![\"Image\"](\"https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/fao-aquastat.appspot.com/o/Images%2Ftables-charts%2FTable1.jpg?alt=media&token=cee7e378-ffd0-42a4-a6dc-cb875a9361fd\")
Climate is a limiting factor for crop growth. If temperature is suitable for crop growth all year round, then the availability of sufficient rainfall determines the growing season for rainfed crops. Irrigation takes away the water availability constraint and could then allow cultivating all year round. For the purpose of increasing the data and information on irrigation water requirement, irrigation water withdrawal and irrigation efficiency, AQUASTAT has undertaken a major review of typical irrigated crop calendars by country. These irrigated crop calendars provide for each country data and information on: the area equipped for irrigation, the area actually irrigated, the harvested irrigated crop area, the irrigated area by crop and the percentage of irrigated area by crop occupied by month. The calendars refer to the years for which data was available.
\nIrrigated crop calendars for the countries are organized in Excel format in different sheets, along with their respective narratives.
\nAQUASTAT data of harvested irrigated area by crop at the national level—for harvested crops irrigated by full control irrigation only (AHIfull)—are converted into an irrigated crop calendar, which details monthly occupation rates of the area equipped for full control irrigation actually irrigated (AAIfull) for each crop. The ratio between the harvested irrigated crop area and the actually irrigated area is called \"cropping intensity\":
\nCropping Intensity = 100 x AHIfull / AAIfull
\nWhen no data relating to irrigated harvested crop areas is available in AQUASTAT for a country, the irrigated crops database produced in the framework of the FAO perspective studies World agriculture: towards 2030/2050 (FAO, 2012) is used.
\nCrop calendars are prepared for a specific year for which data are available. As much as possible AHIfull and AAIfull are selected for the same year indicated at the top of the crop calendar (for example 2008 for Bangladesh’s calendar in Table 1 below). Otherwise a note following the AAIfull figure indicates its corresponding year. This is also the case for the area equipped for full control irrigation (AEIfull) and the total area equipped for irrigation (AEItot), which are also shown in the table below as well as the percentage of the full control equipped area that is actually irrigated in the given year.
\nClick the table to magnify
\nTABLE 1\n.\nExample of an irrigated crop calendar: Bangladesh\n
Different cropping cycles of a same crop appear on different lines of the calendar. For example, in Bangladesh rice is cultivated from July to November (Rice one) and from December to April (Rice two). Crops are classified and ordered according to the World programme for the census of agriculture 2010 (FAO, 2005b). In particular, this means that distinction is made between temporary and permanent fodder crops, as well as between temporary and permanent meadows and pastures. While temporary fodder crops and temporary meadows and pastures are included in the FAOSTAT definition of arable land, in its definition of permanent crops only permanent fodder crops are included but not permanent meadows and pasture. Thus in the AQUASTAT definition of cultivated land—being the sum of FAOSTAT’s arable land and permanent crops—permanent meadows and pastures are not included. In a very few cases this might lead to the irrigated area being larger than the cultivated area.
\nFor three large countries where irrigation is relatively intensive (China, India, United States of America), irrigated crop calendars have been prepared by sub-national zones (north, south, west, east) to more closely reflect the climate variations. On the contrary, the nine small islands from the Caribbean Lesser Antilles (CARL) have been combined into a single crop calendar due to limited irrigated areas and limited available data for each of them separately. These geographical divisions or groupings are detailed in the respective crop calendars.
\nData obtained in the irrigated crop calendars of individual countries is compiled and analyzed by continent, by (sub-)region and by income-based grouping: high, middle and low income. Special attention is given to the 61 low income food deficit countries (LIFDC)—of which 37 are in Africa—and the 40 least developed countries (LDC)—of which 30 are in Africa—since water, and in particular agricultural water, is a significant developing incentive for food security and rural development. Annex 2 lists alphabetically the countries included in this review for the world, by continent, by region and sub-region, by income-based grouping as well as the LIFDCs and LDCs, as per October 2012. It also provides the definitions of high, middle and low income, as well as LIFDC and LDC.
\nFirst, the regional analysis examines regional specificities with regards to AHIfull, cropping intensity, AAIfull, AEIfull and AEItot (Table 2a). (Table 2b) gives the percentage of the world total for AHIfull, AAIfull, AEIfull and AEItot in each country grouping. Then, regional features of irrigated harvested crops—in hectares (Table 3a) or in percentage (Table 3b, Table 3c) — and irrigated harvested cereals in particular (Table 3d and Table 3e), are detailed.
\nAQUASTAT makes to following distinction (Figure 2) with regards to agricultural water management, where \"Area equipped for irrigation\" is equal to AEItot in this review and \"Area equipped for full control irrigation\" equal to AEIfull (green boxes).
\nFIGURE 2\n. AQUASTAT classification of areas under agricultural water management
\n![\"Image\"](\"https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/fao-aquastat.appspot.com/o/Images%2Ftables-charts%2FFigure2.jpg?alt=media&token=d3e8c6a9-57dc-498d-8c63-05fd7b437c40\")
Note: _the boxes in white refer to variables that are not available in the AQUASTAT database\n_
\nAfrica is the only continent where the area equipped for full control irrigation (AEIfull) is significantly lower than the total equipped area for irrigation (AEItot). AEIfull accounts for 93 percent of AEItot, whereas it is 99 percent in Asia and Europe and more or less 100 percent in the Americas and Oceania (Table 2a). This is due to significant areas of equipped lowlands in Sub-Saharan Africa and spate irrigation mainly in Northern Africa and the Sudano-Sahelian sub-region. However, because they rely on floodwater, they cannot completely uncouple irrigated crops from climatic conditions like full control irrigation does. Asia with 71 percent of the AEItot and AEIfull worldwide represents 78 percent (Table 2b) of the global AHIfull thanks to its high cropping intensity, but also to the largest part of AEIfull that is actually irrigated (AAIfull). In Europe the percentage of AEIfull actually irrigated is more limited (65 percent). European irrigation is indeed strongly dependent on precipitation and, in a lesser extent, on mobile irrigation equipment, the intensive use of which—by applying water to different plots with the same mobile equipment—in fact expands areas considered equipped for full control irrigation. In addition, the climatic conditions allowing various cropping cycles in a year in large parts of Asia, Africa and Americas, make a significantly larger cropping intensity possible in these regions than in parts of Europe and Oceania, where irrigated crop growth in the winter season is little or non-existent.
\nThe combination of high cropping intensity and high rates of AAIfull/AEIfull makes that Asia and Africa benefit the most of irrigation. In fact, it is worth mentioning that LIFDCs take full advantage of irrigation with their cropping intensity close to the world average and with a very high level of areas equipped for irrigation that are actually irrigated. Similarly, the LDCs have a cropping intensity larger than high income countries, despite their lower portion of areas equipped for full control irrigation relative to their total area equipped for irrigation (AEIfull/AEItot), which is explained by the fact that the majority of LDCs are located in Sub-Saharan Africa, where most of the equipped lowlands can be found.
\nOn average, cereals are the main irrigated crops (61 percent) (Table 3a and Table 3b) and 87 percent of the irrigated cereals is grown in Asia (Table 3c). Almost half of the world’s irrigated cereals is rice (Table 3d and Table 3e), which is thus the main irrigated crop worldwide (29 percent of irrigated crops). And more than half of the global harvested irrigated rice area is located in just two countries: China and India.
\nClick the chart to magnify
\n![\"Image\"](\"https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/fao-aquastat.appspot.com/o/Images%2Ftables-charts%2FHarvestedIrrigatedRiceArea_2015_eng.png?alt=media&token=5efd15bd-2d3e-4d30-bfc1-ecd3468d59ce\")
However, while rice is the main irrigated cereal in Asia, rice and wheat are the main irrigated cereals in Africa, maize dominates in Americas and Europe, and wheat in Oceania. These ascendancies nearly reflect the continental respective traditional food preferences, except for wheat, the preferred cereal in Europe and in a lesser degree in Americas, which is mostly grown in winter under rainfed conditions. At continental level, Oceania—limited to Australia and New Zealand in this study—is the only single exception to the irrigated cereals’ large domination, with irrigated fodder and pastures representing almost half of the irrigated crops (48 percent). At a smaller scale, irrigated fodder and pastures in the Eastern Europe and Russian Federation region also largely prevails (51 percent) over irrigated cereals (17 percent).
\nThe diversification of irrigated crops increases in countries with a higher income (Table 3b): the part of cereals in irrigated crops varies a lot between high income countries (38 percent), middle income countries (64 percent), and to low income countries (75 percent). With 76 percent of the irrigated areas of the LDCs dedicated to cereals, irrigation there focuses on provision of staple food. In high income countries vegetables, fruits, oilseed crops, and fodder and pasture diversify the irrigated crops with their respective proportion being significantly larger than in other income-based groups and even the world’s averages. This diversification by irrigation, and the relatively diversified average diet it mirrors, is however coupled with a lower physical productivity of irrigation water, in term of final product destined for human consumption, due to large volume of irrigation water dedicated to fodder and pasture and required to produce meat. On the other hand, diversification of local diets from irrigation in low income countries and LDCs is not only limited by the large portion of cereals but also by the allocation of irrigated areas to export crops, such as beverage crops (cocoa, coffee, tea). This is also the case in LIFDCs where irrigated export crops, such as sugar crops (sugarcane and sugar beet) and fibre crops (including cotton), almost match the world’s averages despite their larger portion of irrigated cereals and their need of locally consumed crops—their irrigated vegetables, fruits and oil crops fail to reach the world’s averages. These latter three crop groups represent 30 percent of the irrigated crop areas in high income countries, against 9 percent in LIFDCs. In spite of their relatively high cropping intensity and level of areas equipped actually irrigated as shown in (Table 2a), irrigation could play a greater role in the fight to achieve food security of these LIFDCs, and in particular through diversification of crops with larger areas dedicated to these three crop groups (vegetables, fruits and oil crops).
\nBased on the above irrigated crop calendars, the irrigation water requirement corresponding to these irrigated crops (2nd step) is calculated.
","frontmatter":{"path":"/data-analysis/irrig-water-use/irrigated-crop-calendars","title":"Irrigated crop calendars","pdfLink":null,"doNotPublishMap":null,"year":null,"lang":null,"bannerUrl":null}},"allMarkdownRemark":{"edges":[{"node":{"id":"a6b84c36-1fb6-55a4-a0eb-9d3e33a721f8","html":"The modelling approach described in this review combines data from the AQUASTAT database, such as harvested irrigated areas and crops, cropping patters and intensity, as well as different elements of the climate in order to assess the amount of water diverted and required for irrigation. The development of \"irrigated crop calendars\" for each country, based on FAO's knowledge of the countries' agriculture is probably one of the most sophisticated ways to ensure reliable assessment of irrigation water requirements.
\nThe robustness of this model is now well recognized and it has been used for a number of significant FAO exercises, such as the World agriculture: towards 2015/2030; an FAO perspective, the World agriculture: towards 2030/2050 (FAO, 2012) and the World agriculture: towards 2030/2050 (FAO, 2012) and more recently the State of the world's land and water resources for food and agriculture or SOLAW (FAO, 2011b). The accuracy of the approach has also been validated by national statistics that became available in the meantime. This review however has the additional benefits of updated data as well as a handmade meticulous selection and correction of individual data, based on expert judgment.
\nWorldwide, over 307 million hectares are currently equipped for irrigation, of which 304 million hectares are equipped for full control irrigation and 261 million hectares are equipped for full control and actually irrigated. From these actually irrigated areas and thanks to the higher cropping intensity (CI) permitted by irrigation, over 346 million hectares of irrigated crops are harvested (meaning a global CI of 133 percent), the total irrigation water requirements of which account for 1 500 km3. To meet these requirements, 2 673 km3 are withdrawn (from primary and secondary renewable water resources, fossil groundwater and non-conventional sources of water), resulting in a water requirement ratio of 56 percent. However, both the methodology’s improvement (see last bullet points of the Discussion) and the geographical coverage expansion since the previous modelling exercise (from 90 to 167 countries) prevent from attributing the progress of this ratio (which was 38 percent in 2000, the previous exercise) to refined irrigation or water management.
