Performance Assessment of Irrigation Systems and Water Management Practices in Selected Irrigated Schemes in Rwanda

Abstract

This study assessed the current status of irrigation systems and water management practices in Rwanda’s irrigated agricultural zones, focusing on the Nasho Government-Funded Irrigation (GFI) scheme in Kirehe District and the Kagitumba Irrigation Scheme in Nyagatare District. A mixed descriptive approach was used, combining field observations with structured questionnaires administered via KoboToolbox to 224 respondents in Nasho and 188 in Kagitumba. Field observations were used to evaluate the physical condition and functionality of irrigation infrastructure, while questionnaires captured stakeholder perceptions, water management practices, institutional arrangements, and operational challenges. Results show that both irrigation schemes are operational but function below optimal efficiency due to multiple constraints. In Nasho, irrigation performance is primarily affected by sedimentation in canals and reservoirs, pump inefficiencies, and inadequate maintenance practices, resulting in unreliable water delivery. In Kagitumba, despite the use of modern center pivot systems, performance is constrained by pipeline corrosion, pressure losses, sediment-laden water, and uneven water distribution. Across both schemes, more than 80% of respondents reported frequent system failures, while over 95% indicated the absence of formal irrigation scheduling practices. Water management remains largely reactive, with limited preventive maintenance and weak technical capacity among users and institutions. The study concludes that improving irrigation efficiency in Rwanda requires integrated interventions that combine infrastructure rehabilitation, strengthened maintenance systems, improved water governance, and farmer capacity development to enhance sustainable water use and agricultural productivity.

1. Introduction

Agriculture is the foundation of Rwanda’s economy, contributing meaningfully to food security, employment and rural development. The agriculture sector employs more than 70% of the country’s population and accounts for approximately one-third of the national Gross Domestic Product [1].

Agricultural water management plays a fundamental role in improving food security, increasing agricultural productivity, and enhancing climate resilience, particularly in regions characterized by high rainfall variability and recurrent droughts [2]. Efficient irrigation water management enables farmers to optimize water allocation, reduce water losses, improve crop yields, and sustain agricultural production during dry periods [3]. However, irrigation schemes often face considerable uncertainties associated with water availability, infrastructure deterioration, sedimentation, operational inefficiencies, energy costs, institutional weaknesses, and climate variability. These uncertainties affect water delivery reliability, irrigation efficiency, and overall scheme performance [4]. Consequently, continuous assessment of irrigation systems and water management practices is essential to identify operational constraints and develop sustainable strategies for optimal water resource utilization in irrigated agriculture [5].

Even though agriculture plays an important role in Rwanda, it remains predominantly rain-fed and highly reliant on erratic, unpredictable rainfall. This dependence exposes farmers to recurrent droughts, prolonged dry spells, and unpredictable rainy seasons, which cause low productivity, crop losses, and income instability. The country’s hilly topography further complicates agricultural production by making water control and efficient management crucial for sustainable growth [6].

The government of Rwanda has made irrigation development a cornerstone of its agricultural transformation strategy to address those challenges. Through the Rwanda Irrigation Master Plan (2010) and the Strategic Plan for the Transformation of Agriculture (PSTA 4, 2018–2024), the government aims to increase the area under irrigation, improve water-use efficiency, and enhance climate resilience in agricultural systems. According to the RIMP (2010), Rwanda has an estimated potential irrigable area of 589,711 hectares, of which about 63,000 hectares had been developed by 2020 under different irrigation schemes, including surface, sprinkler, drip, and center-pivot systems [7].

At present, Rwanda has established approximately 148 irrigation schemes on hillsides and in marshlands. Many of these well-established irrigation schemes have been plagued by poor performance, with low water-use efficiency and low production levels, resulting in low farmer incomes and productivity. Dams and field networks are among the constructed irrigation infrastructure that are poorly operated and maintained, unusable, or underutilized [8].

However, despite notable investments and institutional reforms, irrigation system performance and water management efficiency remain below potential. Studies and national evaluations highlight challenges such as poor infrastructure maintenance, sedimentation in canals, limited farmer capacity, high energy costs, and inadequate technical supervision. Moreover, fragmented land holdings, weak water user associations (WUAs) [9].

The National Water Resources Master Plan (RWB, 2017) emphasizes that agriculture accounts for over 70% of Rwanda’s available water resources, making efficient allocation and management of water critical for long-term water security [10]. Yet, climate variability and increasing water demand across domestic and industrial sectors have placed additional pressure on already limited water resources. The Rwanda Water Resources Board Strategic Plan (2022) calls for integrated water resource management and improved irrigation governance to ensure equitable distribution, accountability, and sustainability [11].

Recognizing these challenges, the Assessment of Farmer-Led Irrigation Development in Rwanda found that although irrigation infrastructure coverage is increasing, operational performance and governance frameworks remain weak [12]. Many schemes operate below design capacity due to technical inefficiencies, poor drainage management, and limited cost-recovery mechanisms [12]. Therefore, there is an urgent need to assess the current status of irrigation systems and water management practices to identify strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities for improvement.

Previous studies in Rwanda have primarily focused on irrigation development, infrastructure expansion, irrigation potential assessment, and water resource availability. Other studies have examined farmer-led irrigation development and institutional aspects of irrigation management. However, limited studies have simultaneously evaluated the physical condition of irrigation infrastructure, operational performance, water management practices, stakeholder perceptions, and institutional arrangements within functioning irrigation schemes. Furthermore, comparative assessments between schemes employing different irrigation technologies under actual field conditions remain scarce. Consequently, there is insufficient understanding of how technical, managerial, and institutional factors interact to influence irrigation performance in Rwanda. This study addresses this knowledge gap through an integrated assessment of Nasho GFI and Kagitumba irrigation schemes, combining field observations with stakeholder surveys to identify the key factors affecting irrigation efficiency and sustainable water management.

