Table of abbreviations

Local Words

Abo-may: Water manager ETB: Ethiopian currency 24 ETB = 1 euros Got: Small village Koushette: Large village within a sub-district which gathers several small villages (got) Tabia/Kebele: Sub-district Woreda: District Ketena: Same that Koushette but for a neighborhood in a city Gujele: Group of 20-30 neighbors Gumselassa: the governmental irrigated scheme Betmera: the traditional irrigated scheme Hintalo-Wejirat: the name of the woreda of Gumselassa Alaje: the name of the woreda of Betmera Arra-alemssegeda: the name of the Koushette of Gumselassa

Abstract

This study was carried out for the CIRAD; it was included in the EAU4Food project. The length of time of the field work was 4 months; the study took place in Tigray, North of Ethiopia. The main objectives were to understand the formal rules linked to the irrigation management and their application modalities, characterize the irrigation management practices, identify the institutional arrangements facilitating the management of the small-scale irrigated schemes and identify the potential management innovations.

Different interviews were realized with all the main stakeholders identified of the management of the two small-scale irrigation systems selected, one traditional scheme and one governmental scheme. The stakeholders identified were the water users, the association of users in charge of the water resource, the most local governmental office (tabia), woreda for agriculture and rural development, woreda for water resource, mines and energy together with the gujele.

Finally, results underscore the important intervention of the government in the irrigation management, without participatory approach. Indeed, the irrigation rules, the decision of the irrigated command area, are established by the governmental bodies. However the daily management remains the responsibility of the users. Many institutional arrangements implemented by the community were identified. The most important, according to the community, are the arrangements which allow adapting the irrigation to the changes of the governmental top-down policies.

Table of the figures

Introduction

Tigray, located in northern Ethiopia, is one of the most drought prone and food insecure areas of Ethiopia. In an unreliable rainfall context, irrigation could participate to secure the food production. However, irrigation production is limited. In the frame of the EAU4Food project which promotes food security in Africa, Mekele University with the support of external partners, like the CIRAD, wishes to develop irrigation by upgrading small-scale irrigated systems. Therefore, it is useful for the EAU4Food project to get an institutional and social analysis of the irrigation management of the small-scale irrigated systems. For that purpose, the irrigation schemes of Gumselassa and Betmera were chosen. Finally, the institutional arrangements approach was selected to meet the analysis required by the project.

Institutional arrangements are a coalition between collective actions and inter-agent coordination. Public organizations, just like private cooperation, can be concerned by institutional arrangements, and those arrangements can vary from organizational networking to policy arrangements [START_REF] Geels | From sectorial systems of innovation to socio-technical systems insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory[END_REF]. Thereby, in the irrigated schemes, the institutional arrangements are diversified and the analysis requires an interdisciplinary approach. In order to achieve the analysis, this study aims to answer three questions: How are the irrigation stakeholders organized? How are they managing the water resource? How are the institutional arrangements integrated in the irrigation management? So as to adress these issues, this report focuses on fulfilling 4 specific necessities. The first objective was to understand the formal rules governing the irrigation management and their application modalities. Secondly, the report characterizes the irrigation management practices. Thirdly, the objective was to identify the institutional arrangements facilitating to the management of the small-scale irrigated schemes. Based on the comparison of both studied schemes, the fourth objective was to identify potential management innovations. Finally, this case study could also supply thinking on the importance of the institutional arrangements in Ethiopia.

The thesis is divided into five sections. The first section introduces the regional background and it consequences, the demand, the hypotheses of the study, the concept tools and the methodology which was used to undertake the study. The second section presents the physical, hydraulic and the social points of the two studied areas. The third section analyzes the irrigation management through the examination of the official framework in which the irrigation evolves and the real irrigation practices. The fourth section characterizes the institutional arrangements identified. The last section is a discussion about the methodology implemented and the limits of the study, together with propositions of management innovations and research perspectives.

1 Study background 1.1 National and regional background

Geographic and human context

Ethiopia is located in East Africa. Its weather is characterized by a rainy season from June to September and by an austere dry season during the rest of the year (see figure 1 Left below). The agricultural sector is by far the main economic engine for the country. It contributes to 46.6% of the national GDP (http://www.statistiques-mondiales.com/ethiopie.htm). Accordingly, the consequences of the rainfall variations are important in Ethiopia. Annual precipitation is very heterogenic (see figure 1 Right above). Mainly due to highlands, the rain and the temperature repartitions are unequal in Ethiopia (see figure 2 below). The Ethiopian highlands were created with the East African Rift initiation, which started 11 million years ago [START_REF] Bonini | The evolution of the Main Ethiopian Rift in the frame of Afar and Kenya rifts propagation[END_REF]. However, highlands are not the only precipitation determinants. In fact, Tigray, is one of the highest regions of Ethiopia, but, because of its latitude, it receives one of the lowest rates of precipitation of Ethiopia.

Ethiopia, with over than 91 million inhabitants (World Bank, 2013), is the second most populated country in Africa. The repartition of the population is also heterogenic (see figure 2 above). The graph of the Ethiopian population growth shows (figure 3) that the population doubles every 25 years. Highlands in Ethiopia are very densely populated, causing a high land pressure and increasing risks of food crisis for the inhabitants. Several droughts have caused severe famines in Ethiopia. The human repartition characteristics in the highlands have increased the starvation consequences. The disturbed political context did not support the victims, on the contrary.

Political history of Ethiopia

Ethiopia is the only country which has kept its sovereignty during the scramble for Africa. European countries have never been involved in the national or rural administrative organization (the five years occupation by the Italians did not achieve control in the rural area). Current Ethiopia is the heir of a very centralized and very organized empire (Salomonide dynasty and then the heir of a communist regime (Derg 1974(Derg -1991) ) very centralized too. Finally, the regional rebellion took the power with a more decentralized regime, but with strong state power. Furthermore, the war between Ethiopia andEritrea (1998-2000) took place in Tigray. This political context has consequences on the rural development organization, land redistribution, administrative organization, irrigation development, resettlement… Haile Selassie era, last Salomonide dynasty representative: From the beginning of the 20th century to 1974, the emperor Halie Selassie led Ethiopia. He was a character very present on international issues; he was even called Man of the year by the Time magazine in 1935 for his fight against fascist Italy. However, for the marginal Ethiopian regions, particularly at the North as Tigray, Afar… his attention was controversial. The tenant farmers from these regions suffered from land confiscation by the upper classes and government, and they did not receive adapted support in case of troubles [START_REF] Waal | Famine Crimes: Politics & the Disaster Relief Industry in Africa[END_REF].

Haile Selassie was also the precursor for the resettlement and villagization, as the Ethiopia highlands became overpopulated. In 1958, when the available cropland per family declined under one hectare, he moved inhabitants to the Southern provinces of Ethiopia, where coffee trees are cultivated a lot [START_REF] Thomas | [END_REF].

In 1973, the oil crisis hit Ethiopia amidst the Wollo famine and compounded the situation by increasing the number of killed from 40,000 to 80,000. Haile Selassie's government reactions served as a rallying for dissidents and contributed to undermine his legitimacy. 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2013 Population *1 000 000

Years

Ethiopia population growth

Mengistu era: In 1974, a communist group of soldiers called Derg, which means "committee", led by Mengistu, overthrew Haile Selassie. Derg created the Relief and Rehabilitation Commission (RRC) to examine the famine causes and to prevent its recurrence. Finally, in 1975, an agrarian reform took place. The feudal tenure was abolished and the land was distributed to local farmers. But few years later, the Derg revoked this reform. State farms were created like the "sovkhozes" in USSR and the Agricultural Marketing Corporation (AMC) was in charge of extracting farmers' production at low price to supply the urban population. The low fixed prices caused a reduction of the national agricultural production. Some peasants had to buy grain to meet their AMC quota [START_REF] Waal | Famine Crimes: Politics & the Disaster Relief Industry in Africa[END_REF]. The Derg also created a travel license to restrict the non-agriculture jobs of the farmers. Less than one decade after the revolution, the collapse of the State Farms, divided by four the national production (De [START_REF] Waal | Famine Crimes: Politics & the Disaster Relief Industry in Africa[END_REF].

Despite the negative international community opinion [START_REF] Pankhurst | Politics and the Ethiopian Famine[END_REF], in the 1980's the Derg deployed a resettlement and villagization program, moving population from the low-production and overcrowded northern part of Abyssinia (Tigray and Eritrea) to the South. Around 700,000 (600,000 then 100, 000) persons were resettled. The official reason was to increase the national agriculture production and avoid famine that was caused by overpopulation. It was also linked to the insurgency in these regions.

The Derg redirected the international aid to the government militias who were fighting against the insurgency in Tigray and Eritrea. They also encouraged the foreign donors to focus on productive areas of Ethiopia. Thereby, they extracted the surplus production (with AMC) from the farmers. Finally, they carried out a disinformation campaign in which they affirmed that all the famine victims were well supported by the international aid [START_REF] Waal | Famine Crimes: Politics & the Disaster Relief Industry in Africa[END_REF]. This policy led to the dramatic widespread famine that occurred from 1983 to 1985, causing more than 400,000 deaths (De [START_REF] Waal | Evil Days: Thirty Years of War and Famine in Ethiopia[END_REF]. At the end of the cold war, the Derg lost his USSR support and the regional insurgency overthrew Mengistu in 1991.

Meles Zenawi era:

In 1992, the party led by Meles Zenawi (leader of the insurgency in Tigray) won general approval at the first multi-party election in Ethiopia. Quickly afterward, the government made a new agrarian reform to redistribute individuals lands and decentralized the country [START_REF] Gascon | Les enjeux des aménagements hydroagricoles en Ethiopie et en Erythrée, Les cahiers de la recherche développement[END_REF]. De jure in 1993 (De facto in 1991), a referendum recognized Eritrea as an independent country. Ethiopia became thereby a landlocked country. Several wars followed between Ethiopia and Eritrea until 2000, Tigray being at the border.

Consequences on agriculture

The combined effects of unreliable rainy seasons, long dry seasons, high population density and internal civil war caused by governmental policies, brought the vulnerable peasants to a series of disasters over the last half century. The Ethiopian situation is particularly difficult for the largest part of the population, the peasants. The population has still memory of the recent disasters and has learnt from them. Due to recent agrarian reforms and potential government interference, the land owners do not want to invest. Due to regular bad yields, the economic situation of farmers is weak and farmers are not able to invest anyway.

Moreover, at a national scale, the country is surrounded by hostile countries (Eritrea, Somalia, and Soudan). Ethiopia never expected support from them or never expected to get international products imported through those countries. After 1993, the country became landlocked and this increased thereby the importation costs. Therefore, national products became more competitive.

The different governments never required peasants' point of view for agricultural reforms. Due to the former governments practices, farmers and government are not used to trust each other. That is why it needs time to build efficient collective action in Ethiopia. Consequently, the farmers even used to hide their activities and their feelings.

Consequences on irrigation

The first irrigation development took place in the beginning of the 60's when Haile Selassie opened Ethiopia to foreign countries. Investors were attracted by high profitability and traditional land together with fiscal system managed by an approving emperor. Afterward, the socialist nationalization kept irrigation as a priority but was not able to develop it because the country was closed to external investors [START_REF] Gascon | Les enjeux des aménagements hydroagricoles en Ethiopie et en Erythrée, Les cahiers de la recherche développement[END_REF].

Denying the land rights of pastoralists and previous farmers, the irrigation was developed under Haile Selassie. Then irrigated lands became State Farms with the Derg. The national socialist forced the local communities to work in these farms. The only other choices for the local farmers were to flee or to revolt, and many people did so. The production, mostly cotton and sugar, was sent to the urban factories. Thus, the State Farms purpose was not to feed the high density population. Irrigation created a social stratification showing that technical skilled persons were better placed in society than unskilled ones, thanks to their knowledge [START_REF] Gascon | Les enjeux des aménagements hydroagricoles en Ethiopie et en Erythrée, Les cahiers de la recherche développement[END_REF]).

Finally at the end of the Derg, the irrigation in State Farms was marginal in term of: -Superficies, only 50,000 hectares really irrigated (Dessalegn, 1990); -Employees, around 45,000, which means nothing with regards to the 3 600 000 peasant in Ethiopia in 1985; -Exportation, only coffee was exported, but it was not irrigated; -Economy, State Farms lost 80 million ETB per year; it was compensated by small coffee farms around. However the hydroelectric investments were economically efficient, making the irrigated agriculture an under-product of dams.

The current Ethiopian government started a national policy in order to increase the irrigation surface and the agricultural production in Ethiopia [START_REF] Seleshi | Irrigation potential in Ethiopia Constraints and opportunities for enhancing the system[END_REF]. Ethiopia is planning to significantly increase its irrigated land from 640,000 ha (2010) to about 1.8 million ha, by the end of 2015. This will be done through small-scale irrigation, rainwater harvesting, and large-scale irrigation projects. Irregular topography of highlands is an advantage for the governmental dam building plan. The rain flow is concentrated by the topography.

Water challenges in Ethiopia

Blue Nile conflicts (insert map): 80% of the Nile water comes from Ethiopia, but many countries share the Nile water resources (see map of the Nile river basin annex 6). The tensions about the Nile water started two centuries ago. In 1902, a treaty was signed between the United Kingdom and Ethiopia. By it, the Ethiopian emperor Menelik 2 was bound to forbid new hydraulic dam implementation on the Blue Nile, Tana Lake and Sobat River which could damage the Nile flow without the British government's agreement [START_REF] Habib | Qui captera les eaux du Nil? Le monde diplomatique[END_REF]. It was the only treaty signed by Ethiopia. In 1929, Egypt and Soudan signed a treaty under the British supervision in order to split the Nile flow (48 milliards for Egypt and 4 milliards of cubic meter for Sudan). This agreement was not recognized by the Ethiopian government, just like the other agreements between Sudan and Egypt regarding the Assouan dam.

Egypt, which was the economic leadership country of the Nile watershed for the two last centuries, became less influent with the political crisis following the Moubarak's overflow. Accordingly, the decisions of the Meles Zenawi government took into account the decreasing Egyptian pressure. The Ethiopian government decided to start on May, 28 th , 2013 (release decision March 2011), the construction of the biggest African dam on the Blue Nile, the Revival Dam [START_REF] Habib | Qui captera les eaux du Nil? Le monde diplomatique[END_REF]. However, in June 2013, the Morsi government threatened to arm the rebellion in Ethiopia. Egypt also threatened Ethiopia to deal with Eritrean and Somalian governments in order to avoid the Revival Dam construction. Likewise, Morsi has threatened to use Egyptian agents, missiles or planes, so as to destruct the dam (Portes Thierry, 2013). The same problems exist on other Nile river tributaries like the Gash and the Tekkezé.

Governmental policies for agriculture in Tigray

New irrigation schemes implementation, a governmental willingness

Irrigation is the current higher priority of the Ethiopian federal government. The irrigation development is included in the general GTP (Growth and Transformation Plan) which is divided by region. The GTP is not only about irrigation. Irrigation development is a five years plan started in 2011, in which the government would want to reach 50% of the total cultivated area under irrigation in Tigray.

The study of this new governmental willingness was done through the study of the Hintalo-Wejirat woreda (which includes Gumselassa). All the numbers presented below come from the woreda offices and permit to have a specific example of the governmental policies. This woreda was already a regional target for irrigation; indeed several dams were constructed more than 10 years ago, like in Gumselassa. That is why in 2011, the irrigated surface was particularly high in comparaison to the national average (3%). The table below shows the evolution of the irrigation surface estimated by the governmental offices in the Woreda and the estimated plan for 2014 and 2016.

Year

Estimation of the hectares irrigated Increase Several institutions are involved in the construction of irrigation facilities. The main ones are the Water Resource offices described above. Nevertheless, a part of the other facilities belong to the REST (Relief Society of Tigray), a non-governmental organization implemented in many woredas in Tigray. However, by its size, its mode of operation, its relation with the woreda offices, the REST looks like a governmental branch. Then the specialized agency of the United Nations, the International Fund for Agriculture Development (IFAD) works in a partnership with the Ethiopian government in order to finance agricultural development projects, primarily for food. The last institutions participating in the construction of irrigation facilities are other independent NGOs, the only one identified on the studied area is the International Development Enterprise (IDE).

The irrigation facilities construction is financed by three ways. It depends of the projects but the main finance is made through the public work of PSNP (Productive Safety Net Program) which is included in the Food Security Program department of the Woreda Agriculture and Rural Development (WARD). The PSNP financial part can represent 70% of the project budget. The second way to finance construction is to use the local community labor freely. Indeed each Tigrayan has to work 20 days freely during the year for the government. For the government, a second advantage of this practice is that participating in the construction increases the ownership sense of the future users. This beneficiaries' participation can up to represent 70% of the project budget but it is less common. The last finance corresponds to the budget of the institution in charge of the implementation, this funding is necessary to pay the other 30% of the budget, which corresponds to the inputs materials (cement, stones, tools, earth, wood…) and professional workers.

After the construction, the institutions responsible of the study, design and building try to convey the management skills for irrigation facilities to the local community through trainings. Indeed, as soon as the first irrigation season begins, the management of the structure is transferred to a WUA created by governmental offices. Afterward, the follow-up of the activities on the new schemes are carried out by the WARD. In fact, the institutions responsible of construction (maybe except the REST) do not allocate maintenance budget. Some years, the woreda water resource, mine and energy (WWRME) provides material for big maintenance. However annual maintenance is the responsibility of the smallest governmental agencies, the «tabia» offices and WARD offices. Considering that «tabia» and WARD do not have specific budget for maintenance. Therefore, nobody secures and finance facilities already constructed. Consequently, in Hintalo-Wejirat woreda, 30% of the dams are unused, and many of them because of siltation. The natural resource department was created to deal with the soil and water conservation (SWC) in the watershed of irrigation facilities, before the construction. For the SWC purpose, the government always requires the 20 days of free labor due by the farmers to build facilities which permit to hold back silt upstream. In addition, a national policy stipulates that a structure damaged over 50% shall not be repaired, it shall be reconstructed.

More than 10 years ago, irrigation was not the governmental priority but several facilities were already implemented. At that time, the policy was different, the government used to build bigger structures (mainly dams), like in Gumselassa. Currently, the size of water harvest facilities decrease, they construct also river and spring diversions, ponds and wells. The table below shows the irrigation facilities choice made by the WWRME of Hintalo-Wejirat and the irrigated surface estimated for these facilities. In 2013, the new priority identified for the Woreda is wells. Their costs can be easily covered by the woreda, it does not require regional technical assistance and wells do not disturb the agrarian system. The WWRME does not support local community to buy pumps to extract water from the wells. There is a huge problem of functioning of these wells, many are not used. Motor pumps and fuel investments are too expensive for farmers and the promotion of manual pumps is not enough achieved by the governmental offices. Promotion is neither the responsibility of WARD offices nor WWRME offices. Thereby the only office with manual and motor pumps available is the REST but it does not realize as many irrigated schemes as WWRME. Consequently, in Ethiopian landscape, there are lots of wells which are not use and not maintained by the community. Ultimately the structures working by water gravity are easiest to manage for farmers.

According to the Hintalo-Wejirat woreda offices, the irrigated land will be used as below in 2014: Considering that these hectares are overestimated by the government, it is interesting to analyze through the current irrigated crops if the government perception is coherent with the reality.

Crops

Reaching modern agricultural systems at all costs

Reaching modern agricultural systems is included in GTP (Growth and Transforming Plan). One government strategy to meet the GTP goals is to rapidly boost Ethiopian economy with the introduction of fertilizers. Therefore, the government introduces regional quota for fertilizers and then the regional offices divide it in woreda quota. The WARD role is to increase the land production; for that purpose, since 3 years (beginning of GTP) the WARD offices are in charge of distributing modern inputs to «tabia» cooperatives and then from the «tabia» level to farmers. This activity is one of the WARD priorities. The inputs available in Tigray are: (see in more details in annex about the available inputs in Tigray)

-Fertilizers, Urea and DAP (Diammonium phosphate) -Motor pumps and manual pumps -Selected livestock (cattle and chicken) -Improved cereal seeds, including: maize and wheat -Improved vegetable seeds for: Tomato, cabbage, chard, lettuce, carrot, potato, onion, and garlic. -Chemicals pesticides and knapsacks sprayers.

In Tigray, due to the heterogenic rainfall, the improvement on rain-fed system is not reliable; it depends too much of rainfalls. Irrigation enables to avoid the consequences of unpredictable natural conditions and so makes the agricultural production more reliable. However, the economic situation of farmers does not allow them to invest in irrigation. Moreover, the two agrarian reforms deleted the willingness of farmers to invest in irrigation facilities. Finally the proportion of irrigated lands is low in Tigray and the potential of increasing is high. From 2010, through the Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP), the Ethiopian government is developing new irrigation schemes in Tigray. However the water available is scarce and disputed internationally. That is why, in this context where priority is given to irrigation while it is still undeveloped, it is important to well understand the management of the existing irrigation schemes of Ethiopia. This requires the analysis of the institutional arrangement of the irrigated system in Tigray.

Study integration in the EAU4Food Project

International institutions are coming back in the irrigation management, as titled by the World Bank in 2006: "Reengaging in Agricultural Water Management". More specifically, [START_REF] Tardieu | alimentation et développement: s'adapter aux changements globaux[END_REF] emphasizes that irrigation agriculture with low yield (under 2 tons/ha) is not water efficient. This is the context in which the study is integrated. The main aim is naturally to increase food production in irrigated system in Ethiopia.

This work takes part in the EAU4Food project (European Union and African Union cooperative research to increase Food production in irrigated farming systems in Africa). The project is implemented in five irrigated zones in Africa, Ethiopia, Mali, Mozambique, South Africa as well as Tunisia. The project involves 14 participants; two of them are from CIRAD (A French research center working with developing countries to tackle international agricultural and development issues) and from the Mekele University. Both are the main organizations which have monitored this study in Tigray. In Ethiopia, one main scheme has been selected to realize technical research: Gumselassa. This project adopted a participatory approach; diagnosis was done with local actors. In Ethiopia, the stakeholders have identified seven research topics:

1. Technical performance evaluation of Gumselassa's Irrigation Scheme: Focusing on its conveyance system 2. Effect of irrigation on groundwater rise and salinization in Gumselassa's irrigation Scheme 3. Technical, Institutional and Socioeconomical status of the irrigation management in Gumselassa's irrigation scheme: Implications to salinization, pests and crop diseases, soil nutrient depletion 4. Comparative assessment of conventional and simplified practical approaches of irrigation scheduling in Gumselassa's irrigation scheme 5. Apply organic amendment to reduce adverse effects of salts and nutrient depletion 6. Studies on the effect of N, P, S and Z fertilization and compost on the yield and quality of common crops grown in legumes and cereal cropping systems 7. Yield loss studies and comparisons of plant extracts against an insecticide for effective control of Thrips (Thysanoptera) in onion in Gumselassa

This study is inserting in topic 3, it is an innovative one for the local university. Indeed, Mekele University used to deal with agronomic and hydraulic technical aspects, but this study goes beyond technic aspects.

Problematics, objectives and study hypothesis

According to the irrigation characteristics in Ethiopia pointed out in the first part, and to understand the institutional arrangements of the small-scale irrigation management in Ethiopia, the following problematic was established: how, in the difficult Ethiopian natural conditions, after the eventful Ethiopian history and in the current national irrigation development dynamic, the irrigation stakeholders are organized? How are they managing the water resource? How the institutional arrangements are integrated in the irrigation management? Thereby, for the case of Gumselassa and Betmera's irrigation systems, I will focus more specially on the specifics objectives right below:

-Understanding formal rules (oral or written) linked to the irrigation network's exploitation in each scheme; we may bring out existing consensual rules; -Understanding application modalities of these rules for water distribution from the hydraulic structure to the application of water to the plot; -Characterized organizational activities in particular the decision making process. Who decides and how? Who gives orders? Who controls? Who penalizes? -Compared those two situations and, if possible, we shall organize one or several exchanges between the two communities; -Identified the main innovations, social and institutional, that could be achieved in practice, and that could be followed and measured on Gumselassa's scheme through the EAU4food project.

My hypotheses presented below are the outcome of the objectives presented above:

1. Cultivating land irrigated systems is an asset for more food security for the households of all the water users and so it constitutes an interest for the community. 2. An irrigated scheme is not only a physical structure and a physical area. It is also the site of social expression and it includes people concerned by irrigation and its institutions. These different components cannot be considered independently. 3. An irrigated system is managed by a complex set of formal and informal rules that individuals must constantly adapt to their needs in variable ways. 4. Over the history, a diversity of management of the irrigation schemes has emerged in Tigray. 5. Despite collective action is not a natural phenomenon (Crozier & Friedbergs, 1977) and the potential asymmetries between the diversity of people concerned by irrigation exist, the community has the aptitude to adapt itself and to innovate in order to enhance the situation. 6. The external troubleshooters like the EAU4Food actors and their propositions are accepted by the people concerned by irrigation.

In order to verify the study's hypothesis, the concept tools and the methods presented in the following chapter are used.

Concept tools and literature review 1.4.1 Systemic approach

As agriculture is an ever changing and complex object, the systemic approach seems to be the most adapted to this study. Mazoyer & Roudart (1997) define the agrarian system as a "theoretical expression of a specific historic agriculture and geographically located composed by a characteristic cultivated ecosystem and a productive social system. Thereof enabling exploited sustainably the cultivated ecosystem fertility". So to understand the irrigation scheme management, it is needed to understand, first, the operation of the agrarian system (the cropping system and the production system). According to Mazoyer and Roudart, studying this system requires a transdisciplinary approach, agronomic for the ecosystem produced, hydraulic to understand the irrigation network, economic for products transformation and market access, social, cultural and political for the productive social system.

The cropping system: It is the defined combination in time and space of crops and fallow. It is a homogenous mode of cultivation and of utilization of the environment [START_REF] Jouve | Quelques réflexions sur la spécificité et l'identification des systèmes agraires[END_REF]).

The production system: It is a structured set of productions means (labor, land, capital, water) whose combination ensures vegetal and animal production in order to satisfy objectives and needs of the farm holder and his family [START_REF] Jouve | Quelques réflexions sur la spécificité et l'identification des systèmes agraires[END_REF]. Apollin & Eberhat (2000) propose seven principles of the system approach: 1. Explain rather than describe: to understand the causes 2. Carry out a dynamic study: to understand historical changes 3. Analyze the diversity of farmers: to understand their different interest and strategies 4. Analyze cause-effect relations: to understand the logics of farmers 5. Identify and characterize rather than quantify: to understand how the elements of the system work and their interactions 6. Build successive hypothesis 7. Analyze at different scales The systemic approach is also relevant in order to study the irrigated system defined as «a social construction in which the users defined together [START_REF] Apollin | Méthode de diagnostic d'un système pour le renforcement de la prise en charge de sa gestion par une association d'irrigants[END_REF]:

-Rules for water distribution and water access, as well as obligations that everyone need to preserve the right to access and to use the resource; -A physical installation which complies with the established rules and to the water management modalities that are collectively specify by the users; -The organization of those users capable of enforcing the defined rules and obligations.

Irrigation system management activities are divided in three types of activities (drainage does not exist in study area). Then each one has four components: water use (acquisition, allocation, distribution and drainage), control structure (design, construction, operation and maintenance) and organizational activity (conflict management, communication, resource mobilization and decision making) [START_REF] Uphoff | Improving international irrigation management with farmer participation[END_REF].

Social management of water

"Like the agrarian system, water management is before anything else, a social and historically produced construction which never completely froze because it generates contingency. It indeed keeps on changing changes because of unpredicted events" (Sabatier, Ruf, 1992) Furthermore, according to Sabatier & Ruf, an operational social water management can be defined through four essential notions:

-The farmers' agricultural and hydraulic knowledge -Allocation of running and maintenance work among water users -A socially recognized water authority -Rights and duties respected and defined by the users

Collective action

To justify a collective action, an important collective interest is absolutely needed and cannot be achieved by everyone's individual interests. This collective interest is called "share capital", according to [START_REF] Schuller | Social capital, human capital and sustainable development[END_REF], and it is specified by the social relation within the community. All collective actions require union from its actors in order to serve common interest. However these actors do not give up their individual interest [START_REF] Crozier | L'acteur et le système. Les contraintes de l'action collective[END_REF]. That is why, it is necessary to understand the collective interest and each individual interest in the achievement of collective action.

There are two main factors which influence the collective participation, understanding the following concepts is very useful to analyze the collective action functioning. The geographic and organizational closeness constitute one factor for collective participation. The organizational closeness is based on the membership and similarity of the stakeholders [START_REF] Caron | Les conflits d'usage dans les espaces ruraux. Une analyse économique[END_REF]. This closeness contributes to the interaction and to the solution research between the stakeholders. Thereby, it is necessary to identify the stakeholders' closeness and their history.

The trust is the second factor for collective participation. Establishing trust inside a community requires regular collective actions or pre-existing closeness between the stakeholders [START_REF] Dupuy | Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front, Roles and responsibilities of ministries[END_REF]. According to Dupuy & Torre, there are three trust forms, the community trust, the interpersonal trust and the preliminary trust. The trust advantages for collective participation quoted are:

-the ideas, knowledge and savoir-faire circulation inside the group,; -the discussion regarding objectives and problems to solve; -the systematic alternative solutions research; -Group membership around solution and common future.

