau au Burkina Faso:
Usages actuels et perspectives: Sud Sciences et Technologies, No. 14.
Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso: Sud Sciences et Technologies.
Barbier, B., H. Ouedraogo, Y. Dembélé, H. Yacouba, B. Barry, and
J. Y. Jamin. 2011. “L’agriculture irriguée dans le Sahel ouest-Africain.”
Cah. Agric. 20 (1–2): 24–33.
Bello, S., F. Assogba-Komlan, and N. Baco. 2005. Effet des plans
d’irrigation paysanne et améliorée sur la production d’oignon (Allium
cepa L.). Cotonou, Benin: Bulletin de la recherche Agronomique du
Benin.
Bos, M. G., and J. Nugteren. 1990. On irrigation efficiency. 4th ed.
Wageningen, Netherlands: International Institute for Land Reclamation
and Improvement.
BUNASOL (Bureau National des Sols). 1985. Etat de connaissance de la
fertilité des sols du Burkina Faso. Documentation Technique No. 1.
Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso: Ministère Agriculture et Elevage.
Cecchi, P., A. Nikiema, M. Nicolas, and B. Sanou. 2009. “Towards an atlas
of lakes and reservoirs in Burkina Faso.” In Small reservoirs toolkit.
Colombo, Sri Lanka: IWMI.
de Fraiture, C., K. G. Ndanga, H. Sally, and P. Kabre. 2014. “Pirates or
pioneers? Unplanned irrigation around small reservoirs in Burkina
Faso.” Agric. Water Manage. 131 (2014): 212–220. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.agwat.2013.07.001.
Dembélé, Y., and L. Somé. 1991. “Propriétés hydrodynamiques des
principaux types de sol du Burkina Faso.” In Proc., Niamey Workshop.
Colombo, Sri Lanka: IAHS.
Dembélé, Y., H. Yacouba, A. Kéita, and H. Sally. 2012. “Assessment of
irrigation system performance in south-western Burkina Faso.” Irrig.
Drain. 61 (3): 306–315. https://doi.org/10.1002/ird.647.
Druyan, L. M. 2011. “Studies of the 21st century precipitation trends over
West Africa.” Int. J. Climatol. 31 (10): 1415–1424. https://doi.org/10
.1002/joc.2180.
Evans, A. E. V., M. Giordano, and T. Clayton. 2012. Investir dans la
gestion de l’eau en agriculture au profit des petits exploitants agricoles
du Burkina Faso. Rapport national de synthèse du projet AgWater
Solutions, 32. Colombo, Sri Lanka: Institut international de gestion des
ressources en eau.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2011.
L’état des ressources en terres et en eau pour l’alimentation et l’agri-
culture dans le monde—Gérer les systèmes en danger. Rapport de
synthèse. Rome: FAO.
Flexas, J., J. Galmés, A. Gallé, J. Gulias, A. Pou, M. Ribas-Carbo,
M. Tomas, and H. Medrano. 2010. “Improving water use efficiency
in grapevines: Potential physiological targets for biotechnological im-
provement.” Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 16: 106–121. https://doi.org/10
.1111/j.1755-0238.2009.00057.x.
Fowe, T., H. Karambiri, J.-E. Paturel, J.-C. Poussin, and P. Cecchi. 2015.
“Water balance of small reservoirs in the Volta basin: A case study of
Boura reservoir in Burkina Faso.” Agric. Water Manage. 152: 99–109.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2015.01.006.
IWMI (International Water Management Institute). 1997. “Améliorer les
performances des périmètres irrigués.” In Les actes du séminaire
régional du Projet Management de l’Irrigation au Burkina Faso,
24-26 July 1996. Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso: International Water
Management Institute.
Kambou, D., D. Xanthoulis, K. Ouattara, and A. Degré. 2014. “Concepts
d’efficience et de productivité de l’eau (Synthèse bibliographique).”
Biotechnol. Agron. Soc. Environ. 18 (1): 108–120.
Lankford, B. 2012. “Fictions, fractions, factorials and fractures; on the
farming of irrigation efficiency.” Agric. Water Manage. 108: 27–38.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2011.08.010.