Therefore, this study aims to assess the current status of irrigation systems and water management practices in Rwanda’s irrigated agricultural zones using two representative schemes: the Nasho Government-Funded Irrigation Scheme and the Kagitumba Irrigation Scheme. Specifically, the study evaluates infrastructure condition, system performance, sedimentation impacts, irrigation practices, and stakeholder perceptions to provide a comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing irrigation efficiency. By linking technical, managerial, and institutional dimensions, this study helps bridge the existing knowledge gap. It provides evidence-based recommendations to improve irrigation system performance, enhance water use efficiency, and promote sustainable irrigated agriculture in Rwanda.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

This study was conducted in the Eastern Province of Rwanda. This region is characterized by low rainfall, high evapotranspiration rates and regular water stress, which makes it one of the country’s priority areas for irrigation development. The province is central to Rwanda’s agricultural transformation due to its extensive arable land, relatively flat topography, and major government-led investments in irrigation schemes. This research was carried out across two representative irrigation schemes, each reflecting different scales and management models of irrigated agriculture: the NashoGFI irrigation scheme (Mpanga) and the Kagitumba irrigation project.

2.1.1. The Nasho Irrigation Scheme (Mpanga) (Kirehe District)

The Nasho Government-Funded Irrigation (GFI) Scheme is located in Mpanga Sector, Kirehe District, Eastern Province of Rwanda (Figure 1). It is one of the largest irrigation schemes in the country, covering approximately 1200 ha. The scheme is divided into three operational units (Lot 1, Lot 2, and Lot 3) for irrigation management purposes. Lake Cyambwe serves as the primary water source for Lots 1 and 2, while Lake Rwampanga supplies water to Lot 3. The scheme is farmer-managed through cooperatives responsible for irrigation operations, infrastructure maintenance, and agricultural production.

Figure 1. Nasho GFI map.

The primary crops cultivated in this scheme include maize, beans, and a variety of horticultural crops involving both household food security and commercial production.

Irrigation within the scheme is done by using traditional surface irrigation, which involves controlled gravity flow of water through field channels and furrows to irrigate crop fields, complemented by sprinkler irrigation systems, which are applied through portable and semi-portable sprinkler systems that distribute water under pressure like natural rainfall by allowing for efficient water distribution in the different lots and supporting seasonal crop production. Those irrigation practices have been adopted to optimize water-use efficiency, improve crop productivity, and reduce the risks associated with insufficient rainfall.

2.1.2. Kagitumba Irrigation Scheme (Nyagatare District)

The Kagitumba irrigation scheme is located in the Eastern Province (1.0584° S, 30.4574° E) of Rwanda. It lies within the Nyagatare district of the Matimba sector and the Kagitumba cell. The annual rainfall in Kagitumba ranges from 700 mm to 900 mm (Figure 2). Kagitumba Irrigation Project spans over an area of 500 ha. Maize, soybean, beans, and chili are the main crops irrigated under the project. Farmers use this water source for household food security and the production of commercial crops.

Figure 2. Kagitumba irrigation scheme map.

Akagera River is the source of water for the Kagitumba irrigation scheme. The irrigation water is distributed through 39 center pivot systems. Sprinkler irrigation methods are also used to complement the scheme for year-round production. The project has 352 farmers who are organized into farmer cooperatives. The local authorities of the Rwanda Agriculture and Animal Resources Development Board provide technical support for this scheme. This collaboration in managing the scheme encourages farmer participation, reinforces farming practices, and ensures the sustainable use of water resources. Modern irrigation technologies and participatory management approaches in the Kagitumba Irrigation Project are improving agricultural productivity, enhancing livelihoods, and contributing to climate-resilient agriculture.

2.2. Research Design

This study adopted a descriptive research design supported by a mixed qualitative and quantitative approach. The design was based on field observation and structured questionnaires to assess irrigation systems and water management practices in Rwanda’s irrigated agricultural zones.

Field observation was used to directly examine the physical condition and operational status of irrigation infrastructure, including canals, pipelines, pumps, reservoirs, intake structures, and irrigation application systems in the selected schemes (Nasho GFI and Kagitumba Irrigation Scheme). This allowed the researcher to capture real-time system performance, maintenance status, and water distribution practices under actual field conditions. Structured questionnaires were administered to farmers, irrigation scheme managers, and members of Water User Associations (WUAs) to collect quantitative and qualitative data on irrigation practices, water allocation methods, irrigation scheduling, system reliability, and operational challenges. The questionnaires also captured stakeholder perceptions on irrigation efficiency, water availability, and institutional arrangements. The combination of field observation and questionnaires provided complementary information, enabling triangulation of findings to ensure the reliability and validity of the results.

2.2.1. Current Status of Irrigation Systems and Water Management Practices

Desk Review and Site Selection Approach

The data collection procedure began with an extensive desk review of existing reports, scheme designs, operational manuals, maps, and satellite imagery. This review helped me understand the historical development of the schemes, the types of irrigation technologies installed, cropping patterns, water sources, and the spatial distribution of irrigated areas. Based on the information found during the desk study, stratified sampling was employed to identify representative segments for each irrigation scheme. Each scheme was divided into different strata according to irrigation technology type, topographic position (valley bottom, mid-slope, high slope), and management unit. Representative plots, fields, and water distribution structures were then selected from each stratum to confirm that the observations reflected the diversity of practices within the scheme.

Field Surveys, Direct Observations, and Photographic Documentation

After the site selection phase, a comprehensive field investigation was conducted to physically assess the condition and operational status of the irrigation systems. These investigations involved walking through the schemes and conducting meticulous inspections of the main infrastructure components, including main canals, secondary and tertiary canals, pumps, pipelines, gates, flow control units, infield distribution systems, and drainage structures. During each evaluation, the structural conditions and operational functionality of these components were observed and assessed.