\nDespite the fact that this water requirement ratio is used in this review as a tool for estimation of irrigation water withdrawal rather than as a result as such, it could represent the weakness of this analysis at country level, both because of the scarce information available and for conceptual reasons (Perry and Kite, 2003). Conceptually, used at such scale water requirement ratio cannot differentiate between consumptive and non-consumptive flows, productive and unproductive use, and recoverable or unrecoverable flows (Perry et al., 2009). In particular it cannot accommodate recoverable return flows and the unproductive consumptive flows which return to the rivers or the aquifers—either from where it originates or another. In large irrigation schemes or areas, it is therefore certain that the amount of water ‘lost’ in conveyance or in drainage from irrigated fields is reused downstream and that the irrigation scheme ratio or basin ratio can therefore be much higher than field ratio. The problem is particularly relevant in cascade irrigation of paddy rice in areas like South Eastern Asia or with significant use of agricultural drainage water like in Egypt. This study cannot distinguish between basin, scheme and field water requirement ratios by lack of detailed information on the type of irrigation schemes and of geo-referenced water withdrawal data. Another drawback originating from this ratio is the difficulty to account for withdrawal of secondary freshwater, in particular when agricultural drainage water is discharged directly in canals and thus usually not metered. Besides, information regarding the irrigated crops' yield is lacking to account for water productivity. Also water requirement ratio does not consider at all the benefits associated with water (Gleick et al, 2011) such as better water quality, healthier ecosystems or regular agricultural production. Nonetheless, the regional analysis performed in this review tends to erase countries' specificities reflected in the ratio and allows for a meaningful analysis.
\nFinally, the AQUASTAT team would always give preference to reliable and coherent national statistics over any of the modelled or estimated data obtained in this review. As soon as such data become available, results of this review will be replaced in the database. In addition, estimated and modelled data are proposed to supplement the information already in the database, and will never be used for further estimation or modelling.
","frontmatter":{"path":"/data-analysis/irrig-water-use/conclusions","title":"Conclusions","menuOrder":"6","year":null,"bannerUrl":null}}},{"node":{"id":"86e26f25-68c2-5843-91c8-b1a230285115","html":"The geographical coverage of the irrigated crop calendars, their corresponding irrigation water requirement calculations and estimation of irrigation water withdrawal detailed in the previous pages, consists of 167 countries (including two territories) where most irrigation is practiced worldwide. The 32 remaining countries (as well as all other territories), are excluded due to the lack of data available on areas equipped for irrigation and irrigated crops either:
\nFor countries included in this study, some limitations exist in the way crop calendars are prepared, irrigation water requirement modelled and water requirement ratios estimated (some already mentioned earlier in this review):
\nDespite a similar exercise undertaken almost 10 years ago, some improvements in accuracy taken on in this review impede to compare their respective results:
\nThe AQUASTAT database reports water statistics at country level with a special emphasis on irrigation and agricultural water. Continuous data collection processes populate and update the database, while careful and meticulous data analyses ensure its reliable data quality and accuracy. Despite constant efforts, data gaps exist and AQUASTAT undertakes some limited modelling to fill those for an improved usability, in particular for data relating to agricultural water, its focus. This review contributes to these three tasks: updating, quality checking and gap filling.
\nAgriculture, and especially irrigated agriculture, is the sector with by far the largest consumptive water use and water withdrawal. To estimate the pressure of irrigation on the available water resources, an assessment has to be made both of irrigation water requirement and of irrigation water withdrawal.
\nIrrigation water requirement depends on the crop water requirement and the water naturally available to the crops (effective precipitation, soil moisture, etc.). While part can be estimated based on climatic conditions, part results from physiological processes at plant level for which actual figures are not available, calling for modelling (the crop coefficients for the different crops and growing stages are presented in Annex 1. In this review, the model’s inputs are AQUASTAT data related to the corresponding irrigated crops: areas of harvested irrigated crops, cropping patterns and cropping intensity, converted into irrigated crop calendars.
\nIrrigation water withdrawal (or water withdrawal for irrigation) largely exceeds irrigation water requirement due to significant losses in distribution and application. Although available for some countries, figures of irrigation water withdrawal are easily confused with agricultural water withdrawal. Moreover, in the absence of direct measurement and due to the complexity of assessment methods, they are not always reliable. These difficulties explain that such figures are not always available at country level.
\nNonetheless, a review of these variables at country level is necessary to improve the overall quality of global water resources monitoring. The main objective of this review is thus to update the AQUASTAT database with modelled irrigation water requirement, to supplement national data with estimates of irrigation water withdrawal and to check data accuracy and quality thanks to water requirement ratios comparing the two variables. In doing so, the database will provide policy- and decisions-makers as well as the scientific community with a complete dataset containing reliable data, calculated in a uniform way, and comparable with each other at country level.
\nThe first review took place around 2000 within the framework of the preparation of FAO’s global perspective study World agriculture: towards 2015/2030: an FAO perspective for 90 developing countries and countries in transition. The spatial coverage of the data of the present updated review consists of 165 countries1 (out of the total of 198 countries in 2012) and 2 territories, corresponding to those practicing irrigation and for which data on irrigated areas and on irrigated crops are available (see the Discussion for the list of countries not included in this study and Annex 2 for the list of countries included in this review). Among those 167 countries and territories, 41 are high income countries and 1 high income territory, 89 are middle income countries and 1 middle income territory, and 35 are low income countries.
\nThe review consists in a 3-step methodology (summarized in Figure 1 below):
\nPreparation of irrigated crop calendars by country
\n\n\n\n
\n- Irrigated crop calendars by country
\n- Regional summary of the irrigated crop calendars
\n
Calculation of irrigation water requirement, calculated by the model by comparing:
\n\n\n\n
\n- The water balance under non-irrigated conditions, corresponding to the actual evapotranspiration under non-irrigated conditions and calculated using available climatic datasets; and
\n- The crop water requirement based on the irrigated crop calendars and the global map of irrigation areas.
\n
Estimation of irrigation water withdrawal for countries with unavailable national statistics using a water requirement ratio
\n\n\n\n
\n- Estimation of irrigation water withdrawal by country
\n- Corrections of irrigation water requirement and irrigation water withdrawal
\n- Pressure on water resources due to irrigation: regional summary of the water requirement ratio
\n
This methodology description is followed by three other sections:
\n\nFIGURE 1\n: Review of irrigation water requirement and irrigation water withdrawal\n![\"Image\"](\"https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/fao-aquastat.appspot.com/o/Images%2Ftables-charts%2FFigure1.jpg?alt=media&token=0d396c8f-acf9-43ab-9d93-cb9ed5384275\")
Although in July 2011 Sudan became two countries, Sudan and South Sudan, in this review the two countries are still grouped together due to the lack of disaggregated data.
\n↩\nThis section gathers results of specific studies either delivered by AQUASTAT or produced with the contribution of AQUASTAT data.
\nIn order to initiate the inclusion of sex- and age-disaggregated indicators in AQUASTAT and to extend our understanding on gender dynamics in agricultural water management and more specifically irrigation, AQUASTAT has received customized data from Eurostat with the assistance of the FAO Statistics Division. The data, referring to different years and different European countries and obtained through agricultural censuses, will allow an elaborate and comparative analysis of gender differences relative to irrigation.
\nThe objective of this initiative is to kick-start the enrichment of the Main Database with gender-disaggregated variables and intends to add as much data as possible over time, including more countries.
\nThis page contains the results of the evaluation of national-level data obtained from Eurostat for the creation of the two gender sensitive indicators below which have been included in the Main Database under the category «Irrigation and drainage development».
\nThe figures below summarize the data of the above variables for women and men in the European Union.
\nClick on the figure below to obtain the underlying data by country, definitions and calculation rules
\n![\"Image\"](\"https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/fao-aquastat.appspot.com/o/Images%2Ftables-charts%2FIndicator2_PercentageAreaWithIrrigation_eng.PNG?alt=media&token=5c24f680-2ec1-4492-8029-0d7829622a0a\")
Click on the figure below to obtain the underlying data by country, definitions and calculation rules
\n![\"Image\"](\"https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/fao-aquastat.appspot.com/o/Images%2Ftables-charts%2FIndicator1_FigureOnly_eng.png?alt=media&token=c9ff55b1-9b03-4ea4-9395-50ee98f6b21c\")
Since not every indicator can be included in the Main Database, additional gender-sensitive indicators and their analyses are included below, also based on the anaylsis of the data obtained from Eurostat.
\nAs far as the age structure of the managers of agricultural holdings with irrigation are concerned, there is not much difference between men and women and not much difference between 2005, 2010 and 2013. Around one third of the managers is older than 65 years, while just 5 percent is younger than 35 years.
\n![\"Image\"](\"https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/fao-aquastat.appspot.com/o/Images%2Ftables-charts%2FIndicator5_PercentageAgeManagersIrrigation_eng.png?alt=media&token=ba3dea04-31a0-4f88-b391-3776c111b248\")
As far as size of the holdings is concerned, women manage smaller agricultural holdings and holdings equipped for irrigation. From year 2005 to 2013, there has been a slight increase in the share of women who manage small agricultural holdings, which means women manage less and less large holdings.
\n![\"Image\"](\"https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/fao-aquastat.appspot.com/o/Images%2Ftables-charts%2FIndicator6_FigureOnly_eng.png?alt=media&token=461d7d05-e8a7-446b-9c5a-1442c364b45d\")
The main objective of these indicators is to identify the manager of the agricultural holding by sex and age. According to the WCA 2020, this would provide the basis for comparing the characteristics of holdings operated by men and women. In addition to the sex of the manager, the age is useful to examine gender issues as well. For example, is there a certain age category where women are more represented?
\nYet, the WCA 2020 also points out that it is not realistic to assume that the agricultural holder or manager is the only or major decision-maker for the holding. Often, these decision-making processes are more complex and many household members engage in taking responsibilities for managing different aspects of the operation of the holding. Which is the reason why the WCA 2020 document proposes a complete section under Theme 10 on \"Intra-household distribution of managerial decisions and ownership on the holding\".
\nSimilarly, the Passport to mainstreaming gender in water programmes also emphasizes that decision-making power on water use and management is strongly connected to land ownership, hence the importance to examine the linkages between land and water in terms of access and ownership. Which is why the Passport suggests a variety of questions that can help users to examine these complex dynamics.
\nHowever, as highlighted previously, gender disaggregated data, especially relative to agricultural water and irrigation is hardly accessible nor circulated. While AQUASTAT strongly promotes an elaborate collection and analysis of data relative to gender and water, it follows the first Minimum Standard of FAO's Policy on Gender Equality, and predominantly attempts to \"mine existing data sources\" to get a hold of prevailing sex- and age- disaggregated data. Although the data currently available does not draw a complete picture of the present gender dynamics in agricultural water management, the indicators displayed on this page corresponds to many of the \"Core Set of Gender Indicators in Agriculture\" proposed by the FAO Regional Office for Europe and Central Asia in 2016, in the scope of a guide for the collection of sex-disaggregated data in agriculture and rural areas and their integration in national agricultural statistical systems, which can be seen below.
\nClick on image to magnify
\n![\"Image\"](\"https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/fao-aquastat.appspot.com/o/Images%2Ftables-charts%2FFAOREU_Gender_Indicators_Agriculture.png?alt=media&token=007122a5-5816-4f9d-bfdc-ca59523d02a2\")
As it can be seen in the document above, gender indicators number 1, 3, 9 and 13 can help find answers for a number of practical questions, such as \"Who does what?\", \"Who owns what?\", \"Who has access to/controls what?\" and \"Who should be included in development programmes?\". And indicator 13 directly refers to irrigation.