Leemhuis, C., G. Jung, R. Kasei, and J. Liebe. 2009. “The Volta
Basin water allocation system: Assessing the impact of small-scale
reservoir development on the water resources of the Volta basin,
West Africa.” Adv. Geosci. 21: 57–62. https://doi.org/10.5194/adgeo
-21-57-2009.
MAHRH (Ministry of Agriculture, Hydraulics and Fisheries Resources).
2004. Stratégie Nationale de développement durable de l’agriculture
irriguée au Burkina Faso. Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso: MAHRH.
J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.
 MASA (Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security). 2013. “Rapport bilan
de la Campagne de saison sèche 2012-2013.” In Direction générale des
aménagements et du développement de l’Irrigation. Ouagadougou,
Burkina Faso: MASA.
Mdemu, M. V., C. Rodgers, P. L. G. Vlek, and J. J. Borgadi. 2009. “Water
productivity (WP) in reservoir irrigated schemes in the upper east region
(UER) of Ghana.” Phys. Chem. Earth 34 (4–5): 324–328. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.pce.2008.08.006.
Mermoud, A., T. D. Tamini, and H. Yacouba. 2005. “Impacts of different
irrigation schedules on the water balance components of an onion crop
in a semi-arid zone.” Agric. Water Manage. 77 (1–3): 282–295. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2004.09.033.
Merriam, J. L., and J. Keller. 1978. Farm irrigation system evaluation: A
guide for management. Logan, UT: Dept. of Agricultural and Irrigation
Engineering, Utah State Univ.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Newcastle University on 04/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Molden, D., T. Oweis, P. Steduto, P. Bindraban, M. A. Hanjra, and J. Kijne.
2010. “Improving agricultural water productivity: Between optimism
and caution.” Agric. Water Manage. 97: 528–535. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.agwat.2009.03.023.
Nazeer, M. 2009. “Simulation of maize crop under irrigated and rainfall con-
ditions with Cropwat model.” J. Agric. Biol. Sci. 4 (2): 68–73.
Padounou, M. N., and P. Sarr. 2009. “Contribution de la télédétection
et du système d’information géographique (SIG) à l’amélioration de
la gestion des eaux de surface dans un bassin versant: Cas du barrage
de Mogtédo au Burkina Faso.” In Journées d’Animation Scientifique
(JAS09) de l’Agence Universitaire de la Francophonie (AUF),
8-11 November 2009. Alger, Algérie: Agence Universitaire de la
Francophonie.
© ASCE 05019004-12
J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 2019, 145(6): 05019004
Passioura, J. 2006. “Increasing crop productivity when water is scarce—
From breeding to field management.” Agric. Water Manage. 80:
176–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2005.07.012.
Playán, E., and L. Mateos. 2006. “Modernization and optimization of irri-
gation systems to increase water productivity.” Agric. Water Manage.
80: 100–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2005.07.007.
Poussin, J.-C., L. Renaudin, D. Adogoba, A. Sanon, F. Tazen, W. Dogbe,
J.-L. Fusillier, B. Barbier, and P. Cecchi. 2015. “Performance of small
reservoir irrigated schemes in the Upper Volta basin: Case studies in
Burkina Faso and Ghana.” Water Resour. Rural Dev. 6 (Nov): 50–65.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wrr.2015.05.001.
Sally, H., H. Lévite, and J. Cour. 2011. “Local water management of small
reservoirs: Lessons from two case studies in Burkina Faso.” Water
Altern. 4 (3): 365–382.
van Halsema, G. E., and L. Vincent. 2012. “Efficiency and productivity
terms for water management: A matter of contextual relativism versus
general absolutism.” Agric. Water Manage. 108 (2012): 9–15. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2011.05.016.
Venot, J. P., and P. Cecchi. 2011. “Valeurs d’usage ou performances
techniques: Comment apprécier le rôle des petits barrages en Afrique
subsaharienne?” Cah. Agric. 20 (1–2): 112–117.
Venot, J. P., and J. Krishnan. 2011. “Discursive framing: Debates over
small reservoirs in the rural south.” Water Altern. 4 (3): 316–324.
Walker, S. H. 1999. “Causes of high water losses from irrigated rice fields:
Field measurements and results from analogue and digital models.”
Agric. Water Manage. 40 (1): 123–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378
-3774(98)00092-4.
J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.