Management institutions

To be operational, irrigation schemes need a framework composed of rules and regulations. According to [START_REF] Menard | Institutions, Contracts and Organizations[END_REF], institutions are commonly defined as the "rules of the game", including norms, beliefs, values, habits and behaviour. Thereby, the entire irrigation scheme is inserted in the management institutions which specify the rules [START_REF] Ostrom | Crafting institutions for self-governing irrigation systems[END_REF]. So as to apply rules and regulations, a conflict resolution mechanism is needed, and at the same time, proceedings rules required to be amended. Ostrom highlights the necessity of adapting rules over time and the potential of evolution of the involved institutions. Finally, [START_REF] Ostrom | Governing the commons. The evolution of institutions for collective action[END_REF] proposes eight design principals to evaluate the governing irrigation system:

Clearly Defined Boundaries

The boundaries of the resource system (e.g., irrigation system or fishery) and the individuals or households with rights to harvest resource units are clearly defined.

Proportional Equivalence between Benefits and Costs

Rules specifying the amount of resource products that a user is allocated are related to local conditions and to rules requiring labor, materials, and/or money inputs.

3. Collective-Choice Arrangements Most individuals affected by harvesting and protection rules are included in the group who can modify these rules.

4. Monitoring Monitors, who actively audit biophysical conditions and user behavior, are at least partially accountable to the users or are the users themselves.

5. Graduated Sanctions Users who violate rules-in-use are likely to receive graduated sanctions (depending on the seriousness and context of the offense) from other users, from officials accountable to these users, or from both.

6. Conflict-Resolution Mechanisms Users and their officials have rapid access to low-cost, local arenas to resolve conflict among users or between users and officials.

Minimal Recognition of Rights to Organize

The rights of users to devise their own institutions are not challenged by external governmental authorities, and users have long-term tenure rights to the resource. For resources that are parts of larger systems:

8. Nested Enterprises Appropriation, provision, monitoring, enforcement, conflict resolution, and governance activities are organized in multiple layers of nested enterprises

Institutional arrangements

According to Menard (2005), the rapid expanding literature on these "non-standard" organizational arrangements shows an increasing interest. Through this, Menard also defined the arrangements as a "non-standard" organization. So as to complement, Menard (2002) considers institutional arrangements as being modes of organization. Menard follows the idea of [START_REF] Williamson | The Mechanisms of Governance[END_REF] and [START_REF] Coase | The Institutional Structure of Production[END_REF] who respectively defined the institutional arrangements as an institutional structure of production and as a mechanism of governance. [START_REF] Shepshe | Institutional Arrangements and Equilibrium in Multidimensional Voting Models[END_REF] underscores that the "institutional arrangements may conspire with the preferences of individual to produce structure-induced equilibrium". He points out that for understanding the reasons of balanced system; it is needed to study individual preferences and community ones at the same time. Interesting points to extract are those which separate individual preferences and institutional arrangements.

It can be noted that institutional arrangement can vary from a local level to a global one. Their whole dynamic is made of formal and informal regulations. Institutional arrangements are a coalition between collective actions and inter-agent coordination. Public organizations, just like private cooperation, can be concerned by institutional arrangements, and ranging from organizational networking to policy arrangements [START_REF] Geels | From sectorial systems of innovation to socio-technical systems insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory[END_REF]. Therefore understanding institutional arrangements of the small-scale irrigation management implies to study a wide range of actors and topics.

Ultimately, through the concept tools and the literature review, the social approach seems necessary to understand the institutional arrangements of the small-scale irrigation system of Ethiopia. The methodology of this social approach is presented below.

Methodology

General study approach

The lack of previous researches on this topic in Tigray impedes to realize this study only with a bibliographical approach. That is why, observation and discussion with the local stakeholders were the only ways to achieve this work. The task focused on analyzing formal and informal arrangements relating to irrigation management in Ethiopia. We relied on the comparison of two contrasting situations, first Gumselassa's scheme. It was built 16 years ago by the government but not well designed, neither well handled by rural users. Second, the irrigated area of Betmera is a traditional rural system exploited by several generations. The points of view of the farmers, as well as the associations' leaders' point of view and the governmental bodies' point of view were confronted. Thanks to concept tools, questionnaire's orientation was made in order to gather and well organize the interviewees' speeches. Therefore interviews constitute the general approach of the study (see example of survey annex 1, 2 and 3).

Study area choice:

In order to reach food security in Tigray, the Ethiopian government and the EAU4Food project focus on the development of irrigated agriculture. There are three types of irrigation that can be carried out in Ethiopia:

-Flood-recession agriculture (minority party) -The traditional diversion scheme -State water harvesting facilities (dams, ponds, wells or diversion)

Given the four months to be spent in the field, it was too difficult to analyze institutional arrangements of more than two schemes. Therefore, we looked for a state dam and a traditional diversion which are the most common irrigation schemes in Tigray. The irrigation scheme of Gumselassa is a dam built by the Ethiopian government and it is a place of many pre-existent studies achieved by the Mekele University; that is why we decided to focus on the state dam of Gumselassa. Secondly, we researched a traditional irrigation scheme in the mountain to compare with the state scheme built on flat lands. That is why we choose the traditional irrigation scheme of Betmera, on which Doctor Solomon has already realized one research.

Peri-urban irrigated schemes differ from the rural irrigated schemes. Indeed, due to market opportunities the irrigation management is different. Furthermore, these peri-urban schemes are not representative in Tigray. That is why, after two visits of the peri-urban scheme of Faleg Dero, we decided to concentrate on the two most important schemes.

Field procedure

In order to reach the study objectives, the information were collected through three ways as described below.

Bibliography research on local agriculture and use of irrigation

Reading information about the local agriculture and use of irrigation was necessary to prepare the interviews and to gather knowledge about the concept tools and the local conditions. Actually, four months spent in the field were too short. Fortunately, thanks to the information gathered in the documentation, the interviewees' speeches could be understood faster. This bibliography offered an easy access to simple information and allowed us, therefore, to target the essential questions in Ethiopia. In addition, it will enable to compare the information gathered and acquired from the field with the data from the bibliography.

Landscape, human and physical structure observation

During the ten first days in Ethiopia, the entire activity was dedicated to observation. Accompanied by the tutor from Mekele University, Doctor Solomon Habtu, the knowledge gathered was very useful. As said above "Agriculture is an ever changing and complex object", thereby, while making the study in Ethiopia, observation was realized in order to understand the construction and the evolution of agriculture and irrigation. Observation also enables to understand the functioning of the irrigation network [START_REF] Aubriot | Comment "lire" un système d'irrigation? Une approche pour l'étude de systèmes irrigués traditionnels[END_REF]. Reading the physical structures enables to characterize four elements: the limits of the network, the structure of access to the resource, geography of distribution canals and access to water on plots. Observation was realized by walking and looking around topography, soils, geology, the cultivated vegetation and wild vegetation, human constructions and last but not least the relation between the stakeholders that we met there. That time was also used for to take pictures and to draw environment maps. Most important, observation enabled to check the data gathered from the bibliography and later from interviews. Consequently, observation was a constant source of contents for the interviews.

Local stakeholders interviews Directive interviews represent 15 interviews in Gumselassa and 10 in Betmera:

The questionnaires of the directive interviews were beforehand written in English and translated in Tigrayan. The information gathered was quantitative and usually the knowledge learnt was about the irrigation operation and network characteristics. These interviews did not allow gathering to gather stakeholders' opinion together with details about the irrigation management. However, it contributed to select topics for following semi-directive interviews. Finally, the translator has been changed after three weeks to realize other form of interviews.

Semi-directive interviews represent 20 interviews in Gumselassa and 15 in Betmera:

The larger part of the data was gathered through this kind of interview. The whole local stakeholders were submitted to a semi-directive interview. The form of interviews has varied along the internship, with time the number of pre-existing writing question decrease. Therefore, interview's orientations were just given by the translator. An importance was given to interviewees' speeches.

Informal interviews represent a number indeterminate:

In Gumselassa, the community is divided in four villages whereas in Betmera it is more grouped. Consequently, living amidst the community in Betmera was easier. This facilitated informal interviews. A great number of informal exchanges took place at the end of the interviews when the farmers were feeling free to talk. Informal interviews can occur with anyone, a great number of those were realized with the translator, the Mekele University tutor, owner of restaurants, with neighbors in the mini-bus…Unlike the directive and semi-directive interview, informal interviews can be done without hand note or improvised.

Collective interviews (around 10 in each irrigated scheme):

This type of interview was realized because of two opportunities. Firstly, organization of water allocation meeting, monthly meeting, and administrative meeting were used to make collective interviews. Our main activity was to listen and understand what happened but these occasions were also used to ask additional questions and to share with the presented farmers the results previously obtained during individual interviews. Secondly, collective interviews were realized during holidays, when the farmers remained at home with family or friends, and when the farmers went to local beers houses.

During collective interviews, the translator asked questions or described our perception about an accurate topic. Then the persons present discussed about our intervention. This collective interview enabled to collect collective opinions, generally more accurate than with individual interview, to observe divergences, to analyze the hierarchy between the persons and to get feedbacks from the study.

Exchange between the two communities (one time):

Last but not least, an exchange between some users of both WUA was organized by Javier Ros Rodriguez to present and get opinion of the first results of his study about the evaluation of the performance of small irrigation systems in Ethiopia. For my own interest, this opportunity was used to confront the farmers to alternative management practices of the other WUA and so get external farmers' opinion of a different situation. In addition, this day was also the opportunity to get the farmers' reactions about potential innovations coming from the example of the other scheme.

Strategy for categorize interviewees

During interviews, I had to find information about the interviewee himself, like original and current village where he/she lives, land ownership, land size, support received from family, experiences, other activities source of income, gender, benefits received by WUA or DA, knowledge about the operational rules and his/her place on the command area. These data helped me to understand the users' participation together with their interest in collective actions.

Strategy to organize the institutional arrangements

Thereby in order to organize the variety of Ethiopian institutional arrangement of small-scale irrigation, a personal classification is adopted. Firstly an analysis of the formal framework is required to target the institutional arrangements. Then differences between the arrangements accepted or not accepted by the stakeholders and a separation of the arrangements submitting a governmental intervention or not are done. A graduation of the institutional arrangements will appear.

Study at different scales

The systemic approach requires considering several levels in order to analyze each undersystem that composed the irrigated system. Characteristics are not the same according to the scale. [START_REF] Apollin | Méthode de diagnostic d'un système pour le renforcement de la prise en charge de sa gestion par une association d'irrigants[END_REF] distinguishes five levels: the watershed, the irrigated scheme, the hydraulic neighborhoods, the farming production unit and the plot. This approach is necessary to understand relations between the under-systems.

Methodology analysis

Methodology making

The methodology was started in France before the internship begun, but it was mainly finished in Ethiopia after the observation time. Working conditions were far from being easy, without internet access and libraries. Finally, the time necessary to achieve the methodology and the field observation lasted one month.

Methodology test and implementation

After the first survey was written and translated (see in Annexes examples of questionnaire), several interviews were necessary to target the most relevant questions and to abandon the useless one. After, the questionnaires were used around one month in each irrigated scheme. Questionnaires enabled us to get a general view of operations there. Then, one month was devoted to analyze governmental institutions. It took place in collaboration with a worker from the ODI (Overseas Development Institute). The last weeks were devoted to share and check data gathered in the community through individual and collective interviews.

Characteristics of the study areas and consequences

Both study areas are located in Tigray, the northernmost region of Ethiopia. The annual average rainfall is in between 450mm-980mm. Due to the nature of the topography and human population, the size of cultivable lands per family (with an average of 5 members) is mostly less than one hectare [START_REF] Habtu | Traditional irrigation management in Betmera-Hiwane, Ethiopia the main peculiarities for the persistence of irrigation practices[END_REF]. The annual population growth rate is 3.3% (Central Statistics Authority of Ethiopia, 2008). Tigray human conditions are similar than Ethiopian highlands conditions described before but the rainfall is lower (see figure 2). Therefore, irrigation is determinant for food security in Tigray. Gumselassa and Betmera are both at the south of Mekele, 40 km for Gumselassa irrigation scheme and almost 70 km for Betmera irrigation scheme.

Infrastructure and market issues

Returns from irrigation investments dramatically depend on investments made in roads and market infrastructures, yet many small scale irrigation schemes in Ethiopia have been developed in areas without road links (World Bank, 2006). Transportation infrastructure in Ethiopia (Tigray included) has been neglected for decades, but fortunately it is now a governmental priority [START_REF] Malone | Ethiopia earmarks almost $1 billion for roads, Reuters[END_REF]. In fact, in Tigray, Chinese companies have built roads that allow reaching rural areas. Both study schemes are now nearby the new main road and both have a market access along the road at less than 5km of the irrigated plots. However the rural market of Betmera is small and the transaction costs of entering are high due to the lack of transport vehicle. In Gumselassa, the market is quite far from farmers' houses (up to 2 hours and half by foot) but it has a good dynamics with lot of transport vehicles to export toward Mekele. Nonetheless, farmers have little bargaining power as they lack market price information and have no facilities to store production and sale another day, when the prices are higher.

A modernization consequence for the irrigation users

Among the list of inputs available, according to governmental offices, the WARD focuses on fertilizers distribution. Mainly for other inputs, the low distribution is due to a shortage of supply at regional level. Fertilizers are allocated to farmers by the «tabia» farmers' cooperative and the institution responsible of the water management, the Water Users Associations (WUA). The Woreda for Agriculture and Rural Development (WARD) requires help from «tabia» agents to increase membership in farmers' cooperative and WUAs. According to the woreda and «tabia» offices, this should increase the quantity of inputs distributed. Farmers cannot buy cash the fertilizers being short of money at the beginning of the cropping season. That is why the majority of farmers take the fertilizers through a credit. Therefore the other main priority of the WARD and the «tabia» is to collect all the credits from farmers.

The quotas are never reached at regional and woreda levels, as rain-fed farmers only take a half of the recommendations. Governmental agents do not success to convince farmers to use 200kg/hectare (100kg of Urea and 100kg of DAP). When the government established the fertilizers recommendation, their expectation is to reach 4 tons/hectare. But in reality, due to natural conditions, the average production of rain-fed agriculture is 0.5-0.6 tons/hectare. The governmental recommendation of fertilizers quantity is way too high regarding the production and so this cost of production creates problems for repayment after harvest. Indeed one kg of wheat is sold around 7 ETB. Therefore, in 2013, farmers who have one hectare need to sell almost 0.4 ton to refund the fertilizers loan of 2 636 ETB (1 472 + 1 164, see fertilizers price on the figure 5 below). The cost of the fertilizers recommendation represents 80% of the production for rain-fed agriculture. Accordingly, farmers do not take the recommendations because they know that the quantity is too high regarding the production. Moreover, farmers do not want to take the same quantity of DAP than Urea, because they know that the DAP is not useful for the cereal. Furthermore, the unreliable rain together with diseases (without cheap and efficiency pesticide) can strongly damage the production with or without fertilizers. Finally, there is a discrepancy between farmers' needs and distribution objectives from Woreda. But there is also another discrepancy between fertilizers needs of the woreda and quotas established by regional offices. Inputs supply is not a demand driven distribution, it is a topdown organization.

The increase of fertilizers prices is explained by the inputs supply department as a repercussion of the international fertilizers prices evolution. Due to the quotas which are not reached every year, there is still a half of the previous stock stored in the governmental offices. When the prices increase, this storage enables to decrease the cost of fertilizers for the next year. But if international fertilizers prices decrease, the politic of quota will have bad consequences for the national fertilizers prices. When farmers are in debt, the objective of economy boosting by fertilizers strategy of the GTP fails. However it is a national strategy, regional offices just want to know the quantity of fertilizer distributed and the area of land cultivated by woreda. Local governmental stakeholders that we interviewed cannot do anything else but to apply policies from regional offices. According to interviewees, the government does not achieve impact analysis on farmers' livelihoods. An interviewee confined me that the National policy may change after the GTP. Therefore, there are still two more years to go on with this policy. For irrigated agriculture, users have to take fertilizers to get the water. It is not a written rule, it is informal and its origins are unclear. However for irrigated lands this strategy does not have the same negative impact. Indeed, the yield is supposed to be higher, due to irrigation water supply more reliable. Furthermore, farmers have two harvests per year. But water is not the only factor of production.

This fertilizers strategy is difficult to apply for governmental employees because of the farmers' disagreement. That is why; the associative local leaders are expected to participate in convincing farmers of the fertilizers' advantages. There are many trainings and meetings for that purpose. A propaganda system is applied and regular rewards are given to the person responsible of persuading the population. The whole process will be detailed later. Another consequence can also be pointed out: the government does not take into account environmental impacts. Although the drainage water and ground water might be used for livestock or for human use, government does not monitor water quality. Fertlizer price evolution for the Woreda of for Alaje for 100kg in ETB

Local socio-historical context

The local socio-historical is what differs the most between the two irrigation schemes. Betmera irrigation scheme is one of ancients traditional irrigated places of Tigray [START_REF] Habtu | Traditional irrigation management in Betmera-Hiwane, Ethiopia the main peculiarities for the persistence of irrigation practices[END_REF]. The irrigation management has been adapted over time with political crisis and the knowledge has been transmitted to the next generations. Thereby, due to the irrigation opportunity, the Betmera village has been developed around the irrigated scheme, see map below. Therefore, all the users live close to their working place, and this enhances one of the two factors which influence collective actions, the organizational and geographical closeness. Secondly, thanks to the regular collective actions which have been carried out along the time, trust between the inhabitants of the community could be established. Lastly, the irrigated plots of Betmera are mainly cultivated by their owners, indeed 70 % of the plots are cultivated by the owner and 30% are cultivated by a sharecropper. Gumselassa irrigated scheme was constructed in 1997 by the Ethiopian government, but the local population was not involved in the decisions regarding the dam. However, through work for food national program, more than 6000 persons worked for the construction. This site was selected for technical reasons; firstly the size of the watershed permits to store a consequent amount of water, and, secondly, two hills facilitated the dam's construction. Then, the local high density of population around the future command area has convinced the government to install the dam in Gumselassa. In fact Gumselassa is surrounded by several villages: Adigudum, Hawastu, Hidmo, Arra, Maidi and Ombertawot. Thereby with the new irrigation implementation, the Ethiopian government has gathered a population in a WUA which were not used to work together. For collective actions, it requires time to develop trust. Moreover, the meeting places for irrigation users are always at the work place, which is Gumselassa dam. Irrigation users of Gumselassa did not take the initiative to build their own irrigation facility. They were not able to adapt the structure to their needs. Furthermore, with the regular governmental interventions in the irrigation management, as analyzed above, it took a long time for farmers to feel as being the owners of the facilities. In addition, Mekele University is currently using this irrigation scheme to realize researches and interferers in the irrigation management.

On the other hand, the only way to become one owner is to possess previously a plot where the dam is currently located or where the initial command area is. Governmental agencies («tabia» and WARD) had organized a lottery between the previous owners of lands. Agencies had put names of each farmer in a box and drew lots in order to allocate a plot. Allocation started from upstream to downstream. Each plot is supposed to make the same size, 40m*50m = 0.2 hectare. The plots were distributed among 550 households irrespectively of the family size [START_REF] Teshome | Irrigation practices, states intervention and farmers, life-worlds in drought-prone in Tigray, Ethiopia[END_REF]. Currently, 28% of owners are females and only 7% of these female owners are cultivating their plot. Finally, for the current irrigation command area, the land allocation lottery of 1997 gave a repartition of the village among owners presented on the chart below. Lastly, in Gumselassa, the sharecroppers cultivate a higher proportion of irrigated plots than in Betmera and there are even uncultivated plots during the irrigation season as showed by the second chart below.

Plot repartition in Gumselassa

Cultivated by a sharecropper Cultivated by the owner Abandoned plots

Natural conditions consequences

Gumselassa and Betmera are only 30km from each other. However, the natural conditions are completely different. Indeed, according to geologist expert of Adichew, Gumselassa is located on a flat sedimentation concretion whereas Betmera is located on a volcanic mountain concretion. Consequently, the mountains hold back clouds. Such clouds speed up the beginning of the rainy season and decrease the temperature in Betmera. For rain-fed agriculture, the length of rainy season enables to obtain higher production, and offers lower temperatures. This permits to decrease the diseases of crops, according to interviewees. Lastly, the huge amount of rainfall in the surrounding mountain induces a constant water spring which is used for irrigation and for a bottling factory.

In addition, the water leaks of Gumselassa and Betmera irrigation network are the results of two different causes. In Gumselassa, the soil is composed of clay, but the low slopes of the network induce huge water leaks. In Betmera, the slopes inclination is high, but it is mainly a sandy soil which permits a high water infiltration in the soil. That is why; the local community together with the Ethiopian government chose to establish two different types of infrastructure for harvesting water.

Betmera irrigation facilities

Due to natural and social conditions pointed out above, two types of water harvest has been achieved. In Betmera, the facilities were built without the governmental support so farmers chose to divert the constant river's flow with earth canals diversions (see figure below) or with earth night storages, see figure below. Through canals, farmers bring water to the plots located on river terraces. The night storage technology was introduced 25 years ago. It is, however, only recently (last 5 years), with the increase of water scarcity, that night storage was developed in order to store water and not only to divert it. See on the figure below, the localization of the small night storages, the limits of the irrigation command area in 2013 included in the potential irrigated scheme. It is important to contextualize that in 2013, farmers complain of the high scarcity of water. However, the measured flow harmonized with the volumes of night storages measures, show that the filing period of the night storages ranges from 6 hours up to 24 hours. The result is not accurate but it was approved by one of the irrigation managers. Therefore, management of Betmera's irrigation scheme is done through facilities which permit to farmers to realize a daily storage. Furthermore when the flow is higher, farmers can by-pass the night storages. These local irrigation infrastructures built by farmers do not require financial investments, but it requires farmers' labor (rebuilt diversion every year). Thereby, due to natural conditions and to the irrigation network characteristics, farmers must anticipate the future rainfall conditions to establish the size of the command area. Moreover, if users do not want to lose water, they shall work every day, even during holiday. However thanks to the experience acquired along the years, the irrigated scheme is well maintained. The study area of Betmera is involved in a wider irrigation zone. Betmera irrigation scheme represents the boundary with Adigoura where users do not have water scarcity issues. Betmera irrigation scheme also represents a boundary with Hiwane where users depend on the amount of water still available. For instance, in 2013, in the irrigated schemes close to Hiwane, the users were only able to cultivate peas. Indeed peas require little water and it grows up quickly. Thereby, after February, when water available decrease, farmers harvest their peas On the other hand, as mentioned before, small-scale irrigation is a priority policy in Ethiopia for rural poverty alleviation and growth. Due to climate change and also because of the bottling factory of spring water which implemented upstream the irrigated scheme, the amount of water available for irrigation declines. Traditional irrigation users require governmental support to adapt their network to new conditions. Ethiopian government constructed concrete diversion, canal and concrete night storage in 2007-2008 in Betmera. The new concrete diversion and the new concrete canals should avoid the seepage caused by high proportion of sandy soil, and thereby increase amount of water available for irrigation. However these constructions were done at the downstream part of the scheme and so lot of water is lost by seepage upstream. Moreover, the diversion facility was totally covered by silt after few years of using. Therefore farmers have built a new earth dam on the governmental facility to divert and store the water.

Gumselassa irrigation facilities

The area around Gumselassa does not have annual constant river flow. Therefore the irrigation from a diversion, like in Betmera was not adapted. The huge financial investment required for a dam like the current one, cannot be provided by local farmers. Only the Ethiopian government can invest in such a facility. Finally the dam was constructed in 1997, it capacity is 1.9 million m3, with a catchment of 1 855 ha (Eyasu 2005). With a hydrologic calculation, the rainfall necessary to fill up the dam is around 600 mm (see detail in annexes 12). Consequently the dam is usually not full after the end of the rainy season. But it can also overflow when high rainfall occurs in Tigray (which is not often). The part of evaporation in comparison with the volume used by irrigation can represent until 40% (see detail in annexes 13). Ultimately, the amount of water really available for irrigation is only 1 million m3 (calculation done with the hypothesis that the level of silts does not get over the level of deed storage).

The Mekele University measures show that 70 000 m3 was used at plot level during three months. However the irrigation season lasts five months, therefore, farmers used around 120 000 m3 in 2013. Thereby, the efficiency of the network is around 12%. If we add the water use by the WUA downstream, the efficiency reaches 15%. These results are very low, potentially with clay soil, it could reach 40-50%. The explications partially come from the reverse slopes of the canal. Indeed, the water overflows from the canal, see figure 14 below. Thereby, the flow capacity of canals is very low. Therefore farmers cannot use the whole water of the dam without creating huge leaks due to problem of canal design. In fact, in August 2013 there was still water in the dam which could be potentially used for irrigation. One of the main issues for the irrigated plots in Gumselassa is the salt. Through observation, the salt is developing on the plot around the natural drainage and on the plot close to the secondary canal. See salt in the plots on the figure 15 below. Indeed due to the constant water storage in the dam, a shallow ground water was developed downstream the dam and close to the natural drainage, see figure 15 of well below. The exfiltration phenomena imply concentration on the surface of the plots located around the drainage. Then, due to the low slopes, water overflows and seepage water reach the plots close to the secondary canal. Indeed these canals receive water daily. This seepage and overflow water creates water logging which concentrates salt in the plot nearby to the secondary canal. The slope of the left-bank are lower than right-bank and there is no concrete canal like rightbank (see figure 16 below), thereby the water logging phenomena is higher for left-bank plots. Indeed there are more abandoned plots due to the salinity on the left-bank. Consequently, after requests from the WUA, the government decided to create a new secondary canal of concrete on the left-bank, see figure 16 below.

The irrigated command area is restricted by the canal capacity and not by the size of the dam. The irrigation command area of Gumselassa was 50 hectares for the upstream WUA and 13 hectares for the downstream WUA in 2013. However the initial command area established by the government was 110 hectares and only 204 plots were cultivated in 2013 among the 550 distributed in 1997. See the future concrete canal and the difference between the original command area and the current one on the figure below. Lastly, the WWRME (Woreda for Water Resource, Mines and Energy) built with the support of the PSNP (Productive Safety Net Program) fifteen community wells downstream the initial irrigation command area of Gumselassa. Several other community wells were built on the watershed of the dam. These wells were built in 2011 and are not managed by the WUA of Gumselassa. Nobody is using them, a common problem for all the wells. See the community wells on the figure 17 below.

Irrigation management

As pointed out before by [START_REF] Apollin | Méthode de diagnostic d'un système pour le renforcement de la prise en charge de sa gestion par une association d'irrigants[END_REF], an irrigated system is defined in three points. Firstly, irrigated system is defined by the physical installations, as detailed above. This part, "Irrigation management" aims to analyze the second and the third point of [START_REF] Apollin | Méthode de diagnostic d'un système pour le renforcement de la prise en charge de sa gestion par une association d'irrigants[END_REF]: the rules for water distribution and for water access, the water management modalities as well as the organization of users capable of enforcing the rules.

Analyze of the Ethiopian official framework for irrigation

Which are the governmental offices in charge of agricultural issues?

In Ethiopia the management of agriculture is apportioned in three offices. Two of them are the Water Resource, Mines and Energy office (WRME) and the Agricultural and Rural Development office (ARD). Both are declined in a national level (ministries) and in a woreda level via the regional and zonal scales. The woreda is an administrative unity; it gathers several «tabia»s (kebelle). In rural area, «tabia» gathers several villages, up to 300, organized per Koushette. «tabia» is the smaller administrative unit with a governmental agency in Ethiopia. «tabia» offices are the third governmental institution involved in the agriculture management. Due to logistic constraints, the study of institutional arrangements was intentionally focused on the following levels: farmers, associations (WUA and «gujele»), got, koushette, «tabia» and woreda. If some quick interviews were realized in Region offices it was only to get some specific information. However, within the "Roles and responsibilities of ministries" (Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front , 2005) it is written ministry obligations together with the specific responsibilities of the ministry of Water Resource and the ministry of Agricultural and Rural Development (see detail in annexes 7 and 8).

Water resource, mines and energy offices

Organograms are the same for each office, federal, regional, zonal and woreda. Water, sanitation and hygiene departments are in charge of supplying drinking water to the population. About sanitation, when it is not just a hole, it consists to send sewerages to the closest river. In rural areas, water supplies imply deep wells, and pipelines to bring water to the common access.

Water resource department examines the resource for new projects or for the functioning of former implementations. It may decide the size of command area for state and traditional facilities and decides viability of new projects.

Irrigation department is focused on the creation of schemes to increase the size of irrigated land in Tigray. Woreda offices are not in charge of constructing the biggest irrigation facilities (more than 50 hectares), it is the regional office. Woreda experts manage the construction of wells, dams, diversions and ponds. They are not involved in the maintenance of former facilities built by them. This responsibility is given to the Agriculture office.

Agricultural and rural development offices

Organograms are the same for each office, federal, regional, zonal and woreda. Natural resource department rehabilitates environment through mainly soil and water conservation activities. They introduce nursery for farm seeds and for trees.

Extension department focuses on land productivity, in particular through the supervising of Development Agents (DA). It is the principal department that goes in the field.

Cooperative department mobilizes farmers so they can organize themselves, thereby, farmers can get credit access for example. The WUA is registered in this department.

Inputs supply department provides seeds, cows (hoxus for labor and milk cow), goats, sheep, fertilizers and tools for small industry for the «tabia» cooperative (union farmers).

Livestock department improves feeding system and livestock health. The manager and the «tabia» leader are really different. The leader is elected by the population and often is a farmer. Whereas the manager is installed by the government and he is paid for these activities. They have the same activities but the manager is more implicated. They prepare plan for education, health and agriculture. They control the job of the 13 other members of «tabia». The manager receives report from the group's leaders then manager and «tabia» leader organize meetings with the whole population.

«tabia» offices

Development agents (DAs) are governmental employees; they should be at least three per «tabia» and maximum five. In reality it is not the case, in the two studied areas there were two DAs for the «tabia». DAs are under the responsibility of the Woreda office of Agricultural and Rural Development (WARD) extension department except the DA for irrigation, he is under the Woreda office of Water Resource, Mines and Energy (WWRME). Only the DA leader is registered at «tabia», he is the only one assisting the meetings with other «tabia» members. However, usually all the DAs receive instructions from the «tabia» manager. «tabia» associations are run by elected persons who do not receive wages for that. Only «tabia» associations' leaders are registered and participate in «tabia» meetings.