\nPursuing to find answers to these questions, AQUASTAT analyzed national-level data from European countries to begin with, as data from these countries are more easily accessible. It certainly wishes to add more countries to its database in time.
","frontmatter":{"path":"/data-analysis/water-gender/national-data","title":"National data","menuOrder":"3","year":null,"bannerUrl":null}}},{"node":{"id":"4ee05dd6-5dd5-5590-abee-857effad3b8f","html":"Promoting gender equality and women's empowerment is fundamental in ensuring sustainable agricultural development. Closing the gender gap is essentially important through policies, programmes and projects in the field of agricultural water management, in order to improve sustainable management of water resources for agricultural purposes, which would in return boost agricultural productivity, improve food security and contribute to reduce poverty.
\nIt is generally known and acknowledged that in places where houses are not connected to the public water supply, it is in general the task of women and girls to collect water from a water point that may be located far from the house and they can spend hours every day to go and fetch the minimum amount of water needed for the family. This draws women and girls behind, as they are put at risk and their access to education and income-generating activities is constrained.
\nWhile certainly both men and women play an important role in agricultural water management, be it formally or informally, gender dynamics in the field of agricultural water management are neither effectively nor systematically documented.
\nIncreased access to irrigation by women can bring increased productivity and important nutritional improvements through enhanced food availability and dietary diversification. Unfortunately, still, policies, programmes and projects on agricultural water management often tend to consider women as primarily housewives and caregivers instead of farmers and irrigators, which challenges the participation of women in training programmes as well as in policy- and decision-making processes.
\nAs a matter of fact, policies, programmes and projects integrating a gender and socio-economic perspective in their design and implementation turn out to be far more effective and sustainable.
\nTherefore, there is a clear need to understand the roles of men and women in agricultural water management, include them both in decision-making processes, allow them to share their experiences and exchange their knowledge, express their interests and identify their needs equally. The first step in improving the understanding of the roles is collecting and analyzing sex-disaggregated data related the water in general and agricultural water in particular to be able to make a significant gender analysis.
\nGender analysis is needed to mainstream gender issues in water programmes. It is a methodology that requires the collection and dispensation of relevant information on gender issues. A gender analysis therefore calls for a variety of sex- and age-disaggregated data and an understanding of socio-economic and cultural dynamics.
\nAnd so, there is a necessity to produce, analyze and make use of sex- and age-disaggregated data in water statistics. Gender-sensitive indicators relative to water management practices in general and agricultural water management practices in particular, are needed for thorough planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of coherent, effective and sustainable policies, programmes and projects.
\nGender-sensitive indicators are essential means to understand the roles, the needs and the responsibilities of men and women and they would be useful to form targeted actions in water programmes and to avoid negative consequences of these interventions.
\nThe FAO Policy on Gender Equality states as the first Minimum Standard that \"All major FAO statistical databases incorporate sex-disaggregated data where relevant and available. In the short-term, this will involve mining data from existing sources, particularly household surveys, for sex-disaggregated statistics; in the longer term, efforts will be made to collect and disseminate additional sex-disaggregated data\".
\nAQUASTAT, as one of the main FAO statistical databases, therefore wishes to improve the availability of sex- and age- disaggregated data relative to agricultural water management at country-level.
\nSince 2015 AQUASTAT consistently adds a section on \"Women and irrigation\" when updating country profiles. Even though the information provided is still mainly qualitative, consistently adding such section in the country profiles might improve the understanding of and raise awareness about the importance of sex-disaggregated data. While unfortunately so far, sex-disaggregated data related to agricultural water management is rare and in general not available at national level, AQUASTAT aims to build upon the information that already exists in its documentation to further develop some gender-related key variables to be included in its database.
\nThis AQUASTAT \"Water and gender\" page contains different sections that also can be accessed from the here below:
\n\n\n\n
\n- The Case Study section provides the results of the AQUASTAT case study conducted in Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco on the role of women in agricultural water management.
\n- The Census section displays agricultural census reports and explains how the census data could be used for sex-disaggregated data in water statistics.
\n- The National data section displays the result of gender-disaggregation of national-level data in a number of European countries.
\n- The Documents section presents a selection of documents, case studies, policies, guidelines and tools that are all in some way significant for gender issues in agricultural water management and data.
\n
These pages intend to gather all sorts of information relative to gender and agricultural water and data. Any recommendations for their improvement are welcome.
","frontmatter":{"path":"/data-analysis/water-gender","title":"Water and gender","menuOrder":"3","year":null,"bannerUrl":"https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/fao-aquastat.appspot.com/o/Images%2Fbanners%2Fgender.jpg?alt=media&token=9100638d-60e7-4a67-9426-fbdf1897a24b"}}},{"node":{"id":"0ac56c3d-7623-52f4-8803-9d1d3f6a7588","html":"Precipitation, and in particular its effective portion, provides part of the water crops need to satisfy their transpiration requirements. The soil, acting as a buffer, stores part of the precipitation water and returns it to the crops in times of deficit. In humid climates, this mechanism is sufficient to ensure satisfactory growth in rainfed agriculture. In arid climates or during extended dry seasons, irrigation is necessary to compensate for the evapotranspiration (crop transpiration and soil evaporation) deficit due to insufficient or erratic precipitation. Irrigation consumptive water use is defined as the volume of water needed to compensate for the deficit between potential evapotranspiration on the one side and effective precipitation over the crop growing period and change in soil moisture content on the other side. It varies considerably with climatic conditions, seasons, crops and soil types. For a given month, the crop water balance can be expressed as follows:
\nICU = ETc - P - DS
\nwith:\nICU\t= irrigation consumptive water use needed to satisfy crop water demand (mm)
\nETc\t= potential crop evapotranspiration (mm)
\nP\t= effective precipitation (mm)
\nDS\t= change in soil moisture (mm)
\nIn this study, the irrigation consumptive water use is computed for each country on the basis of the irrigated crop calendar for a specific year, as the difference between the crop water requirement—i.e. the potential evapotranspiration of AHIfull — and the water balance under natural conditions — i.e. actual evapotranspiration (ETa) under non-irrigated conditions. In the specific case of paddy rice, additional water is needed for flooding to facilitate land preparation and for plant protection. This additional amount is calculated by multiplying the harvested area under irrigated rice by a water layer of 20 centimetres. In that case, the irrigation water requirement is the sum of rainfall deficit and the water needed to flood paddy fields. Otherwise, it is equal to the irrigation consumptive water use.
\nThe irrigation water requirement computed in this study is available by country under the variable \"Irrigation water requirement\" [code 4260] in the AQUASTAT Country Statistics. It also appears by country in (Table 4) and by region in (Table 5), comparing irrigation water withdrawal and irrigation water requirement.
\nCalculation methods of the two components of the irrigation water requirement equation are detailed below.
\nRenewable water resources corresponds to the sum of internal renewable water resources—surface water and groundwater resources produced internally—and external renewable water resources—surface water and groundwater resources entering and bordering the countries minus those leaving the country if secured by treaties or agreements for a downstream country. The internal component originates from the part of endogenous precipitation flowing into rivers and lakes or infiltrating into aquifers after evapotranspiration of natural ecosystems, including grass and trees. Thus the annual water balance in natural conditions, i.e. without irrigation—also understood as the maximum theoretical yearly amount of water actually available for a given area—, can be calculated as the sum of the annual precipitation and the balance of external renewable water resources minus evapotranspiration (excluding evapotranspiration caused by groundwater and surface water flows towards open water bodies and wetlands). One of the activities undertaken by AQUASTAT is to compile information on renewable water resources by country and based on this make its best estimates of the main elements of the water balance for each country.
\nThe global water balance has spatially distributed input layers—derived as much as possible from the public domain—and consisting of datasets for precipitation, reference evapotranspiration, and soil moisture storage properties:
\n![\"Image\"](\"https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/fao-aquastat.appspot.com/o/Images%2Ftables-charts%2FTableSource.jpg?alt=media&token=84c7bd40-218b-4663-a703-5e851c6b6b99\")
The computation of the water balance is carried out on a spatial resolution of 5 arc degree grid-cells and in daily time steps. The results of the water balance calculations consist of monthly values by grid-cell for generated long-term average precipitation, actual evapotranspiration, incremental evapotranspiration caused by irrigated agriculture, surface runoff, groundwater recharge and water stored as soil moisture. Summarized annual water balances can be calculated for any desired spatial domain (for example countries or river basins) and include, apart from the above mentioned variables, incremental evapotranspiration over open water and incremental evapotranspiration over wetlands.
\nFor each grid cell, potential crop evapotranspiration (ETc) is calculated on a daily basis according to the methodology described in FAO Irrigation and Drainage paper 56 (FAO, 1998):
\nETc(t) = Kc x ETo(t)
\nwith:\nt\t= time step (days)
\nETc(t)\t= potential crop evapotranspiration on t (mm)
\nETo(t)\t= reference evapotranspiration on t (mm)
\nKc\t= crop or land use factor (-)
\nThe crop or land use factor Kc varies during the growing season depending on the growing stage. However, for rainfed conditions it was decided not to apply differentiated Kc factors, since no distinction was made between the different crops grown on rainfed agricultural land. Actual evapotranspiration (ETa) under non-irrigated conditions is assumed to be equal to the potential crop evapotranspiration (ETc), in those periods of the year when precipitation exceeds potential evapotranspiration or when there is enough water stored in the soil to allow maximum evapotranspiration. In drier periods of the year, when the available soil moisture is reduced below a certain level, lack of water reduces actual evapotranspiration to an extent depending on the available soil moisture.
\nEvaporation and evapotranspiration in open water areas and over swamps and wetlands is assumed to be 10 percent higher than reference evapotranspiration throughout the whole calculation period.
\nFor each grid cell, the available soil moisture is calculated per day by adding in- and outgoing fluxes to the available soil moisture of the day before. Runoff occurs when the balance of the in- and outgoing fluxes exceed the maximum soil moisture storage capacity, and thus is calculated as the part of the precipitation that does not evaporate and cannot be stored in the soil. Runoff is always positive except for areas identified as open water or wetland, where actual evapotranspiration can exceed precipitation. Groundwater recharge is assumed to occur only above a certain level when there is enough water available in the soil to percolate.
\nThe model is calibrated by comparing calculated values for water resources per country (i.e. the difference between precipitation and evapotranspiration) with data on internal renewable water resources for each country obtained from AQUASTAT country surveys and presented in the country water resources sheets. Where differences between calculated values and AQUASTAT country statistics were considered too big, correction factors have been applied to soil moisture storage capacity parameters and maximum recharge fluxes.
\nThe model was validated by comparing the discharges of major rivers given in the Global river discharge database (SAGE, 2012) with the calculated runoff for the drainage basins of these rivers.
\nThis calibrated and validated spatial water balance is used for the computation of the crop water requirement (below) and the irrigation water requirements.
\nThe calibrated water balance under natural conditions, the Global map of irrigation areas (version 4.0.1; Siebert et al., 2007 and 2010) and the irrigated crop calendars are used as inputs for the computation of the crop water requirement, that is the potential evapotranspiration of irrigated crops. Like the computation of the water balance under natural conditions, the calculation of the potential crop evapotranspiration is carried out on a spatial resolution of 5 arc degree grid-cells and in daily time steps and can be presented in statistical tables or maps at different levels of spatial aggregation.