Systematic photographic documentation was taken throughout the data collection process. Photographs were used to show the physical condition of the infrastructure, instances of wear and tear, maintenance challenges, water application methods, cropping patterns, and farmers’ field practices. This visual evidence served as a consistent reference for validating field assessments and illustrating key results in subsequent chapters of the thesis. Global Positioning System devices were used to record the precise location of each infrastructure component and survey plot, enabling accurate spatial mapping and analysis with GIS software.

Stakeholder perceptions, practices, challenges, and institutional arrangements influencing irrigation and water management in Rwanda’s irrigated agricultural zones.

Farmer Questionnaires and Individual Interviews

The structured questionnaires were addressed to farmers and scheme managers operating within the selected irrigation schemes. The questionnaires were designed to gather detailed information on respondents’ demographic characteristics, farming experience, plot size, irrigation methods used, water allocation procedures, scheduling practices, crop types, and challenges related to accessing and using irrigation water. This method enabled researchers to know the perceptions, experiences, and day-to-day management activities of the farmers and scheme managers who directly interact with the irrigation systems.

The individual interviews were done with key informants from the selected irrigation schemes, including scheme managers, farmers, and members of the Water User Association. These respondents provided better insights into the operational management of the schemes, institutional arrangements, conflict-resolution mechanisms, maintenance responsibilities, water-distribution procedures, and governance structures. The interviews involved identifying systemic challenges and presenting opportunities to enhance irrigation efficiency and water management within the selected schemes.

2.2.2. Data Types Collected and Tools Used

The data collected for this study involved detailed inventories of irrigation infrastructure, Condition assessments of canals, gates, pumps, pipelines, and control structures, GPS coordinates of surveyed fields and infrastructure components, Photographs documenting physical conditions and field practices, Questionnaire responses describing farmer practices, water management approaches, and perceived challenges, Key informant interview notes on institutional and operational management and Observational notes recorded during field surveys and inspections.

Tools and materials used during the data collection process included handheld GPS devices for location mapping, digital cameras for photographic documentation, structured questionnaires for farmer surveys, notebooks for manual field notes, tablets and laptops for electronic data entry and backup, and GIS software (ArcGIS pro 3.6) for spatial analysis and visualization.

Sample Size Determination (Yamane Formula)

To compute the number of farmers to contribute to the questionnaire survey, Yamane’s simplified formula for sample size calculation was used [13]. This formula is commonly employed in socio-economic and field-based agricultural studies because it yields a statistically acceptable sample size with a manageable number of respondents.

The formula of sample size calculation used is [13]:

$$n={\displaystyle \frac{N}{1+N\left(e^2\right)}}$$

where

• n = Sample size
• N = Total number of farmers in the irrigation scheme
• e = Level of precision or sampling error usually is equal to 0.05 (5%) or 0.1 (10%), but 0.05 was used in this study

This formula provides the sample size for a representative sample while maintaining a balance between accuracy and logistical feasibility. After calculating the sample size based on the known farmer population for each scheme, proportional sampling was used to allocate respondents to each irrigation block.

2.3. Data Quality Control and Validation

To improve the reliability and validity of the collected data, several quality control measures were implemented. Before data collection, the questionnaire was pre-tested among a small group of farmers outside the study sites to assess the clarity, consistency, and relevance of the questions. Necessary modifications were made based on feedback obtained during the pilot survey. During field data collection, questionnaires were administered via KoboToolbox to minimize data entry errors and ensure response completeness. Triangulation was applied by comparing questionnaire responses with direct field observations, photographic evidence, and key informant interviews. Daily verification of collected data was conducted to identify missing values and inconsistencies. In addition, GPS coordinates and photographic records were used to validate field observations and infrastructure assessments.

3. Results

3.1. Assess the Current Status of Irrigation Systems and Water Management Practices

3.1.1. Nasho GFI Irrigation Scheme

The Nasho Government-Funded Irrigation (Kirehe irrigation scheme) was developed in 2012 and has been operating for the last 13 years. Currently, this irrigation scheme has a gross command area of approximately 600 ha, which is divided into three sections: LOT-1, LOT-2, and LOT-3. Each LOT has its own pumping station and is further subdivided into 5-hectare irrigation blocks. Lake Cyambwe is the water source for LOT-1 and LOT-2. LOT-3 gets its water from Lake Rwampanga. Lakes Rwampanga and Cyambwe are hydraulically connected to the Akagera River. There are four centrifugal pumps at each pumping station. Three pumps will operate simultaneously to achieve the designed discharge. The fourth pump is for standby purposes.

While it has played a crucial role in supporting local farmers and improving food security, the Nasho GFI scheme currently faces significant challenges that hinder its full potential. The irrigation application is hampered by many technical issues, including, but not limited to, fluctuations in lake levels in Cyambwe and Rwampanga, which lead to flooding and drought at the pumping stations, disrupting pump operations and causing water shortages during irrigation periods.

Pumping equipment is also not functioning properly; the field has significant damage and inadequate irrigation infrastructure, resulting in leakage, loss of water pressure, high operational costs, reduced yields, soil erosion, etc.

All these problems show an urgent need for rehabilitation and system improvements to ensure efficient, reliable irrigation operations, thereby enhancing farm profitability.

• Existing cropping patterns

The existing cropping pattern in the Nasho Government-Funded Irrigation Kirehe irrigation scheme is as follows:

Seasonal crops: Cropping is done on a rotation basis of maize, soya, and beans in the three lots. Maize is the predominant crop (proposed target share: 50% maize, 30% soya, and 20% beans); however, this varies with market conditions and water availability.

Vegetables: Produced mostly in season C (June to August), tomato production starts in season B (January to April).

Chilies: An important export crop that is produced in all three seasons under contract farming.

Fruits: Avocado is grown mostly in Lots 2 and 3, with some fruits in the small-scale scheme-wide.

Banana: Found in all three lots.