-«tabia» court is led by one judge (who did not receive special education), the court's main activity consist in writing letters for farmers which certificate that farmers can require a loan. The court also rules cases about farmers who did not pay back their loan. However the court's role consists in convincing farmers, through discussions, to do everything they can to reimburse. -The farmers' association gathers all male farmers over 35 in the «tabia». The purpose is to discuss, share knowledge, convince the members of the fertilizers' advantages for reaching modern agriculture system. -The farmers' cooperative is registered at woreda cooperative department and receives fertilizer from the woreda inputs supply department. Then the farmers' cooperative distributes fertilizers and collects money. Among other thing, the cooperative tried to convince farmers of fertilizers' advantages. -The «tabia» women affair gathers female farmers or owners over 35. The purpose is the same than for the farmers 'association. -The youth association gathers men and women between 18 and 35 years old. The youth association purpose is the same than for the farmers' association and the «tabia» women affair.

In addition, through cooperation between members, the youth association creates many project to create job for young. -The females association focuses on the protection of girls that are under weeding age, but also takes care of domestic violence and encourages young girls to go to school.

Individual workers are elected and do not receive wages for their job. All of them are registered in the «tabia» and participate to «tabia» meetings.

-The «tabia» responsible of propaganda mobilizes the population for PSNP program and for the «tabia» or Woreda meeting. Its other main aim is to convince population to practice authorized activities in order to avoid resort to the «tabia» court. Most of the time, he works to convince of fertilizers' benefits. -The «tabia» responsible of the public relations is as a local journalist for the farmers. Indeed he organizes meetings with farmers and he distributes free newspaper (every 2 weeks). He receives information from the public relation accountable at woreda level. He informs the population, particularly about good farming practices with example of model farmers, politic issues and the rain amount fallen and prevision. -The financial accountable does not accomplish many things, the «tabia» level does not have budget for the realization of projects, the budget comes from the woreda. -The peace keeper is no a policeman, though he deals with the daily small conflicts. His duty is to bring persons who disturb the order to the woreda police station. -The water supply controller checks the statement of the pipelines, wells, pumps and quality of the drinking water -The education controller controls that children of 5 and 6 years old go to kinder garden and that children over 7 go to school.

Each «tabia» is composed of 15 persons; they mainly deal with agriculture issues. They are a mix of elected persons and governmental employees. They are the only governmental and responsible persons who are present for farmers. Every discussion is made with those persons from the «tabia», and they report the farmers' complains to the woreda.

Formal regional framework in which Water Users' Associations (WUA) evolve

The WUA are the responsible authorities of the water resource management of the irrigated schemes in Ethiopia. The WUAs are currently registered as cooperatives, so under the agriculture office responsibility and currently the membership is voluntary. Until 2013, the rules were elaborated at the woreda level and several meetings between the Woreda and farmers were realized to inform users. From 2014 or 2015 (the regional water office does not know still), a regional document was edited to spread information. It is called "Guidelines for establishment of institutions of WUA and utilization" and was written in 2013 by the manager, Nega Berhe of the Regional Bureau of WRME (Mekele). This literature will be use later under [START_REF] Berhe | Guidelines foe establishment of institutions of water users' associations[END_REF]. The new legal framework from WWRME will mean that the WUA's are legal entities and farmers will be legally responsible for managing the water, the membership will be compulsory, and the WUA will be overseen by water office (not by the current agriculture office). The new regional legal framework for Tigray contents the rules and the regulations of the WUAs. All the WUAs in Tigray must apply those regional provisions. The details in the regional guidelines and information gathered by the governmental worker interviews enable to analyze the formal framework in which the WUAs operate.

Irrigation management institution imposed by government

According to [START_REF] Berhe | Guidelines foe establishment of institutions of water users' associations[END_REF], farmers of irrigated scheme must organize them through the certain of associations so as to access water from certain spots existing in Tigray. Such associations should assure their accreditation at governmental offices in order to deliver, renovate, maintain and administer water. According to the "rules and regulations of Gumselassa", the mains duties of the WUA are:  Distributing water to users according to a schedule  Checking the water timer in order to know whether it is functional or not, and checking parts of irrigation.

 Giving storage service (in the new regional document, fetching water using some water tankers is not permitted)

 Serving the needed crops to users  Buying and serving transporting carts and vehicles  Helping members to have good crop results and well marker integration  Getting cropping pattern  Giving market information to members  Distributing other needs and having good result crops  Solving and finding out different problems of members  Educating & training members as well as surrounding people.

The existence of water irrigation institutions has to be assured by the water users committees (WUC) of the irrigation association. The irrigation management must be divided in two committees: the implementation committee (IC) and the evaluation & controlling committee (ECC). The guidelines detail the committees' objectives, responsibilities, duties and also explain its procedure of creation. Irrigation committees are nominated by the respective irrigation users in a participatory way. Besides those members, irrigation users are required to understand the duties of the committees in order to nominate and elect candidates in a relevant way. The guidelines even indicate the number, gender and roles of the committee members in an irrigation institution: "It shall be seven members and three of them are supposed to be females". Moreover the implementation committee (IC) must be composed by one chairman, one casher and one secretary among the seven members.

Furthermore users or communities shall be organized at a small scale to have complete discussions and participations on issues that are raised by irrigation institutions. Thereby, users of one water irrigation institution are split in some groups. Group's leaders have to be elected, and like committees' leaders, their roles, duties and responsibilities are detailed in the guidelines.

Functioning of these institutions

The guidelines of Berhe, details also how the association operates through the committees. Regarding this the main points are presented below.

First of all, a general assembly has to be conducted at least twice in a year to evaluate the previous implementation of production, to assess the hindering situations and to elect the committees' members. The general assembly shall include group leaders, members from IC, ECC as well as farmers. This assembly is considered as major manager of the association. Every decision shall be announced during this assembly and not via minority committee members.

Secondly the financial aspect of the associations is explained by [START_REF] Berhe | Guidelines foe establishment of institutions of water users' associations[END_REF]. Members of the irrigation associations are expected to pay charges for running and maintenance costs; charges are also provided to purchase irrigation spares if necessary. That is why; each member shall pay for registration after he/she had been accepted in the WUA. Furthermore, each member of WUA shall buy one lottery ticket so that WUA can begin its function. It must be noted that members should receive receipt for each payment [START_REF] Keflu | Improving rules and regulations of the cooperative of Gumselassa[END_REF]. About payment/wages of the committee members and group leaders, they shall not receive any wages. Therefore, if any financial coverage happens, the other members of the implementation committee shall organize a general annual session; so as to carry out costs recovery for the member. However, still according to the guidelines, in case of compensation, the cost recovery process shall consider the condition of the service, efficiency of delivery and duration. The main revolution of the guidelines compared to current rules is that the WUA will be expected to pay water-use fees to the government. Indeed, for irrigation state facilities, associations will be expected to pay back the expenditures allocated by the government.

Thirdly, one point of the formal framework described by Berhe is relevant to understand institutional arrangements of small-scale management. Indeed, he wrote: "It must be the legal owner or respective successor who can obtain access from irrigation institutions constructed either by government or charity agents. The association shall not be obligated to provide service for those who rent out their land to investors. "

This implies that the government gives priority for the owners who cultivate their plot unlike farmers who rent their plot. A particular attention will be given to the owners' privileges in order to observe this governmental priority in the local institutions practices.

Lastly, the guideline deals with the exclusion conditions a membership from WUA. According to Berhe three reasons can justify to remove a member from the association: -If the member frequently misuses the rules and regulations -If the member is not able to pay WUA loans. -If the member is not productive on the provided means like fertilizers.

Then, the exclusion process shall be performed according to the agreement and according to the majority vote of the general assembly's meeting. Before to leave, the member shall rent his farmland to other member and shall pay loans. For this point, it will be interesting to compare with what really happens in practice.

Relative independence of these local institutions

In accordance with Berhe 2013, "Governmental and Non-Governmental sectors shall participate in planning, identifying main users, preparation, construction, implementation, administration, evaluation and follow-up." In fact, in the guidelines, several points reveal this governmental interventionism in irrigation management; to the point of questioning the independence of the WUA regarding their activities and decisions.

Firstly, regarding the implementation committee's duties, the guidelines highlight the following points:

-The IC has to enable external auditors to come make an audit once in a year.

-Obviously, the IC must implement the guiding principles of the association into a written document spread at a regional level. -The employment procedure shall be realized by the IC with the consultancy of governmental agents.

Secondly, for the creation of new management norms of WUAs, it is needed to strictly follow the procedure detailed in the guidelines. According to Berhe 2013, "A norm is a set of administration standards or frameworks established by the societies living in same region in accordance with the principles of water use". That is why; the norm shall comply with nine criteria. The first one developed in the guidelines is: "Be under the rules and regulations of Water Resource Development office." Thirdly, [START_REF] Berhe | Guidelines foe establishment of institutions of water users' associations[END_REF] defines the term "follow-up": one element of implementation plan which is essential to manage and to keep the reliability, efficiency and continuous execution of the activities. Furthermore, the follow-up has a great role in ascertaining the overall successful implementation; and it is comprised as a part of the irrigation plan. That is why; clients of irrigation institutions shall acquire the following support from professionals of water and agriculture offices: -Provide training on water use and administration.

-Follow-up the productivity and purpose of irrigation sectors.

-Check the functionalities of the facilities and ascertain their maintenance and security.

-Follow and assure the instant supply of land for irrigation.

-Identify and direct problems on salted water and erosion.

-Estimate the amount of water need for each type of crops; so as to let users identify the water amount requirement and the availability of the instant amount of water. -Estimate, after the raining season the amount of water in the water harvest facility in order to calculate the irrigated command area of the scheme. -Identify irrigation sectors which need special treatment.

-Ascertain the instant payment /fee of water service and maintenance of irrigation sector.

-Provide consultancy of maintenance, treatment, evaluation and follow-up; as well as on preparing project plan, programs and finance required for maintenance and improvement. -Explanation of farming innovations to reach modern agriculture (not in the guidelines) Ultimately, through this support, the governmental employee can interfere in almost all the WUA activities. Even on the allocation of water, WUAs must follow certain procedures. Based on national water policy and strategy, the delivery of water to people, irrigation and animals will be permitted by the responsible agent with the consideration of their respective values and services [START_REF] Berhe | Guidelines foe establishment of institutions of water users' associations[END_REF]. Such order shows that decisions regarding water allocation have to be communicating to the DAs and that WUA leaders have to wait the DAs' approbation. Finally according to the guidelines, WUA leaders do not have a real power to take decisions even on daily running decisions.

The guidelines show lot of aspect of the WUAs management which decreases the independency of their power of decision. It is necessary to contrast all those points with the reality. Indeed, these data were collected in the regional guidelines and through governmental employees' interviews that may not be in reality involved in the irrigation management. However as emphasized by Berhe: "Water Irrigation Institutions are only expected to ensure their missions."

3.1.2.4Responsibilities and obligations for farmers

Within the guidelines and legal written documents of Gumselassa, the irrigation water users responsibilities are:

• Every user must obey the rules and regulations for water irrigation.

• Must perform all the expected activities of design and implementation of irrigation development that are provided in the schedule by professionals.

• Must use water for irrigation as scheduled.

• Must prevent, secure and treat the water irrigation association.

• Must protect irrigation crops against animals.

• Must focus on market oriented on crops for sufficient use of water resource.

• Must avoid plants that consume, in case of declining water source.

• Must properly use and conserve water that include prevent irrigation from overflow and troubles.

• Must avoid harmful activities against irrigation.

• Must participate in building and insuring treatment of watercourses.

• Must contribute to the financial aspects that are necessary for maintenance and other similar supports for irrigation institution.

• Must perform cost recovery to activities financed by government which later determined the amount and duration of payment.

• Must pay the fee of water service endorsed by the government.

• Must identify the site's specifications and its potential of production.

• Must propose ideas or others any analysis, for the improvement of the design and construction of irrigation facilities, as well as for the improvement of the irrigation association.

• Should participate in socio-economic forum • Should discuss the possible limitations of the project at the same time with joint session • Must organize institutional meeting, group discussion, workshop and seminars about WUA performance.

• Guidelines document for irrigation utilization must be on hand.

Irrigation practices

What are irrigation benefits? Why collective action is necessary?

In the Ethiopian highlands, small-scale irrigating households reported that annual income has increased by 20% since irrigation was adopted, and in some cases up to 300%, due to cultivation of higher value crops, intensified production and reduced losses [START_REF] Tucker | Small-scale irrigation in the Ethiopian highlands. What potential for poverty reduction and climate adaptation[END_REF]. In Gumselassa and Betmera, interviewees confirmed this result. Indeed, they consider their production was doubled thanks to the second harvest during dry season with irrigation water. Moreover, the irrigation work occurs when all farmers are resting from their agricultural works. Indeed, in Tigray rain-fed agriculture requires mainly work from June to January. Whereas irrigated agriculture requires mainly work from Febuary to June. Therefore farmers are available during that period and irrigation does not compete with rain-fed labor.

However, as highlighted by Oström (1988), irrigation water is a common pool and so brings a dilemma. Since 1968 with Hardin, the commons tragedy has been identified: "Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit-in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons". That is why it is necessary to develop cooperated collective action with rules to manage the common resources. It would allow to reach the beneficial results presented above for the whole community.

As pointed out with the concept tools, the individual actors do not give up their own interest within collective actions. Oström & Gardner (1993) even underscored that for irrigation "what-ever allocation rules that officials and/or farmers establish for an irrigation system, there is the temptation to cheat by taking more water than authorized, by taking water at an unauthorized time, or by contributing less inputs than required for provision of one's given water allocation". In order to understand the temptation and the individual interests an analysis of the diversity of the farmers is presented below.

Analyze of farmers diversity

So as to categorize farmers, specific questions were formulated to distinguish users. A presentation of the farmers' variety is proposed below. Then an analysis of this diversity is realized in order to understand the farmers' individual interest. It is important to note that the percentages presented below were realized by Rodriguez Ros in 2013 with 39 interviews of farmers in Gumselassa and 39 in Betmera.

Categorization

Commons farmers' characteristics between Betmera and Gumselassa are: -The majority of the farmers cultivate only one plot which represents 0.2 irrigated hectare. On average the interviewees of Rodriguez Ros (2013) have 0.22 hectare in Gumselassa and 0.26 in Betmera. The others cultivate two plots, and exceptionally a farmer can cultivate up to six plots. -Farmers are men, they work alone but when farm activities require a lot of labor, like plowing and weeding, they often receive support from their family. -All the farmers who use irrigation have also rain-fed plots. Some of them get other kind of income; priests, merchants and some farmers who own a milk cow. It represents barely 50% of interviewees in Gumselassa and 30% of interviewees in Betmera.

-Around 50% of farmers went to school. However, the new generation is forced to go to school and it is well followed obligation in the studied areas. -The youngest farmer met was 13 (he was working for his father) and the oldest was 79.

-The irrigation water is divided between several irrigated pockets in Betmera which create hydraulic quarters. It is the same between the right and the left bank in Gumselassa. Furthermore farmers' plots can be close to the source (50m) or downstream (up to 4 km for Betmera). -Peasants always affirm that they know rules of the association; however they do not know the fine amount of the punishment in case of breaking a rule.

Differences of the farmers' characteristics between Betmera and Gumselassa:

-As pointed out before, farmers from Gumselassa live in four different villages whereas in Betmera peasants almost live in the same area. Moreover, the Betmera irrigation scheme is nearby the village while in Gumselassa it is further. -All the plots of Gumselassa are supposed to measure 0.2 hectare whereas the Betmera plots can range from 20 square meters to 0.5 hectare, even if usually plots measure around 0.2 hectare. -In both schemes, there are farmers who rent irrigated plots in order to cultivate. However the sharecroppers represent around 30% in Betmera whereas in Gumselassa, sharecroppers represent 64% of the cultivated plots (this data comes from the list of users realized by the WUA). -In Gumselassa, the majority of farmers started to practice irrigation after the construction of the dam, 16 years ago. In Betmera, the majority of the farmers started the irrigation 22 years ago, when the current government overthrown the Derg and redistributed land to the population. However, as the village's inhabitants were used to work on the scheme, irrigation experiences existed even before that. Usually, young farmers learnt the practices with their parents and they end up cultivating the plots alone. Only sharecroppers can begin irrigation farming without real family experience.

Among these farmers' characteristics, several influence the management of irrigation or are the cause of the specific individual interests of the users. These consequences are analyzed below.

Different individual interests

First of all, for both schemes, the localization of the plots is important. The farmers who are being installed outside the command area do not have expectations from irrigation anymore. They do not participate in the running and maintenance labor. So as to decide the limits of irrigation, priority is given for upstream plots in order to avoid water leaks. That is why upstream farmers are assured to get water for irrigation every year; whereas downstream farmers do not expect to be integrated in the irrigation command area anymore. Moreover in Gumselassa, farmers who are located upstream and alongside the natural drainage can divert the water which comes from leaks of the dam, and from the primary and the secondary irrigation canal located upstream their plots. Despite this practice is forbidden by the whole community, two farmers still use this water to irrigate. In Betmera, for the upstream pocket, the night storage is outside the natural drainage, in this case there are plots between the river diversion and the night storage. These plots are subject to alternative kinds of water allocation than other plot downstream the night storage. Indeed unlike in Gumselassa, water allocation in Betmera includes a pre-determined length of time. However the farmers upstream the night storage can use the water for an undetermined length of time unlike farmers downstream the night storage.

About the plot localization importance in Gumselassa, there are 81 users on the left-bank whereas there are 123 users on the right-bank. At the water diversion level, the irrigation facilities are similarly designed. Thereby, the same amount of water can be allocated for both banks. Consequently, it completes the observation pointed out before; the farmers of the left-bank can have better access to the resource. The water predictably would be higher for left-bank; these peasants get water almost when they ask. Then, on the irrigation practices, on average the left-bank farmers use water for 5.6 hours whereas right-bank farmers use water for 7 hours. Thereby on the water consumption, the left-bank farmers use 51mm of water when they get their turn whereas right-bank farmers use 60mm. The flow is measured by employees from Mekele University with a simplified miniature parshall which is moved between the canals, see pictures below. In addition, in the course of the interviews, on average left-bank farmers answered that they receive the water 7 times during the irrigation season, whereas right bank farmers receive the water only 6 times. This difference of practice completes the observation that left-bank farmers are less in competition for getting water. Therefore, left-bank farmers get water when they ask, and so they do not use the same amount of water than the right-bank farmers per irrigation turn.

In Gumselassa, the localization of farmers' houses influences the perception of users. For instance, farmers from Hawastu, the closest village, have their wives who wash the family clothes in the irrigation canal. This practice shows a second irrigation interest for farmers from Hawastu. Other farmers complain about the chemical products released in the canal which decrease their yield but no decision was taken against this. One farmer suspected that no action was taken because the association leaders come from Hawastu. On the other hand, farmers from Arra had owned many fertile plots before the dam's construction. After the land lottery in 1997; they got plots with low production because of the salt, or plots downstream which are now outside the command area. They are globally less present on the irrigation scheme than other farmers. Furthermore, Arra is the only village where there is no leader in the WUC. Lastly, farmers who come from Adigudum see more easily their wives having small business. Accordingly, they are less dependent of the irrigation farming.

Unfortunately, because of a lack of education, few farmers are able to read and write. However when one of them can read and write, he often gets responsibility in the management of the irrigation scheme. Indeed the accountant, the writer and the chairman must be able to read and write Tigrayan. Moreover three members of the WUA are currently employed by the Mekele University so as to realize measures. Among these three farmers two have already been in the implementation committee.

Integrating women is one priority of the government. Indeed in Ethiopia, women are not involved in the decision making. Alongside the road, in Tigray we can see huge signs "Do not leave women behind" and as mentioned before the government imposes females in the water users committees (WUC) "It shall be seven members and three of them are supposed to be females". However 97% of farmers are men (data of Gumselassa), women are owners of plots (28% in Gumselassa) but they employ sharecroppers in order to cultivate their lands. Therefore in practice, women are not involved in irrigation farming. And so there is no woman in the committee in Gumselassa. However in Betmera, the WUA was forced by the woreda to include women in the WUC. Finally the WUA did so; however two of the three women involved do not even know their role in the committee because they are not appealed to participate.

Last but not least, among farmers who get water, the sharecroppers, those who rent their land for working, earn less money from irrigation than owners. Indeed they need to share the production with the owner of the plot. Moreover, according to the association leaders, generally the sharecroppers live further than owners who cultivate themselves. Thereby sharecropping decreases the closeness determinant for collective action. In addition, according to the governmental rules and regulations pointed out before, the association shall not be obligated to provide service for those who are not the legal owner or respective successor. However, in practices, sharecroppers and owners receive exactly the same service. Owners do not get more water and they do not better chances to be included in the command area. However, sharecroppers cannot become members of the WUA and so they cannot have a responsibility in the association. In Betmera, they even cannot participate in some meetings of the WUA.

How irrigation is really managed and by whom?

After studying the characteristics and interests of users, the aim now is to understand the practices of the individual farmers together with the activities of the WUA.

Organization of users

As stated by the regional guidelines, in both schemes, the irrigation management is assured by the water users committees (WUC). The WUC is divided in two committees: the implementation committee (IC) and the evaluation and controlling committee (ECC). In practice, the power and responsibility of the ECC is very low, it does not really perform its duties which are:

-ECC shall ascertain the successful application of water irrigation; and realize an efficient use of the budget and equipment of WUA.

-ECC shall monitor the various exercises of WUA in accordance with the rules and regulations. In Gumselassa after one year, the leader of the ECC does not even know the name of the other members of the committee as well as Betmera, the implementation committee members were not capable of being agreed to tell who is the responsible of the ECC. Even though the regional guidelines do not provide the creation of a market committee, it exists in each studied scheme. This committee should support farmers to sell crops at a better price thanks to market prices information, or thanks to a better transport organization. In practice, farmers and committee members agree to say that this support is a fail. The committee exists but nothing is done. Ultimately, the only committee which operates and performs well its duties is the implementation committee. It is certainly linked to its duties:

-Organizing the distribution of water for irrigation; -Recording and collecting continuously the fines, the membership fee and lottery benefits, and register the amount of hectare cultivated;

-Recording education and training opportunities provided for the members;

-Announcing annual and general sessions, and assessing the activities of sessions. In Gumselassa, the WUA was created after the construction of the dam. However in Betmera, historically, the WUA did not exist. Only the Abo-Mays existed before. Before 2010, the irrigation users from Betmera asked supports from the woreda but they did not receive any. In 2010 the government accepted to support irrigation in Betmera only if users created a WUA and if they enforced several rules. The cooperative department of the WARD convinced WUA leaders to enforce rules about the good use of fertilizer. Thereby farmers were using irrigation water had to apply for 50kg of fertilizer (25kg of UREA + 25kg of DAP) for 0.25 hectare. Otherwise, farmers could not get water from the new WUA. In 2011, the Ethiopian government gave 5 200kg of fertilizer to the WUA in order to provide a financial support. Then the WUA of Betmera had to start the distribution to their members in 2012 of the cheaper fertilizers. Still now, the WUA allocates the fertilizers twice a year, in October for irrigation season and in May for the rainy season. For that purpose, on the fertilizer credit, the WUA extracts a lower loan interest than the «tabia» farmers' cooperative in order to encourage farmers of the irrigation scheme to pay the WUA membership contribution of 60ETB. Owing to this advantage, in 2013 after four years, there are 95 members in the WUA. However the WUA still distributes fairly the water to farmers who did not pay the membership fee.

In Gumselassa, only around 200 out of 400 farmers are currently members, they paid the membership fee of 25ETB. In both schemes the owner must pay the membership fee, not the

Market Committee

sharecropper. Like in Betmera, the WUA of Gumselassa also distributed fertilizer. But in 2012, the woreda brought the fertilizers too late, after farmers had sowed. Yet the members of the association took and used the fertilizers. However the yield was not good enough to refund the WUA loan to the woreda. Consequently, the WUA of Gumselassa has still a credit of 60 000 ETB with the woreda. Hence, since 2012, the WUA lost the right to distribute fertilizer and thereby the WUA lost its main source of budget. However farmers who did not paid back the loan, can still have fertilizers by claiming a credit. From 2013, users must seek the fertilizers from the «tabia» farmers' cooperative. It remains uncertain whether the WUA will ever pay back the loan afforded by the woreda. Indeed in 2013 the WUA redistributed the fertilizers' benefits of 2011. I understood that the government will "forget" the 60 000 ETB, but in compensation, since October 2012, using fertilizers is a compulsory compensation to get water in Gumselassa.

Therefore, the government made it compulsory to use fertilizers in order to get irrigation water, this rule stands as a compensation for the money given to the WUAs (around 60 000 ETB for Gumselassa and 52 * 910 = 47 300 ETB for Betmera).

Water allocation meetings

In both schemes, the water allocation is decided and managed by the Abo-Mays, which means « Father of water ». There are two Abo-Mays in Gumselassa and three in Betmera. Abo-Mays are included in the implementation committee. They are the only members, together with guards, who earn compensation. The WUA guards spend time in the field to protect crops, mainly against cattle and birds. In Gumselassa, each farmer has to give a fix fee, one "henka" which represent 7-8 kg for paying guards and Abo-Mays. This payment does not take into account the number of plots cultivated by the farmers. Thereby in Gumselassa, the association's rule does not respect the regional guidelines. Indeed it was written in the guidelines: "About payment/wages for committee members, they shall not receive any wages" but "in case of compensation, the cost recovery process shall consider the condition of the service, efficiency of delivery and duration". However in Betmera, the fees may vary according to the production of each farmer, ultimately the farmers can give what they want; but usually it is one "henka" too. Then Abo-Mays and guards fairly share together the whole recovered production.

Daily allocation meeting on the hill in Gumselassa

First of all, one of the Abo-May needs to go to see the governmental guard that is responsible of monitoring the governmental facilities for irrigation and for drinking water supply. Indeed the governmental guard owns the key to open the gate of the dam. Even though the government stated that the facilities must be transferred to the community users after the construction, the WUA leaders still need to ask for the key from a governmental employee every day. The Abo-May opens the gate around 5 am. When he wishes to distribute water to the tail-end farmers, he opens the gate at 4 am.

While the Abo-May opens the gate, the first farmers arrive on the hill close to the dam, which is the only common place all the farmers of the irrigation scheme of Gumselassa. Whether farmers did not finish irrigating the day before, as soon the Abo-May arrives, he allocates the water to them. Afterwards the persons present must wait for the sunrise to start the allocation meeting. Therefore the allocation begins at 5h45-6h. When there is no complain, the meeting finishes five minutes later. In case of complaints from the farmers, the Abo-May can follow the farmers who claimed water to their plot in order to check the crops water requirement. When this event occurred, it showed us that the Abo-Mays have a human role (more than a machine which allocates water based on the previous allocation) and must know the state of the crops.

Usually, around 20 farmers are present as well as the chairman, the writer of the WUA and at least one of the two Abo-Mays (I do not know if the chairman and writer are present due to their WUA responsibilities or because they are university employees). The Abo-May gives water to three farmers on the right bank and two farmers on the left bank. Farmers will use water as long as needed. Then the Abo-May chooses also 5 farmers from each bank. He ranks them from 1 to 5. The first one will get the water as soon as the first user of his river bank finishes his irrigating turn. The number of water users per day is between 3 and 8. The farmers which were selected but did not receive water will receive water the next day. Moreover, according to the interviewees, generally the right-bank farmers need to come for three days in a row, whereas left-bank farmers need to come for two days in a row to attend the meeting to they can get water.

Employees from the university (the chairman, the writer and a farmer) are paid to measure the flow which arrives in each plot. The measures allow computing the efficiency of the network. In addition, during the allocation meeting, the Abo-May together with the other members of the implementation committee, use the university book on which it is written the flow measures. It was the first time in 2013, thanks to this book, that the Abo-May could check when farmers had received water. Thereby, complaints against Abo-May came to be limited and according to the interviewees, the farmers are feeling that the water allocation is fairer with the use of the book.

During religion holidays, the farmers cannot plow their plot but they can manage the water in the plot. Therefore there are more conflicts to get water during holydays (see the orthodox holydays in Ethiopia in annex 4).

Weekly allocation meeting close to the church in Betmera

After the middle of May, the WUA of Betmera does not organize meetings for allocation anymore. Therefore after one month and half in Gumselassa, we did not assist to one of the Betmera meetings. However through interviews with farmers and WUC members the information gathered enables analyzing the meeting operation.

Farmers are still using water after the allocation meetings stopped, but as they are few no conflicts occur. Users can irrigate until the rain breaks the diversion facilities. Otherwise, in the case of Betmera, the meeting takes place once a week, on Sunday after the church. Unlike in Gumselassa, this meeting takes place in the village. Moreover the meeting takes place just after the church; consequently farmers do not need to move to participate.

During the meeting, the Abo-Mays, two of them are also the chairman and the treasurer of the WUA; allocate the water for the whole week. The allocation includes the water turn of each farmer and its length of time. This is one of the main differences with Gumselassa about irrigation management. The length of irrigation time of farmers in Betmera is determined by the Abo-May. The Abo-Mays need to know the size, the soil of each plot and the kind of crop cultivated. Regularly the farmers remind this kind of information to the Abo-May. The objective of the WUA is to distribute the water during six hours to a plot of 0.25 ha. On average in practice, farmers receive water during two hours and half for 0.25ha. We can keep in mind that on average, the length of time of one water turn is 5.6 hours for left-bank and 7 hours for right-bank in Gumselassa while plots measure only 0.2 hectare.