\nThe evapotranspiration of a crop under irrigation (ETc in mm) is obtained by multiplying the reference evapotranspiration (ETo) with a crop and growing stage specific coefficient (ETc = Kc x ETo). This coefficient has been derived for four different growing stages: the initial phase (just after sowing), the development phase, the mid-phase and the late phase (when the crop is ripening to be harvested) (FAO, 1998). In general, these coefficients are low during the initial phase, after which they increase during the development phase to high values in the mid-phase and again lower in the late phase. It is assumed that the initial phase, the development phase and the late phase each take one month for each crop, while the duration of the mid-phase varies according to the type of crop. For example, the growing season for wheat in Bangladesh, displayed in the example of irrigated crop calendar, starts in December and ends in April, as follows: initial phase: December (Kc = 0.4), development phase: January (Kc = 0.8), mid-phase: February - March (Kc = 1.15), and late phase: April (Kc = 0.3). The crop coefficients for the different crops and growing stages are presented in Annex 1. It is assumed that there is always enough water available to assure that crops under irrigation never suffer water stress.
\nThe rate of evapotranspiration coming from the irrigated area per month and per grid cell is calculated by multiplying the area equipped for irrigation with cropping intensity and crop evapotranspiration for each crop.
\nETc(t) = IA x Σc( CIc x Kc x ETo(t) )
\nwith:\nt\t= time step (days)
\nETc(t)\t= evapotranspiration of an irrigated cell on t (mm)
\nIA\t= area actually irrigated as percentage of cell area for the given grid cell (ha)
\nc\t= crop under irrigation
\nΣc\t= sum of the different crops
\nCIc\t= cropping intensity for crop c (-)
\nKc\t= crop coefficient, varying for each crop and each growth stage (-)
\nETo\t= reference evapotranspiration (mm)
\nThe difference between the calculated evapotranspiration of the irrigated area, ETc, and actual evapotranspiration under non-irrigated conditions, ETa, is equal to the incremental evapotranspiration due to irrigation, also called the irrigation consumptive water use (ICU):
\nICU(t) = ETc(t) - ETa(t)
\nThe amount of irrigation consumptive water use is computed for each country and for a specific year. In addition, in the case of flood paddy fields, an additional amount of water (20 cm) for land preparation and flooding for plant protection is added to this rainfall deficit for the calculation of the irrigation water requirement.
\nIWR = ( ICU(yr) x Acell + 0.2 x Apaddy(yr) ) x 10
\nwith:\nIWR\t= total irrigation water requirements per year (m3)
\nICU(yr)\t= irrigation consumptive water use per year (mm)
\nAcell\t= area of the grid cell (ha)
\nApaddy(yr)\t= area under paddy irrigation per year (ha)
\nThis extra water for paddy fields will be mostly returned to rivers or underlying aquifers and thus is not part of the irrigation consumptive water use. The element of irrigation water requirement dedicated to salt leaching is not estimated and thus not included in estimations proposed in this study due to lacking data regarding salinization which is highly contextual. The calculated irrigation water requirement corresponds to net irrigation water requirement, which does not include water lost in delivery (conveyance, distribution, application).
\nResulting irrigation water requirements, after corrections when necessary, are available by country under the variable \"Irrigation water requirement\" [code 4260] in the AQUASTAT core database. Based on these irrigation water requirements, irrigation water withdrawals (3rd step) are estimated for countries where this data is unavailable. Estimations of both irrigation water requirement and irrigation water withdrawal are compared in synthesizing Table 4 by country or Table 5 by region.
","frontmatter":{"path":"/data-analysis/irrig-water-use/irrig-water-requirement","title":"Irrigation water requirement","menuOrder":"3","year":null,"bannerUrl":null}}},{"node":{"id":"eb1eb2b6-d71d-5e13-990a-ca9cfda79a60","html":"Assessing the impact of irrigation on water resources requires an estimate of the water effectively withdrawn for irrigation, i.e. the volume of water extracted from rivers, lakes and aquifers for irrigation purposes. Irrigation water withdrawal normally far exceeds the net irrigation water requirement because of water lost in its distribution from its source to the crops.
\nFor 118 out of the 165 countries and territories information on water withdrawal is available from national sources (i.e. not estimated). In order to fill the data gaps regarding the 47 countries for which this information is not available (or only estimated), a ratio of the estimated irrigation water requirement to the actual irrigation water withdrawal is calculated for countries for which such data is available:
\nWR Ratio = IWR / IWW
\nwith:
\nWR Ratio\t= water requirement ratio (irrigation efficiency) (-)
\nIWR\t = irrigation water requirement per year (m3)
\nIWW\t = irrigation water withdrawal per year (m3)
\nThis ratio is often referred to as \"water use efficiency\" (FAO, 2012c) in agriculture or \"irrigation efficiency\". However, the use of the expression is subject of debate (Perry and Kite, 2003). The word \"efficiency\" implies that that water is being wasted when the efficiency is low. This is not necessarily so. The recoverable fraction of the non-consumed water can be used further down-stream in the irrigation scheme, it can flow back to the river or it can contribute to the recharge of aquifers. It is for this reason that in this study the term \"water requirement ratio\" is employed when referring to the ratio between irrigation water requirement and the amount of water withdrawn for irrigation.
\nThe average of the water requirement ratio calculated at sub-regional or regional level enables, in combination with the irrigation water requirement calculated in the previous step, the estimation of irrigation water withdrawal (below) for countries with missing data. In addition, it also permits to cross-check data and thus their correction.
\nData on country agricultural water withdrawal (AQUASTAT variable code 4250) and water withdrawal for irrigation (AQUASTAT variable code 4475) have been collected through the AQUASTAT country surveys (FAO, 1995; 1997a; 1997b; 1999; 2000; 2005a; 2009b; 2012a). In addition, updating was carried out especially for this exercise and in some cases more recent national statistics were obtained. For improved accuracy, water withdrawal for irrigation was preferred when available over agricultural water withdrawal [code 4250], which also includes water withdrawal for livestock and aquaculture. However, because irrigation is the most significant agricultural user of water, in the absence of specific data for irrigation water withdrawal, the agricultural water withdrawal is assumed to refer only to irrigation. In addition, the water withdrawal data referring to the crop calendar’s year (or the closest year) was selected when available; thus the latest values are not always the ones used for calculation.
\nAfter selection of the most appropriate year for the water withdrawal data, water requirement ratios at country level have been calculated, by comparing them with the calculated figures on irrigation water requirement.
\nTo assign a ratio to countries for which agricultural or irrigation water withdrawal information was unavailable or estimated, a regional rather than national approach was used in an effort to reduce the large uncertainties on the value at country level. Thus correction ratios have been calculated at sub-regional or regional level when at least two coherent country ratios were available. These exclude ratios either below 15 percent or above 85 percent considered inconsistent for being too low or too high. These were then also replaced by these correction ratios:
\nCRr = IWRr / IWWr
\nwith:
\nr\t= region
\nCRr\t= correction ratio for the region
\nIWRr\t= total irrigation water requirement for the countries with coherent ratios only in the region
\nIWWr\t= total irrigation water withdrawal for the countries with coherent ratios only in the region
\nThese sub-regional or, when not available, regional corrections ratios have been assigned to countries with previously estimated or unavailable water withdrawals. They have been used to make a new estimation of water withdrawal for irrigated agriculture per country by dividing the irrigation water requirement of the country by its assigned correction ratio. These new estimations refer to the year of their respective crop calendar. They are indicated as modelled data (with the symbol \"L\") in the AQUASTAT core database and in italic in Table 4. The total actual renewable water resources for each country are also presented in Table 4 and are used in the calculation of the pressure on water resources due to irrigation (irrigation water withdrawal as a percentage of total renewable water resources). Regional data and analysis are available in the regional summary below.
\nIn addition to the above estimations of water withdrawal for irrigation in order to fill the corresponding variable [code 4475] in the AQUASTAT database, the water requirement ratios also identify incoherent pairs of irrigation water requirement and irrigation water withdrawal and therefore give the opportunity to apply some corrections.
\nThe water requirement ratio identifies incoherent pairs of data on irrigation water requirement and irrigation water withdrawal, and has been fixed in this review at either below 15 percent or above 85 percent. In these cases, either the values of irrigation water requirement or the values of irrigation water withdrawal are corrected based on expert judgement.
\nCorrections of irrigation water requirement—based on the corresponding correction ratios and their respective water withdrawal (as explained above)—apply in the following three situations:
\nIn addition, a correction of irrigation water withdrawal is also applied to some African countries:
\nThe resulting irrigation water requirement and irrigation water withdrawal for 167 countries are displayed in Table 4 together with their corresponding water requirement ratio. In addition, total actual renewable freshwater resources for each country are also presented and used in the calculation of the pressure on freshwater resources due to irrigation (water withdrawal for irrigation as a percentage of total actual renewable freshwater resources). The direct use of non-conventional water was not considered in this estimate of water pressure, but is done in the MDG water indicator. Regional data and analysis are available in the \"Pressure on water resources due to irrigation\" section (below).
\nWater requirement ratios obtained for individual countries (Table 4) are compiled and analyzed by continent and by income-based grouping (high, middle and low income, as defined as of October 2012). Also, like in the regional summary of irrigated crop calendars, special attention is given to LIFDCs and LDCs (Table 5).
\nOn average, for the 167 countries, it is estimated that the water requirement ratio is around 56 percent, varying from 23 percent in areas of abundant water resources (Central America) to 72 percent in Northern Africa where water scarcity calls for higher water requirement ratios. In addition to geographical disparity based on water availability, water requirement ratios also may depend on financial resources availability as the income-based grouping evidences with increasing ratios for low, middle and high income countries: 48, 56 and 61 percent respectively. The LDCs display an even lower water requirement ratio with only 50 percent. The lack of financial resources may impede the appropriate operation and maintenance of irrigation systems and the development of smallholder/small-scale irrigation, as well as the development of pressurized irrigation systems—more expensive than surface irrigation systems but with higher irrigation efficiency at field scale. Financial resources also make possible the capacity building of irrigators and water officials and the monitoring of water resources among other. The higher water requirement ratios of the high income countries counterbalances both their lower cropping intensity and lower portion of areas equipped actually irrigated (explained in the regional summary of irrigated crop calendars). At country level, variations are even higher with water requirement ratios varying from 18 percent to 85 percent. In addition, relations to both water availability and income disappear, with a number of water-stressed or high income countries having relatively low water requirement ratios and some water abundant or low income countries having relatively high water requirement ratios (see also the discussion about the limitations of this review).
\nIrrigation water withdrawal was estimated to account for only 5 percent of total renewable water resources for the 167 countries studied (Table 5). However, there are wide variations between regions, with the Northern Africa region using 77 percent of its water resources in irrigation and the Middle East 40 percent (and the Arabian Peninsula, one of its sub-regions, uses 472 percent of its resources), while Latin America barely uses 2 percent and Europe 1 percent. Ten countries (mostly from the Arabian Peninsula, but also from Northern Africa or Central Asia) used volumes of water for irrigation which are several times larger than their annual renewable water resources in their respective reference year. Despite the distortion of these ratios by the use of significant volume of secondary freshwater (water previously withdrawn and returned to rivers and groundwater) and non-conventional sources of water—direct use of treated or untreated wastewater, agricultural drainage water and even desalinated water for agriculture—as well as fossil groundwater in some cases, the situation remains critical in these countries. An additional 22 countries used more than 20 percent of their water resources, a threshold that could be used to indicate impending water scarcity. For other countries, relatively low national figures may give an overly optimistic impression of the level of water stress: China, for instance, is facing severe water shortage in the north while the south still has abundant water resources. Overexploitation of renewable groundwater also occurs at the local level in several countries of the Near East, Northern Africa, South and East Asia, Central America and in the Caribbean, even if at the national level the water balance may still be positive.