Others: Cassava and sweet potato on a small scale in a non-irrigated area.

Condition of the Irrigation System Components at the Nasho GFI Irrigation Scheme

• Condition of Water Conveyance Canals

Existing lined concrete conveyance canals are there, but with excessive sedimentation, silt deposits, and encroachment of weeds along the side slope of the canal as shown in Figure 3. Field staff manually excavate sediments at the bottom of the canal. Canal lining is generally in good condition; however, flow efficiency is limited due to inadequate operation and maintenance.

Figure 3. Conveyance canal at the Nasho GFI scheme.

• Condition of Storage Reservoirs

As shown in Figure 4, the storage reservoirs at the Nasho GFI scheme show turbid water, silt deposits at the bottom, and signs of erosion around the inlets. During the cleaning operations, some reservoirs were partially emptied, and muddy water in others reduced the effective depth.

Figure 4. Storage reservoir at the Nasho GFI scheme.

• Condition of Irrigation Application Systems

(a)

Semi-Portable Sprinkler System

Nasho Government-funded irrigation schemes have been using semi-portable sprinkler systems. Visible sprinkler risers show signs of rust. The operating sprinkler in the field had a poor spray pattern, indicating pressure fluctuations or nozzle wear. Some sprinkler heads look outdated; replacement heads may be needed.

(b)

Hoseline Irrigation System

Water distribution is also done through Hoseline irrigation. Waterlogging near the hoseline outlets indicates localized runoff and weed growth. The Hoseline condition is fair but have some leakage as shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5. Semi-portable sprinklers at the Nasho GFI scheme.

The system is operational, but there are observable performance deficiencies due to pressure fluctuations, sprinkler wear, and poor water delivery from the hoseline.

• Maintenance and Operational Practices

In the Nasho government-funded irrigation scheme, maintenance activities rely heavily on manual labor, with workers cleaning canals and reservoirs using basic tools (Figure 6). Mechanized or calendar-based preventive maintenance is almost nonexistent. Maintenance operations seem to be done only when sediment build-up becomes excessive.

Figure 6. Desilting the storage reservoir at the Nasho GFI scheme.

• Water Management Practices at Nasho GFI

The observation during the assessment of water management practices at the Nasho GFI irrigation scheme revealed several functional problems that are affecting the efficiency and reliability of water delivery to the fields. Water is distributed across the field depending on concrete-lined canals, night storage reservoirs, and semi-portable sprinkler and hoseline irrigation systems. But the condition of these structures shows that water movement from the intake to the farm plots is often inconsistent.

In the main canals, accumulated sediment, coupled with vegetation encroachment and debris, restricts the smooth flow of water. During the field labor, large quantities of silt were manually removed from the canals, and the observation showed that sedimentation is the biggest problem and that desilting activities are not being carried out as required. As a result, they contribute to delays in water delivery and reduce the canals’ effective hydraulic capacity.

Water quality in the reservoir is highly affected by sedimentation. The reservoirs at the Nasho GFI scheme are visibly turbid, with increased silt deposition at the bottom, reducing their effective storage volume. The reduced volume of water stored in the reservoir makes it difficult to maintain a stable supply for sprinkler and hoseline operations, both of which require steady pressure and flow to operate properly.

Actually, irrigation performance at the Nasho GFI scheme is being affected by poor water quality, with sediment-laden water clogging sprinkler nozzles and causing irregular pressure delivery within hoselines. There is partial blockage of the intake structures due to vegetation and organic debris, indicating a lack of maintenance at the primary water abstraction point. The inflow rate is being affected by a partial blockage of the intake structure, which restricts it, forcing pumps to operate inadequately and increasing sediment entry into other parts of the irrigation network.

These conditions of irrigation infrastructure in the scheme are negatively affecting water-use efficiency. The field observation around the scheme shows that semi-portable sprinkler systems are in working condition but exhibit non-uniform water distribution. Damaged sprinkler heads, corroded risers, and fluctuating water pressure mainly cause this. This uneven water distribution from these sprinklers is causing inadequate wetting, with some parts of the field receiving excessive irrigation while others remain under-irrigated. Also, hoseline systems exhibit inefficient water distribution, leading to waterlogging, runoff, and weed growth near outlet points.

These conditions of the hoseline around the scheme resulted in low water-use efficiency and poor control over irrigation depth and timing. Additionally, the irrigation schedule in the scheme is completely unstructured. The application of water is based on direct need rather than on a precisely developed irrigation calendar that is used for crop water needs, evapotranspiration rates, or soil moisture conditions. Water application activities often occur during daylight hours, which can raise evaporation losses and further reduce overall system efficiency.

In the Nasho GFI scheme, Maintenance activities associated with water management depend heavily on manual labor. The cleaning of canals, reservoirs, and intake structures is done by laborers using simple tools, and maintenance activities are performed only when sediment accumulation becomes severe enough to obstruct system operation. There are more frequent interruptions, reduced reliability of water application, and increased operational costs because of that reactive approach. There is a limit to the long-term sustainability of water management practices within the Nasho GFI scheme due to the absence of mechanized maintenance equipment and preventive maintenance schedules.

3.1.2. Kagitumba Irrigation Scheme

Background of the Kagitumba Irrigation Scheme

Kagitumba Irrigation Scheme was established to use surface water resources to supply water to main crops such as maize, beans, tomatoes, and pasture grasses. Before the establishment of this scheme, farmers in this area depended heavily on rain-fed agriculture. Farmers’ dependence on rainfall resulted in low yields and high vulnerability to drought. The government of Rwanda, through the Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources (MINAGRI) and the Rwanda Agriculture and Animal Resources Development Board (RAB), launched this scheme to transform the region’s agricultural landscape.