Ultimately, in the course of both meetings, the WUA decides alone the water allocation. Unlike as provided in the regional guidelines of Berhe, WUA does not communicate its decisions and the WUA does not wait the DAs' approbation to take decisions about daily activities. Thereby, here is a difference between the governmental willingness and reality.

Daily farmers' irrigation activities

In Gumselassa, after the allocation meeting, when an upstream farmer got water, he runs toward his plot. Indeed, the water has probably already reaches the canal where his plot is situated. In contrast, when a downstream farmer gets water, he stays talking with other person or usually, he goes cleaning the canal so as to accelerate the water progression. In fact, the water may take 3 hours to reach the last plot downstream. Another duty for farmers is to manage the water in the canals. Only the Abo-Mays can open the gate of the dam and separate the flow between the left and right banks. As a matter of fact, the division of the flow between both banks is realized with stones that a Abo-May may arrange at will. However during interviews some farmers complained about users who move the stones to increase flow in their side.

When farmers are managing water in their plot, one employee from Mekele University arrives in order to measure the flow reaching the plots. WUC and irrigation users took an additional advantage of the simplified parshall (figure 22), they use it to divide fairly the flow between two users. Unfortunately, when an irrigated plot is alongside the canal which is reaching another user, the upstream farmer will change the flow when he will irrigate another part of his plot. Despite this, the simplified parshall is the second gain that the WUA has taken from the current study of the university. Finally, even when the project will be finished, it would be interesting to encourage the WUA to keep on using the book registering the water allocation calendar and the simplified parshall. This would allow carrying on the fair division of water between users. Furthermore, in the same idea, there are thresholds in the secondary canals which enable the university to measure flow. It would be useful for Abo-Mays to learn how to use the thresholds; thereby they could use the thresholds to divide accurately water between the two banks.

Afterward, farmers irrigate their crops for the required time. Once achieved, the following users must be present to take the water. Otherwise, the Abo-May who is remained in the scheme can give the water to someone else present in Gumselassa. In case of water conflict, the Abo-May is invited to solve it. Then, usually, users will follow the recommendations of the Abo-May. For example, it happens once, the flow was very low in the canal. One user took the initiative to divert the whole flow toward his plot. The second user comes to claim the water. They did not find an agreement, so one Abo-May came. The Abo-May gives the whole flow for 3 hours to one, and after that, three hours to the other. It worked out well and the conflict stopped.

In Betmera, farmers are more involved in the daily management of irrigation facilities. Indeed, there is no one outside the WUA to control the infrastructure; moreover this is the first user who has to open the gate of the night storage. There is even no supervising from the Abo-Mays, the user opens the night storage and uses water. In total, there are six (only five were used in 2013) night storages, therefore it is a common practice for farmers. The instruction is to open the gate when the night storage is full. Thereby, the user should come before to check the amount of water to avoid overflow. However, in practice, it occurs that the night storage overflows, but above all, the main issue is that farmers open the gate too soon. In Betmera, the whole flow is used by one user. In Gumselassa it is different, the following user has to come to take the water, and he is not warned by the previous user. This is the main source of conflicts. In fact, both users quarrel about the exact time.

On the other hand, in Betmera several farmers took the initiative to use manual or motor pumps to irrigate their plots. There are around 15 plots above the canal. Thereby farmers block the water in the canal with a mini-dam or with an additional external hole in order to create a recovery tank. Then they introduce the pipe of their pumps in the recovery tank to send water in their plots. In addition, one farmer has a motor pump. He also rents it to neighbors. But four farmers have a foot pump called "stinna", it works well but it requires time, labor and above all a second person to manage water in the field when the other one runs the manual pump.

Monthly meeting

In Gumselassa, each month, on the 21th (Ethiopian Calendar) at 9 or 10am a monthly meeting takes place on the hill (same place than the allocation meeting). This meeting has changed many times since 1997. The first year, this meeting took place every week with all the members of the WUA. It was too difficult to gather everybody, and it was also too boring due to the lack of discussion topics. Therefore during 14 years (until 2012) this meeting took place every month with all the members of the WUA. Sometimes the DAs and the «tabia» leaders could join to the monthly meeting. When they got to participate to those meetings, it was above all to discuss about fertilizers in priority. Those meetings could go on for 6 hours. Despite the meetings' duration, some topics were well discussed, such as:

-The sharing of farmers' knowledge and experiments. Above all about how farmers used irrigation water;

-Through discussion, conflicts were avoided among the members. Each user could explain his point of view, and then the community tried to find a solution.

-Penalties could be decided, and fines were established by the WUC, but the decision to send someone to the «tabia»'s court is taken by all the members.

-Regarding the canal state issue, members could decide a maintenance day.

-Evaluating the WUA performance. If a member of the WUC committed a fault (except the chairman), he could be removed from his position during this meeting. The chairman could be changed only during the annual meeting in September, because he must make a report of the annual activities of the WUA. It was not common to switch the WUC members and neither to do the network's maintenance during the irrigation season; most of the time the election and the maintenance took place in September.

From 2013, the five implementation committee members and the Control and Evaluation committee leaders are the only ones who have to be present at the meeting. However, all the members of the WUA and the other stakeholders know the date and the place of this meeting. Everybody is allowed to participate and for any kind of reasons. For instance, during the meeting I joined, three persons were not here for the main purpose of the meeting. Firstly, Tesfay Kidanemariame, the Mekele University master's student, who was our translator too, came to check his data with the committee. Secondly, one worker (also WUA member) on the new concrete canal came to claim his income. Lastly, one owner (women) came with her sharecropper to complain about a fine. Therefore, the first informal meeting's purpose is to enable all the stakeholders to meet the WUC and get some information, decisions, explications or even judgments. The formal meeting's purpose is to make the people work all together in order to manage the irrigation scheme. The specific goal of the meeting changes each time, it depends of the current WUA activities. For example, the main purpose was to redistribute the fertilizer benefits of 2011 between the users.

In Betmera, those two kinds of meetings exist. All the members of the WUC meet every two weeks to manage the irrigation scheme. However, in this meeting, external persons are not allowed; but on the 5th of every month (Ethiopian Calendar) a collective meeting is organized. However, there is a huge lack of participation to this monthly meeting, and lot of them are canceled and planned later. Moreover, in Betmera the sharecroppers can be present at the meeting only if the owner does not come and if the sharecropper is recognized by the WUC.

As mentioned above, this meeting is in particular used to settle the fines issues. Such fines are proportional to the fault. There are approximately the same fines in both schemes. Moreover these fines are always increasing. Indeed fines are what have changes the most along the time. Sometimes the amount has been multiply by ten. A listing of the fines is proposed below; the three first rules are really applied in practice whereas the last three ones are never applied.

-Taking water out of his turn, for the first time: 50 ETB; the second time: 100 ETB; for the third time: WUA sends the culprit to the «tabia»'s court and he can be excluded from the WUA; -Same rule if someone doesn't come to work during the maintenance of the network -Protect crops against cattle: 5 birrs/animal, if it is common, 50 ETB and the owner is sent to police station -If someone crosses the plot: 1 ETB -Missing a WUA meeting: 5 ETB -Late at a WUA meeting: 1 ETB/hour With the punishments, an average of 200 WUA members represents around 350 ETB per year. These rules are oral arrangements between the implementation committee and the users. There is no recommendation from governmental offices regarding such fines and even in the "Rules and Regulation of Gumselassa" these rules are not written. That is why the rules can be adapted quickly by the leaders to the local issue of the WUA; members do not need to require governmental opinion. The written regulation from the regional guidelines provides to exclude farmers in case of:

-Frequent misuses of the rules and regulations -Inability to pay the WUA loans.

-Unproductivity on the provided means if land fertilization.

Even if a farmer does accomplish the above mentioned practices he is never removed from the WUA in practice. This shows the independence of the WUA with regards to the governmental rules. In view of the fact that the WUA of Gumselassa was created by governmental offices, whereas the WUA of Betmera was created by irrigation users, the WUA of Gumselassa has written a document which specifies the role of each committee and each member. While WUA of Betmera does not have such kind of document.

Annual activities

After the end of the rainy season in September, the WUA members are involved in the irrigation scheme management through the two annual meetings, which are general assemblies. The day of the first meeting will be decided by the «tabia» leaders, and the second one by the WUA leaders. In each case the farmers are informed by the Koushette leaders. Almost all the WUA members and potential beneficiaries are present at these meetings. It represents around 200 farmers for Gumselassa and more than 1500 persons for Betmera when there is the maximum amount of water available (In 2013, there were around 150 users). If an owner does not cultivate his plot and does not want to come to these meetings, he can be replaced by his sharecropper. It is very common in Gumselassa to do so whereas in Betmera there are fewer sharecroppers and only few of them are accepted at the annual meeting. That is why they complain about their low decision power unlike the owners.

At the beginning of September, the first meeting has to take place with the DAs, the «tabia» experts and the members of the woreda (the natural resource expert from the WWRME and sometimes one extension expert from the WARD). First of all, the main objective of this meeting is to announce the size of the irrigated command area to the members of the WUA.

In Gumselassa, it is the natural resource department of the WWRME of Adigudum which evaluates the amount of water in the dam through a mathematical program. Then in collaboration with the DAs, the natural resource expert decides the size of the irrigated command area. The WUA is not involved in this decision. During the first general assembly, the government bodies announce the exact boundary. However, regularly the Abo-Mays add around ten plots on the command area if they estimate that the amount of water can irrigate more plots. Therefore the WUA does not respect strictly the governmental decision. But the WUA cannot exclude plots of the command area decided by the government. Furthermore, the farmers of the added plots have to sow crops which do not require lot of water, such as Vetch, Ingouraha and Aba'hare. These crops are peas; their utilization also enhances the fertility of the soil for the rainy season.

In Betmera, to be taken, the decision for the irrigated command area involves the three Abo-Mays, one DA, the «tabia» manager, two elders of the village who worked before on the irrigated scheme as well as one natural resource expert from the WWRME of Adichew. The biggest decisions are taken in collaboration with the local community, certainly because the scheme existed before the governmental intervention. Afterward, this group organizes a general assembly to announced two irrigation command areas. The first area is composed by the plots which will receive water until June; farmers cultivate mainly onion and maize. The second command area is composed by plots which will receive water only until February, farmers cultivate peas.

For both schemes, it is common that farmers do not use all the fertilizers during irrigation season, quite often the farmers left a part at home so as to use it during rainy season. When this practice is discovered by the government, during the annual meeting with the DA and the Woreda expert, such farmers who kept the fertilizers at home have to stand up in front of the association. They are not punished but they are criticized by the WUA members and the governmental bodies. Farmers who kept the fertilizers at home have to recognize their mistakes. Then they have to promise that they will never do that again. Thereby in general, the interviewed farmers complained that they did not receive support from the government except during the fertilizer distribution. According to the farmers' perception, the DAs are mostly involved in irrigation or agriculture to convince farmers to use fertilizers. Finally during the general assembly, the praise of the fertilizer is realized by governmental bodies.

Furthermore the implementation committee (IC) must provide the annual report regarding the activities of the WUA over the year. According the IC's performances, the members of the association decide or not to elect news persons. During the general assembly only the elections of the chairman, the vice-chairman, the writer and the accountant take place. Indeed they have to be recognized by the «tabia» and the Woreda administrators who are present.

In addition of the announcement of the command area size, the fertilizers' praise as well as the elections, the general assembly must establish the network cleaning requirement. The WUA members together with the governmental bodies have to fix the day and the program of the annual maintenance. In Betmera, the WUA cleans the network every 3 months. In September it is the most important one, the WUA members have to rebuild the diversions every year and remove silt from canals like in Gumselassa. The constructions are destructed every year by the high flow during rainy season. See figure of rain damaged below and in annexes. That is way; the general assembly necessarily takes place after the end of the rainy season (during orthodox holidays). In order to start irrigation sooner, the government would like to maintain the canals at the very beginning of September. But farmers have not finished harvesting their rainfed crops at this time, therefore they refuse. The guidelines of [START_REF] Berhe | Guidelines foe establishment of institutions of water users' associations[END_REF] state that: "the farmers must perform all the expected activities of design and implementation of irrigation development based on the schedule provided by irrigation professionals". In reality it is not the case, this fact shows the intrusion limits of the government in agriculture.

After the maintenance and before irrigation starts (September or beginning of October), there is a second general assembly. At this meeting the members of the «tabia» and of the woreda offices do not come every time. The meeting's purpose is the election of the Abo-Mays and the guards. They are the employees of the WUA. The Abo-Mays and the guards will be paid by the farmers' production as pointed out above. There are many candidates, indeed such activities imply privileges. (See explanation of the election in annexes). The candidates for Abo-Mays' position and for the guards' position participate at the same election, the one who collects the most votes will become the Abo-May: the others will be the guards (3 Abo-Mays and 1 guard for Betmera; 2 Abo-Mays and 2 WUA guards for Gumselassa). The trustworthiness and equity are the most important qualities to become an Abo-May according to the interviewees. Then an Abo-May must know the irrigation scheme, the plots characteristics as well as the network characteristics. An Abo-May must also get good yield as a farmer. According to both communities, the last qualities required, and that the current Abo-Mays miss, are the ability to mobilize, to convince and to enforce the rules.

The real role of the external stakeholders

In the irrigation practices study, different external stakeholders were observed. The aim now is to understand their roles and their individual interests in the irrigation collective actions.

Governmental bodies' involvement

The Ethiopian government like many governments of developing countries is the main investor in the country. Indeed in Ethiopia, the telephonic network is public, just like the electricity network and the roads. Moreover as explained by [START_REF] Sawyer | The Emergence of Autocracy in Liberia: Tragedy and Challenge[END_REF], national governments in many parts of the developing world have come to be perceived as the "owner" of all the water, as well as other natural resources. In fact, the Ethiopian government allows itself to interfere in the irrigation management of small-scale structures. As observed before in the official framework part, the government's employees who are really involved in the local farming management are the WWRME experts for construction and the WARD extension experts (DA included) for the follow-up of the irrigation operation. The expected activities of the government and what happens in reality are compared below.

As pointed out before, the employees' recruiting procedure is achieved during the general assembly organized by the government. Moreover, it is not common that an external person participate to the water allocation meeting. Finally concerning such recruitment the WUA is more independent than what the government supposes. Farmers complain about the expected support from government. Indeed the government should identify problems concerning salinity and erosion, but it is doing nothing. However farmers were satisfied by the knowledge learnt from the DA about onion and sow by line (apply only on irrigated plot because it requires lot of labor). To me, the government should be involved in ascertaining the fines and fees, given by farmers to the WUC, for water service and maintenance irrigation. In fact farmers claim the receipts they did not get. This intervention would enable to avoid corruption, embezzlement or fraud.

In addition the decision concerning of the size of the command area is very monitored by the government, even sometimes without the local community cooperation. Globally, the important decisions are at least supervised by the government, like for the maintenance. Maintenance operation can be divided in three categories:

-The daily maintenance, it implies the cleaning of canals to accelerate water and small repair to guarantee the well-functioning. The decisions to be taken as well as the labor to be made are only decided by the individual farmer. -The annual maintenance, it implies to remove siltation and vegetation accumulated during the rainy season from the canals. In Betmera it implies to rebuild diversion (canals and night storage) constructed in the river channel. In this case, the decisions to be taken as well as the labor to be made are decided by the WUA under the supervision of the government bodies. -The exceptional maintenance, it consists in building new facilities, which require knowledge that goes beyond the WUA capacity, according to the government. Above all, such activities require a budget that also goes beyond the WUA capacity. For irrigation, the investment comes from the WWRME or the Safety Net Program (PSNP). The decisions are taken by the government offices without the collaboration of the local WUA. The labor is provided by the WUA members or by the beneficiaries of the PSNP during the public works. The results of those constructions were bad because of the poor local conditions, for example, the concrete diversion in Betmera was all recovered by silts, the wells were unusable by farmers, or the canal had reverses slopes in Gumselassa. The exceptional maintenance can also imply conflicts between the community and the government, like in Gumselassa. There was a disagreement regarding the workers' income, so the construction stops. Moreover, these exceptional programs are not enough present according to the users. Indeed, there is still an earth canal in Betmera and in Gumselassa. Furthermore, unfortunately the government does not take enough into account the reparation of the previous construction, for example, the dam's gate of Gumselassa needs to be repair since two years.

The wells dug by the government with the support of the PSNP in Gumselassa represent the new irrigation priority for Tigray. However as mentioned above, the result of these wells is bad. Indeed nobody use it. In the case of Gumselassa, the wells have some potential, indeed, for pumps promotion the woreda is very close, to sell the production the road and the market are very close. Three issues were pointed out by the users of Gumselassa: obviously the cost of the pumps and the fuel, the second problem is the composition of the soil, it needs too much water and so too much labor to use manual pumps and lastly, the wells are isolated and the irrigation production can be stolen easily. In addition, the observation of these wells shows that without irrigation purposes, the maintenance of these wells is realized neither by the farmers' community nor by the government, therefore the degradation is fast. See the degradation of one well below, two years after the construction. Despite Betmera was a traditional irrigation scheme, the national government was involved in the irrigation management through technical support. As mentioned by [START_REF] Pelat | L'intrusion de l'Etat dans les droits d'eau au Yémen: le temps des coutumes serait-il révolu ?[END_REF], the technical approach is commonly chosen by the government to interfere in traditional irrigation management. However in Betmera, the concrete diversion was not a success. The preliminary studies did not take enough into consideration the solid elements transported by the river and so the governmental diversion is not useful anymore. See below the current concrete diversion full of silt in Betmera and how it should look. Finally the government's follow-up of the irrigation schemes is restricted. About the intervention or the lack of investment, the farmers are not categorical, there are good and bad points. The users of Gumselassa affirm that the governmental support decrease over time, above all, the lack of involvement of the DAs in general agriculture is an issues. According to all the stakeholders, even the governmental ones, the agricultural objective is too much focused on the fertilizer issue. During the DA or the woreda experts' participation, the fertilizers are way too discussed. Indeed the government wants to distribute a quota of fertilizer to farmers. This aspect of the irrigation management was not included in the regional guidelines of [START_REF] Berhe | Guidelines foe establishment of institutions of water users' associations[END_REF]. However it is the principal governmental involvement in irrigation. Irrigation is one of the main targets of the GTP, but use of fertilizers in the irrigation schemes represents one of the main governmental activities. Consequently, farmers are pressured to use fertilizers. In order to convince farmers, different procedures are being used and the consequences felt on agriculture production are often negatives.

Role of the «tabia» associations and the «gujele»

The importance of fertilizers for the Ethiopian government permits to understand easily the role of the «tabia» associations (see figure 22) and "Lima'hate «gujele»" which mean "Group Production". These local institutions are not specified in irrigation management but they act in the field of education, health, good governance and agriculture (rain-fed include). However as explained above, irrigation is one of the main national targets and fertilizers are the principal agriculture issue for farmers and for the government.

These local institutions are managed by the population; there are no governmental employees in charge. However, the government decided that their activities shall depend of the government policy. Indeed these local institutions are managed by the woreda and the «tabia». The importance of these institutions is crucial to understand the farmers' perception. The «tabia» associations' duties were developed in the part 2, now the emphasize focus on the «gujele».

The «gujele» is at the bottom of the organization of the Ethiopian administration. It is a development group of household's neighbors. Everybody should be involved in a «gujele» except civil servant, student, person under 18 and person over 70. The number of members varies from 15 to 35 members (usually 30). Male and female are in two different «gujele»s. Farmers represent the members majority, the rest is composed of merchants. Almost everybody is the owner of a rain-fed plot in Tigray, because the last agrarian reform divided land to all the inhabitants of rural areas, 22 years ago. Despite Berhe's wish (2013), there is no special «gujele» (composed by WUA members) neither for the irrigation schemes of Betmera nor for the ones in Gumselassa. Each «gujele» deals with the four issues described above. For the study area the «gujele» deals mainly with the agricultural issues (and health issues for women «gujele»). The «gujele» is composed by 5 elected leaders; they get trained by the «tabia». Then these leaders must give their support to the other members by sharing the knowledge learnt during the trainings (1 leader supports 4 or 5 members). For instance, one of the agronomical training consists in learning how to prepare the compost, learning what are the fertilizers' advantages and learning to use the inputs. Health training consists in learning how to use medicine and how to feed babies (only for women «gujele»). One leader and the 4 other members, because of their proximity, should meet every day. Then, all the households of the «gujele» should meet them every month.

Through these organizations, «tabia» associations and «gujele», the government transfers its innovations, information and policies to the population in order to increase the local economy. Thereby, currently because of the GTP, the main leaders' activity is to convince their members to use fertilizers and to pay back. These institutions are also used to mobilize the population for «tabia» and for woreda meetings, for woreda construction and for PSNP public work. The «gujele» enables also to solve conflicts that can arise between the members, to translate non-governmental information (from WUA for example) and to organize an oral punishment for some members.

The «tabia» association's leaders and the «gujele»'s leaders must provide a monthly report to the «tabia» manager or to their respective woreda offices, in which they write the members' activities. For agriculture issues, they must report the number of members who apply the governmental innovations, like number of farmers using compost, using fertilizers, using the selected seeds, using the pumps together with the number of farmer who are engaged in irrigated farming. An important detail, the female «gujele» leaders must report the number of pregnant women. It is the Ethiopian government procedure to count the population. Inside the «gujele» leaders' report, members can also introduce complaints, or give their ideas about anything. This «gujele»'s report constitutes the only down-top procedure for the population.

These reports represent also the evaluation of the association's leaders and the «gujele»'s leaders by the «tabia» and the woreda. Indeed the «tabia» leaders visit the leaders to debrief when the report is not well realized, or concerning the agricultural realm, when the innovations are not well used by the members (this really means that leaders did not convince enough their members to use fertilizers). However when the reports' content is good, leaders can be rewarded by the woreda.

Fertilizer policy implying for irrigation management

Usually the WUAs should distribute fertilizers to their members like the WUA of Betmera. Therefore the WUA has to receive, to store, to record the credits, to distribute the fertilizers and to collect money. The fertilizers' distribution implies more responsibility and labor for the WUA leaders in addition with the management of irrigation water. The fertilizers' activity is the activity which is the most controlled by the governmental workers, that is why the WUAs are more exposed to the evaluation and monitoring by the government. Yet, fertilizers are not always profitable for farmers, even if the irrigation farming enables them to have higher yield than rain-fed farming. Indeed due to salinity, the yield in Gumselassa can decrease until 3-4 quintals/hectare. To make the fertilizers recommendation profitable to farmers the yield must reach around 7-8 quintals/hectare. Therefore irrigation users who produce under 7-8 quintals/hectare try to moderate this fertilizers' constraint:

-Some users chose to keep a part of the fertilizers at home and use it later on the rain-fed plots. Fertilizers are not "officially" compulsory for rain-fed farming like for irrigation. Government cannot stop the rainfall for farmers who do not use fertilizers. In this case, if government learns that a farmer kept the fertilizers at home, a conflict occurs between the WUA and the government.

-Some users can get agreement with the Abo-Mays to get water without using fertilizers. The plots of the users must be declared by the WUA as plots which do not receive water. However for irrigation farming, inputs are necessary to assure land fertility over the time and the compost is complicated to transport. Therefore this practice is not really applied.

-Several farmers decided to stop irrigation farming for the dry season when the conditions are too bad to get the return of the high and increasing production costs (mainly the loan for fertilizers). Farmers do not warn the WUA if they will cultivate or not their plots. Therefore it is difficult to take the uncultivated plots into account when the size of the command area is established. On the other hand, when a plot is totally abandoned (dry season + rainy season) the owner, family or relatives have to pay a fine. If they do not pay it, the land becomes the property of the government again. This also happens if there are no relatives when someone passes away. The land is re-allocated; priority is given to HIV positive individuals and orphans fewer than 18. Otherwise, lands are allocated by lottery, with priority to women and people with no land. However, conflicts appear between the previous and the current owner; this requires management from the WUA.

Ultimately, the fertilizers imply some irrigation management constraints for the WUA due to the governmental policy and the institutional arrangements developed to adapt to the policy. The emphasis is turning to the analysis of the different arrangements observed through the irrigation practices.

Impacts of the university study

This part does not concern many schemes in Tigray. Mekele only makes research in several irrigated schemes. Among these irrigated schemes, Gumselassa is the main one.

In Gumselassa, the research has caused several changes in the management of the irrigation, above all since the beginning of the EAU4Food project. In order to measure the flow of the quaternary canals, the main impact on the management was to stop the irrigation during the night. Indeed, one scientist convinced the WUA that the irrigation during the night is very ineffective. Therefore, stoping the irrigation during the night is positive for the research and also for the WUA. In 2013, for the first time since the creation of the dam, the irrigation has occurred only during the day.

The gate was open from 5 am until 6 pm. Thus, many farmers' reactions arose because of this practice; one part of the reactions were supported by the leaders of the WUA ( also payed by the university to measure the flows) holding that this new practice saves water thanks to the better efficiency during the day time. Furthermore they are expecting farming innovations from Mekele University. However some others criticize the university and its employees. This part of users admits that irrigation during the day allows fewer farmers to use the water, even though it decreases leaks. Consequently, with the same size of command area, there is more competition to get water. In 2013, users did not have enough water, the length of time between two irrigation turns was too long and at the end of the irrigation season, there was still water available for irrigation in the dam of Gumselassa. One night, one of the Abo-Mays without discussion with the WUA opened the gate sooner, at 3 am so as to give water to a farmer. When the community discovered this, the users in favor of night irrigation supported the Abo-May. But the other part of users, which included the chairman and the writer of the WUA, concluded firmly the discussion with their arguments presented above. Day irrigation had another consequence; the WUA had to reschedule the water allocation meeting. The meeting used to take places in the afternoon, now it takes place very early in the morning.

In addition of this new controversial practice, it is important to remind that through its study, Mekele University introduced two tools (register book and the simplified miniature parshall to measure flow). The WUA has taken advantage of these tools; in fact the WUA uses these tools for its own interest. Now the WUA is really satisfied by these innovations which enable to ameliorate the quality of their activities.

The current perception of farmers by the governmental employees

To become a governmental employee at the WARD and the WWRME offices, it is required to have an education. Indeed, all the Woreda workers at least graduated in College and others graduated with a bachelor degree at university. Both mean three superior years of studying. During their study most of them learnt agronomy. Consequently, they well know the theoric benefits of the inputs.

From my perception, the difference between people who have been educated and farmers is huge. In fact, they do not used to have same activities; they do not drink the same drink. For instance, governmental employees do not want to drink local beer anymore, they drink only industrial beer. Usually educated people who get high and constant salary want to be different from farmers.

Accordingly, I felt that governmental employees perceive negatively farmers' knowledge. Several times, educated persons spoke about farmers, like persons who do not know agricultural practices because of education lacks. Thereby, one of governmental workers roles is to educate farmers. Therefore, peasants' ideas are not taking into consideration by government. Moreover the governmental employees who must listen to farmers think that complaints reasons come from lack of knowledge and so bad use of inputs. Consequently, educated persons must keep going on convincing farmers of fertilizers' advantages and carry on training them to use fertilizer.

Ultimately, the government does not take into consideration farmers opinions and do not share same life environment. Furthermore, there is no one in charge of studying fertilizers impacts on farmers' livelihoods. Thereby, government cannot understand fertilizer problems with regards to the amount of rains, cost, loan, quantity... The case 1 corresponds to a fault or a conflict which require the Abo-Mays intervention because it was not solve by the users themselves but the trouble remains low.

Resume through diagrams

The case 2 means that the fault or the conflict was higher and require intervention of all the Implementation committee(IC). Finally, concerning the troublemaker(s) the decision is taken through a discussion within the IC and the decision is announced by the chairman of the WUA.

The case 3 corresponds to a fault or a conflict which goes beyond the WUA solving capacity. The chairman of the WUA sends the troublemaker(s) to the «tabia» Court (composed of farmers) which take the final decision. However, in that 3, the chairman warns also the leader or the manager of the «tabia» of the issue. Then a process to discuss and avoid new troubles takes place. The propaganda responsible, the public relation responsible and one DA go meet all the members of the «gujele(s)» concerning by the troublemaker(s) and a common discussion and an oral punishment take place.

Ultimately, the conflicts solving uses a down-top process, then a participatory approach to discuss of the issues which caused the conflicts. The management of these conflicts remains within the local community, this probably explain the participatory approach to solve it. When the information comes from the woreda, woreda offices warn the concerning person at the «tabia» in function of the topic. To communicate the information to farmers, the «tabia» uses the koushette leaders to warn the all the «gujele» leaders or the WUA leaders, then the information will be gave to the farmers. The top-down organization to communicate information is well made. However, there is no way to send information through a down-top process to the governmental agencies. Only a meeting organized every two weeks with the public relation responsible of the "tabia" exist, but too few farmers participate. This situation shows the willing of the institutions to do not take into account the farmers' point of views. For the good performance of the collective actions, this lack of down-top process for information is an important issue.

Nevertheless, within the WUA, the exchanges between the leaders and the users are daily; the remarks may be taken quickly into account. The exceptional maintenance is scarce, when it takes place, the decision is only taken by the WWRME and then communicate to the DAs and to the WUA leaders who help the WWRME to manage the maintenance which will be achieved by the water users. Due to the finance requirement, this exceptional maintenance is a top-down process; the woreda does not use a participatory approach to know the farmers willingness. This consists in one limit of the increase of the irrigation production in Ethiopia; the main users of irrigation cannot give their opinions.

The annual maintenance decision is taken by the leaders of the WUA in collaboration with the DA. The maintenance is managed by the leaders of the WUA but the DAs come to supervising it and bring their technical support. This maintenance does not require finance, it is just need many labor. That is why, the WUA remains the main actors of this annual maintenance.