","frontmatter":{"path":"/data-analysis/irrig-water-use/irrig-water-withdrawal","title":"Irrigation water withdrawal","menuOrder":"4","year":null,"bannerUrl":null}}},{"node":{"id":"f17c4eb0-a0c5-5909-a8e2-8f05d11bb335","html":"Climate is a limiting factor for crop growth. If temperature is suitable for crop growth all year round, then the availability of sufficient rainfall determines the growing season for rainfed crops. Irrigation takes away the water availability constraint and could then allow cultivating all year round. For the purpose of increasing the data and information on irrigation water requirement, irrigation water withdrawal and irrigation efficiency, AQUASTAT has undertaken a major review of typical irrigated crop calendars by country. These irrigated crop calendars provide for each country data and information on: the area equipped for irrigation, the area actually irrigated, the harvested irrigated crop area, the irrigated area by crop and the percentage of irrigated area by crop occupied by month. The calendars refer to the years for which data was available.
\nIrrigated crop calendars for the countries are organized in Excel format in different sheets, along with their respective narratives.
\nAQUASTAT data of harvested irrigated area by crop at the national level—for harvested crops irrigated by full control irrigation only (AHIfull)—are converted into an irrigated crop calendar, which details monthly occupation rates of the area equipped for full control irrigation actually irrigated (AAIfull) for each crop. The ratio between the harvested irrigated crop area and the actually irrigated area is called \"cropping intensity\":
\nCropping Intensity = 100 x AHIfull / AAIfull
\nWhen no data relating to irrigated harvested crop areas is available in AQUASTAT for a country, the irrigated crops database produced in the framework of the FAO perspective studies World agriculture: towards 2030/2050 (FAO, 2012) is used.
\nCrop calendars are prepared for a specific year for which data are available. As much as possible AHIfull and AAIfull are selected for the same year indicated at the top of the crop calendar (for example 2008 for Bangladesh’s calendar in Table 1 below). Otherwise a note following the AAIfull figure indicates its corresponding year. This is also the case for the area equipped for full control irrigation (AEIfull) and the total area equipped for irrigation (AEItot), which are also shown in the table below as well as the percentage of the full control equipped area that is actually irrigated in the given year.
\nClick the table to magnify
\nTABLE 1\n.\nExample of an irrigated crop calendar: Bangladesh\n
Different cropping cycles of a same crop appear on different lines of the calendar. For example, in Bangladesh rice is cultivated from July to November (Rice one) and from December to April (Rice two). Crops are classified and ordered according to the World programme for the census of agriculture 2010 (FAO, 2005b). In particular, this means that distinction is made between temporary and permanent fodder crops, as well as between temporary and permanent meadows and pastures. While temporary fodder crops and temporary meadows and pastures are included in the FAOSTAT definition of arable land, in its definition of permanent crops only permanent fodder crops are included but not permanent meadows and pasture. Thus in the AQUASTAT definition of cultivated land—being the sum of FAOSTAT’s arable land and permanent crops—permanent meadows and pastures are not included. In a very few cases this might lead to the irrigated area being larger than the cultivated area.
\nFor three large countries where irrigation is relatively intensive (China, India, United States of America), irrigated crop calendars have been prepared by sub-national zones (north, south, west, east) to more closely reflect the climate variations. On the contrary, the nine small islands from the Caribbean Lesser Antilles (CARL) have been combined into a single crop calendar due to limited irrigated areas and limited available data for each of them separately. These geographical divisions or groupings are detailed in the respective crop calendars.
\nData obtained in the irrigated crop calendars of individual countries is compiled and analyzed by continent, by (sub-)region and by income-based grouping: high, middle and low income. Special attention is given to the 61 low income food deficit countries (LIFDC)—of which 37 are in Africa—and the 40 least developed countries (LDC)—of which 30 are in Africa—since water, and in particular agricultural water, is a significant developing incentive for food security and rural development. Annex 2 lists alphabetically the countries included in this review for the world, by continent, by region and sub-region, by income-based grouping as well as the LIFDCs and LDCs, as per October 2012. It also provides the definitions of high, middle and low income, as well as LIFDC and LDC.
\nFirst, the regional analysis examines regional specificities with regards to AHIfull, cropping intensity, AAIfull, AEIfull and AEItot (Table 2a). (Table 2b) gives the percentage of the world total for AHIfull, AAIfull, AEIfull and AEItot in each country grouping. Then, regional features of irrigated harvested crops—in hectares (Table 3a) or in percentage (Table 3b, Table 3c) — and irrigated harvested cereals in particular (Table 3d and Table 3e), are detailed.
\nAQUASTAT makes to following distinction (Figure 2) with regards to agricultural water management, where \"Area equipped for irrigation\" is equal to AEItot in this review and \"Area equipped for full control irrigation\" equal to AEIfull (green boxes).
\nFIGURE 2\n. AQUASTAT classification of areas under agricultural water management
\n
Note: _the boxes in white refer to variables that are not available in the AQUASTAT database\n_
\nAfrica is the only continent where the area equipped for full control irrigation (AEIfull) is significantly lower than the total equipped area for irrigation (AEItot). AEIfull accounts for 93 percent of AEItot, whereas it is 99 percent in Asia and Europe and more or less 100 percent in the Americas and Oceania (Table 2a). This is due to significant areas of equipped lowlands in Sub-Saharan Africa and spate irrigation mainly in Northern Africa and the Sudano-Sahelian sub-region. However, because they rely on floodwater, they cannot completely uncouple irrigated crops from climatic conditions like full control irrigation does. Asia with 71 percent of the AEItot and AEIfull worldwide represents 78 percent (Table 2b) of the global AHIfull thanks to its high cropping intensity, but also to the largest part of AEIfull that is actually irrigated (AAIfull). In Europe the percentage of AEIfull actually irrigated is more limited (65 percent). European irrigation is indeed strongly dependent on precipitation and, in a lesser extent, on mobile irrigation equipment, the intensive use of which—by applying water to different plots with the same mobile equipment—in fact expands areas considered equipped for full control irrigation. In addition, the climatic conditions allowing various cropping cycles in a year in large parts of Asia, Africa and Americas, make a significantly larger cropping intensity possible in these regions than in parts of Europe and Oceania, where irrigated crop growth in the winter season is little or non-existent.
\nThe combination of high cropping intensity and high rates of AAIfull/AEIfull makes that Asia and Africa benefit the most of irrigation. In fact, it is worth mentioning that LIFDCs take full advantage of irrigation with their cropping intensity close to the world average and with a very high level of areas equipped for irrigation that are actually irrigated. Similarly, the LDCs have a cropping intensity larger than high income countries, despite their lower portion of areas equipped for full control irrigation relative to their total area equipped for irrigation (AEIfull/AEItot), which is explained by the fact that the majority of LDCs are located in Sub-Saharan Africa, where most of the equipped lowlands can be found.
\nOn average, cereals are the main irrigated crops (61 percent) (Table 3a and Table 3b) and 87 percent of the irrigated cereals is grown in Asia (Table 3c). Almost half of the world’s irrigated cereals is rice (Table 3d and Table 3e), which is thus the main irrigated crop worldwide (29 percent of irrigated crops). And more than half of the global harvested irrigated rice area is located in just two countries: China and India.
\nClick the chart to magnify
\n
However, while rice is the main irrigated cereal in Asia, rice and wheat are the main irrigated cereals in Africa, maize dominates in Americas and Europe, and wheat in Oceania. These ascendancies nearly reflect the continental respective traditional food preferences, except for wheat, the preferred cereal in Europe and in a lesser degree in Americas, which is mostly grown in winter under rainfed conditions. At continental level, Oceania—limited to Australia and New Zealand in this study—is the only single exception to the irrigated cereals’ large domination, with irrigated fodder and pastures representing almost half of the irrigated crops (48 percent). At a smaller scale, irrigated fodder and pastures in the Eastern Europe and Russian Federation region also largely prevails (51 percent) over irrigated cereals (17 percent).
\nThe diversification of irrigated crops increases in countries with a higher income (Table 3b): the part of cereals in irrigated crops varies a lot between high income countries (38 percent), middle income countries (64 percent), and to low income countries (75 percent). With 76 percent of the irrigated areas of the LDCs dedicated to cereals, irrigation there focuses on provision of staple food. In high income countries vegetables, fruits, oilseed crops, and fodder and pasture diversify the irrigated crops with their respective proportion being significantly larger than in other income-based groups and even the world’s averages. This diversification by irrigation, and the relatively diversified average diet it mirrors, is however coupled with a lower physical productivity of irrigation water, in term of final product destined for human consumption, due to large volume of irrigation water dedicated to fodder and pasture and required to produce meat. On the other hand, diversification of local diets from irrigation in low income countries and LDCs is not only limited by the large portion of cereals but also by the allocation of irrigated areas to export crops, such as beverage crops (cocoa, coffee, tea). This is also the case in LIFDCs where irrigated export crops, such as sugar crops (sugarcane and sugar beet) and fibre crops (including cotton), almost match the world’s averages despite their larger portion of irrigated cereals and their need of locally consumed crops—their irrigated vegetables, fruits and oil crops fail to reach the world’s averages. These latter three crop groups represent 30 percent of the irrigated crop areas in high income countries, against 9 percent in LIFDCs. In spite of their relatively high cropping intensity and level of areas equipped actually irrigated as shown in (Table 2a), irrigation could play a greater role in the fight to achieve food security of these LIFDCs, and in particular through diversification of crops with larger areas dedicated to these three crop groups (vegetables, fruits and oil crops).
\nBased on the above irrigated crop calendars, the irrigation water requirement corresponding to these irrigated crops (2nd step) is calculated.
","frontmatter":{"path":"/data-analysis/irrig-water-use/irrigated-crop-calendars","title":"Irrigated crop calendars","menuOrder":"2","year":null,"bannerUrl":null}}},{"node":{"id":"484121bb-23cf-54cf-a99b-74f45a9f6e4f","html":"ABS [Australian Bureau of Statistics]. 2011. Water use on Australian farms. Version 11 May 2011.
\nBGR/UNESCO. 2008. Map on groundwater resources of the world. World-wide Hydrogeological Mapping and Assessment Programme (WHYMAP). Accessed in October 2012.
\nFAO. 1995. Irrigation in Africa in figures. FAO Water Report No. 7. Rome.
\nFAO. 1997a. Irrigation in the Near East in figures. FAO Water Report No. 9. Rome.
\nFAO. 1997b. Irrigation in the countries of the Former Soviet Union in figures. FAO Water Report No. 15. Rome.
\nFAO. 1998. Crop evapotranspiration - Guidelines for computing crop water requirements. By: Allen, R.G., Pereira, L.S., Raes, D. and Smith, M. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 56. Rome.
\nFAO. 1999. Irrigation in Asia in figures. FAO Water Report No. 18. Rome.
\nFAO. 2000. Irrigation in Latin America and the Caribbean in figures. FAO Water Report No. 20. Rome.
\nFAO. 2003. World agriculture: towards 2015/2030. An FAO perspective. Edited by Jelle Bruinsma. Earthscan, London, and FAO, Rome.
\nFAO. 2005a. Irrigation in Africa in figures: AQUASTAT Survey 2005. FAO Water Report No. 29. Rome.
\nFAO. 2005b. A system of integrated agricultural censuses and surveys. Volume 1: World Programme for the Census of Agriculture 2010. FAO Statistical Development Series No. 11. Rome.
\nFAO. 2009a. Harmonized world soil database. By: Nachtergaele, Freddy; Velthuizen, Harrij van; Verelst, Luc and Wiberg, FAO/IIASA/ISRIC/ISSCAS/JRC.
\nFAO. 2009b. Irrigation in the Middle East region in figures: AQUASTAT Survey 2008. FAO Water Report No. 34. Rome.
\nFAO. 2010. Global major agricultural systems map. Accessed in October 2012.
\nFAO. 2011a. World agriculture: towards 2050/2080. FAO, Global Perspective Studies Unit. Rome. (Internal document).
\nFAO. 2011b. State of the world’s land and water resources for food and agriculture (SOLAW) - Managing systems at risk. FAO, Rome, and Earthscan, London.
\nFAO. 2012. World agriculture: towards 2030/2050. The 2012 Revision\n. FAO, Global Perspective Studies Unit. Rome.