Over time, this scheme has evolved into a modern irrigation system using center-pivot technology, which helps ensure efficient, uniform water application across the fields. Kagitumba Irrigation Scheme covers approximately 500 ha and is supplied through three pumping station sections (A, B, and C). The irrigation infrastructure consists primarily of center-pivot irrigation systems, supplemented by sprinkler blocks. Water is abstracted from the Akagera River and distributed through a pressurized pipeline network to support year-round crop production. The scheme represents one of Rwanda’s largest modern irrigation developments and serves farmers organized under Water User Associations (WUAs).

In the Kagitumba irrigation scheme, each center pivot covers specific farm sizes, and each has its own management practices and farming arrangements, with varying levels of organization and challenges. The Kagitumba irrigation scheme is a community-based project constructed by the government to help farmers. Farmers have been organized into Water Users Associations (WUAs) to control their irrigation system and agricultural operations.

WUAs were generally new to the participating farmers, so the government also set organizational standards, such as a management structure with committees to assist with operations and maintenance, resolve conflicts, collect payments (e.g., water fees), conduct audits, and facilitate marketing linkages.

WUA at the Kagitumba irrigation scheme is responsible for large-scale operation and maintenance of the scheme, and for small, low-budget activities such as changing nozzles and farmer meetings. They are responsible for collecting water fees from farmers to cover the scheme’s low-budget operational and maintenance costs. The water fee is fixed and based on the crop type and the area under irrigation per crop season. For example, in November 2024, the water fee for French beans was 80,000 Frw per ha per crop season, while maize farmers paid 30,000 Frw per ha per crop season.

Condition of Irrigation Structures at the Kagitumba Irrigation Scheme

• Condition of Water Conveyance Canals and Pipelines

Field assessment showed that pressurized pipelines are used in the Kagitumba Irrigation Scheme for water conveyance as shown in Figure 7. The observation showed that pipes inside the pump station exhibited clear signs of aging, such as corrosion on flanges, rust around joints, and faded paint. These conditions display continuous use with insufficient rehabilitation. Even if major leaks are not visibly detected, the extent of rust and wear increases the likelihood of pressure losses and future pipeline failures if no preventive maintenance is undertaken, thereby increasing friction losses, reducing discharge capacity, and increasing maintenance costs.

Figure 7. Conveyance pipeline Kagitumba irrigation scheme.

• Condition of Water Storage Reservoirs

Field assessment showed that the storage reservoirs within the Kagitumba irrigation scheme are functioning as both sedimentation and buffering structures as shown in Figure 8. They were found to be functional but working below expected standards. Field observations showed highly turbid brown water, indicating insufficient sedimentation and poor inflow quality into the reservoirs. This indicates that the current sediment-trapping efficiency is low, as it allows suspended particles to remain in the water column rather than settle.

Figure 8. Storage reservoir at Kagitumba irrigation scheme.

• Condition of the Intake Structure

Figure 9 shows that the intake structure of the Kagitumba irrigation scheme draws water from the Muvumba River. They appear physically good but functionally constrained. At the scheme field, observations indicate that the intake draws in high-turbidity water, suggesting significant upstream erosion and inadequate catchment management practices.

Figure 9. Intake structures at Kagitumba irrigation scheme.

Even though the concrete foundation of the intake structure appears structurally sound, the lack of sediment-control measures limits its effectiveness.

• Condition of Irrigation Systems (Center Pivot and Sprinklers)

The irrigation systems installed in the Kagitumba irrigation scheme include center-pivot and portable sprinkler systems as shown in Figure 10. During the field assessment, these systems were observed to be functional. Center pivot systems were actively moving and applying water across the fields; however, variations in water application patterns were noted in some sections. These irregularities indicate pressure fluctuations and possible nozzle blockages caused by sediment-laden water. The portable sprinkler systems were operating, but a small, uneven pressure distribution was observed in certain fields, resulting in non-uniform water application.

Figure 10. Irrigation system at Kagitumba irrigation scheme.

• Condition of Operation and Maintenance Practices

The field assessment of maintenance and operational activities within the Kagitumba Irrigation Scheme showed that the infrastructure remains functional, but it is poorly maintained. The observations from the pump house revealed that the pumps exhibit signs of deterioration, including rust, worn seals, and dust buildup, reflecting unreliable servicing and inadequate preventive maintenance. These conditions reduce pump efficiency and increase the mechanical failure over time.

The electrical control panels are functional, but they appear outdated. They have disorganized wiring and aged components, posing significant safety risks, including potential electrical faults and system failure.

Generally, the pump house was characterized by dust buildup, poor cleanliness, and the absence of routine maintenance activities such as cleaning, lubrication, and systematic evaluation.

• Water Management Practices at the Scheme

In the Kagitumba irrigation scheme, water management activities demonstrated both strengths and limitations. The good thing is that farmers consistently receive water for irrigation, which supports active cultivation and mostly healthy crop growth. This shows that the system is still able to supply water despite present infrastructural and operational challenges. Water use efficiency remains affected by several factors, including poor water quality, insufficient sediment control, and unreliable pressure distribution in some irrigation units.

3.2. Stakeholder Perceptions, Practices, Challenges, and Institutional Arrangements Influencing Irrigation and Water Management in Rwanda’s Irrigated Agricultural Zones

The results from the Nasho Government-Funded Irrigation (GFI) and Kagitumba irrigation schemes reveal that irrigation performance is shaped by a complex interaction among infrastructure conditions, water management practices, stakeholder capacity, and institutional arrangements. In both schemes, the findings demonstrate that irrigation inefficiencies are driven not solely by physical infrastructure limitations but also by behavioral, organizational, and governance-related factors.

3.2.1. Comparative Stakeholder Profile and Farming Context

The demographic and farming characteristics indicated that the farming populations in both schemes were relatively experienced, with the majority of respondents having more than five years of irrigation experience. However, Kagitumba shows a relatively higher level of farming specialization (96.5% of farmers) compared to Nasho GFI, where Water User Association members dominate the respondent structure. This suggests a more formalized farmer-driven irrigation structure in Kagitumba, while Nasho exhibits stronger institutional participation in governance roles.