It is important to remind that a daily maintenance is achieved by the users without collaboration. It consists to clean the canal to accelerate the speed of the water and get the water more quickly. The water allocation process is only the responsibility of the Abo-Mays. During the water allocation meeting, one Abo-May warns the water users as well as the implementation committee of his choice.

The decision process of the size of the irrigated command area is usually the responsibility of the government offices in the irrigated schemes implemented by the government. It uses a top-down process and does not use participatory approach. Beside the experience accumulated by the users, their opinions are still not take into account. Indeed, the governmental offices warn the water users of their decision during the general assembly. Without the users advices, the quality of the decision will be difficult to improve.

However, in the traditional schemes, we observe that this decision can be also subject to a participation decision when it includes the elders of the village and the WUA leaders. The governmental bodies together with the local community establish together the limits of the irrigated command area. We observe that many people are involved in the process to convince farmers of the fertilizers' advantages. The discussion about fertilizers is a top-down organization due to the quota system implemented by the Ethiopian government. It is important to remind that during the dry season, it is not necessary to convince water users because they are forced to use fertilizers to get water.

Reminder, all the people involved in this process can be rewarded by the woreda.

We observe also that there are two cooperatives able to distribute the fertilizers to the farmers, the «tabia» farmers' cooperatives and the WUA. However, the WUA can lose this right like in Gumselassa, when the WUA do not refund the fertilizers' loan to the Woreda Agricultural and Rural Development office.

Institutional arrangements in small-scale irrigation 4.1 Identification and classification of the institutional arrangements

As mentioned before with the concept tools, the institutional arrangements are diversified [START_REF] Geels | From sectorial systems of innovation to socio-technical systems insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory[END_REF]. That is why, a classification of the Ethiopian institutional arrangements of the smallscale irrigation is necessary. Such arrangements are not defined in the Ethiopian formal framework regarding irrigation or are even in contradiction with it. The classification consists in distinguishing the arrangement from the governmental decision and individual decision, the arrangement from the tacit agreement which was not submitted to a real agreement, in distinguishing the arrangement accepted or refused by the irrigation stakeholders, and also to differentiate the arrangements in which the Ethiopian government interferes or not.

Institutional arrangements implemented by the government

The compulsory use of fertilizers in order to get water is neither a rule defined by the regional guidelines for the WUA, nor a rule described as a formal policy by the governmental interviewees. This rule is not in the "rules and regulations of WUA Gumselassa" either. However, this informal rule has become officially accepted by the WUAs after a financial compensation from the governmental. The WUAs are now in charge of the allocation of the fertilizers. This was implemented by the government (top-down decision) and so beside the compensation; it does not constitute an institutional arrangement established between the government agencies and the WUA. Moreover it is not really accepted by individual farmers. Due to the high quantity of distributed fertilizers, new institutional arrangements were created to fight against this decision.

People in charge of convincing farmers to use fertilizers are rewarded by the government (woreda office) for this duty. This reward arrangement between the woreda and people in charge of convincing is considered by the Ethiopian communities as being their job's compensation. Further, convincing people to use fertilizers is a practice concerning the irrigated scheme during the rainy season, when the fertilizers are not compulsory but it is specific to irrigated schemes. Regarding the reward:

-the WUA leaders receive shovels, -the «gujele» leaders earn money after having been evaluated, -the «tabia» association leaders are invited to the woreda meetings which are remunerated (95 ETB/day, the same than for a PSNP beneficiary in one month), -the DAs get mobile phones, cash (1000 ETB) together with promotions to become a woreda's expert.

Furthermore, there is a competition between the woredas and even inside each woreda, the competition exists between the «tabia»s. Indeed the woredas and the «tabia»s are mostly ranked on the basis of the amount of fertilizers that they have distributed. The best one receives computers whereas the employees of the last one are threated to be laid off. The rewards are given by the regional and the woreda offices.

Lastly, many farmers affirmed that they have been threated to be excluded from the PSNP (Productive Safety Net Program) if they would not take chemical fertilizers. Farmers explained that on the PSNP member card in their possession, there are eight PSNP beneficiary responsibilities written. One of the eight responsibilities is "Each PSNP user must work well to be graduated and avoid the PSNP's support". Farmers understand that if they do not use fertilizers to increase their production then they will be excluded from PSNP. People use this argument to convince farmers to take the fertilizers while it is impossible to remove someone from the PSNP until his annual income does not over 5 600 ETB/years. This practice constitutes a tacit agreement without real arrangement between the people threating the farmers and the government which does absolutely nothing to avoid these threatens or to inform farmers that the exclusion from PSNP is not possible if they do not take fertilizers. Thereby the poor farmers involved in PSNP think they have no other choice but to use the fertilizer. Otherwise they think lose one of their main incomes, (the PSNP gives 95 ETB/month, barely 4 euros). Ultimately, the people threatening the farmers are not well identified but it could be the «gujele»'s leaders, the «tabia» associations' leaders or the DAs who use this argument on purpose to convince farmers to take fertilizers in order to get more rewards from the woreda. We can wonder if the woreda and the regional offices are not well aware of this practice or if the government turns a blind eye on this situation because more fertilizers are distributed and a higher quota percentage is reached thanks to PSNP exclusion threats.

Institutional arrangements implemented by the community and accepted by everyone

These arrangements do not interfere with the governmental policies and benefit at least one of the stakeholders without really disturbing the others. Thereby the payment of the Abo-Mays and the guards for their works constitute an arrangement made within the WUA, between the Abo-Mays and guards on one side and the users on the other side.

It is also the case for the common utilization of grass located in the natural drainage of all irrigated schemes. This arrangement is made between the WUA and the whole population. Indeed, this resource is mainly used by the people who are not member of the local WUA. There are many children who come during holydays so as to cut the grass and to bring it back to the town. Otherwise, there are poor farmers who come there to feed their animals and to take grass home for later use. It must be noted that during dry season, the irrigated scheme is the only place covered by green vegetation. Therefore this resource helps farmers reaching the next rainy season when they did not store enough food for the cattle after the rainy season.

Then, when the Abo-Mays add plots on their own in the irrigation command area established by the formal procedure. These plots are the first ones which do not receive water when the amount of water decreases. Thereby, the governmental decision concerning the irrigation command area is still proprietary. This practice constitutes an arrangement between the government and the Abo-Mays. In addition, in September an informal rule is generally respected to choose the plots which will be included in the command area. Indeed, in Gumselassa and Betmera the priority is given to the upstream part so as to avoid leaks of water when the water reaches the downstream part. Thereby this mode of governance consists in favoring the closest plots of the source of water. However the situation in Betmera shows something else. The committee responsible of the command area decision can exclude an upstream irrigated pocket. In fact, there is an earth canal at the upstream part whereas the pocket just downstream is equipped of concrete canal. Therefore, the committee decided to supply the downstream even if the water has to reach farther pockets. Finally the committee estimated that the leaks of water of the global network are lower; avoiding leaks constitutes the real mode of irrigation governance.

With regards to the religious influence, the meetings and the trainings' days are based on the religious Orthodox schedule which enables to gather higher participation. This arrangement is made within the whole community because the Ethiopian highlands are mainly orthodox. As long as the majority of users remain Orthodox, these arrangements will be accepted. However, a Muslim protest movement took place in Addis-Ababa in July 2013 to underscore the inequality between the religious. According to an official national census (2007) 34% of the Ethiopian population is Muslim and 43.5% is Orthodox.

In addition, in Ethiopia the land owners do not have the right to sell their plots, but meanwhile there is no rule regarding renting. The sharecropping, allows lands' leasing so owners can earn money from the rent. Despite the government advises to provide water to the legal owner or respective successor, the government tolerates this arrangement between owners and sharecroppers.

However in the irrigated scheme, the plots can be uncultivated during the dry season while they were included in the command area, but farmers rather prefer to cultivate those plots only during the rainy season because it is less expensive. The government does not re-allocate the land. This decision took by the owner constitutes an individual decision.

Lastly, the governmental objectives, like the women integration, DAs' support for the irrigated schemes or local community participation in the process taking decision (for instance, about new implementation of schemes) are not really reached. Indeed, the women are sometimes involved in some meetings but they are not really requested, the farmers' opinion has still a poor reputation for the government and the DAs' support activities are declining according to farmers. This situation satisfies nonetheless many people, such as the ruling class, and remains governed by tacit agreements without exchanges among the institution members.

Controversial institutional arrangements implemented within the community

In this case, there is at least one stakeholder who is disturbed by the arrangement. However because of the hierarchy's superiority of the beneficiary, the discretion of the disturber or because they do not have any other choices, these controversial arrangements are still present. Thereby despite the informal rule to stop the clothes washing in the irrigation canals of Gumselassa, around 400 women wash the family clothes in the canal during the dry season. Those women receive complaints and pressure from guards, DAs and farmers. Besides the pressure and the complaints, the women know the bad consequences of soaps on the crops, above all on the onions. However, these women come from Hawastu (the closest village); they are the wives of the irrigation users who come from Hawastu and the chairman, one of the Abo-Mays and the accountant of the implementation committee come from Hawastu. Therefore, this arrangement between the women and the WUA is tolerates but criticized by the global community. Moreover, the women cannot use the water from the ground water well to wash their clothes, the wells' access is restricted and the quantity of water is already low for drinking, for cooking, for cleaning and for the family bodies washing. Finally, for the women of Hawastu, the closest access to water for washing is the irrigation canal of Gumselassa, yet it is already 15 min by walk. The next one is on the way to Adigudum, 30 min by walk.

Then at the upstream part of Gumselassa, two farmers use the water from the natural drainage while the natural drainage water according to an informal agreement must be left for the WUA downstream. Thereby this practice decreases the amount of water available for the WUA downstream. However both farmers are discreet and the Abo-Mays responsible of them tolerate this arrangement despite the regularly complaints from the downstream WUA. The downstream WUA is not officially recognized by the government and do not have official priority for the natural drainage water that the upstream farmers divert. It is important to note that the WUA downstream is not recognized, but yet farmers from this area must buy fertilizers as the WUA downstream is registered by the governmental offices.

About the implementation committee members' advantages, an agreement existed before amongst the irrigation users (it never existed in Gumselassa). The Abo-Mays were allowed to use more water than other farmers. However currently in Betmera, the WUA decided to delete this agreement. However some farmers saw the plots of the Abo-Mays still wet the morning. According to farmers, it means that Abo-Mays came to use the water during the night, outside their official turn. In addition, now in Ethiopia, the receipt document system is well developed, accordingly when a WUC member collects money, he should give a receipt to the farmers. However the WUC members do not use receipt all the time so some farmers question about corruption in the WUA. Therefore we can say that these two situations are now a tacit agreement because these activities are present due to the hierarchy superiority of the WUC and not because of an arrangement between users and Abo-Mays.

Arrangements implemented by the community and sanctioned by the government

Due the sanctions the actors of these arrangements are discrete, so of the institutional arrangements punished by the government are more difficult to analyze, above all with a translator. In this case, the individual interest is not in accordance with the governmental opinion. That is why, the real number of participant is difficult to establish. Thereby irrigation users who do not use the whole quantity of their fertilizers during the irrigation season in order to keep fertilizers for rainy season, are certainly more in reality than people who admitted doing this practice. However several farmers shared with us this practice, they explained that the amount of fertilizer compulsory for irrigation is higher than needed. That is why, they prefer to divide this quantity between irrigation season and rainy season. This is permitted only when the farmers are not much pressured to buy fertilizer for the rainy season. When these farmers are identified by the government, DAs ask them to stand up in front of the association and admit their pretended fault. However, this practice does not constitute an arrangement because the farmer takes this decision individually.

Farmers who are forced to take fertilizers by the threat of PSNP exclusion or by the irrigation users, prefer sometimes sell their fertilizers when they are aware of their little effect on their plot. For instance, for a salted plot, or for soil which does not keep fertilizers with rains, it is more profitable for the owners to earn a small amount of money with the selling of fertilizers than losing completely the fertilizers' costs. That is why, despite the prohibition, an institutional arrangement exist within the community to sell the fertilizers in the black market. In addition, some poor farmers obtain fertilizers with a loan, but as soon as they get them they prefer to sell them in the black market to get quick cash money; in the end, they are even more in trouble. In 2012 according to interviewees, the fertilizers sale in the black market is around 300-400 ETB while they bought the fertilizers from government through a loan of 900 ETB. Farmers who are susceptible to buy the fertilizers through black market are the farmers who can refuse to buy fertilizer during rainy season and above all farmers from the south Ethiopian region who need more fertilizers than the governmental recommendations. The black market punishment varies from a simple seize of the wares up to the seize of the wares plus a fine of 10 000 ETB and two years of prison according to the culprit responsibility. However the government is still not trying to stop the traffic. Indeed a fertilizers black market has been seized only once, during a simple random road checkpoint. In 2012, the amount of fertilizer seized was 19 quintals for Alaje woreda and 40 quintals for Hintalo-Wejirat woreda. These numbers do not represent the real quantity of exchanged fertilizers between Tigray and the southern region. Moreover the local exchange between neighbors cannot be estimated. It is a serious issue for poor farmers who carry huge debt in order to get quick cash and a controversial situation for the government.

The following analysis of the institutional arrangement is focused on issues which seem the most important according to interviewees. Within the irrigation management, after four months on the field, the survey pointed out through the question concerning the characteristics of the water management (question 9 to 17 on the farmers' survey presented in annex 2) that the water issues are not the biggest preoccupation of farmers. However through the question (number 25 of the farmers' survey in annex 2) about the payment to get water, farmers spent time to inform of the price of the fertilizers and the difficulties to refund the loan. Moreover, in Gumselassa through the question (number 18 to 20 on the farmers' survey in annex 2) about sharecropping, the sharecroppers complained because the owners do not participate in the share of the fertilizers price. Among the institutional arrangements identified, the black market and the sharecropping are the arrangements which are raised the most reactions during interviews. Sharecropping and the black market are the two arrangements chosen for the analysis. We will try to identify the emergence conditions, the dynamic and the consequences of these institutional arrangements. Sepshe (1979) explains that the institutional arrangements permit to meet equilibrium. That means without the institutional arrangements, the formal framework and the individual preference were not balanced. Thereby the aim now is to analyze the emergence conditions of these arrangements.

Emergence conditions of the institutional arrangement

As pointed out before, Tigray conditions for agriculture are difficult. The yields are low whereas the demographic pressure on the land is high. That is why the Ethiopian government with the GTP tries to reach modern agriculture in order to secure and enhance the farming production. The national policies are translated at a local level by a constant pressure to farmers for taking fertilizer through credit.

First of all, the Ethiopian government implements a politics' propaganda in order to reach the GTP fertilizers quota. This is not hidden; indeed there is a man nominated for "propaganda responsible" in each «tabia» office. For the propaganda purpose, like the miner Stakhanov during URSS's period, the Ethiopian government selects model farmers, for instance there are 206 model farmers (168 males and 38 females) in the «tabia» of Betmera and 132 model farmers in the «tabia» of Arra-Assemgeda. The governmental criteria to choose the model farmers are:

-Bring their children into the education system; -Use Ethiopian family planning, that means avoid great number of children with contraception;

-Having a good financial capacity, included cattle, plants and tools. Model farmers have to buy fertilizer without credit; -Implement the governmental advices about modern agriculture. That means mainly use inputs and innovations like chemical fertilizers, improved seeds, selected cattle and sow by line.

Furthermore, the model farmers receive lot of support from the government, new materials like shovels, bee's houses and small motor-pumps. Afterward, the model farmers are presented in front of their crops at the television in order to praise the modern agriculture and above all fertilizers. Moreover the man responsible of the public relation at the «tabia» distributes a newspaper every two weeks which presents examples of model farmers who explain the advantages of the modern agriculture. This propaganda in the newspaper and on television occurs mainly during the fertilizer allocation time for rain-fed farming, from March to July. At this time this topic will occupy most of the national television program. The population accesses many television channels, however only one deals with Ethiopian information, the national program. So as to hear another sounding board, the population listens to an independent American radio program every day for three hours. It is realized by emigrants who are living in United States; on this program the population heard independent critics, even on the current Ethiopian government.

Secondly the pressure comes from the DAs and the different local leaders: «gujele» leaders, «tabia» associations' leaders, WUA leaders as show with the diagram of the process to convince farmers of fertilizers advantages (figure 23).

Due to the obligation to use inadequate quantity of fertilizers during the irrigation season and due to the pressure to use fertilizers during rainy season, the irrigation production cost increased these last years in Tigray. Therefore the owners prefer made an arrangement with a sharecropper rather than cultivate their land. When an owner does not find a sharecropper to cultivate his land, the irrigated plot becomes uncultivated at least during the irrigation season (when fertilizers are compulsory)

The high production cost remains an issue and the quantity of fertilizers for the irrigation season is too high. Therefore, the farmers are tempted to keep the fertilizers for the rainy season or to sell fertilizers on the black market.

After studying the origins of the modes of governance, we will emphasize their dynamic. However some of studies dynamic were difficult to realize due to the arrangement participants' discretion.

Institutional arrangements dynamic

The governmental policy about fertilizers issues appeared with the GTP in 2010 so consequences should be new. Indeed, the fertilizers obligation for the irrigation schemes was implemented these two last years.

Consequently, the fertilizers black market should be a new practice. But it was too difficult to be sure. Indeed due to the severe potential punishments, only few stakeholders accepted to speak without stereotyped language. However, the whole community agreed to certify that these arrangements are growing. Finally, the dynamics of the sharecropping arrangement was analyzed and presented below.

In Ethiopia, the actors of the sharecropping are only the land owner and the sharecropper. They do not need to register the sharecropping arrangement to the governmental offices. The agreement between them is an oral contract; there is no formal written document to certify the agreement. About written document, only the owners have received a written document by the government. In Ethiopia, the sharecropping agreement between the owner and sharecropper remains informal and requires trust.

As regards the purpose of the agreement, it aims to specify how the sharecropper must pay the owner for using his plot. There are two kinds of contract renewed every year, the first one is the most common and is locally called by an English word: "Scissor". The agreement consists to divide the harvest between the owner and the sharecropper. The agreement may include also the inputs costs. In 2013, usually in Gumselassa, the sharecropper keeps 2/3 of the production and pays the production costs (inputs, cattle...) while the owner takes 1/3 of the production and nothing else. However in Betmera, some costs of production as the fertilizers inputs are divided equally between the owner and the sharecropper. In Gumselassa, the sharecroppers complained that their owners do not participate to the purchase of the inputs. The sharecroppers consider that the agreement do not take enough into account the increase of the fertilizers' costs. These complaints show that the sharecropping arrangement does not evolve quickly enough in Gumselassa and may have consequences that will be studied after.

The second type of contract is locally called "Kray" which means "rent" in Tigrayan. The Kray agreement consists in paying an amount of ETB according to the size and the quality of the land to the owner in order to get the cultivation authorization for one year. In Gumselassa, there is a local classification of the plots according to their fertility: (All the plots have the same size, 0.2 hectare) -The plots called "Rogede" which means "good" cost from 400 ETB to 700 ETB; -The plots called "Makelaye" which means "middle" cost from 300 ETB to 400 ETB; -The plots called "Rhekike" which means "bad" cost from 200 ETB to 400 ETB.

Two conflicts are very common due to the sharecropping arrangement. They are specific to the scissor agreement. The first one occurs at the time of choosing the type of crops cultivated. The sharecropper must feed his cattle therefore he likes sow maize so as to get the stems for his livestock. However the owner is interested by the market value of the crops. That is why the owner wishes that the sharecropper cultivates vegetables. The second type of conflicts takes place at the harvest time when the production is divided between the sharecropper and the owners. The owners regularly accuse the sharecroppers of stealing a part of the production before the harvesting time and so the amount of crops is lower at the division time.

Thereby, we observe that the content of the agreement permits to reach equilibrium between the interests of the sharecroppers and the owners. In order to complete the analysis of the sharecropping arrangement dynamic, we will observe the evolution of the equilibrium along the time.

According to interviewees, the rent price of the plot in Gumsselassa has been decreasing since the creation of the irrigated scheme. Indeed interviewees certify that, at the beginning, in 1997, all the plots were called "Rogede" and their values were around 600 ETB per year. But now, usually the value of one irrigated plot is never over 600 ETB. In 2013, the majority of the irrigated plots are called "Rhekike" and their values are under 300ETB. The local community even gives a name for the lands which are not profitable: "Chochawoua" which means "salt" in Tigrayan. This word shows the perception of the farmers; they associate the bad yield with the salinity. Interviewees cited other reasons which can explain the unprofitability: the low soil fertility, but above all when the soil rejects the fertilizers' application. Outside Ethiopia, generally when the land dynamic is in favor of the sharecropper, the owners may sell their land to the sharecropper. However this phenomenon is impossible in Ethiopia. Indeed the owners are allowed to cultivate, the government tolerates that owners rent the lands but the owners cannot sell their plots. The changing of owners can be achieved by the land administration governmental office only. Thereby, in Ethiopia, the governmental rule blocks the natural phenomenon of the lands.

Likewise, in Gumselassa, the "scissor" sharecropping agreement has changed over the last 13 years. According to the interviewees, the production was divided ½ for the owner and ½ for the sharecropper from 1997 to 2003. Since 2003, the production division has become 1/3 for the owner and 2/3 for the sharecropper. Just like the decrease of the rent prices, this evolution shows the value degradation of the irrigated plot due to decrease of yield or due to increase of production costs.

However in Betmera, with regards to the sharecropping agreement, no change occurred over the time according to the elders. Firstly the fertility of the irrigated plots did not decrease like in Gumselassa because of the salinity. Secondly in Betmera, the most common sharecropping agreement, "scissor", divides the cost of the fertilizers between the owner and the sharecropper. Thereby, in spite of the increasing fertilizers costs, the contract did not change.

In Gumselassa, the content of the sharecropping arrangement was adapted to the increase of the salinity. Indeed, the decrease of the production was divided between owners and sharecroppers. The bad irrigation production is certainly one of the reasons to explain the high proportion (63%) of sharecroppers in Gumselassa. When an owner has another work opportunity, he leases his/her land to a sharecropper. However, currently the increase of the fertilizers' costs is a new issue for the arrangement because the production costs are not share in the sharecropping agreement. Finally, with the bad irrigation yield due to the salinity the no adaptation of the sharecropping agreement, even the sharecroppers refuse to cultivate the irrigated. The sharecropping arrangement between the owners and the sharecropper becomes an individual decision; leave the irrigated plots uncultivated, at least during the irrigation season when fertilizer are compulsory. (See the evolution of the number of abandoned plots in Gumselassa on the figure 34 below). Thereby, many plots are available for the sharecroppers in Gumselassa. They can choose the best irrigated plots. Through the sharecroppers' choices, the least productive irrigated plots are abandoned, mainly because of the fertility, but also it raises other issues. Indeed, sharecroppers may choose a plot which was not cultivated or with specific crops the last year in order to enhance the production. The sharecroppers may also select a better sharecropping agreement with the owners, like dividing the fertilizers' costs between both, so the sharecropping agreement in Gumselassa, will certainly adapt to the production cost in the following years. Moreover several owners of abandoned plots complain about the size of their plots. They judge that their plots are smaller than 0.2 hectare and so the sharecroppers do not want to cultivate these plots because the quantity of fertilizers to buy is the same that for other plots of 0.2 hectare.

Lands become uncultivated when the production costs are too high to make profit with their irrigated plots conditions. In 2013, all the plots with a yield under 0.4 ton/hectare (see in annexes 15) were not profitable for farmers. (In 2012, it was around 0.3 tons/hectare). Thereby because of the governmental policy, particularly the obligation for farmers of irrigation scheme to buy the fertilizers, several plots still profitable but less productive, were not cultivated. It is a shortfall for the farmers and so for the country.

Contrasted consequences on agriculture and irrigation of the governmental policy and the institutional arrangements

These institutional arrangements analyzed above have different consequences on irrigation. In order to understand their impacts a distinction must be made between the governmental "nonstandard" organizations and the farmers' institutional arrangements.

The local governmental mode of organization derives from the general GTP policy of the federal Ethiopian government. It tries to enhance the yield of agriculture in Ethiopia imitating the "green revolution" of developing countries which begun most markedly in the late 1960s and finished in the 1990s. Indeed the Ethiopian government is developing the three characteristics points of the green revolution: the high yields of the improved seed varieties, the inputs (fertilizers and pesticides) and the irrigation importance. However before the green revolution, the developing world improved the agricultural machines and the chemistry during the Great War and during the inter-war years, whereas the Tigray farmers are still plowing with cattle and the fertilizers have to be import from developing country. Moreover, the green revolution implies an increase of energy consumption. More than a third of the fossil fuel used by modern agriculture is consummated by the

Evolution of uncultivated plots during irrigation in Gumselassa

production of fertilizers. According to the current Hubbert "peak oil theory", the maximum rate of petroleum extraction was reached in 2005 and now the global production is declining. That is why, with the decline of the fossil fuel, the future of the modern agriculture production is uncertain. Ultimately, the green revolution is a risked bet that the Ethiopian government took in 2010.

In addition, the federal Ethiopian government did not study whether the modern agriculture is adapted or not to the farming condition. The south of Ethiopia was not studied but in Tigray, the farmers' plots are too small to support the required investments, without speaking of the agricultural machines like tractors, the green revolution costs are too high for the farmers met. As information the GDP per inhabitant is 1 200 US dollars (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-worldfactbook/geos/et.html). Farmers borrow to buy the necessary inputs and so they are highly indebted. Indeed, because of the unpredictable rainfall, the reliability of farming in Tigray is not good enough to endure the high production costs of the modern agriculture. The only way to secure the production and invest is to carry out higher invests in order to develop irrigation and so secure the water supply. However the two studied areas show the different limits of irrigation. In Betmera, the traditional irrigation is threatened by the decrease of the quantity of the water resource available due to the global climate change. The size of the command area is decreasing, and irrigation concerns only a handful of farmers. Besides, the irrigation scheme of Gumselassa was built in 1997 and so before the GTP policy, it represents the developed irrigation by the government. The situation underscores the important salinity issue, waterlogging and brackish water tables to rise caused by irrigation. Therefore, the salinization caused by irrigation can be avoided only by combining the development of drainage, which requires higher amount of water and higher investments. At this time, the current practices of irrigation in Ethiopia are not the ideal solution for the green revolution and its consequences.

Furthermore, the credit development in the rural area weakens the financial situation of the majority of the small famers, implying, even in Gumselassa, the onset of the abandoned plots because of the prohibition to sell lands. The only farmers being able to carry on agriculture are the biggest, those who can invest. However they are few in Tigray, thereby the Ethiopian policy might bring social and economic gap as well as rural exodus or emigration. Finally, the governmental arrangements put risks in the farmers' livelihoods, and over the long term put the Tigray agriculture in danger.

The institutional arrangements implemented by the community are divided in two categories. The fertilizers black market is achieved to adapt to the governmental policy and increase the livelihoods. Whereas the other arrangements are adapted to the local conditions and their consequences are diversified:

-

The sharecropping arrangement is necessary for the irrigated system, indeed without the sharecroppers, less plots would be cultivated. The content of the sharecropping agreement is important, currently the contents need to take into account the increase of the production cost in order to keep a positive dynamic of this agreement and avoid uncultivated plots. However as mentioned before, the sharecroppers are less involved in the collective action, so it also decrease the performance of the collective actions. interview was not useful. After having lost a precious time, the map using during the interview was abandoned.

Role of the other student

One student, Javier Rodriguez Ros employed by the CIRAD like me studied the "evaluation of the performance of small irrigation systems in Ethiopia" from the local community point of view. Rodriguez Ros and me point out that, generally, the cooperation was very useful. Indeed we experimented that by having lunch and dinner together. Those times were an important source of discussion for our interviews. It enabled us to compare results, or to eliminate and check data. Above all those discussions raised new topics. The next day we were already formulating and asking new questions from those discussions to the stakeholders. The only inconvenient was when one of us had to meet a person that the other one had already met.

Role of the literature review

The matrix cube of Uphoff was mostly use to be sure that all the aspects of the irrigation management were discussed in the survey questionnaire. Therefore this conceptual tool was useful in the beginning of the field work but was quickly abandoned.

According to Harribey (2011), instead of identifying the common-pool resources only as resources; Ostrom considers them as a particular kind of property which cannot be excluded from a collective action. However, the paradox is that Ostrom neglects the social relations building the experiences of these communities. Accordingly, the eight design principles of Ostrom, defining the governing irrigation system sustainable, do not take sufficiently into account Ethiopian governmental aspects in the management of the irrigated schemes studied. Indeed, government activities allow the building of a suitable system without even respecting the Ostrom principles. That is why after this observation, the eight design principles of Ostrom seem not to be well adapted to the local situation and so this concept tools was not used for the qualitative analyze of the results. It must be noted that among principles of Ostrom, the point 2 "proportional equivalence between benefits and costs" and the point 7 "minimal recognition of rights to organize" are the two principals which are not respect due to the governmental intervention in the management of irrigation and the institutional arrangements of the community respectively.

The seven principles of the system approach proposed by Apollin & Eberhat (2000) provide interesting guidelines for the global study approach. Nevertheless, these seven principles were not useful to analyze the results gathered during the field work.

The agrarian system definition of Mazoyer & Roudart (1997), the cropping system and production system definition of Jouve (1992) together with the irrigated system definition of [START_REF] Apollin | Méthode de diagnostic d'un système pour le renforcement de la prise en charge de sa gestion par une association d'irrigants[END_REF] allowed clarifying, targeting and orienting the objectives of the study. Then the interviews results were analyzed through these general definitions in order to characterize these two specifics irrigated system.