\nFAO. 2012a. Irrigation in the Southern and Eastern Asia in figures: AQUASTAT Survey 2011. FAO Water Report No. 37. Rome.
\nFAO. 2012b. FAOSTAT online database. Accessed in September 2012.
\nFAO. 2012c. Coping with water scarcity: an action framework for agriculture and food security. FAO Water Report No. 38. Rome.
\nFAO. 2012d. Low-income food-deficit countries (LIFDC) - List for 2012. Accessed in October 2012.
\nFAO. 2015. GlobWat – A global water balance model to assess\nwater use in irrigated agriculture. Rome. By: Hoogeveen, J.; Faurès, J. M.; Peiser, L.\n; Burke, J.;Van de Giesen, N.. FAO/World Bank/Delft University of Technology.
\nGleick, P.H., Christian-Smith, J. and Cooley, H. 2011. Water-use efficiency and productivity: rethinking the basin approach. Water International 36 (7), 784-798.
\nLehner, B. and Döll, P. 2004. Development and validation of a global database of lakes, reservoirs and wetlands. Journal of Hydrology 296/1-4, 1-22.
\nNew, M., Hulme, M. and Jones, P. 2000: Representing twentieth century space-time climate variability. Part 2: development of 1901-96 monthly grids of terrestrial surface climate. Journal of Climate 13, 2217-2238.
\nPerry, C.J. and Kite, G. 2003. Water accounting at basin scale: a critique of the AQUASTAT approach. Internal report.
\nPerry, C.J., Steduto, P., Allen, R.G., and Burt, C.M. 2009. Increasing productivity in irrigated agriculture: Agronomic constraints and hydrological realities. Agricultural Water Management 96, 1517-1524.
\nSAGE [Centre for Sustainability and the Global Environment]. 2012. River discharge database. University of Wisconsin-Madison. Accessed in October 2012.
\nSiebert, S., Döll, P., Feick, S., Hoogeveen, J. and Frenken, K. 2007. Global map of irrigation areas version 4.0.1. Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany / FAO, Rome. FAO Land and Water Digital Media Series No. 34.
\nSiebert, S., Burke, J., Faures, J.M., Frenken, K., Hoogeveen, J., Döll, P. and Portmann, F.T. 2010. Ground water use for irrigation - a global inventory. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 14, 1863-1880.
\nUN [United Nations]. 2008. Handbook on the least developed country category: includion, graduation and special support measures. New York.
\nUN-OHRLLS [United Nations Office of the High Representative for the least developed countries, landlocked developing countries and small island developing states]. 2012. Criteria for identification and graduation of LDCs. Accessed in October 2012.
\nWB [World Bank]. 2012. How we classify countries. Accessed in October 2012.
","frontmatter":{"path":"/data-analysis/irrig-water-use/tables-references","title":"Tables and References","menuOrder":"7","year":null,"bannerUrl":null}}},{"node":{"id":"d3d03521-058a-5982-85c4-e10efcd5572c","html":"This page offers a variety of documents on AQUASTAT's case study that was conducted in Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco on the role of women in water resources management in general and in agricultural water management in particular.
\nThe initial study aimed to develop gender-sensitive indicators and to integrate them in the AQUASTAT Main Database.
\nThis page contains three sections after this introduction: (i) the reports published in the framework of this case study, (ii) gender-sensitive indicators that have been proposed in this study, (iii) a questionnaire for data collection, based on the experience of this study.
\nThe purpose of this page is to present the approach that was made in order to explore the possibilities to integrate gender issues in agricultural water management and to create indicators in this respect, because the availability of quantitative and qualitative data disaggregated by gender is essential to achieve a better understanding of agricultural water management at sub-national, national, regional and global level.
\nLack of statistical data disaggregated by gender has long been an obstacle to the development of actions aimed at equal opportunities between men and women, which is necessary for sustainable development. The importance of these data has often been emphasized by governments and development agencies. First, \"gender\" statistics are a way to track progress in promoting women's rights and gender equity. The disaggregation of statistics by gender also helps to better identify the specific situations of certain groups of individuals, both in terms of their living conditions and in terms of their economic and social status. Finally, another advantage of data disaggregated by gender is that they make a continuous improvement of the statistical tool possible, in terms of topics covered, of statistical categories used, as well as of information collection methods developed.
\nThus, the interest of \"gender\" statistics not only lies in the breakdown by gender of data produced. The aim of each development policy is to improve the lives of people, particularly those who are least advantaged. In this context, it is important to have social indicators to assess progress towards the achievement of this objective. Beyond a description of the respective situations of men and women, statistics disaggregated by gender must allow the construction of indicators and tools to assess changes that characterize these situations. It is in this context that AQUASTAT develops and elaborated its \"Water and gender\" page and encourages the continuation of similar initiatives.
\nThe two reports below were published as being exploratory studies on gender issues in agricultural water resources management in Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco.
\nThe first working paper is entitled \"The role of women in water resources management in general and in agricultural water management in particular\", also called \"Phase 1\". This report provides the results of the pilot project conducted in Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco and is divided into three sections: the first section analyses existing statistics and documents and field surveys, the second presents the national reports prepared by the three countries, the last section presents the reports of meetings and workshops organized on the role of women in the irrigation sector in the countries of North Africa and the Middle East.
\nThe second working paper is entitled \"The role of women in agricultural water resources management - Phase 2\". This report provides the results of the follow-up project to \"Phase 1\", but has only been conducted in Algeria and Tunisia. First, the report identifies the institutional actors involved in agricultural water management issues and collection of sex-disaggregated data at the national level. Next, the report provides the reflection made on the integration of a gender component in agricultural water statistics, the limits of this desire of integration and at the end offers recommendations to reduce the gaps in this regard.
\nThis section contains the proposals of gender-sensitive indicators, related to water management and more specifically agricultural water. The proposed indicators reflect the following themes: access to the resources, improvement of working conditions, improvement of socioeconomic conditions of women, capacity enhancement, and empowerment.
\nThe purpose of these proposals is not only to identify the indicators relevant for the AQUASTAT Main Database, but also to develop a methodology that can help later to deepen, broaden and identify other interesting indicators with regards to the themes presented below.
\nIndicators on access to drinking water:
\n\n\n\n
\n- Connection rate of rural households to a piped water network;
\n- Effective access to drinking water, water fetching responsibility, responsibility for drinking water supply.
\n
Indicators on economic contribution to irrigated agriculture:
\n\n\n\n
\n- Remuneration of paid labour (difference in salary).
\n
Indicators on the participation in technical tasks related to irrigation:
\n\n\n\n
\n- Implementation of works linked to: planning, irrigation, irrigation techniques, installation of irrigation equipment, maintenance of irrigated crops – fertigation, maintenance of the equipment, strategic decisions (investment, crop choice, equipment).
\n
Indicators on access to economic resources:
\n\n\n\n
\n- Average size of managed irrigated farms;
\n- Promotors of projects in the irrigation sector, access to credit for the development of irrigated agriculture (indicators to develop starting from information on the access to subsidies and other incentive measures for the development of irrigated agriculture, in view of the dispersion of information).
\n
Competency indicators:
\n\n\n\n
\n- Graduates of agricultural education (secondary, technical and higher), number of qualification certificates delivered*;
\n- Mastery of the technical aspects of irrigated agriculture.
\n
Indicators on access to information:
\n\n\n\n
\n- Equipment available in rural households with regards to audio-visual media, information sources on irrigated agriculture (implications of technical mastery, risk, etc.), number of radio emissions (time spent) intended for women and devoted to the irrigated agriculture.
\n
Indicators on participation in water governance:
\n\n\n\n
\n- Participation in outreach meetings related to irrigation development;
\n- Responsibles of irrigation associations, number of water users associations linked to agricultural water.
\n
Indicators related to the water resources (water quantity and quality):
\n\n\n\n
\n- Perception (by women and by men) of the role plaid by the women in the preservation of the resource, knowledge of the resource (functioning of the hydraulic systems, overexploitation of the resource), water saving practices (choice of the technology, recycling, reuse), perception et practices related to water quality (use of water from wadis), risk perception, degree of sensitivity to the availability/value of water (relatively difficult to measure).
\n
Based on this case study, as well as on the world census reports and the assessment of national data obtained from Eurostat, two new indicators have been added to the Main Database under the category \"Irrigation and drainage development\":
\nIn this section the questionnaire can be found that was prepared, based on the questionnaire used in the field within the framework of the pilot project \"Phase 1\". The questionnaire is intended for agricultural holdings with an irrigation system and the aim is to collect gender-disaggregated data and information, with an emphasis on agricultural water.
\nThe purpose of the questionnaire is primarily to investigate the role of women and men in the management of agricultural water so as to finally test a methodological tool that could be used by the statistical services and development institutions for the elaboration of gender-sensitive indicators.
\nSpecific topics of the questionnaire are:
\nThe questionnaire below is an edited version of the original questionnaire that was developed and used as part of the pilot project \"Phase 1\". Changes have been made since the objective of the original questionnaire was to focus only on women farm managers or family labour (wives or daughters) who are in Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco. This edited version would be useful to interview both women and men in multiple countries.
\nThis page presents a proposal for the provision of data for AQUASTAT from the World Programme for the Census of Agriculture (WCA), along with publications on the integration of gender considerations in censuses and other WCA-related publications starting from the year 1990. This page aims to promote the collection, analysis and dissemination of gender-disaggregated WCA indicators by giving concrete examples on how to proceed and request tailored data.
\nThe lives of rural populations in many countries depend on the availability of natural resources. However, under certain circumstances these resources can be overexploited, with the risk of degrading them, including the quantity and the quality of water resources.
\nThe depletion of natural resources is commonly impacting the most vulnerable members of rural communities. In this context, gender inequalities in natural resource management and participation in policy- and decision-making are needed to be comprehended to be able to overcome them.
\nMost rural women living in developing countries are generally responsible for the daily management and use of natural resources, in particular water. Hence, their degradation tends to have the most impact on women in relation to their workload and their quality of life (FAO, 1999; see section below \"sources of information\").
\nRecurrently, water policies and programmes are formulated without examining the social contexts relative to gender roles in agricultural water management (FAO, 1999). Understanding and acknowledging women's role and the resource's conservation is essential for water programmes and policies to be successful.
\nThe production, analysis and use of accurate sex-disaggregated data and indicators are therefore needed for the rigorous planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of sound, effective and sustainable agricultural development projects, programmes and policies. Frank gender mainstreaming is needed in the above-mentioned actions and in combatting the \"persisting invisibility of rural women\".
\nAgricultural censuses certainly become indispensable sources for the collection of national-level data and indicators, because substantial amounts of sex-disaggregated data can be acquired through the tabulations of the available data in agricultural censuses (FAO, 1999; FAO, 2005a).
\nIn fact, the \"World Programme for the Census of Agriculture 2020\" states that: \"A census is not complete until the information collected is made available to potential users in a form suited to their needs\" (FAO, 2015: 151).
\nThe demand for the production and the inclusion of gender sensitive data and indicators in agricultural censuses must come from the users of these materials. These users are, for instance, organizations involved in agricultural development, policy-makers, project managers, development agencies, research institutes and many more (FAO, 2005b).
\nThe FAO Policy on Gender Equality states as the first Minimum Standard that \"All major FAO statistical databases incorporate sex-disaggregated data where relevant and available. In the short-term, this will involve mining data from existing sources, particularly household surveys, for sex-disaggregated statistics; in the longer term, efforts will be made to collect and disseminate additional sex-disaggregated data\". AQUASTAT, as one of the main FAO statistical databases, therefore wishes to use former agricultural censuses to collect and analyze sex-disaggregated data relative to irrigation.
\nAQUASTAT has been involved in the preparation of the \"World Programme for the Census of Agriculture 2010\" (WCA 2010), specifically on Theme 2 of Chapter 11 (FAO, 2005b), and in the preparation of the \"World Programme for the Census of Agriculture 2020\" (WCA 2020), specifically on Theme 3 of Chapter 8 and also Chapter 9 (FAO, 2015), in order to make sure definitions and concepts relative to irrigation are conform to the ones used in AQUASTAT.