Despite this, both schemes show gender imbalance favoring male participation, reflecting persistent structural inequality in access to irrigated agriculture. The larger average plot size in Kagitumba (2.83 ha) compared to Nasho (1.08 ha) indicates greater farm consolidation and potentially a more commercial orientation, yet this does not translate into better system performance (Table 1).

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of respondents at Nasho-GFI and Kagitumba irrigation scheme.

Characteristic	Nasho GFI (n = 224)	Kagitumba (n = 188)
Gender (%)
Male	71.1	69.7
Female	28.9	30.3
Respondent Category (%)
WUA Members	97.8	2.5
Farmers	1.7	96.5
Managers	0.5	1.0
Irrigation Experience (%)
>10 years	57.8	78.3
5–10 years	40.0	12.1
<5 years	2.2	9.6
Mean Plot Size (ha)	1.08	2.83

3.2.2. Irrigation Infrastructure Condition and System Reliability

As shown in Table 2, a clear convergence is observed in both schemes with respect to infrastructure degradation. In Nasho, 61.1% of systems are older than 10 years, while in Kagitumba, this proportion rises to 93.4%, indicating more advanced aging of infrastructure.

Table 2. Infrastructure characteristics and operational performance of irrigation systems.

Indicator	Nasho GFI (%)	Kagitumba (%)
Type of Irrigation System
Sprinkler	42.7	11.6
Hoseline	35.6	-
Sprinkler + Hoseline	20.6	-
Drip + Hoseline	0.6	-
Drip	0.5	-
Center Pivot	-	87.9
Center Pivot + Sprinkler	-	0.5
Age of Irrigation System
<5 years	2.2	0.5
5–10 years	36.7	6.1
>10 years	61.1	93.4
Physical Condition
Good	1.2	1.5
Partially functional	98.8	97.5
Poor	0.0	1.0
Experienced System Failures (Past Year)
Yes	87.2	82.3
No	12.8	17.7

However, both schemes report similarly poor functional conditions, with over 97% of respondents in Kagitumba and 98.8% in Nasho indicating that their systems are partially functional. This suggests that the level of modernization alone does not guarantee operational efficiency.

System failure rates further reinforce this pattern, with 87.2% of respondents in Nasho and 82.3% in Kagitumba reporting frequent breakdowns. In Nasho, failures are mainly linked to pump malfunctions and power instability, whereas in Kagitumba, they are mainly due to underground pipeline leakage and pressure loss. This highlights a structural divergence: Nasho is energy- and mechanically constrained, while Kagitumba is hydraulically constrained.

3.2.3. Water Allocation and Distribution Efficiency

Water allocation systems differ significantly between the schemes. Nasho is dominated by land-size-based allocation (87.2%), while Kagitumba shows a more balanced system with 55.1% equal distribution.

Despite this difference, both systems suffer from perceived inequity and inefficiency, suggesting that allocation rules do not translate into perceived fairness or effective delivery. This indicates that distribution problems are not only institutional but also hydraulic, with system capacity failing to meet demand regardless of the allocation model.

3.2.4. Water Supply Reliability and Irrigation Scheduling Behavior

Water supply reliability is a critical constraint in both schemes, but it is more severe in Kagitumba, where 55.1% of respondents report irregular water delivery compared to 6.7% in Nasho. This suggests that Kagitumba’s pressurized system, despite its technological advancement, is more vulnerable to operational instability.

A critical behavioral gap is observed in irrigation scheduling. Only 5% of farmers in Nasho and 0.5% in Kagitumba practice any form of irrigation scheduling (Table 3). This near absence of scientific water management practices indicates a systemic disconnect between infrastructure potential and user-level decision-making.

Table 3. Water management practices and farmer capacity indicators in the two irrigation schemes.

Indicator	Nasho GFI (%)	Kagitumba (%)
Water Allocation Method
Based on land size	87.2	-
Equal distribution among farmers/rotation	-	55.1
Water Supply Frequency
3 times/week	71.7	55.1
2 times/week	20.0	40.9
Irregular supply	6.7	2.5
1 time/week	1.7	1.5
Irrigation Scheduling
Scheduling practiced	5.0	0.5
No formal scheduling	95.0	99.5
Access to Training
Received irrigation training	58.9	10.6
No irrigation training	41.1	89.4

This pattern suggests that irrigation inefficiency is strongly reinforced by low adoption of agronomic water management knowledge, regardless of system type.

3.2.5. Training, Knowledge, and Farmer Capacity

Table 3 shows that both schemes exhibit limited access to training, but Kagitumba is more constrained, with 89.4% of farmers lacking training compared to 41.1% in Nasho GFI. This difference suggests that institutional outreach is more active in Nasho GFI, yet both systems remain below acceptable capacity-building thresholds. The lack of technical knowledge directly contributes to poor irrigation scheduling, inefficient water use, and weak system maintenance practices.

3.2.6. Irrigation Challenges and System Constraints

Across both schemes, the dominant constraints are consistent but differ in intensity: water scarcity during dry seasons is the most critical constraint in Nasho GFI (95.6%), whereas in Kagitumba, constraints are more diversified, including sedimentation (67.7%), irregular supply, and system breakdowns.

Nasho GFI is therefore characterized by quantitative water scarcity, while Kagitumba experiences more quality and hydraulic inefficiency constraints.

Institutional conflicts and unequal distribution are high in both schemes, indicating governance stress in Water User Associations. This suggests that institutional mechanisms exist but are insufficiently effective at resolving operational conflicts or enforcing equitable distribution.

3.2.7. Crop Systems and Irrigation Dependence

Both schemes are dominated by maize-based production systems, confirming a strong dependence on staple-crop irrigation. However, Kagitumba shows greater crop diversification (green beans, vegetables, legumes), indicating a more market-oriented irrigation system compared to Nasho, which is more food-security-oriented.