The institutional arrangements definitions provide by Menard (2005), [START_REF] Shepshe | Institutional Arrangements and Equilibrium in Multidimensional Voting Models[END_REF] as well as [START_REF] Geels | From sectorial systems of innovation to socio-technical systems insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory[END_REF] were necessary to clarifying the institutional arrangements notion. Like the other definitions, they were required to orient the question of my surveys. Moreover, these definitions permit to identify which practices are considered as an institutional arrangement or not. In addition, this literature together with my observations will give birth to a classification of the arrangements identify during the field work.

The essentials notions of Ruf & Sabatiers (1992) which define an operational social water management permit to organize the management practices gathered during the field work. Moreover the two factors "closeness and trust" of [START_REF] Caron | Les conflits d'usage dans les espaces ruraux. Une analyse économique[END_REF] and [START_REF] Dupuy | Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front, Roles and responsibilities of ministries[END_REF] which influence the collective participation allow explaining the current situation of the irrigation management practices.

Main benefits generated by irrigation schemes comparison in term of management's innovations

First of all, work on two irrigation schemes allows understanding which practices are specifics to one scheme and which practices are commons to the majority of irrigation schemes. Thereby, after checking with the governmental interviewees, the generalization of these practices could be presented above. Then among the specific practices of each schemes identified, their advantages and their disadvantages were analyzed in order to identify management propositions for the other irrigation scheme. Globally, because of the lack of time, the propositions presented below were not enough discuss with the community to reach definitive conclusions about it.

The first difference between the two studied schemes is the organization of the water allocation meeting. The allocation meeting in Gumselassa could be organized every week like in Betmera instead of every day. First of all, this change would permit to save time for farmers and for the implementation committee members responsible of the water allocation. Moreover, the members' mobilization at this meeting would be higher if the water allocation takes place only every week. Rather than the current twenty farmers present at the meeting, around one hundred members would be expected to the weekly water allocation meeting. This would allow the WUA of Gumselassa to have meetings gathering a great part of the association's farmers other than the two current annual general assemblies, and without lack of participation issue. Thereby, the water allocation meeting could become a moment where the irrigation management issues could be raised and discussed by the community. However this change requires a new organization of the leaders in which the writing documents would be necessary. Otherwise after one week the speech of the Abo-Mays could be forgot and misinterpreted. Thereby the Abo-Mays should be able to read and write while the farmers should be able to read. Unfortunately, no reaction from the farmers about this proposition was gathered during the field work.

The second main difference between the irrigation management of Gumselassa and Betmera is the length of the irrigation time which is determinate by the Abo-Mays in Betmera whereas in Gumselassa the farmers can irrigate as long as they want. Whether this irrigation management practice is brought to Gumselassa, it would enable to reduce the interval time between two irrigation turns which was underscored like an important issue by the community. Then naturally, the farmers would optimize the water and so this limited length of the irrigation time could participate to decrease the waterlogging. However, in Betmera the water is only used by one farmer per pocket whereas in Gumselassa there are, on average, three users on the right bank and two on the left bank. Therefore the irrigation water transmission between users is harder to control in Gumselassa. That is why this management requires a powerful Abo-May to enforce it and this management requires better trust and closeness among the community. Indeed in Betmera the majority of the conflicts comes from the transmission time of the irrigation water between two users. Furthermore, so as to allocate the water fairly, the Abo-May and globally the WUA must know the soil characteristics of each plot and they must also know the water crops requirement.

The third difference with Betmera which could be interesting for the irrigation management in Gumselassa is the use of water pumps. In fact, in Betmera at least five members of the WUA use manual water pump called "Stinna" and one farmer uses and leases a water motor pump. These farmers use the pumps to irrigate plots which are outside the scheme delimitated by the canal but included in the irrigation command area. In Betmera, the committee responsible of the decision of the command area size allows upstream farmers to pump water in the canal to irrigate plots outside the canal boundary while downstream farmers inside the canal boundary do not have access to the water. This practice permits to avoid water leak on the irrigation network thanks to the upstream priority. Thereby the "Stinna" could be introduced in Gumselassa, however the command area is only decided by the government. Therefore this potential change has to be firstly discussed with the WWRME and the «tabia» in order to create water right for news plots. So this seems difficult to achieve in Gumselassa but anyway the use of "stinna" could be interesting for the wells dug around the irrigation scheme of Gumselassa. In practice, the owners of the plots around the wells which are not used could try manual pump to develop irrigation. The main issue highlighted by the community was the price of the motor pump and the price of the fuel. Therefore the "stinna" seems to be adapted to the needs of the farmers. However during the exchange between the two communities, the advantages of the manual pumps have been presented to the farmers of Gumselassa who have visited the irrigation scheme of Betmera. They pointed out the fact that the soil does not have the same propriety in Betmera than in Gumselassa and so the water required to develop irrigation in Gumselassa is higher. Ultimately, the use of manual pumps requires too much effort to supply the necessary amount of water. It should be a reason of the unprofitable use of "stinna" in Gumselassa.

On the other hand, an irrigation management practice was observed in Betmera which could be enhanced through the example of Gumselassa. In fact, the monthly meeting in Betmera creates problem among the WUA. The majority of farmers do not come, and then the capacity of the Abo-Mays to gather members is criticized by the users present. Thereby the monthly meeting of the WUA of Betmera participates to decrease the authority of the implementation committee because of the lack of members' participation. In Gumselassa the implementation committee brutally solved this issue by removing the users' participation to this meeting, only the users who have specific requests can join. In the case of Betmera, the monthly meeting during the rainy season is exposed to more controversy, therefore this monthly meeting could be removed from the users' obligation in order to avoid disagreements among the WUA. While this idea was presented to the WUA of Betmera, the global answer was that the WUA prefers changing the leaders of the WUA rather than amends the rules of the WUA.

The comparison of two studied schemes and my own perception of the facilities allowed me to propose technical propositions as well. However these ideas do not arise from the interviewees with the community.

-Raise the walls of the concrete canal in Gumselassa where the reverses slopes and overflow are localized. -In Betmera, implement draining gallery in the river to catch a higher part of the ground water flow.

-Close to the meeting point in Gumselassa, implemented collective tools to wash the clothes with water of the canal but outside the canal.

The EAU4Food project roles and capacity for the future

(operational recommendations and show this study complete the previous)

In Gumselassa, the Mekele University is better integrated in the local irrigation management than in Betmera or other irrigation schemes in Tigray. That is why, the management as well as the technical propositions of the EAU4Food project will be more easily accepted and followed by the WUA of Gumselassa than other WUA. Therefore, all the ideas of the foreign partners have to be introduced through the members of the Mekele University involved in Gumselassa. In addition, due to the lack of local relations, the propositions for Betmera should wait and so in the following years, the EAUFood projects should focus on Gumselassa issues. The EAU4Food project must not repeat the Ethiopian government procedure to introduce innovations. The innovations do not have to be perceived as a solution but as a potential source of improving farming conditions. Like the current EAU4Food agronomic innovations tested by the farmers in Gumselassa, the management proposition must be tested with the agreement of the WUA. The limitation of the length of irrigation time and the change of rhythm of the water allocation meeting would be two important modifications of the irrigation management. Therefore, whether under the EAU4Food project it is decided to test the propositions above, it should be subject to a meeting so as to explain the origins of this proposition (see in Betmera), their potential advantages and the challenges raised by these propositions. Like the agronomics experimentations, these management propositions should be applied during a full irrigation season and if the crops damaged are linked to these experimentations, the farmers should be compensated.

With regards to the manual pumps implementation called "stinna", a discussion could be achieved with the governmental offices responsible of the delimitation of the command area in order to evoke the practices of Betmera. However the interesting experiment to realize would be to test the use and the profitability of the pumps close to the wells. The University should make an agreement with farmers who would use the three kinds of pumps, the "stinna", another manual pump and a motor pump, during an irrigation season.

On the other hand, the EAUFood project could complete the "understand of the institutional arrangements of the small-scale irrigation system of Ethiopia" by a study of the "reverse tenancy" in the small-scale irrigation system of Ethiopia in order to understand the future issues of the farmers in the national context of land grabbing. At the national level, this time, a study really must be achieved to understand the national fertilizer policy, the reasons of the chemical fertilizer choice, the reasons of the implementation procedure and the potential existence of contract with a foreigner company. At the same time the study should analyze the knowledge of the governmental bodies about the consequences of the fertilizer policy on the local livelihoods. Last but not least, a study in Gumselassa level should be made so as to evaluate the opinion of the community about the proposition presented above.

Limitations of the study

Answer the hypotheses

In order to evaluate the credibility of the study, the hypotheses established and mentioned part 1 must be ascertained.

1. As mentioned before, [START_REF] Tucker | Small-scale irrigation in the Ethiopian highlands. What potential for poverty reduction and climate adaptation[END_REF] explain the profits generated by irrigation reach at least 20% for the users and in the specific case of Gumselassa and Betmera, the interviewees estimate that their livelihoods were doubled. However the study underscores the irrigation production costs issue owing to the obligation to use expensive inputs. This point decreases the asset generated by irrigation until the onset of uncultivated plots on the irrigation scheme during the dry season.

That is why, the profits generated by irrigation is uncertain in Ethiopia. Ultimately, this first hypothesis necessary for the study is in practice not verified. 2. The second hypothesis considers that an irrigation scheme is composed by a physical structure, a physical area but also by people concerned by irrigation and its institutions and that these components cannot be considered independently. Through the definition of an agrarian system and the definition of an irrigated system, respectively, Mazoyer & Roudart (1997) and [START_REF] Apollin | Méthode de diagnostic d'un système pour le renforcement de la prise en charge de sa gestion par une association d'irrigants[END_REF] emphasize the importance of the farm holder, his family and the organization of users. Moreover, in order to understand the management of the irrigated schemes, the study of different institutions was necessary. Thereby, this hypothesis turns out to be confirmed in practice. 3. With regards to the institutional arrangement results of the study, the third hypothesis supposing that the irrigation is managed by formal and informal rules is ascertained. 4. As mentioned before, when choosing the area of the study, Ethiopia and even Tigray are subject to different type of irrigation schemes which allow comparing different modes of organization. Indeed, there are the traditional and governmental irrigation schemes, the relief and flat physical area together with the peri-urban and the rural irrigation scheme. Therefore this hypothesis is verified. 5. The hypothesis number five supposing that the irrigation community, despite their own difference, is able to raise innovation and solutions to adapt itself to the diversity of problem met is the second hypothesis is not really ascertained. In fact, just few users find an individual solution to the new issues raised by the governmental fertilizer policy. No collective measures were taken by the WUA to avoid the decrease of the livelihoods and the onset of abandoned lands. Thereby, on that point the study of institutional arrangements was confronted to a lack of collective reaction which constitutes a result itself. 6. In Gumselassa, despite some difficulties to catch certain persons, our external intervention was well accepted by the irrigation community, thanks to the previous work of Mekele University, the interviewees understood easier our role. However, in Betmera some people were not cooperative and required our translators to change the contents of the speech of the farmers. That is why we cannot trust all the information gathered in that place because this last hypothesis, supposing that the external troubleshooters are accepted, is not confirmed by the study.

Necessary to extent the study to other irrigated systems

This study takes place in only two irrigation schemes which are localized near from each other, 30 km. Therefore our perception of the small-scale irrigation system of Ethiopia is restricted and it would be required to be spread to other irrigation schemes of Tigray and even of Ethiopia. Analyzing other irrigated schemes would allow to enhance the understanding of the institutional arrangements presented before. The similarities or the differences of the application of the formal governmental policies and the informal mechanism of governance by other regions, zones, woredas and «tabia»s could be studied, as well as the farmers' adaptation. Moreover, it would enable to discover other local institutional arrangements or other mode of management not presented or hidden in the restricted geographic studied zone. The study of other irrigation schemes would not be only benefic for understanding the institutional arrangements but also to get new propositions to enhance the farming conditions of the irrigation schemes. Indeed because of the lack of exchanges between the Ethiopian WUAs, the communication of alternatives practices is the role of external bodies.

Furthermore, it would be interesting for the new study to focus on a scheme using water motor pumps. Thereby, not only the specific arrangements related to the use of motor pumps could be observed but also the asset generated by this technology, as well as the necessary conditions for using the motor pumps.

Conclusion

The Tigrayen highlands, limited by the Danakil desert and the rift valley in the east, Eritrea in the north and the Sudanese desert in the west, are the prolongation of the southern Ethiopian highlands. Like in the south, the Tigrayen highlands are subject to the same demographic pressure and the water availability is mainly determined by the rainy season, though in Tigray the rainy season is shorter and more uncertain. The crops can therefore undergo an excess of water from June to September, but above all a chronic shortage of water from October to May. Thus, irrigation during dry season appears to be the best way to increase and to ensure the agricultural production. In addition, the mountains and the rain abundance during humid season make the storage of water for irrigation easier.

Tigray has been especially eventful in its history and this had consequences on the agriculture. Led by Hailie Selassie from the beginning of the XXth century till 1974, Tigray was considered like one of the poorest region of Ethiopia and had to undergo neglect from the capital and many lands expropriations. Later on, the Derg regim collectivized the farmlands creating by so farms like the sovkhoz in USSR. Derg had also fixed the taxes and the prices of the agricultural productions. Moreover, the Derg regim had moved around 700 000 people from the poor regions, including Tigray, to the south of Ethiopia. In the end, the Meles Zenawi government reallocated the lands to the population in 1992, and started a campaign of extension of the irrigated areas in Ethiopia. This turbulent history was ultimately marked by a strong intervention of the government in the management of the agriculture reducing farmers to agricultural workers and not to entrepreneurs. Regarding agrarian reforms, they have been removed so landowners lost the feeling of owning their lands together with the willing of invest.

The irrigated schemes of Gumselassa and Betmera were subject to radical changes over the past years, like all the irrigated areas of Tigray. The potential benefits of irrigation are at the heart of the political chessboard. Indeed, the land pressure is increasing because of the high density of the preexisting population and the very high demographic rates, and new technologies are emerging like manual pumps and wells in Tigray. Since 2010, the Ethiopian government has developed new irrigated schemes through a "Growth and Transformation Plan" in order to increase the cultivated surface during dry season. After having built many hydraulic dams, the priority is now given to the construction of facilities which aim is to divert river or sources, as well as the construction of wells. In the meantime, the government has also enacted new policies in order to reach a kind of modern agriculture for the irrigated schemes. Those policies consist in introducing agricultural innovations wanted by the authorities. Among those innovations, one is really performed: the allocation of industrial fertilizers. Indeed, innovations like pesticides and selected vegetal and animal species are not supplied enough by the Ethiopian government. However, chemical fertilizers are bought on the international market and their distribution is subject to many controversies, such as the informal rules implying by this practice: the obligation of purchasing fertilizers to get irrigation water, evaluation of the leaders on their capacity of convincing farmers to use fertilizers and propaganda on fertilizers established by the government.

For those reasons, we studied the physical, hydraulic, institutional and social characteristics of the irrigated schemes of Gumselassa and Betmera in order to analyze the formal framework and the real collective and individual practices governing those areas. Differences between the formal theoretical framework and the practices observed in reality allowed us to find and to analyze the institutional arrangements facilitating to the management of small irrigated schemes in Ethiopia.

The two studied irrigated schemes were chosen on purpose to get the best representation of the typology of irrigated areas in Ethiopia. Indeed, peri-urban and rural schemes exist in Ethiopia, they can be traditional or built by the government, and they can also be mountainous or located on a flat area. Peri-urban schemes are however in minority in Ethiopia, that is why the study focuses on a traditional, rural and mountainous irrigated scheme, which is Betmera. The study focuses as well on a rural irrigated area built by the government in 1997, characterized by a bas-relief, which is Gumselassa.

In Gumselassa, the environment of the scheme is marked by very low slopes. The cultivable soil is composed by a high rate of clay and the outcrops show limestone subsoil. The watercourse going through the irrigated area dries up during the dry season, thus the only way to get water is to collect it during the rainy season. The hydraulic network is composed of a hydraulic dam of 1.9 million m3, subject to a phenomenon of siltation. The dam suffers an important seepage which causes a shallow groundwater downstream. This shallow groundwater from exfiltration goes up and leaves mineral salts on the surface of the agricultural soil. Downstream, the network goes on with a concrete primary canal, secondary concrete canal until the middle of the scheme, and farther the canals are earth construction. Because of the low slopes, water from the canal infiltrates and the agricultural lands around which become water saturated. Social situation in Gumselassa is marked by the living area of the water users divided in four main villages which are maximum 2 hours of walk from each other. The sharecropping is specially achieved on this scheme as the sharecroppers represent 2/3 of the water users.

In Betmera, the environment is characterized by a watercourse going through the irrigated area that does not dry up during the dry season, by strong slopes, by alluvial deposits on volcanic rocks, by a warmer climate than in Gumselassa, but above all by a rainy season slightly longer compared to the mountainous area. The hydraulic structure of the irrigation network is composed of four diversions along the river, which are made with rocks and earth by the beneficiaries if the irrigation. Those diversions are preceded or followed by a small tank made in the same way, and which capacity allows storing the daily water of the watercourse. The modernization of one of the irrigated pocket was financed by the government, and diversion facility and the primary canal were concreted. However, the new diversion facility was quickly covered by sediments and so a traditional diversion was built by water users. The social situation is characterized by the closeness of Betmera with the irrigated scheme, thus almost all the water users live in this village. The sharecroppers represent only a third of the water users.

The two irrigated areas have a similar institutional framework. Water users associations (WUA) are the responsible authorities of the water resource management of the irrigated schemes in Ethiopia. However, a panel of unit interferes in the management of irrigation systems. Those units are mainly composed by governmental offices but also by farmers. They interfere in communication, in the mobilization of resources, in the conflicts management as well as in the decision-making procedure of the irrigated system.

The study highlights the fact that the management rules of the responsible authority rely on formal regulations established by the regional governmental institutions. Those management rules also rely on informal institutional arrangements made by the peasant community or by the governmental representatives. The formal framework precisely described the modes of management of irrigation in Tigray. Indeed, those rules need the creation of the WUA, of an execution comity, of an evaluation and a control comity together with a general assembly to be made once a year. In addition, those rules define the role and the responsibilities of the water users and the responsibilities of the governmental offices in the management of irrigation.

On the other hand, the study shows that the management practices of irrigation are divided into two individual and collective practices. The water users are individually in charge of the maintenance from the quaternary canals. Further, the water users have the responsibility to bring and to manage water on their plot. Finally, an owner is free and independent so he can lease his irrigated plots. On a collective point of view, the WUA is in charge of the yearly maintenance which consists in repairing the damages caused by the rainy season. The association members vote for the president, the vice-president, the treasurer, the secretary and the Abo-Mays during a general assembly. The WUA organizes the resolution of the conflicts, the allocation of water and usually the repartition of the fertilizers.

Thanks to those two analyzes, many institutional arrangements governing the management of the irrigated schemes in Ethiopia have been highlighted. Arrangements could be classified with a personal method. First, institutional arrangements implemented by the government are:

-Rewards allocated to person or governmental agencies that have convinced many farmers to use fertilizers. Then, institutional arrangements implemented by the community and accepted by everyone are:

-the payment of the Abo-Mays and of the guards, -the free utilization of herbs in the natural drainage, -When the Abo-Mays add of some plots, thus extending the formal limits of the irrigated scheme, -the utilization of the orthodox calendar to determine the common working days or the meetings, -the sharecropping, In addition, Controversial institutional arrangements implemented within the community are:

-the utilization of irrigation canal to wash clothes, -the diversion of water from the natural drain in Gumselassa by two farmers upstream, Finally, the arrangements implemented by the community and sanctioned by the government are:

-the sell or the purchase of fertilizers in the black market, Ultimately, three main propositions are the result of the comparison of the irrigation practices of Betmera and Gumselassa. These three propositions would be applied in Gumselassa with the support of Mekele University. The first proposition consists to change the organization of the water allocation meeting, from a daily organization to a weekly organization. The second proposition consists to introduce a limited length of the irrigation turn and the third one is the introduction of manual pump, "stinna" to irrigated the area around the existing well in Gumselassa e) build capacity for the supply, distribution and marketing of agricultural inputs, and ensure the supply of same; f) ensure the creation of export market for agricultural products through market led agricultural development and competitive marketing system; g) ensure the implementation of the food security program and the proper carrying out of disaster prevention and preparedness activities; h) in cooperation with the concerned organs, create conducive conditions for the expansion of rural development infrastructure; i) ensure the creation of enabling environment for the expansion of cooperatives and the provision of credit facilities to peasants and pastoralists; j) monitor events affecting agricultural production and set up an early warning system; k) establish and direct training establishments that assist the acceleration of agricultural development and the improvement of rural technology; l) ensure the proper carrying out of agricultural research and conservation of biodiversity.

2/ The powers and duties given to the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Rural Development by the provisions of other laws, currently in force, the powers and duties which were given to the Coffee and Tea Authority under Article 5 [START_REF]rules? Have there been any significant changes to the management arrangements, why and when?[END_REF]

FSP

  CIRAD: Centre International de Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement DAP: Diammonium phosphate EAU4Food: European Union and African Union cooperative research to increase Food production in irrigated farming systems in Africa ECC: Evaluation and Controlling Committee ENGEES: Ecole Nationale du Génie de l'Eau et de l'Environnement de Strasbourg FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization for Agriculture and Rural Development WUA: Water Users Association WWRME: Woreda for Water Resource, Mines and Energy

Figure 1 :

 1 Figure 1: Left: Rainfall repartition within a year; Soure: National meteorological station. Right: Rainfall variation around the mean & GDP growth; Source: World Bank, SIMA & African Rainfall & Temperature .......................................................................................................................................... Figure 2: On the top, left to right: Ethiopian precipitation and temperature repartition; ...................Figure 3: Ethiopian population growth; Source: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL .Figure 4: Location of the study areas in Ethiopia, Tigray ......................................................................Figure 5: DAP & UREA prices for the 3 last years .................................................................................. Figure 6: General view of Betmera's irrigation scheme ........................................................................Figure 7: Maps of Gumselassa and surrounding villages ......................................................................Figure 8: Chart representative farmers' village of the current irrigation command area of Gumselassa ...............................................................................................................................................................Figure 9: Plots' distribution in Gumselassa ........................................................................................... Figure 10: Pictures of the first diversion upstream (Shanfagradis) .......................................................Figure 11: Night storage in the natural drainage (Temkatab) ...............................................................Figure 12: Detailed map of Betmera irrigation scheme ........................................................................ Figure 13: Irrigation on the Zamra watershed; source Habtu & Yoshinobu 2006 ................................ Figure 14: Overflow from canals implying low flow capacity of the canal and waterlogging in the plots ............................................................................................................................................................... Figure 15: Left: Salt in Gumselassa; Right: Shallow ground water in Gumselassa ................................ Figure 16: Gumselassa irrigation scheme in 2013 .................................................................................Figure 17: Community well with shallow ground water ....................................................................... Figure 18: Ethiopia administrative organization ................................................................................... Figure 19: Organogram of Water Resource offices ...............................................................................Figure 20: Organogram of Agriculture and Rural development offices ................................................Figure 21: «tabia» offices organization .................................................................................................Figure 22: Simplified miniature parshall to measure the flow in the canals of Gumselassa ................ Figure 23: Diagram of the WUA organization ....................................................................................... Figure 24: A henka half full of maize .....................................................................................................Figure 25: From left to right: Stinna exposition; Stinna used by farmer; Pipe of motor pump ............ Figure 26: Left: Canal during dry season (09/04/2013); Right: Same canal, one month and ten days after the beginning of the rainy season in Betmera (09/08/2013) ....................................................... Figure 27: Community well damaged ................................................................................................... Figure 28: Left: Governmental diversion covered by silts in Betmera; Right: Governmental diversion not covered by silts ...............................................................................................................................Figure 29: Diagram of the conflicts and fault solving procedure .......................................................... Figure 30: Diagram of the communication process ..............................................................................Figure 31: Diagram of the maintenance decision .................................................................................Figure 32: Diagram of the decision process about water .....................................................................Figure 33: Diagram of the processes to distribute fertilizers and convince of their advantages ......... Figure 34: Evolution ofuncultivated plots during irrigation in Gumselassa; source: own source .........

Figure 3 :

 3 Figure 1: Left: Rainfall repartition within a year; Soure: National meteorological station. Right: Rainfall variation around the mean & GDP growth; Source: World Bank, SIMA & African Rainfall & Temperature .......................................................................................................................................... Figure 2: On the top, left to right: Ethiopian precipitation and temperature repartition; ...................Figure 3: Ethiopian population growth; Source: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL .Figure 4: Location of the study areas in Ethiopia, Tigray ......................................................................Figure 5: DAP & UREA prices for the 3 last years .................................................................................. Figure 6: General view of Betmera's irrigation scheme ........................................................................Figure 7: Maps of Gumselassa and surrounding villages ......................................................................Figure 8: Chart representative farmers' village of the current irrigation command area of Gumselassa ...............................................................................................................................................................Figure 9: Plots' distribution in Gumselassa ........................................................................................... Figure 10: Pictures of the first diversion upstream (Shanfagradis) .......................................................Figure 11: Night storage in the natural drainage (Temkatab) ...............................................................Figure 12: Detailed map of Betmera irrigation scheme ........................................................................ Figure 13: Irrigation on the Zamra watershed; source Habtu & Yoshinobu 2006 ................................ Figure 14: Overflow from canals implying low flow capacity of the canal and waterlogging in the plots ............................................................................................................................................................... Figure 15: Left: Salt in Gumselassa; Right: Shallow ground water in Gumselassa ................................ Figure 16: Gumselassa irrigation scheme in 2013 .................................................................................Figure 17: Community well with shallow ground water ....................................................................... Figure 18: Ethiopia administrative organization ................................................................................... Figure 19: Organogram of Water Resource offices ...............................................................................Figure 20: Organogram of Agriculture and Rural development offices ................................................Figure 21: «tabia» offices organization .................................................................................................Figure 22: Simplified miniature parshall to measure the flow in the canals of Gumselassa ................ Figure 23: Diagram of the WUA organization ....................................................................................... Figure 24: A henka half full of maize .....................................................................................................Figure 25: From left to right: Stinna exposition; Stinna used by farmer; Pipe of motor pump ............ Figure 26: Left: Canal during dry season (09/04/2013); Right: Same canal, one month and ten days after the beginning of the rainy season in Betmera (09/08/2013) ....................................................... Figure 27: Community well damaged ................................................................................................... Figure 28: Left: Governmental diversion covered by silts in Betmera; Right: Governmental diversion not covered by silts ...............................................................................................................................Figure 29: Diagram of the conflicts and fault solving procedure .......................................................... Figure 30: Diagram of the communication process ..............................................................................Figure 31: Diagram of the maintenance decision .................................................................................Figure 32: Diagram of the decision process about water .....................................................................Figure 33: Diagram of the processes to distribute fertilizers and convince of their advantages ......... Figure 34: Evolution ofuncultivated plots during irrigation in Gumselassa; source: own source .........

Figure 4 :

 4 Figure 1: Left: Rainfall repartition within a year; Soure: National meteorological station. Right: Rainfall variation around the mean & GDP growth; Source: World Bank, SIMA & African Rainfall & Temperature .......................................................................................................................................... Figure 2: On the top, left to right: Ethiopian precipitation and temperature repartition; ...................Figure 3: Ethiopian population growth; Source: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL .Figure 4: Location of the study areas in Ethiopia, Tigray ......................................................................Figure 5: DAP & UREA prices for the 3 last years .................................................................................. Figure 6: General view of Betmera's irrigation scheme ........................................................................Figure 7: Maps of Gumselassa and surrounding villages ......................................................................Figure 8: Chart representative farmers' village of the current irrigation command area of Gumselassa ...............................................................................................................................................................Figure 9: Plots' distribution in Gumselassa ........................................................................................... Figure 10: Pictures of the first diversion upstream (Shanfagradis) .......................................................Figure 11: Night storage in the natural drainage (Temkatab) ...............................................................Figure 12: Detailed map of Betmera irrigation scheme ........................................................................ Figure 13: Irrigation on the Zamra watershed; source Habtu & Yoshinobu 2006 ................................ Figure 14: Overflow from canals implying low flow capacity of the canal and waterlogging in the plots ............................................................................................................................................................... Figure 15: Left: Salt in Gumselassa; Right: Shallow ground water in Gumselassa ................................ Figure 16: Gumselassa irrigation scheme in 2013 .................................................................................Figure 17: Community well with shallow ground water ....................................................................... Figure 18: Ethiopia administrative organization ................................................................................... Figure 19: Organogram of Water Resource offices ...............................................................................Figure 20: Organogram of Agriculture and Rural development offices ................................................Figure 21: «tabia» offices organization .................................................................................................Figure 22: Simplified miniature parshall to measure the flow in the canals of Gumselassa ................ Figure 23: Diagram of the WUA organization ....................................................................................... Figure 24: A henka half full of maize .....................................................................................................Figure 25: From left to right: Stinna exposition; Stinna used by farmer; Pipe of motor pump ............ Figure 26: Left: Canal during dry season (09/04/2013); Right: Same canal, one month and ten days after the beginning of the rainy season in Betmera (09/08/2013) ....................................................... Figure 27: Community well damaged ................................................................................................... Figure 28: Left: Governmental diversion covered by silts in Betmera; Right: Governmental diversion not covered by silts ...............................................................................................................................Figure 29: Diagram of the conflicts and fault solving procedure .......................................................... Figure 30: Diagram of the communication process ..............................................................................Figure 31: Diagram of the maintenance decision .................................................................................Figure 32: Diagram of the decision process about water .....................................................................Figure 33: Diagram of the processes to distribute fertilizers and convince of their advantages ......... Figure 34: Evolution ofuncultivated plots during irrigation in Gumselassa; source: own source .........