\nFurthermore, AQUASTAT encourages the collection, analysis and dissemination of sex- disaggregated data, specifically related to irrigation, through the so-called data \"items\" that already exist in \"WCA 2010\" and \"WCA 2020\". Data items presented in these census documents are significant sources of sex-disaggregated data by means of tabulations, and cross-tabulations.
\nStatistical tables can present different forms of summarized data by means of cross-tabulations, which are tables showing statistical data classified by two different items simultaneously. The data presented can be in different forms, such as: total for items (e.g. total area of sugarcane harvested), total number of units (e.g. number of holdings with pigs), averages for items (e.g. average area of the holding), and percentages (e.g. percentage of holdings using organic fertilizers) (FAO, 2015: 142).
\nPerhaps, one may wish to know the percentage of holdings using organic fertilizers for holders of different ages. Here, \"age of holder\", if grouped in different age classes, is called classification variable, meaning characteristic used for the classification of data (FAO, 2015: 142). Also for example \"area of holding\" can be a classification variable, if grouped in different area classes. Most censuses have main classification variables that are used in many tables. Typically, classification variables need to be formed into applicable classes for presentation in the tables, so-called tabulation classes. For instance, in the above example, age of holder needs to be grouped in multiple age classes.
\nA number of items in the WCA are so-called essential items. These are items that are imperative for national purposes and international comparability, which all countries are recommended to collect, regardless of their approach to the census (FAO, 2015: 52).
\nThe essential data items presented in Table 1 (see below) are the ones selected by AQUASTAT for sex-disaggregated analysis, along with the tabulation class and the reference group. The reference group refers to the group of holdings to be tabulated for the item. For example the item \"area irrigated\" is only meaningful for classification variable land holding (FAO, 2015: 142). Usually, more complex cross-tabulations are made, presenting census data classified by two different items at once.
\nAll of the needed definitions and methodologies to collect these essential data items are indicated in the \"WCA 2020\" document (FAO, 2015).
\n| \n |
|---|
![\"Image\"](\"https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/fao-aquastat.appspot.com/o/Images%2Ftables-charts%2FTable_1_gender_eng.png?alt=media&token=a6343c56-4083-459f-803b-d40d02323ad0\") | \n
A great number of possible cross-tabulations and an ever greater number of three-way tabulations exist (e.g. number of holdings classified by age of holder, area of holding and region). The \"WCA 2020\" document states clearly that cross-tabulations and three-way tabulations are effectively suitable for in-depth analyses and users must have access to a public database in order to produce the set of tables necessary for their analysis (FAO, 2015: 142). AQUASTAT proposes the cross-tabulation of specific data items below.
\n![\"Image\"](\"https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/fao-aquastat.appspot.com/o/Images%2Ftables-charts%2FTable_2_gender_eng.png?alt=media&token=f4d99d2c-ac4a-4286-a5f3-75279b82d2d0\")
This basic cross-tabulation would provide significant amount of data and information, and as the data items are essential ones, in theory, each country would be able to provide the data for this cross-tabulation without difficulty.
\nAQUASTAT promotes the collection of essential data items from the WCA 2020, along with other suggested data items that could also be useful for the availability of gender disaggregated data regarding irrigation. These are listed down below:
\nTheme 01 - Identification and general characteristic
\n0101 Identification and location of agricultural holding
\n0104 Sex of agricultural holder
\n0105 Age of agricultural holder
\n0112 Sex of hired manager of the agricultural holding
\n0113 Age of hired manager of the agricultural holding
\nTheme 03 - Irrigation
\n0301 Use of irrigation on the holding: fully and partially controlled irrigation
\n0302 Area of land actually irrigated: fully controlled and partially controlled irrigation
\n0304 Area of land actually irrigated according to method of irrigation: fully controlled\nirrigation (for the holding)
\nTheme 08 - Demographic and social characteristics
\n0802 Sex (for each household member)
\n0803 Age (for each household member)
\n0804 Relationship to household head or other reference person (for each household\nmember)
\n0805 Marital status (for each household member)
\n0806 Educational attainment (for each household member)
\n0807 Agricultural training/ education of holder
\nTheme 09 - Work on the holding
\n0901 Whether working on the holding is the main activity (for each household member\nof working age, identifying the sex)
\n0902 Working time on the holding (for each household member of working age,\nidentifying the sex)
\n0903 Number and working time of employees on the holding by sex (for the holding)
\nTheme 10 - Intra-household distribution of managerial decisions and ownership on the holding
\n1001 Sex of household members making managerial decisions (in this question please\nindicate precisely questions related to irrigation)
\nWhile of course the first results of the WCA 2020, being implemented between 2016 and 2025, will become available at the earliest in a couple of years' time, AQUASTAT, together with the FAO Statistics Division, will request the assistance from countries to have the data of a number of essential and other data items from the WCA 2010, in order to be able to undertake an exercise similar to the one described above, based on the items available in WCA 2010 which are slightly different from the ones available in WCA 2020. This will be conform to the FAO Policy on Gender Equality which states as the first Minimum Standard that sex-disaggregated data must firstly be taken from \"existing data sources\".
\nEssential data items from WCA 2010 are slightly different from the ones in WCA 2020 shown in Table 1. For example, as far as irrigation is concerned, the area is not an essential item in WCA 2010, only the number of holdings. However, there may be countries, especially those for which irrigation is important, that also may have collected data on area as an essential item.
\nThe essential items from WCA 2010 presented below are the ones for which AQUASTAT promotes the analysis and dissemination. All of the needed definitions and methodologies to collect these essential data items are indicated in the \"WCA 2010\" document (FAO, 2005b).
\n![\"Image\"](\"https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/fao-aquastat.appspot.com/o/Images%2Ftables-charts%2FTable_3_gender_eng.png?alt=media&token=615e1172-6079-4cf6-8f4a-f30c7c628776\")
The item \"Area irrigated\" is defined as follows in WCA 2010: \"The item 0010 refers to whether irrigation took place on the holding during a twelve-month reference period, usually the census reference period. The item relates to the actual use of irrigation, not to whether the holding is equipped for irrigation. The infrastructure for irrigation may exist on a holding – that is, irrigation facilities such as canals and sprinkler systems are available – but these facilities may not actually be used by the holding during the reference year because of water shortages, lack of fuel, or inability to pay water fees. Irrigation refers to whether water was provided, regardless of whether the quantity of water was sufficient (FAO. 2005b: 84)\". In the above tabulation classes, the WCA 2010 document refers to irrigated area size classes similar to the ones used for holding area classification.
\nThe WCA 2010 document clearly recommends the cross-tabulation of the following data items, in number of holdings (Table 4). However, if the data is available, the area (irrigated) could also be included in the values of the cross-tabulation (FAO. 2005b: 128).
\n![\"Image\"](\"https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/fao-aquastat.appspot.com/o/Images%2Ftables-charts%2FTable_4_gender_eng.png?alt=media&token=a4d34f44-70c6-4bc1-9d4f-16e8d9e136a8\")
The WCA 2000 also included data items for irrigation, sex and age of the holder and area of holding, which are considered essential items, similar to the census of 2010.
\nThe definition of the data item \"Irrigation\" is defined and classified as the following: \"Holdings that do not irrigate any land\" and \"Holdings that irrigate some land: irrigated at some time during the year\" (FAO. 1995). As for the size classes for irrigated and total areas, as well as age intervals are the same as the ones in the WCA 2010 presented above.
\nTherefore, if available also WCA 2010 could also be a source of sex and age disaggregated data relative to irrigation.
\nAlthough the indicators promoted above will not allow a full understanding of gender dynamics in agricultural water management, it will be a start in understanding these dynamics.
\nGathering data from different years and different countries through agricultural censuses will allow an elaborate and comparative analysis of gender differences relative to irrigation.
\nWhich is why AQUASTAT has requested customized data for European countries from Eurostat, in order to start analyzing data and adding them to its core database, as data from these countries are more easily accessible. This initiative aims to kick-start the enrichment of the country statistics with gender-disaggregated variables and intends to add as much data as possible over time.
\nThe results of this initiative can be found on the next page called National data.
\nBased on the Case study, on the information available from world agricultural censuses described on this page, as well as on the evaluation of national-level data obtained from Eurostat, the following two new variables have been added to the Main Database under the category \"Irrigation and drainage development\":
\n\n\nAbstract: This publication is intended to provide guidance on agricultural censuses carried out by countries in the period between 2016 and 2025. The WCA 2020 will ensure that data collected are comparable at the international level while also addressing the main emerging information needs of the 21st century. This document promotes strongly the collection of sex and age disaggregated data, their analysis and dissemination
\n
\n\nAbstract: For the first time the WCA 2000 Programme explicitly introduced the issue of the role of women in agriculture. It admitted that although it was widely recognized that women’s participation in agriculture was of great importance, their contribution to agricultural development was in most cases inaccurately reported and often under-estimated. The WCA 2000 Programme, therefore, placed emphasis on the need to present the census results disaggregated by sex, and to take this requirement into account throughout the process of census planning, questionnaire design, data collection, processing and dissemination. It also recommended that even the smallest agricultural holdings should be included in the coverage of the census to ensure that the role of women is properly reflected.
\n
\n\nAbstract: This document presents the analysis and comparison of census results. The data presented is disaggregated by sex relative to agricultural holding management. An international comparison is made on the sex of agricultural holding managers is various 56 countries from Africa, Asia and Europe.
\n
\n\nAbstract: This publication provides main results on structure of agriculture at country level in a closely comparable form. These results have been extracted from country reports and standardized, as necessary. This document addresses the gender component in agricultural censuses.
\n
\n\nAbstract: This document highlights lessons learned in Africa with regard to the integration of gender concerns into agricultural censuses and provides recommendations on how to further improve the integration of these concerns into agricultural data collection systems. The production and use of gender-disaggregated agricultural data has increased significantly in the past two decades. Nonetheless, challenges still remain as governments, development partners and international organizations continue to identify ways to harmonize the use of definitions and concepts, address complex gender issues, strengthen the capacities of data users and producers to address gender issues, improve user-producer collaborations, and secure funds for the production, analysis and presentation of sub-national data.
\n
\n\nAbstract: This publication is intended to assist countries in the conduct of their national census of agriculture. It provides guidance on the integrated system approach to agricultural censuses and surveys and recommends, for the first time, a modular approach to the census of agriculture with the core census module and the supplementary modules. Again, gender-sensitive data collection, analysis and dissemination is promoted by this census document.
\n
\n\nAbstract: This paper aims to provide methodological guidelines to narrow the statistical gap as much as possible, avoiding the omission of women's contributions. It also proposes an innovative statistical process to highlight the contribution of small farms and small farm households.\nAnnex 2 of the report contains the case study \"Gender specific statistics and agricultural censuses in Tunisia and Benin\" and Annex 3 the case study \"National survey of rural households and formulation of gender-sensitive policies in Colombia\".
\n
\n\nAbstract: This publication provides, in an internationally comparable form, a summary of data describing the main characteristics of agricultural structures, such as number and area of holdings, land tenure, agricultural holders and land use for 80 countries.
\n
\n","frontmatter":{"path":"/data-analysis/water-gender/censuses","title":"Censuses","menuOrder":"2","year":null,"bannerUrl":null}}},{"node":{"id":"85891592-718f-5b8b-9978-00edf93934e7","html":"Abstract: The Programme for the World Census of Agriculture 2000 is intended to assist countries by providing definitions, concepts, standards and guidelines for censuses in the decade 1996-2005 in order to generate a data base of internationally comparable figures.
\n
A variety of documents, case studies, tools and methodologies, which are all by some means relevant to gender issues in water statistics and specifically related to agricultural water management and irrigation practices, are here presented.