Despite this diversification, irrigation inadequacy remains high in both schemes (71.1% in Nasho and 89.9% in Kagitumba), indicating that crop choice is not matched with reliable water supply systems.

3.2.8. Institutional Arrangements and Governance Effectiveness

Both schemes operate under Water User Associations (WUAs), yet institutional effectiveness differs in practice. Nasho demonstrates relatively stronger institutional engagement in maintenance coordination and fee collection, while Kagitumba shows Partial institutional coverage (83.8% coverage, 16.2% exclusion).

However, both schemes suffer from weak enforcement of maintenance schedules and limited technical capacity. This indicates that institutional presence does not automatically translate into institutional effectiveness.

3.2.9. System Efficiency Perception and User Satisfaction

Table 4 shows that perceived efficiency is low across both schemes, with most respondents rating systems as “moderate” (74.4% in Nasho and 94.5% in Kagitumba). Very few respondents consider the systems efficient (23.3% in Nasho; 2% in Kagitumba). This suggests a widespread normalization of suboptimal performance, particularly in Kagitumba, where expectations appear adjusted downward due to persistent system constraints.

Table 4. Institutional arrangements, perceived challenges, and suggested interventions.

Indicators	Nasho GFI (%)	Kagitumba (%)
Major challenges
Insufficient water(dry season)	95.6	67.7
Unequal water distribution	79.4	-
Conflict among users	63.9	-
Pump failure/Lack of spare parts	50.6	3
Poor maintenance of structures	28.9	1.0
Lack of technical knowledge	3.9	-
High cost	3.3	-
Water quality problems	0.6	67.7
Water shortage	-	6.6
Siltation/blockage	-	2.5
Institutional support
Participation of water users associations	100	83.8
No institutional support	0	16.2
Efficiency rating
Efficient	23.3	2.0
Moderate	74.4	94.5
Poor	2.3	3.5
Suggested improvements
Rehabilitation of Irrigation Infrastructure	✓	✓
Capacity building and farmer trainings	✓	✓
Regular inspection and maintenance	✓	✓
Improve water allocation and record-keeping.	✓	-
Upgrade pumps and water pressure systems	-	✓
Improve the water filtration system.	-	✓

4. Discussion

4.1. Irrigation System Performance and Infrastructure Condition

The results demonstrated that irrigation systems in both the Nasho Government-Funded Irrigation (GFI) scheme and the Kagitumba Irrigation Scheme remain operational but perform below optimal levels due to interacting hydraulic, mechanical, and management constraints. Despite differences in technological configuration, open canal-based semi-portable systems in Nasho versus pressurized center pivot systems in Kagitumba, both schemes exhibit systemic inefficiencies associated with aging infrastructure and inadequate maintenance. This supports broader evidence that functionality does not necessarily equate to performance efficiency in large-scale irrigation systems [14].

However, the nature of constraints differs between the two schemes. In Nasho, performance limitations are primarily driven by sedimentation in open canal and reservoir systems, where field observations revealed extensive silt accumulation and weed encroachment. These findings are consistent with farmer-reported challenges: 95.6% identified insufficient water supply during dry periods, and 87.2% reported frequent system failures, indicating reduced conveyance reliability. Sediment deposition reduces canal capacity and reservoir storage, limiting the system’s buffering capacity against temporal variability in water demand [15]. The observed sedimentation may be attributed to catchment degradation, soil erosion from surrounding cultivated land, inadequate sediment exclusion facilities at intake structures, and insufficient routine desilting activities.

In contrast, Kagitumba’s pressurized system is less affected by open sediment deposition but more constrained by infrastructure deterioration and sediment-induced clogging within pipelines and application units. Although center pivot systems are inherently more efficient, 82.3% of respondents reported frequent system failures, and 55.1% experienced irregular water supply, reflecting pressure instability and pipeline inefficiencies. Corrosion observed in pipelines contributes to increased friction losses and reduced hydraulic performance, even in the absence of visible leakages [16]. Pipeline corrosion is likely associated with prolonged exposure to moisture, aging infrastructure, inadequate protective coatings, and limited preventive maintenance.

These findings highlight that while Nasho suffers from macro-level hydraulic inefficiencies (sediment accumulation and flow obstruction), Kagitumba is more affected by micro-level inefficiencies within pressurized components (pressure loss and clogging). This distinction underscores the need for context-specific rehabilitation strategies rather than uniform infrastructure interventions. Pressure losses may result from pipe roughness due to corrosion, partial blockages from sediment, leakage, and deterioration in pump performance.

4.2. Irrigation Application Efficiency and Water Distribution

Irrigation application efficiency is strongly influenced by system type, operational condition, and water quality. In Nasho, the dominance of semi-portable sprinkler and hoseline systems used by 42.7% and 35.6% of farmers, respectively, is associated with low distribution uniformity due to pressure variability, leakage, and equipment wear. Field observations of uneven spray patterns and waterlogging confirm that water application is spatially inconsistent, leading to both over-irrigation and water deficits within the same field. This is further reflected in farmers’ perceptions: 71.1% report that irrigation systems do not meet crop water requirements.

In Kagitumba, 87.9% of respondents use center-pivot systems, which, in theory, offer greater uniformity. However, performance is compromised by sediment-laden water and pressure fluctuations, leading to nozzle blockages and uneven application. This is evident in the finding that 89.9% of farmers reported inadequate irrigation relative to their crops’ water needs, despite the availability of advanced irrigation technology. These results align with studies showing that minor pressure deviations or emitter clogging can significantly reduce irrigation uniformity and crop water productivity [17].

Comparatively, while Nasho’s inefficiencies stem from inadequate system design and deterioration of surface infrastructure, Kagitumba’s challenges arise from water quality issues affecting pressurized precision systems. This suggests that technological advancement alone does not guarantee improved irrigation efficiency without corresponding improvements in water quality management and system maintenance.