Figure 5 :

 5 Figure 1: Left: Rainfall repartition within a year; Soure: National meteorological station. Right: Rainfall variation around the mean & GDP growth; Source: World Bank, SIMA & African Rainfall & Temperature .......................................................................................................................................... Figure 2: On the top, left to right: Ethiopian precipitation and temperature repartition; ...................Figure 3: Ethiopian population growth; Source: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL .Figure 4: Location of the study areas in Ethiopia, Tigray ......................................................................Figure 5: DAP & UREA prices for the 3 last years .................................................................................. Figure 6: General view of Betmera's irrigation scheme ........................................................................Figure 7: Maps of Gumselassa and surrounding villages ......................................................................Figure 8: Chart representative farmers' village of the current irrigation command area of Gumselassa ...............................................................................................................................................................Figure 9: Plots' distribution in Gumselassa ........................................................................................... Figure 10: Pictures of the first diversion upstream (Shanfagradis) .......................................................Figure 11: Night storage in the natural drainage (Temkatab) ...............................................................Figure 12: Detailed map of Betmera irrigation scheme ........................................................................ Figure 13: Irrigation on the Zamra watershed; source Habtu & Yoshinobu 2006 ................................ Figure 14: Overflow from canals implying low flow capacity of the canal and waterlogging in the plots ............................................................................................................................................................... Figure 15: Left: Salt in Gumselassa; Right: Shallow ground water in Gumselassa ................................ Figure 16: Gumselassa irrigation scheme in 2013 .................................................................................Figure 17: Community well with shallow ground water ....................................................................... Figure 18: Ethiopia administrative organization ................................................................................... Figure 19: Organogram of Water Resource offices ...............................................................................Figure 20: Organogram of Agriculture and Rural development offices ................................................Figure 21: «tabia» offices organization .................................................................................................Figure 22: Simplified miniature parshall to measure the flow in the canals of Gumselassa ................ Figure 23: Diagram of the WUA organization ....................................................................................... Figure 24: A henka half full of maize .....................................................................................................Figure 25: From left to right: Stinna exposition; Stinna used by farmer; Pipe of motor pump ............ Figure 26: Left: Canal during dry season (09/04/2013); Right: Same canal, one month and ten days after the beginning of the rainy season in Betmera (09/08/2013) ....................................................... Figure 27: Community well damaged ................................................................................................... Figure 28: Left: Governmental diversion covered by silts in Betmera; Right: Governmental diversion not covered by silts ...............................................................................................................................Figure 29: Diagram of the conflicts and fault solving procedure .......................................................... Figure 30: Diagram of the communication process ..............................................................................Figure 31: Diagram of the maintenance decision .................................................................................Figure 32: Diagram of the decision process about water .....................................................................Figure 33: Diagram of the processes to distribute fertilizers and convince of their advantages ......... Figure 34: Evolution ofuncultivated plots during irrigation in Gumselassa; source: own source .........

Figure 7 :

 7 Figure 1: Left: Rainfall repartition within a year; Soure: National meteorological station. Right: Rainfall variation around the mean & GDP growth; Source: World Bank, SIMA & African Rainfall & Temperature .......................................................................................................................................... Figure 2: On the top, left to right: Ethiopian precipitation and temperature repartition; ...................Figure 3: Ethiopian population growth; Source: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL .Figure 4: Location of the study areas in Ethiopia, Tigray ......................................................................Figure 5: DAP & UREA prices for the 3 last years .................................................................................. Figure 6: General view of Betmera's irrigation scheme ........................................................................Figure 7: Maps of Gumselassa and surrounding villages ......................................................................Figure 8: Chart representative farmers' village of the current irrigation command area of Gumselassa ...............................................................................................................................................................Figure 9: Plots' distribution in Gumselassa ........................................................................................... Figure 10: Pictures of the first diversion upstream (Shanfagradis) .......................................................Figure 11: Night storage in the natural drainage (Temkatab) ...............................................................Figure 12: Detailed map of Betmera irrigation scheme ........................................................................ Figure 13: Irrigation on the Zamra watershed; source Habtu & Yoshinobu 2006 ................................ Figure 14: Overflow from canals implying low flow capacity of the canal and waterlogging in the plots ............................................................................................................................................................... Figure 15: Left: Salt in Gumselassa; Right: Shallow ground water in Gumselassa ................................ Figure 16: Gumselassa irrigation scheme in 2013 .................................................................................Figure 17: Community well with shallow ground water ....................................................................... Figure 18: Ethiopia administrative organization ................................................................................... Figure 19: Organogram of Water Resource offices ...............................................................................Figure 20: Organogram of Agriculture and Rural development offices ................................................Figure 21: «tabia» offices organization .................................................................................................Figure 22: Simplified miniature parshall to measure the flow in the canals of Gumselassa ................ Figure 23: Diagram of the WUA organization ....................................................................................... Figure 24: A henka half full of maize .....................................................................................................Figure 25: From left to right: Stinna exposition; Stinna used by farmer; Pipe of motor pump ............ Figure 26: Left: Canal during dry season (09/04/2013); Right: Same canal, one month and ten days after the beginning of the rainy season in Betmera (09/08/2013) ....................................................... Figure 27: Community well damaged ................................................................................................... Figure 28: Left: Governmental diversion covered by silts in Betmera; Right: Governmental diversion not covered by silts ...............................................................................................................................Figure 29: Diagram of the conflicts and fault solving procedure .......................................................... Figure 30: Diagram of the communication process ..............................................................................Figure 31: Diagram of the maintenance decision .................................................................................Figure 32: Diagram of the decision process about water .....................................................................Figure 33: Diagram of the processes to distribute fertilizers and convince of their advantages ......... Figure 34: Evolution ofuncultivated plots during irrigation in Gumselassa; source: own source .........

Figure 8 :

 8 Figure 1: Left: Rainfall repartition within a year; Soure: National meteorological station. Right: Rainfall variation around the mean & GDP growth; Source: World Bank, SIMA & African Rainfall & Temperature .......................................................................................................................................... Figure 2: On the top, left to right: Ethiopian precipitation and temperature repartition; ...................Figure 3: Ethiopian population growth; Source: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL .Figure 4: Location of the study areas in Ethiopia, Tigray ......................................................................Figure 5: DAP & UREA prices for the 3 last years .................................................................................. Figure 6: General view of Betmera's irrigation scheme ........................................................................Figure 7: Maps of Gumselassa and surrounding villages ......................................................................Figure 8: Chart representative farmers' village of the current irrigation command area of Gumselassa ...............................................................................................................................................................Figure 9: Plots' distribution in Gumselassa ........................................................................................... Figure 10: Pictures of the first diversion upstream (Shanfagradis) .......................................................Figure 11: Night storage in the natural drainage (Temkatab) ...............................................................Figure 12: Detailed map of Betmera irrigation scheme ........................................................................ Figure 13: Irrigation on the Zamra watershed; source Habtu & Yoshinobu 2006 ................................ Figure 14: Overflow from canals implying low flow capacity of the canal and waterlogging in the plots ............................................................................................................................................................... Figure 15: Left: Salt in Gumselassa; Right: Shallow ground water in Gumselassa ................................ Figure 16: Gumselassa irrigation scheme in 2013 .................................................................................Figure 17: Community well with shallow ground water ....................................................................... Figure 18: Ethiopia administrative organization ................................................................................... Figure 19: Organogram of Water Resource offices ...............................................................................Figure 20: Organogram of Agriculture and Rural development offices ................................................Figure 21: «tabia» offices organization .................................................................................................Figure 22: Simplified miniature parshall to measure the flow in the canals of Gumselassa ................ Figure 23: Diagram of the WUA organization ....................................................................................... Figure 24: A henka half full of maize .....................................................................................................Figure 25: From left to right: Stinna exposition; Stinna used by farmer; Pipe of motor pump ............ Figure 26: Left: Canal during dry season (09/04/2013); Right: Same canal, one month and ten days after the beginning of the rainy season in Betmera (09/08/2013) ....................................................... Figure 27: Community well damaged ................................................................................................... Figure 28: Left: Governmental diversion covered by silts in Betmera; Right: Governmental diversion not covered by silts ...............................................................................................................................Figure 29: Diagram of the conflicts and fault solving procedure .......................................................... Figure 30: Diagram of the communication process ..............................................................................Figure 31: Diagram of the maintenance decision .................................................................................Figure 32: Diagram of the decision process about water .....................................................................Figure 33: Diagram of the processes to distribute fertilizers and convince of their advantages ......... Figure 34: Evolution ofuncultivated plots during irrigation in Gumselassa; source: own source .........

Figure 9 :

 9 Figure 1: Left: Rainfall repartition within a year; Soure: National meteorological station. Right: Rainfall variation around the mean & GDP growth; Source: World Bank, SIMA & African Rainfall & Temperature .......................................................................................................................................... Figure 2: On the top, left to right: Ethiopian precipitation and temperature repartition; ...................Figure 3: Ethiopian population growth; Source: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL .Figure 4: Location of the study areas in Ethiopia, Tigray ......................................................................Figure 5: DAP & UREA prices for the 3 last years .................................................................................. Figure 6: General view of Betmera's irrigation scheme ........................................................................Figure 7: Maps of Gumselassa and surrounding villages ......................................................................Figure 8: Chart representative farmers' village of the current irrigation command area of Gumselassa ...............................................................................................................................................................Figure 9: Plots' distribution in Gumselassa ........................................................................................... Figure 10: Pictures of the first diversion upstream (Shanfagradis) .......................................................Figure 11: Night storage in the natural drainage (Temkatab) ...............................................................Figure 12: Detailed map of Betmera irrigation scheme ........................................................................ Figure 13: Irrigation on the Zamra watershed; source Habtu & Yoshinobu 2006 ................................ Figure 14: Overflow from canals implying low flow capacity of the canal and waterlogging in the plots ............................................................................................................................................................... Figure 15: Left: Salt in Gumselassa; Right: Shallow ground water in Gumselassa ................................ Figure 16: Gumselassa irrigation scheme in 2013 .................................................................................Figure 17: Community well with shallow ground water ....................................................................... Figure 18: Ethiopia administrative organization ................................................................................... Figure 19: Organogram of Water Resource offices ...............................................................................Figure 20: Organogram of Agriculture and Rural development offices ................................................Figure 21: «tabia» offices organization .................................................................................................Figure 22: Simplified miniature parshall to measure the flow in the canals of Gumselassa ................ Figure 23: Diagram of the WUA organization ....................................................................................... Figure 24: A henka half full of maize .....................................................................................................Figure 25: From left to right: Stinna exposition; Stinna used by farmer; Pipe of motor pump ............ Figure 26: Left: Canal during dry season (09/04/2013); Right: Same canal, one month and ten days after the beginning of the rainy season in Betmera (09/08/2013) ....................................................... Figure 27: Community well damaged ................................................................................................... Figure 28: Left: Governmental diversion covered by silts in Betmera; Right: Governmental diversion not covered by silts ...............................................................................................................................Figure 29: Diagram of the conflicts and fault solving procedure .......................................................... Figure 30: Diagram of the communication process ..............................................................................Figure 31: Diagram of the maintenance decision .................................................................................Figure 32: Diagram of the decision process about water .....................................................................Figure 33: Diagram of the processes to distribute fertilizers and convince of their advantages ......... Figure 34: Evolution ofuncultivated plots during irrigation in Gumselassa; source: own source .........

Figure 11 :

 11 Figure 1: Left: Rainfall repartition within a year; Soure: National meteorological station. Right: Rainfall variation around the mean & GDP growth; Source: World Bank, SIMA & African Rainfall & Temperature .......................................................................................................................................... Figure 2: On the top, left to right: Ethiopian precipitation and temperature repartition; ...................Figure 3: Ethiopian population growth; Source: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL .Figure 4: Location of the study areas in Ethiopia, Tigray ......................................................................Figure 5: DAP & UREA prices for the 3 last years .................................................................................. Figure 6: General view of Betmera's irrigation scheme ........................................................................Figure 7: Maps of Gumselassa and surrounding villages ......................................................................Figure 8: Chart representative farmers' village of the current irrigation command area of Gumselassa ...............................................................................................................................................................Figure 9: Plots' distribution in Gumselassa ........................................................................................... Figure 10: Pictures of the first diversion upstream (Shanfagradis) .......................................................Figure 11: Night storage in the natural drainage (Temkatab) ...............................................................Figure 12: Detailed map of Betmera irrigation scheme ........................................................................ Figure 13: Irrigation on the Zamra watershed; source Habtu & Yoshinobu 2006 ................................ Figure 14: Overflow from canals implying low flow capacity of the canal and waterlogging in the plots ............................................................................................................................................................... Figure 15: Left: Salt in Gumselassa; Right: Shallow ground water in Gumselassa ................................ Figure 16: Gumselassa irrigation scheme in 2013 .................................................................................Figure 17: Community well with shallow ground water ....................................................................... Figure 18: Ethiopia administrative organization ................................................................................... Figure 19: Organogram of Water Resource offices ...............................................................................Figure 20: Organogram of Agriculture and Rural development offices ................................................Figure 21: «tabia» offices organization .................................................................................................Figure 22: Simplified miniature parshall to measure the flow in the canals of Gumselassa ................ Figure 23: Diagram of the WUA organization ....................................................................................... Figure 24: A henka half full of maize .....................................................................................................Figure 25: From left to right: Stinna exposition; Stinna used by farmer; Pipe of motor pump ............ Figure 26: Left: Canal during dry season (09/04/2013); Right: Same canal, one month and ten days after the beginning of the rainy season in Betmera (09/08/2013) ....................................................... Figure 27: Community well damaged ................................................................................................... Figure 28: Left: Governmental diversion covered by silts in Betmera; Right: Governmental diversion not covered by silts ...............................................................................................................................Figure 29: Diagram of the conflicts and fault solving procedure .......................................................... Figure 30: Diagram of the communication process ..............................................................................Figure 31: Diagram of the maintenance decision .................................................................................Figure 32: Diagram of the decision process about water .....................................................................Figure 33: Diagram of the processes to distribute fertilizers and convince of their advantages ......... Figure 34: Evolution ofuncultivated plots during irrigation in Gumselassa; source: own source .........

Figure 12 :

 12 Figure 1: Left: Rainfall repartition within a year; Soure: National meteorological station. Right: Rainfall variation around the mean & GDP growth; Source: World Bank, SIMA & African Rainfall & Temperature .......................................................................................................................................... Figure 2: On the top, left to right: Ethiopian precipitation and temperature repartition; ...................Figure 3: Ethiopian population growth; Source: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL .Figure 4: Location of the study areas in Ethiopia, Tigray ......................................................................Figure 5: DAP & UREA prices for the 3 last years .................................................................................. Figure 6: General view of Betmera's irrigation scheme ........................................................................Figure 7: Maps of Gumselassa and surrounding villages ......................................................................Figure 8: Chart representative farmers' village of the current irrigation command area of Gumselassa ...............................................................................................................................................................Figure 9: Plots' distribution in Gumselassa ........................................................................................... Figure 10: Pictures of the first diversion upstream (Shanfagradis) .......................................................Figure 11: Night storage in the natural drainage (Temkatab) ...............................................................Figure 12: Detailed map of Betmera irrigation scheme ........................................................................ Figure 13: Irrigation on the Zamra watershed; source Habtu & Yoshinobu 2006 ................................ Figure 14: Overflow from canals implying low flow capacity of the canal and waterlogging in the plots ............................................................................................................................................................... Figure 15: Left: Salt in Gumselassa; Right: Shallow ground water in Gumselassa ................................ Figure 16: Gumselassa irrigation scheme in 2013 .................................................................................Figure 17: Community well with shallow ground water ....................................................................... Figure 18: Ethiopia administrative organization ................................................................................... Figure 19: Organogram of Water Resource offices ...............................................................................Figure 20: Organogram of Agriculture and Rural development offices ................................................Figure 21: «tabia» offices organization .................................................................................................Figure 22: Simplified miniature parshall to measure the flow in the canals of Gumselassa ................ Figure 23: Diagram of the WUA organization ....................................................................................... Figure 24: A henka half full of maize .....................................................................................................Figure 25: From left to right: Stinna exposition; Stinna used by farmer; Pipe of motor pump ............ Figure 26: Left: Canal during dry season (09/04/2013); Right: Same canal, one month and ten days after the beginning of the rainy season in Betmera (09/08/2013) ....................................................... Figure 27: Community well damaged ................................................................................................... Figure 28: Left: Governmental diversion covered by silts in Betmera; Right: Governmental diversion not covered by silts ...............................................................................................................................Figure 29: Diagram of the conflicts and fault solving procedure .......................................................... Figure 30: Diagram of the communication process ..............................................................................Figure 31: Diagram of the maintenance decision .................................................................................Figure 32: Diagram of the decision process about water .....................................................................Figure 33: Diagram of the processes to distribute fertilizers and convince of their advantages ......... Figure 34: Evolution ofuncultivated plots during irrigation in Gumselassa; source: own source .........

Figure 15 :

 15 Figure 1: Left: Rainfall repartition within a year; Soure: National meteorological station. Right: Rainfall variation around the mean & GDP growth; Source: World Bank, SIMA & African Rainfall & Temperature .......................................................................................................................................... Figure 2: On the top, left to right: Ethiopian precipitation and temperature repartition; ...................Figure 3: Ethiopian population growth; Source: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL .Figure 4: Location of the study areas in Ethiopia, Tigray ......................................................................Figure 5: DAP & UREA prices for the 3 last years .................................................................................. Figure 6: General view of Betmera's irrigation scheme ........................................................................Figure 7: Maps of Gumselassa and surrounding villages ......................................................................Figure 8: Chart representative farmers' village of the current irrigation command area of Gumselassa ...............................................................................................................................................................Figure 9: Plots' distribution in Gumselassa ........................................................................................... Figure 10: Pictures of the first diversion upstream (Shanfagradis) .......................................................Figure 11: Night storage in the natural drainage (Temkatab) ...............................................................Figure 12: Detailed map of Betmera irrigation scheme ........................................................................ Figure 13: Irrigation on the Zamra watershed; source Habtu & Yoshinobu 2006 ................................ Figure 14: Overflow from canals implying low flow capacity of the canal and waterlogging in the plots ............................................................................................................................................................... Figure 15: Left: Salt in Gumselassa; Right: Shallow ground water in Gumselassa ................................ Figure 16: Gumselassa irrigation scheme in 2013 .................................................................................Figure 17: Community well with shallow ground water ....................................................................... Figure 18: Ethiopia administrative organization ................................................................................... Figure 19: Organogram of Water Resource offices ...............................................................................Figure 20: Organogram of Agriculture and Rural development offices ................................................Figure 21: «tabia» offices organization .................................................................................................Figure 22: Simplified miniature parshall to measure the flow in the canals of Gumselassa ................ Figure 23: Diagram of the WUA organization ....................................................................................... Figure 24: A henka half full of maize .....................................................................................................Figure 25: From left to right: Stinna exposition; Stinna used by farmer; Pipe of motor pump ............ Figure 26: Left: Canal during dry season (09/04/2013); Right: Same canal, one month and ten days after the beginning of the rainy season in Betmera (09/08/2013) ....................................................... Figure 27: Community well damaged ................................................................................................... Figure 28: Left: Governmental diversion covered by silts in Betmera; Right: Governmental diversion not covered by silts ...............................................................................................................................Figure 29: Diagram of the conflicts and fault solving procedure .......................................................... Figure 30: Diagram of the communication process ..............................................................................Figure 31: Diagram of the maintenance decision .................................................................................Figure 32: Diagram of the decision process about water .....................................................................Figure 33: Diagram of the processes to distribute fertilizers and convince of their advantages ......... Figure 34: Evolution ofuncultivated plots during irrigation in Gumselassa; source: own source .........

Figure 16 :

 16 Figure 1: Left: Rainfall repartition within a year; Soure: National meteorological station. Right: Rainfall variation around the mean & GDP growth; Source: World Bank, SIMA & African Rainfall & Temperature .......................................................................................................................................... Figure 2: On the top, left to right: Ethiopian precipitation and temperature repartition; ...................Figure 3: Ethiopian population growth; Source: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL .Figure 4: Location of the study areas in Ethiopia, Tigray ......................................................................Figure 5: DAP & UREA prices for the 3 last years .................................................................................. Figure 6: General view of Betmera's irrigation scheme ........................................................................Figure 7: Maps of Gumselassa and surrounding villages ......................................................................Figure 8: Chart representative farmers' village of the current irrigation command area of Gumselassa ...............................................................................................................................................................Figure 9: Plots' distribution in Gumselassa ........................................................................................... Figure 10: Pictures of the first diversion upstream (Shanfagradis) .......................................................Figure 11: Night storage in the natural drainage (Temkatab) ...............................................................Figure 12: Detailed map of Betmera irrigation scheme ........................................................................ Figure 13: Irrigation on the Zamra watershed; source Habtu & Yoshinobu 2006 ................................ Figure 14: Overflow from canals implying low flow capacity of the canal and waterlogging in the plots ............................................................................................................................................................... Figure 15: Left: Salt in Gumselassa; Right: Shallow ground water in Gumselassa ................................ Figure 16: Gumselassa irrigation scheme in 2013 .................................................................................Figure 17: Community well with shallow ground water ....................................................................... Figure 18: Ethiopia administrative organization ................................................................................... Figure 19: Organogram of Water Resource offices ...............................................................................Figure 20: Organogram of Agriculture and Rural development offices ................................................Figure 21: «tabia» offices organization .................................................................................................Figure 22: Simplified miniature parshall to measure the flow in the canals of Gumselassa ................ Figure 23: Diagram of the WUA organization ....................................................................................... Figure 24: A henka half full of maize .....................................................................................................Figure 25: From left to right: Stinna exposition; Stinna used by farmer; Pipe of motor pump ............ Figure 26: Left: Canal during dry season (09/04/2013); Right: Same canal, one month and ten days after the beginning of the rainy season in Betmera (09/08/2013) ....................................................... Figure 27: Community well damaged ................................................................................................... Figure 28: Left: Governmental diversion covered by silts in Betmera; Right: Governmental diversion not covered by silts ...............................................................................................................................Figure 29: Diagram of the conflicts and fault solving procedure .......................................................... Figure 30: Diagram of the communication process ..............................................................................Figure 31: Diagram of the maintenance decision .................................................................................Figure 32: Diagram of the decision process about water .....................................................................Figure 33: Diagram of the processes to distribute fertilizers and convince of their advantages ......... Figure 34: Evolution ofuncultivated plots during irrigation in Gumselassa; source: own source .........

Figure 17 :

 17 Figure 1: Left: Rainfall repartition within a year; Soure: National meteorological station. Right: Rainfall variation around the mean & GDP growth; Source: World Bank, SIMA & African Rainfall & Temperature .......................................................................................................................................... Figure 2: On the top, left to right: Ethiopian precipitation and temperature repartition; ...................Figure 3: Ethiopian population growth; Source: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL .Figure 4: Location of the study areas in Ethiopia, Tigray ......................................................................Figure 5: DAP & UREA prices for the 3 last years .................................................................................. Figure 6: General view of Betmera's irrigation scheme ........................................................................Figure 7: Maps of Gumselassa and surrounding villages ......................................................................Figure 8: Chart representative farmers' village of the current irrigation command area of Gumselassa ...............................................................................................................................................................Figure 9: Plots' distribution in Gumselassa ........................................................................................... Figure 10: Pictures of the first diversion upstream (Shanfagradis) .......................................................Figure 11: Night storage in the natural drainage (Temkatab) ...............................................................Figure 12: Detailed map of Betmera irrigation scheme ........................................................................ Figure 13: Irrigation on the Zamra watershed; source Habtu & Yoshinobu 2006 ................................ Figure 14: Overflow from canals implying low flow capacity of the canal and waterlogging in the plots ............................................................................................................................................................... Figure 15: Left: Salt in Gumselassa; Right: Shallow ground water in Gumselassa ................................ Figure 16: Gumselassa irrigation scheme in 2013 .................................................................................Figure 17: Community well with shallow ground water ....................................................................... Figure 18: Ethiopia administrative organization ................................................................................... Figure 19: Organogram of Water Resource offices ...............................................................................Figure 20: Organogram of Agriculture and Rural development offices ................................................Figure 21: «tabia» offices organization .................................................................................................Figure 22: Simplified miniature parshall to measure the flow in the canals of Gumselassa ................ Figure 23: Diagram of the WUA organization ....................................................................................... Figure 24: A henka half full of maize .....................................................................................................Figure 25: From left to right: Stinna exposition; Stinna used by farmer; Pipe of motor pump ............ Figure 26: Left: Canal during dry season (09/04/2013); Right: Same canal, one month and ten days after the beginning of the rainy season in Betmera (09/08/2013) ....................................................... Figure 27: Community well damaged ................................................................................................... Figure 28: Left: Governmental diversion covered by silts in Betmera; Right: Governmental diversion not covered by silts ...............................................................................................................................Figure 29: Diagram of the conflicts and fault solving procedure .......................................................... Figure 30: Diagram of the communication process ..............................................................................Figure 31: Diagram of the maintenance decision .................................................................................Figure 32: Diagram of the decision process about water .....................................................................Figure 33: Diagram of the processes to distribute fertilizers and convince of their advantages ......... Figure 34: Evolution ofuncultivated plots during irrigation in Gumselassa; source: own source .........

Figure 20 :

 20 Figure 1: Left: Rainfall repartition within a year; Soure: National meteorological station. Right: Rainfall variation around the mean & GDP growth; Source: World Bank, SIMA & African Rainfall & Temperature .......................................................................................................................................... Figure 2: On the top, left to right: Ethiopian precipitation and temperature repartition; ...................Figure 3: Ethiopian population growth; Source: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL .Figure 4: Location of the study areas in Ethiopia, Tigray ......................................................................Figure 5: DAP & UREA prices for the 3 last years .................................................................................. Figure 6: General view of Betmera's irrigation scheme ........................................................................Figure 7: Maps of Gumselassa and surrounding villages ......................................................................Figure 8: Chart representative farmers' village of the current irrigation command area of Gumselassa ...............................................................................................................................................................Figure 9: Plots' distribution in Gumselassa ........................................................................................... Figure 10: Pictures of the first diversion upstream (Shanfagradis) .......................................................Figure 11: Night storage in the natural drainage (Temkatab) ...............................................................Figure 12: Detailed map of Betmera irrigation scheme ........................................................................ Figure 13: Irrigation on the Zamra watershed; source Habtu & Yoshinobu 2006 ................................ Figure 14: Overflow from canals implying low flow capacity of the canal and waterlogging in the plots ............................................................................................................................................................... Figure 15: Left: Salt in Gumselassa; Right: Shallow ground water in Gumselassa ................................ Figure 16: Gumselassa irrigation scheme in 2013 .................................................................................Figure 17: Community well with shallow ground water ....................................................................... Figure 18: Ethiopia administrative organization ................................................................................... Figure 19: Organogram of Water Resource offices ...............................................................................Figure 20: Organogram of Agriculture and Rural development offices ................................................Figure 21: «tabia» offices organization .................................................................................................Figure 22: Simplified miniature parshall to measure the flow in the canals of Gumselassa ................ Figure 23: Diagram of the WUA organization ....................................................................................... Figure 24: A henka half full of maize .....................................................................................................Figure 25: From left to right: Stinna exposition; Stinna used by farmer; Pipe of motor pump ............ Figure 26: Left: Canal during dry season (09/04/2013); Right: Same canal, one month and ten days after the beginning of the rainy season in Betmera (09/08/2013) ....................................................... Figure 27: Community well damaged ................................................................................................... Figure 28: Left: Governmental diversion covered by silts in Betmera; Right: Governmental diversion not covered by silts ...............................................................................................................................Figure 29: Diagram of the conflicts and fault solving procedure .......................................................... Figure 30: Diagram of the communication process ..............................................................................Figure 31: Diagram of the maintenance decision .................................................................................Figure 32: Diagram of the decision process about water .....................................................................Figure 33: Diagram of the processes to distribute fertilizers and convince of their advantages ......... Figure 34: Evolution ofuncultivated plots during irrigation in Gumselassa; source: own source .........

Figure 21 :

 21 Figure 1: Left: Rainfall repartition within a year; Soure: National meteorological station. Right: Rainfall variation around the mean & GDP growth; Source: World Bank, SIMA & African Rainfall & Temperature .......................................................................................................................................... Figure 2: On the top, left to right: Ethiopian precipitation and temperature repartition; ...................Figure 3: Ethiopian population growth; Source: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL .Figure 4: Location of the study areas in Ethiopia, Tigray ......................................................................Figure 5: DAP & UREA prices for the 3 last years .................................................................................. Figure 6: General view of Betmera's irrigation scheme ........................................................................Figure 7: Maps of Gumselassa and surrounding villages ......................................................................Figure 8: Chart representative farmers' village of the current irrigation command area of Gumselassa ...............................................................................................................................................................Figure 9: Plots' distribution in Gumselassa ........................................................................................... Figure 10: Pictures of the first diversion upstream (Shanfagradis) .......................................................Figure 11: Night storage in the natural drainage (Temkatab) ...............................................................Figure 12: Detailed map of Betmera irrigation scheme ........................................................................ Figure 13: Irrigation on the Zamra watershed; source Habtu & Yoshinobu 2006 ................................ Figure 14: Overflow from canals implying low flow capacity of the canal and waterlogging in the plots ............................................................................................................................................................... Figure 15: Left: Salt in Gumselassa; Right: Shallow ground water in Gumselassa ................................ Figure 16: Gumselassa irrigation scheme in 2013 .................................................................................Figure 17: Community well with shallow ground water ....................................................................... Figure 18: Ethiopia administrative organization ................................................................................... Figure 19: Organogram of Water Resource offices ...............................................................................Figure 20: Organogram of Agriculture and Rural development offices ................................................Figure 21: «tabia» offices organization .................................................................................................Figure 22: Simplified miniature parshall to measure the flow in the canals of Gumselassa ................ Figure 23: Diagram of the WUA organization ....................................................................................... Figure 24: A henka half full of maize .....................................................................................................Figure 25: From left to right: Stinna exposition; Stinna used by farmer; Pipe of motor pump ............ Figure 26: Left: Canal during dry season (09/04/2013); Right: Same canal, one month and ten days after the beginning of the rainy season in Betmera (09/08/2013) ....................................................... Figure 27: Community well damaged ................................................................................................... Figure 28: Left: Governmental diversion covered by silts in Betmera; Right: Governmental diversion not covered by silts ...............................................................................................................................Figure 29: Diagram of the conflicts and fault solving procedure .......................................................... Figure 30: Diagram of the communication process ..............................................................................Figure 31: Diagram of the maintenance decision .................................................................................Figure 32: Diagram of the decision process about water .....................................................................Figure 33: Diagram of the processes to distribute fertilizers and convince of their advantages ......... Figure 34: Evolution ofuncultivated plots during irrigation in Gumselassa; source: own source .........