\n\n\nThis paper presents the results of a follow-up project in Algeria and Tunisia on the development of gender-sensitive indicators related to the role of women in agricultural water management. The paper summarizes the results of the \"Phase 1\" project, then presents the results of two studies conducted in Algeria and Tunisia on institutional level actors dealing with agricultural water management and national-level sex-disaggregated data. Most importantly, the paper reflects on the efforts to mainstream gender in statistics relative to agricultural water management, the limitations in collecting this data and finally offers various recommendations to reduce the gaps related to gender in water statistics.
\n
\n\nThis report describes the result of a pilot project in Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia on the development of gender-sensitive indicators related to the role of women in agricultural water management. The study shows that it was not possible to have gender-disaggregated data at national level, especially related to water and agriculture. Therefore the information gathered cannot yet be included into the AQUASTAT database, which contains national-level data. However, despite this constraint, the project certainly played an important role with regards to the reflection on gender-sensitive indicators and some proposals on gender-sensitive indicators are given in the document. (Document in French)
\n
\n\nThis survey is useful to identify and assess the activities within a given project or programme that contribute to FAO’s Gender Equality objectives. The survey allows a thorough and comprehensive evaluation of the gender related work that has been done in a project or programme and enables the substantiation and the accountability of this work. The survey is also useful to report on the weak points of gender related interventions and propose improvements. The completion of this questionnaire could be very useful for progress reports and final evaluations of projects so that the gender component becomes more visible and systematic in project documentation.
\n
\n\nThe first goal of this study is to understand the water and poverty linkages in rural Asia in order to provide guidance for policies and investments in innovative water interventions and to mobilize government and civil society support. The second goal is to contribute to interdisciplinary understanding of water and poverty linkages in an academic framework. Most data presented in this study comes from FAOSTAT and AQUASTAT. The study touches upon the significance of integrating a gender perspective in water interventions and policies.
\n
\n\nThe first goal of this study is to understand the water and poverty linkages in rural Sub-Saharan Africa in order to provide guidance for policies and investments in innovative water interventions and to mobilize government and civil society support. The second goal is to contribute to interdisciplinary understanding of water and poverty linkages in an academic framework. Most data presented in this study comes from FAOSTAT and AQUASTAT. The study touches upon the significance of integrating a gender perspective in water interventions and policies.
\n
\n\nThis document highlights lessons learned in Africa with regard to the integration of gender concerns into agricultural censuses and provides recommendations on how to further improve the integration of these concerns into agricultural data collection systems. The production and use of gender-disaggregated agricultural data has increased significantly in the past two decades. Nonetheless, challenges still remain as governments, development partners and international organizations continue to identify ways to harmonize the use of definitions and concepts, address complex gender issues, strengthen the capacities of data users and producers to address gender issues, improve user-producer collaborations, and secure funds for the production, analysis and presentation of sub-national data.\t
\n
\n\nThis questionnaire is an edited version of the original questionnaire that was developed and used as part of the \"Phase 1\" pilot project mentioned in the section \"FAO case studies\" above. Changes have been made since the objective of the original questionnaire was to focus only on women farm managers or family labour (wives or daughters) who are in Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco. This edited version would be useful to interview both women and men in multiple countries. (Document in French)\t
\n
\n\nThe purpose of this policy document is to provide FAO with a framework for guiding its efforts to achieve gender equality in all its technical work, and for assessing results; it calls on the whole Organization to contribute to these efforts. The policy specifies FAO’s goal and objectives related to gender equality and delineates an accountability structure for ensuring policy oversight and achievement of results. The document sets a number of Minimum Standards to reach gender equality goals, and the first two of these standards are: 1) All major FAO statistical databases incorporate sex-disaggregated data where relevant and available. In the short term, this will involve mining existing data sources – particularly household surveys – for sex-disaggregated statistics; in the longer term, efforts will be made to collect and disseminate additional sex-disaggregated data; 2) FAO invests in strengthening member countries’ capacity to develop, analyze and use sex-disaggregated data in policy analysis and programme and project planning and evaluation. In particular, technical support to in-country data collection activities, such as agricultural censuses and surveys, will promote the mainstreaming of gender issues, as indicated in the Global Strategy to Improve Agricultural and Rural Statistics endorsed by the United Nations Statistical Commission in 2010.\t
\n
\n\nThe purpose of these guidelines is to provide guidance on how FAO and national ministries of agriculture can support and use CEDAW (Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women) at the country level as a tool for policy development and programming to achieve equality between men and women in agriculture and rural development. These guidelines emphasize the importance of contributing to the collection, analysis and dissemination of sex and age disaggregate data in policy and programme formulation.
\n
\n\nThe purpose of the passport is to support professionals in mainstreaming a gender perspective during planning, implementation and management of agricultural water management projects and programmes. This passport encourages in-depth surveys, reviews, interviews and collecting data, however it also provides a set of questions which can be used as a checklist when it is not possible to do in-depth analyses. The questions listed in the document will trigger the user to think of certain aspects he/she might otherwise not have taken into account. It will also help to identify the areas where additional efforts are necessary to make the project more gender sensitive and to focus the interventions on the priority areas. The document strongly encourages the review of existing data, focus groups discussions, interviews with leaders and a significant number of members of the households (both men and women) to obtain representative results and significant sex and age disaggregated data.\t
\n
\n\nThe purpose of the Sourcebook is to act as a guide for practitioners and technical staff in addressing gender issues and integrating gender-responsive actions in the design and implementation of agricultural projects and programs. It speaks not with gender specialists on how to improve their skills but rather reaches out to technical experts to guide them in thinking through how to integrate gender dimensions into their operations. The Sourcebook aims to deliver practical advice, guidelines, principles, and descriptions and illustrations of approaches that have worked so far to achieve the goal of effective gender mainstreaming in the agricultural operations of development agencies.\nModule 6 (pages 229-256) focuses on gender mainstreaming in agricultural water management and Module 10 (pages 423-474) focuses on gender and natural resources management. In these modules, specific gender-sensitive indicators are presented for the monitoring and evaluation of the above-mentioned projects and policies: Table 6.1 on page 234 and Table 10.1 on page 430.\nAt the end of the Sourcebook, Module 16 (page 675-728) on gender issues in monitoring and evaluation contains a Thematic Note 3 on setting gender-sensitive indicators and collecting gender-disaggregated data for measuring progress in gender-related targets. This section thoroughly shows what gender-sensitive indicators are, their importance and the reasons they should be used, and provides guidelines to properly design these indicators and to find the sources to verify them.
\n
\n\nThis package of facilitation materials, has been prepared to assist in the process of developing capacity of those involved in producing agricultural data and statistics. More precisely, it is intended to improve producers’ abilities to integrate a gender perspective in the design, collection, tabulation, analysis, interpretation and presentation of agricultural information. The guide contains several materials useful to facilitators planning and conducting a workshop on gender-disaggregated data (GDD) for agriculture and rural development, whether long or short, focusing on data tabulation and analysis or questionnaire design, or intended for more technical staff or decision-makers.\t
\n
\n\nThe purpose of the guide is to support participatory planning of irrigation schemes and the integration of socio-economic and gender issues in the planning process. The ultimate aim is to improve irrigation scheme performance, while strengthening the position of rural women and disadvantaged groups. The guide also focuses on the importance and the ways of collecting, reviewing and integrating sex and age disaggregated data in each project stages.\t
\n
\n\nThis paper aims to provide methodological guidelines to narrow the statistical gap as much as possible, avoiding the omission of women's contributions. It also proposes an innovative statistical process to highlight the contribution of small farms and small farm households.\nAnnex 2 of the report contains the case study \"Gender specific statistics and agricultural censuses in Tunisia and Benin\" and Annex 3 the case study \"National survey of rural households and formulation of gender-sensitive policies in Colombia\".
\n
\n\nThis document provides a path for professionals, researchers, development practitioners and government ministries to mainstream gender in their statistics on water. This technical paper is the first tool and output of a broader World Water Assessment Programme (WWAP)-financed project called “Gender-sensitive water monitoring, assessment and reporting”.\t
\n
\n\nThe guideline aims to set universal standards for the collection of sex-disaggregated data related to water. It is envisaged that the methodology will be used and adapted to different regions, countries and by different users. It is therefore necessary to provide a framework for standardization of the quality of data, and the process through which it is collected. The purpose is also to ensure that the data and information collected are authentic and have been collected in an ethical manner, conforming to universal standards. The guideline seeks to make the methodology easy to use and adapt, so that it can be used widely.\t
\n
\n\nThis questionnaire is one of the tools provided by the UN WWAP UNESCO Project on \"Gender-sensitive water monitoring, assessment and reporting\". It is an elaborate questionnaire which will guide users to collect sex disaggregated data relative to the following subjects: water governance, safe drinking water, sanitation and hygiene, decision-making and knowledge production, transboundary water resources management, water for industrial and agricultural uses.\t
\n
\n\nThis is an updated edition of the report produced in 2006 (see last one below). It does not differ in its gender approach, but is updated with new developments, new insights and recently developed processes. Like the previous version, the chapters deal with different gender and water themes, explaining why smart water managers should mainstream gender in their work. But in this version, the 'how' question is addressed more thoroughly, as various tools, case studies, and references to useful websites and literature on promising practices have been included, as well as examples of evidence of impact.\t
\n
\n\nThis case study describes the integration of women producers into agricultural investment programs in Zambia as well as how women's right to land influences women as it relates to the Irrigation Development Support Programme (IDSP) in Zambia. The study discusses the projects aim to develop irrigated agricultural land managed by smallholders, including emergent farmers and making sufficient water available to support large-scale commercial operations. It is comprised of two interlinked studies, the first in the internal paper \"Integrating Women Producers and Their Organizations into Agricultural Investment Programmes in Zambia (and Mali)\" and a follow-up study entitled \"Women's Land Ownership and Compensation Study in Zambia\".\t
\n
\n\nThis case study aims to highlight, within the context of a Gender Pilot of the Peru Sierra Irrigation Project, how women's different needs were identified to facilitate their access to training and to increase their participation in the management of water users' organizations (WUOs). It follows the diagnostic participatory discussions around the importance for communities to include women in water management. In response to these diagnostics and subsequent discussions, the water users resolved to set specific targets for becoming more inclusive organizations, and shaped the content and timing of their activities to allow a greater number of women to participate. The document is divided into 6 titles, which include a background to the project, its achievements benefits and impacts and lessons learned.\t
\n
\n\nThis review examines the impact of water-related projects on women, women’s role in managing water resources and the constraints women face in gaining access to water. It presents lessons learned in promoting women’s participation in decision-making for water management using experiences from several IFAD-supported water programmes and projects. It highlights the innovative activities and catalysts that have helped to address gender issues in water programmes and projects. And it offers recommendations on how to improve women’s access to water resources through equitable development and gender mainstreaming.\t
\n
\n\nThe Guide is a reference document to assist water and gender practitioners and professionals as well as persons responsible for gender mainstreaming, and anybody else who is interested in the water sector. It is a compilation of newer resources – documents, papers, books, case studies, tools and toolkits - on gender mainstreaming in Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM). The Guide also contains a chapter specifically on Gender and Irrigation and emphasizes the importance of gender-disaggregated data collection for gender mainstreaming in water management projects and policies.
\n
\n","frontmatter":{"path":"/data-analysis/water-gender/documents","title":"Documents","menuOrder":"5","year":null,"bannerUrl":null}}}]}},"pageContext":{"categoryRegexp":"/^/data-analysis/i"}}}This tutorial is mostly aimed at people interested in or responsible for managing water resources. The tutorial shows how addressing gender can improve efficiency of water use and environmental sustainability. It also emphasizes how a gender approach can also improve social benefits and equity from use of water resources. An important part of a gender approach is the use and collection of sex-disaggregated data and the production of gender-sensitive indicators.
\n