Figure 22 :

 22 Figure 1: Left: Rainfall repartition within a year; Soure: National meteorological station. Right: Rainfall variation around the mean & GDP growth; Source: World Bank, SIMA & African Rainfall & Temperature .......................................................................................................................................... Figure 2: On the top, left to right: Ethiopian precipitation and temperature repartition; ...................Figure 3: Ethiopian population growth; Source: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL .Figure 4: Location of the study areas in Ethiopia, Tigray ......................................................................Figure 5: DAP & UREA prices for the 3 last years .................................................................................. Figure 6: General view of Betmera's irrigation scheme ........................................................................Figure 7: Maps of Gumselassa and surrounding villages ......................................................................Figure 8: Chart representative farmers' village of the current irrigation command area of Gumselassa ...............................................................................................................................................................Figure 9: Plots' distribution in Gumselassa ........................................................................................... Figure 10: Pictures of the first diversion upstream (Shanfagradis) .......................................................Figure 11: Night storage in the natural drainage (Temkatab) ...............................................................Figure 12: Detailed map of Betmera irrigation scheme ........................................................................ Figure 13: Irrigation on the Zamra watershed; source Habtu & Yoshinobu 2006 ................................ Figure 14: Overflow from canals implying low flow capacity of the canal and waterlogging in the plots ............................................................................................................................................................... Figure 15: Left: Salt in Gumselassa; Right: Shallow ground water in Gumselassa ................................ Figure 16: Gumselassa irrigation scheme in 2013 .................................................................................Figure 17: Community well with shallow ground water ....................................................................... Figure 18: Ethiopia administrative organization ................................................................................... Figure 19: Organogram of Water Resource offices ...............................................................................Figure 20: Organogram of Agriculture and Rural development offices ................................................Figure 21: «tabia» offices organization .................................................................................................Figure 22: Simplified miniature parshall to measure the flow in the canals of Gumselassa ................ Figure 23: Diagram of the WUA organization ....................................................................................... Figure 24: A henka half full of maize .....................................................................................................Figure 25: From left to right: Stinna exposition; Stinna used by farmer; Pipe of motor pump ............ Figure 26: Left: Canal during dry season (09/04/2013); Right: Same canal, one month and ten days after the beginning of the rainy season in Betmera (09/08/2013) ....................................................... Figure 27: Community well damaged ................................................................................................... Figure 28: Left: Governmental diversion covered by silts in Betmera; Right: Governmental diversion not covered by silts ...............................................................................................................................Figure 29: Diagram of the conflicts and fault solving procedure .......................................................... Figure 30: Diagram of the communication process ..............................................................................Figure 31: Diagram of the maintenance decision .................................................................................Figure 32: Diagram of the decision process about water .....................................................................Figure 33: Diagram of the processes to distribute fertilizers and convince of their advantages ......... Figure 34: Evolution ofuncultivated plots during irrigation in Gumselassa; source: own source .........

Figure 25 :

 25 Figure 1: Left: Rainfall repartition within a year; Soure: National meteorological station. Right: Rainfall variation around the mean & GDP growth; Source: World Bank, SIMA & African Rainfall & Temperature .......................................................................................................................................... Figure 2: On the top, left to right: Ethiopian precipitation and temperature repartition; ...................Figure 3: Ethiopian population growth; Source: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL .Figure 4: Location of the study areas in Ethiopia, Tigray ......................................................................Figure 5: DAP & UREA prices for the 3 last years .................................................................................. Figure 6: General view of Betmera's irrigation scheme ........................................................................Figure 7: Maps of Gumselassa and surrounding villages ......................................................................Figure 8: Chart representative farmers' village of the current irrigation command area of Gumselassa ...............................................................................................................................................................Figure 9: Plots' distribution in Gumselassa ........................................................................................... Figure 10: Pictures of the first diversion upstream (Shanfagradis) .......................................................Figure 11: Night storage in the natural drainage (Temkatab) ...............................................................Figure 12: Detailed map of Betmera irrigation scheme ........................................................................ Figure 13: Irrigation on the Zamra watershed; source Habtu & Yoshinobu 2006 ................................ Figure 14: Overflow from canals implying low flow capacity of the canal and waterlogging in the plots ............................................................................................................................................................... Figure 15: Left: Salt in Gumselassa; Right: Shallow ground water in Gumselassa ................................ Figure 16: Gumselassa irrigation scheme in 2013 .................................................................................Figure 17: Community well with shallow ground water ....................................................................... Figure 18: Ethiopia administrative organization ................................................................................... Figure 19: Organogram of Water Resource offices ...............................................................................Figure 20: Organogram of Agriculture and Rural development offices ................................................Figure 21: «tabia» offices organization .................................................................................................Figure 22: Simplified miniature parshall to measure the flow in the canals of Gumselassa ................ Figure 23: Diagram of the WUA organization ....................................................................................... Figure 24: A henka half full of maize .....................................................................................................Figure 25: From left to right: Stinna exposition; Stinna used by farmer; Pipe of motor pump ............ Figure 26: Left: Canal during dry season (09/04/2013); Right: Same canal, one month and ten days after the beginning of the rainy season in Betmera (09/08/2013) ....................................................... Figure 27: Community well damaged ................................................................................................... Figure 28: Left: Governmental diversion covered by silts in Betmera; Right: Governmental diversion not covered by silts ...............................................................................................................................Figure 29: Diagram of the conflicts and fault solving procedure .......................................................... Figure 30: Diagram of the communication process ..............................................................................Figure 31: Diagram of the maintenance decision .................................................................................Figure 32: Diagram of the decision process about water .....................................................................Figure 33: Diagram of the processes to distribute fertilizers and convince of their advantages ......... Figure 34: Evolution ofuncultivated plots during irrigation in Gumselassa; source: own source .........

Figure 29 :

 29 Figure 1: Left: Rainfall repartition within a year; Soure: National meteorological station. Right: Rainfall variation around the mean & GDP growth; Source: World Bank, SIMA & African Rainfall & Temperature .......................................................................................................................................... Figure 2: On the top, left to right: Ethiopian precipitation and temperature repartition; ...................Figure 3: Ethiopian population growth; Source: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL .Figure 4: Location of the study areas in Ethiopia, Tigray ......................................................................Figure 5: DAP & UREA prices for the 3 last years .................................................................................. Figure 6: General view of Betmera's irrigation scheme ........................................................................Figure 7: Maps of Gumselassa and surrounding villages ......................................................................Figure 8: Chart representative farmers' village of the current irrigation command area of Gumselassa ...............................................................................................................................................................Figure 9: Plots' distribution in Gumselassa ........................................................................................... Figure 10: Pictures of the first diversion upstream (Shanfagradis) .......................................................Figure 11: Night storage in the natural drainage (Temkatab) ...............................................................Figure 12: Detailed map of Betmera irrigation scheme ........................................................................ Figure 13: Irrigation on the Zamra watershed; source Habtu & Yoshinobu 2006 ................................ Figure 14: Overflow from canals implying low flow capacity of the canal and waterlogging in the plots ............................................................................................................................................................... Figure 15: Left: Salt in Gumselassa; Right: Shallow ground water in Gumselassa ................................ Figure 16: Gumselassa irrigation scheme in 2013 .................................................................................Figure 17: Community well with shallow ground water ....................................................................... Figure 18: Ethiopia administrative organization ................................................................................... Figure 19: Organogram of Water Resource offices ...............................................................................Figure 20: Organogram of Agriculture and Rural development offices ................................................Figure 21: «tabia» offices organization .................................................................................................Figure 22: Simplified miniature parshall to measure the flow in the canals of Gumselassa ................ Figure 23: Diagram of the WUA organization ....................................................................................... Figure 24: A henka half full of maize .....................................................................................................Figure 25: From left to right: Stinna exposition; Stinna used by farmer; Pipe of motor pump ............ Figure 26: Left: Canal during dry season (09/04/2013); Right: Same canal, one month and ten days after the beginning of the rainy season in Betmera (09/08/2013) ....................................................... Figure 27: Community well damaged ................................................................................................... Figure 28: Left: Governmental diversion covered by silts in Betmera; Right: Governmental diversion not covered by silts ...............................................................................................................................Figure 29: Diagram of the conflicts and fault solving procedure .......................................................... Figure 30: Diagram of the communication process ..............................................................................Figure 31: Diagram of the maintenance decision .................................................................................Figure 32: Diagram of the decision process about water .....................................................................Figure 33: Diagram of the processes to distribute fertilizers and convince of their advantages ......... Figure 34: Evolution ofuncultivated plots during irrigation in Gumselassa; source: own source .........

Figure 31 :

 31 Figure 1: Left: Rainfall repartition within a year; Soure: National meteorological station. Right: Rainfall variation around the mean & GDP growth; Source: World Bank, SIMA & African Rainfall & Temperature .......................................................................................................................................... Figure 2: On the top, left to right: Ethiopian precipitation and temperature repartition; ...................Figure 3: Ethiopian population growth; Source: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL .Figure 4: Location of the study areas in Ethiopia, Tigray ......................................................................Figure 5: DAP & UREA prices for the 3 last years .................................................................................. Figure 6: General view of Betmera's irrigation scheme ........................................................................Figure 7: Maps of Gumselassa and surrounding villages ......................................................................Figure 8: Chart representative farmers' village of the current irrigation command area of Gumselassa ...............................................................................................................................................................Figure 9: Plots' distribution in Gumselassa ........................................................................................... Figure 10: Pictures of the first diversion upstream (Shanfagradis) .......................................................Figure 11: Night storage in the natural drainage (Temkatab) ...............................................................Figure 12: Detailed map of Betmera irrigation scheme ........................................................................ Figure 13: Irrigation on the Zamra watershed; source Habtu & Yoshinobu 2006 ................................ Figure 14: Overflow from canals implying low flow capacity of the canal and waterlogging in the plots ............................................................................................................................................................... Figure 15: Left: Salt in Gumselassa; Right: Shallow ground water in Gumselassa ................................ Figure 16: Gumselassa irrigation scheme in 2013 .................................................................................Figure 17: Community well with shallow ground water ....................................................................... Figure 18: Ethiopia administrative organization ................................................................................... Figure 19: Organogram of Water Resource offices ...............................................................................Figure 20: Organogram of Agriculture and Rural development offices ................................................Figure 21: «tabia» offices organization .................................................................................................Figure 22: Simplified miniature parshall to measure the flow in the canals of Gumselassa ................ Figure 23: Diagram of the WUA organization ....................................................................................... Figure 24: A henka half full of maize .....................................................................................................Figure 25: From left to right: Stinna exposition; Stinna used by farmer; Pipe of motor pump ............ Figure 26: Left: Canal during dry season (09/04/2013); Right: Same canal, one month and ten days after the beginning of the rainy season in Betmera (09/08/2013) ....................................................... Figure 27: Community well damaged ................................................................................................... Figure 28: Left: Governmental diversion covered by silts in Betmera; Right: Governmental diversion not covered by silts ...............................................................................................................................Figure 29: Diagram of the conflicts and fault solving procedure .......................................................... Figure 30: Diagram of the communication process ..............................................................................Figure 31: Diagram of the maintenance decision .................................................................................Figure 32: Diagram of the decision process about water .....................................................................Figure 33: Diagram of the processes to distribute fertilizers and convince of their advantages ......... Figure 34: Evolution ofuncultivated plots during irrigation in Gumselassa; source: own source .........

Figure 33 :

 33 Figure 1: Left: Rainfall repartition within a year; Soure: National meteorological station. Right: Rainfall variation around the mean & GDP growth; Source: World Bank, SIMA & African Rainfall & Temperature .......................................................................................................................................... Figure 2: On the top, left to right: Ethiopian precipitation and temperature repartition; ...................Figure 3: Ethiopian population growth; Source: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL .Figure 4: Location of the study areas in Ethiopia, Tigray ......................................................................Figure 5: DAP & UREA prices for the 3 last years .................................................................................. Figure 6: General view of Betmera's irrigation scheme ........................................................................Figure 7: Maps of Gumselassa and surrounding villages ......................................................................Figure 8: Chart representative farmers' village of the current irrigation command area of Gumselassa ...............................................................................................................................................................Figure 9: Plots' distribution in Gumselassa ........................................................................................... Figure 10: Pictures of the first diversion upstream (Shanfagradis) .......................................................Figure 11: Night storage in the natural drainage (Temkatab) ...............................................................Figure 12: Detailed map of Betmera irrigation scheme ........................................................................ Figure 13: Irrigation on the Zamra watershed; source Habtu & Yoshinobu 2006 ................................ Figure 14: Overflow from canals implying low flow capacity of the canal and waterlogging in the plots ............................................................................................................................................................... Figure 15: Left: Salt in Gumselassa; Right: Shallow ground water in Gumselassa ................................ Figure 16: Gumselassa irrigation scheme in 2013 .................................................................................Figure 17: Community well with shallow ground water ....................................................................... Figure 18: Ethiopia administrative organization ................................................................................... Figure 19: Organogram of Water Resource offices ...............................................................................Figure 20: Organogram of Agriculture and Rural development offices ................................................Figure 21: «tabia» offices organization .................................................................................................Figure 22: Simplified miniature parshall to measure the flow in the canals of Gumselassa ................ Figure 23: Diagram of the WUA organization ....................................................................................... Figure 24: A henka half full of maize .....................................................................................................Figure 25: From left to right: Stinna exposition; Stinna used by farmer; Pipe of motor pump ............ Figure 26: Left: Canal during dry season (09/04/2013); Right: Same canal, one month and ten days after the beginning of the rainy season in Betmera (09/08/2013) ....................................................... Figure 27: Community well damaged ................................................................................................... Figure 28: Left: Governmental diversion covered by silts in Betmera; Right: Governmental diversion not covered by silts ...............................................................................................................................Figure 29: Diagram of the conflicts and fault solving procedure .......................................................... Figure 30: Diagram of the communication process ..............................................................................Figure 31: Diagram of the maintenance decision .................................................................................Figure 32: Diagram of the decision process about water .....................................................................Figure 33: Diagram of the processes to distribute fertilizers and convince of their advantages ......... Figure 34: Evolution ofuncultivated plots during irrigation in Gumselassa; source: own source .........

Figure 1 :

 1 Figure 1: Left: Rainfall repartition within a year; Soure: National meteorological station. Right: Rainfall variation around the mean & GDP growth; Source: World Bank, SIMA & African Rainfall & Temperature

Figure 2 :

 2 Figure 2: On the top, left to right: Ethiopian precipitation and temperature repartition; On the bottom, Left to right: The Ethiopian elevation and the repartition of the population Source: http://mapsof.net/map/ethiopia

Figure 3 :

 3 Figure 3: Ethiopian population growth; Source: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL

Figure 4 :

 4 Figure 4: Location of the study areas in Ethiopia, Tigray

Figure 5 :

 5 Figure 5: DAP & UREA prices for the 3 last years

Figure 6 :

 6 Figure 6: General view of Betmera's irrigation scheme

Figure 7 :

 7 Figure 7: Maps of Gumselassa and surrounding villages

Figure 8 :Figure 9

 89 Figure 8: Chart representative farmers' village of the current irrigation command area of Gumselassa Source: Mekele university and own result from interviews

Figure 10 :Figure 11 :

 1011 Figure 10: Pictures of the first diversion upstream (Shanfagradis)

Figure 12 :

 12 Figure 12: Detailed map of Betmera irrigation scheme Some measures of flow (measures by float, see annex 10) and some volume measures of the night storage have been done (see details in annexes 11). The measures of flow permit to estimate the flow of Shanfagradis (upstream part, see on the figure 12 above) around 4L/s and the flow of Temkatab inferior in 1L/s. The measures were realized at the end of the dry season, so flows measured are the lower of the year.It is important to contextualize that in 2013, farmers complain of the high scarcity of water. However, the measured flow harmonized with the volumes of night storages measures, show that the filing period of the night storages ranges from 6 hours up to 24 hours. The result is not accurate but it was approved by one of the irrigation managers. Therefore,

Figure 13 :

 13 Figure 13: Irrigation on the Zamra watershed; source HABTU & YOSHINOBU 2006

Figure 14 :

 14 Figure 14: Overflow from canals implying low flow capacity of the canal and waterlogging in the plots

Figure 15 :

 15 Figure 15: Left: Salt in Gumselassa; Right: Shallow ground water in Gumselassa

Figure 16 :

 16 Figure 16: Gumselassa irrigation scheme in 2013

Figure 17 :

 17 Figure 17: Community well with shallow ground water

Figure 18 :

 18 Figure 18: Ethiopia administrative organization

Federal

Figure 19 :

 19 Figure 19: Organogram of Water Resource offices

Figure 20 :

 20 Figure 20: Organogram of Agriculture and Rural development offices

  Food security department divided in the PSNP (Productive Safety Net Program) and the HABP (Household Asset Building Program) supports poor farmers through public works or direct supports, help is given four times per month and farmers earn 95 ETB/month. It allows many farmers to survive in Tigray. (See details in Annexes 14)

Figure 21 :

 21 Figure 21: «tabia» offices organization

Figure 22 :

 22 Figure 22: Simplified miniature parshall to measure the flow in the canals of Gumselassa

-

  Assuring the good achievements for members; -Fairly managing the irrigation water; -Managing the association's properties; -Performing the payment for the association's debt; -Managing the bank account; -Providing annual report to general assembly; -Allowing external auditors to make an audit once in a year; -Implementing the guiding principles of the association; -Processing the employment aspects; -Finding agreement with members of other committee; -Taking decisions of improvement regarding the administration of irrigation sectors; -Recording the finance spent for investment, receipts, and credit of members;

Figure 23 :

 23 Figure 23: Diagram of the WUA organization

Figure 24 :

 24 Figure 24: A henka half full of maize

Figure 25 :

 25 Figure 25: From left to right: Stinna exposition; Stinna used by farmer; Pipe of motor pump

Figure 26 :

 26 Figure 26: Left: Canal during dry season (09/04/2013); Right: Same canal, one month and ten days after the beginning of the rainy season in Betmera (09/08/2013)

Figure 27 :

 27 Figure 27: Community well damaged

Figure 28 :

 28 Figure 28: Left: Governmental diversion covered by silts in Betmera; Right: Governmental diversion not covered by silts

Figure 29 :

 29 Figure 29: Diagram of the conflicts and fault solving procedure

Figure 30 :

 30 Figure 30: Diagram of the communication process

Figure 31 :

 31 Figure 31: Diagram of the maintenance decision

Figure 32 :

 32 Figure 32: Diagram of the decision process about water

Figure 33 :

 33 Figure 33: Diagram of the processes to distribute fertilizers and convince of their advantages

Figure 34 :

 34 Figure 34: Evolution of uncultivated plots during irrigation in Gumselassa; source: own source

  WUC members' survey for Betmera ................................................................................ Annex 2: Farmers' survey for Betmera............................................................................................ Annex 3: Elders' survey for Betmera ............................................................................................... Annex4: Orthodox holydays ............................................................................................................ Annex 5: Picture of a PSNP beneficiary card and translation.......................................................... Annex 6: Maps of the Nile river basin with the hydraulic dam ....................................................... Annex 7: The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development responsibilities .............................. Annex 8: The Ministry of Water Resources responsibilities............................................................ Annex 9: Detail on the inputs available in Tigray ............................................................................ Annex 10: Measure and estimation of the flow in Betmera ........................................................... Annex 11: Measure of the night storage in Betmera ...................................................................... Annex 12: Measure of the rainfall necessary to fill up the dam of Gumselassa ............................. Annex 13: Measure of the percentage evaporated in one year ..................................................... Annex 14: Figure which resumes the organization of the Food Security Program ......................... Annex 15: Yield necessary to use fertilizers ....................................................................................Annex4: Orthodox holydaysFirst of all, each week, the Saturday and the Sunday are holydays. The specific holydays comes from the monthly 11 days off: by a start are the days commonly followed by the whole population in Ethiopia. The other could be unrespect by the less involved in the orthodox religion. Each church in Ethiopia has a name amongst these 11 days' names. The inhabitants will strongly respect this specific holyday.Moreover, the annual religion days are:-September 1: New year (not religion) Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development shall have the powers and duties to: a) promote the expansion extension and training services provided to peasants and pastoralists as well as private investors to improve the productivity of the agricultural sector; b) conduct quarantine on plants, seeds, animals and animal products brought into and taken out of the country; c) control the outbreak of animal and plant diseases and migratory pests; d) devise and facilitate the implementation of a strategy for natural resources protection through sustained agricultural development;

Table 1 : Evolution of the estimation of the hectares irrigated for Hintalo-Wejirat woreda

 1

	(%) % of total area

Table 2 : Irrigation construction realized by the WWRME of Hintalo-Wejirat

 2

Table 3 : Irrigation surface crops

 3

10: Measure and estimation of the flow in Betmera

  of Proclamation No. 116/1995 with regard to the issuance of coffee export authorization certificate, the powers and duties given to the National Agricultural Input Authority under the Fertilizer Manufacturing and Trade Proclamation No. 137/1998, the Seed Proclamation No. 206/2000 and Article 12 of Proclamation No. 288/2002 and the powers and duties vested in the Ministry of Trade and Industry under the Proclamation to Provide for a Warehouse Receipts System No. 372/2003 with respect to agricultural products are hereby given to the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development.

	Annex Measure of the flow for Shanfagradis	Visual Estimation of the flow for Temkatab
			RB
	Lenght (m)	6	Flow Q (m3/s)	0,001
	Depth (m)	0,03	Flow Q (L/s)	1
	Wide (m)	0,33	LB
	Average of the time (s)	15	Flow Q (m3/s)	0,0005
			Flow Q (L/s)	0,5
	Section (m2)	0,0099
	Speed (m/s)	0,4
	Flow Q (m3/s)	0,00396
	Flow Q (L/s)	3,96

Annex 11: Measure of the night storage in Betmera

		(m)		Volume (m3) Time to full (h)
	Shanfagradis	1 lenght	16	120	8
		wide	5
		depth	1,5
	temkatab Right Bank Amont	2 lenght	8	19,6	5
		wide	3,5
		depth	0,7
	temkatab Right Bank Aval	3 lenght	10	40	11
		wide	4
		depth	1
	temkatab Left Bank Amont	4 lenght	5	20	11
		wide	5
		depth	0,8
	temkatab Left Bank Aval	5 lenght	16	40	22
		wide	5
		depth	0,5
	Dam close to the church	6 lenght	23	517,5
		wide	15
		depth	1,5

Acknowledgments

I want to thank everybody in France and in Ethiopia who allowed me to live me this wonderful experience. I would like to thank all the people of Gumselassa and Betmera for their generosity, especially for the interviewed people who agreed to give me a few hours of their precious time and who always welcome me.

-

The use of water during the night or when WUA leaders do not give receipt to farmers, it decreases the trust in the community and interferes negatively in the irrigation management.

-The remuneration of the Abo-Mays and the guards is necessary to get people voluntary to achieve this work.

-The use of common grass in the natural drainage increase the livelihoods of certain poor people without interfere on the irrigation management.

-When the Abo-Mays add plots to the command area, it allows farmers to get income during dry season without interfere the farming conditions of the others. Indeed when the water becomes scarce, these farmers are harvesting and do not need water anymore.

-As mentioned before, the use of the orthodox calendar to organize meeting or maintenance allows increasing the participation of the orthodox users but it disadvantages the musulim community and can be a source of conflicts.

-The technical consequences of the clothes washing in the irrigated canal are not well known, however it creates complaints. Therefore, this practice implies conflicts among the community.

-The use of drainage water by two farmers from the upstream WUA in Gumselassa enables to decrease the seepage of water into the ground water during the time necessary to reach the downstream WUA. However, this arrangement is not formal and so it creates conflicts among the two WUA in Gumselassa.

Perspectives and discussions

Analysis of the methodology

Role of interview place

In the course of the field work, interviews were made in five different places: in farmer's houses, in farmer's fields, in public local beer houses, in restaurants and in civil servants' offices. In term of research advantages, some places were better than others. In that idea we can propose a sort of ranking of the best locations for farmers:

1. The farmer's field during irrigation season; when the farmer's irrigation turn was accomplished, or when he did not get water, he did not have specific activities to do and was thus available for interviews. Moreover, one farmer could use his environment to explain his speech. 2. The farmer's house; generally it was during holiday, when farmers did not have specific activities outside; they spent lot of time to go further in the details. Moreover, they tended to consider us as guests and tried to satisfy us with interviews. 3. The restaurant; this solution was adapted when the person was busy. Despite, his/her activities, our friendly relationship with the locals allowed us to spend more time with some persons. We could even share meals when sometimes we treated them. 4. The local beer house; interviews made in this were extremely uncertain, they depended of the interests and motivation farmers show for the topic. 5. The farmer's fields during rainy season; farmers had more rain-fed plots than irrigated plots, consequently, they were busier and it was more difficult to find them.

Role of the translator

The importance of translators has been many times observed. Sometimes understanding each other with a translator was a challenge itself, because of the English level. It was, however, very instructive. In addition, during collective interviews, a good English level considerably ameliorated the situation because the time for translation was shorter. Therefore, the translator's skills were determinants, as well as his knowledge on the subject. Furthermore, his good relationship with people could enable us to find the adequate person to the situation much easily. We did very much appreciate when the translator was able to catch the details of the conversation because it immediately made the situation better. His place in the hierarchical organization was important to release farmers' speeches. His ability to support administrative pressure could also influence the situation. Indeed it happened once in a studied area that the administration has repeatedly critized the translator because he was translating directly farmer's speeches.

Role of mapping

A map introduction in the course of interviews enables to localize the information that the interviewee is giving. Indeed with a map of the irrigated scheme, interviewees can point their plots, they can also explain the global functioning of the irrigation network with the map support and provide information on the geographic consequences. That is why; a map was hand trace on a white paper with the help of the satellite view of https://maps.google.com. However farmers use landmarks, they are not used to see maps. Therefore most of the time, the interviewee did not recognize the irrigated scheme, it often remained unsuccessful. Finally the map introduction it in the Annex 1: WUC members' survey for Betmera 1. Legal framework: What are the rules for: a. water use activities: water acquisition (e.g. dams, wells, irrigation canals), water allocation (e.g. volumes per plot), distribution (e.g. scheduling, starting at high or tail end?), drainage (dealing with excess water) b. control structures activities: design, construction (e.g. ponds, wells), operation and maintenance (dam itself and the irrigation infrastructure) c. organizational activities: decision-making, resource mobilization, communication (e.g.

with DAS), conflict management 2. Which rules are applied in practice? Which ones are difficult to enforce, and why? (What is the punishment if the farmer's cattle destroy crops?) 3. Who is in charge of enforcing these rules (the woman secretary too)? 4. What changes have been made to WUA rules over the years, and why? 5. Is there a process for amending rules? Do you feel that the rules need amendment? 6. Is the rules of the WUA are officially recognized, by Tabia, by Woreda, by the law? Do you think they need to be registered? 7. All the rules are accepted by all the farmers (any complaints from the farmers who didn't get water?) 8. Are there accepted practices which are not in the official rules of the WUA? (For getting water, do the farmers need to belong to the WUA? What happen with the plots close to Betmera?) 9. How do farmers get permission for additional structures to acquire irrigation water e.g. wells, informal canals, seepage diversion? 10. Who is the owner of the resource of the natural drainage? Who has access to this resource? The Ministry of Water Resources shall have the powers and duties to; 1/ undertake basin studies and determine the country's ground and surface water resource potential in terms of volume and quality, and facilitate the utilization of same; 2/ determine conditions and methods required for the optimum and equitable allocation and utilization of water bodies that flow across or lie between more than one Regional States among various uses and the regional States; 3/ undertake studies and negotiations of treaties pertaining to the utilization of boundary and transboundary water bodies, and follow up the implementation of same; 4/ cause the carrying out of study, design and construction works to promote the expansion of medium and large irrigation dams; 5/ issue permits and regulate the construction and operation of water works relating to water bodies referred to in Sub-Article ( 2) and (3) of this Article; 6/ administer dams and hydraulic structures constructed by federal budget unless they are entrusted to the authority of other relevant bodies; 7/ ensure the provision of meteorological services.

Annex 9: Detail on the inputs available in Tigray

-Fertilizer, UREA and DAP improved seeds, chemicals, motor pumps, pressurized pumps, freisan cattle, improved chickens. -Improved maize varieties available include: Katumani, Awasa 511, Melkasa, Zoma.

-Improved wheat varieties available include: Pica Flora, Har2501, Har1685.

-Awasa 511 needs more water but the others can grow with less rainfall.

-Improved seeds that are in demand are: HAR2501 and Pica Flora. They still had some remaining in storage after distribution [i.e.