4.3. Operation and Maintenance Practices

A critical cross-cutting issue in both schemes is the predominance of reactive maintenance practices. In Nasho, 95.6% of respondents reported that maintenance is only occasional, with activities largely limited to manual desilting when sediment accumulates to a severe level. Similarly, in Kagitumba, 100% of respondents reported that maintenance is not performed regularly, despite the system’s higher technical complexity.

This lack of preventive maintenance contributes to progressive infrastructure deterioration, increased operational costs, and frequent system breakdowns. The high incidence of reported failures, 87.2% in Nasho and 82.3% in Kagitumba, directly reflects the consequences of inadequate maintenance regimes. These findings are consistent with previous studies indicating that the absence of structured maintenance is a major determinant of irrigation inefficiency and reduced system lifespan [18].

Notably, the implications differ between schemes. In Nasho, poor maintenance exacerbates sediment accumulation and canal inefficiency, whereas in Kagitumba, it accelerates mechanical wear, pressure instability, and control system failure. This highlights the increasing importance of technical maintenance capacity as irrigation systems transition from conventional to pressurized technologies.

4.4. Water Management Practices and Efficiency

Water management practices in both schemes are largely non-scientific and demand-driven, with minimal use of data-based irrigation scheduling. In Nasho, 95% of farmers do not practice irrigation scheduling, relying instead on visual observation or immediate crop needs. Similarly, in Kagitumba, 99.5% of respondents reported no use of soil moisture-based scheduling, indicating a systemic gap in the application of agronomic water management principles.

The absence of scheduling contributes to inefficient water use, including over-irrigation, increased evaporation losses, and reduced water productivity. This is further compounded by irregular water supply, reported by 6.7% of respondents in Nasho and 55.1% in Kagitumba, which disrupts consistent irrigation planning.

While both schemes demonstrate institutional attempts to regulate water allocation through Water User Associations (WUAs), the effectiveness of these arrangements is limited by infrastructure constraints and a lack of technical capacity. In Nasho, water allocation is primarily based on land size (87.2% of respondents), whereas Kagitumba exhibits a mix of equal distribution (55.1%) and rotational systems. However, these approaches do not adequately account for crop water requirements or temporal variability, reducing overall system efficiency.

These findings reinforce the argument that efficient water management requires integration of infrastructure, data, and institutional coordination, rather than reliance on allocation rules alone [19].

4.5. Stakeholder Capacity and Institutional Arrangements

Stakeholder-related factors play a decisive role in shaping irrigation performance. In both schemes, limited access to training significantly constrains the adoption of improved water management practices. In Nasho, 41.1% of respondents reported no access to training, while in Kagitumba this figure rises to 89.4%, indicating a critical gap in capacity development.

This lack of technical knowledge is reflected in a widespread reliance on traditional practices, an absence of irrigation scheduling, and a limited ability to manage system failures. Additionally, institutional challenges such as conflicts among water users (reported by 63.9% in Nasho) and unequal water distribution further undermine system efficiency.

Although WUAs are present in both schemes and play roles in water allocation and fee collection, their effectiveness is constrained by limited financial resources, weak enforcement mechanisms, and insufficient technical expertise. This aligns with broader findings from Sub-Saharan Africa, where institutional weaknesses limit the effectiveness of irrigation investments [20].

Importantly, the contrast between schemes reveals that even in Kagitumba, where institutional structures are more formalized and technical, and capacity limitations still hinder performance. This suggests that institutional presence alone is insufficient without strengthening governance quality and technical support systems.

4.6. Integrated Implications for Irrigation System Sustainability

The comparative analysis of the Nasho and Kagitumba irrigation schemes demonstrates that irrigation performance is governed by the interaction among infrastructure conditions, water quality, management practices, and institutional capacity. While sedimentation and inefficiencies in open canals primarily constrain Nasho, Kagitumba faces challenges related to pressure instability, water quality, and mechanical deterioration in pressurized systems.

Across both schemes, the combination of high system failure rates (over 80%), limited irrigation scheduling (over 95%), and irregular maintenance practices indicates systemic inefficiencies that reduce water use efficiency and threaten long-term sustainability. These challenges are particularly critical in Eastern Rwanda, where climate variability increases reliance on reliable irrigation systems.

The findings confirm that technological advancement alone does not ensure improved irrigation performance. Instead, sustainable irrigation requires an integrated approach combining:

• Infrastructure rehabilitation and modernization
• Preventive maintenance systems
• Water quality and sediment management
• Data-driven irrigation scheduling
• Strengthening of institutional and human capacity

This aligns with global irrigation research, which emphasizes that long-term system sustainability depends on the synergy among the engineering, management, and governance dimensions [18].

The observed irrigation inefficiencies result from multiple interacting factors rather than a single cause. Technical constraints such as sedimentation, infrastructure deterioration, pressure losses, and equipment wear interact with management-related challenges, including irregular maintenance, lack of irrigation scheduling, inadequate technical training, and limited monitoring systems. In addition, financial constraints impede timely rehabilitation and maintenance, while institutional weaknesses undermine the effectiveness of water governance and conflict-resolution mechanisms. Therefore, improving irrigation performance requires integrated technical, financial, managerial, and institutional interventions.

4.7. Study Limitations

This study was limited to two major irrigation schemes in Eastern Rwanda and therefore does not represent all irrigation systems operating in the country. However, the selected schemes represent two contrasting irrigation technologies commonly used in Rwanda: surface-based sprinkler systems and pressurized center-pivot systems. The findings should therefore be interpreted as representative of similar irrigation systems rather than the entire national irrigation sector. Future studies should include a larger number of irrigation schemes across different agroecological zones to improve national representativeness.

5. Conclusions

The assessment of the Nasho GFI and Kagitumba irrigation schemes demonstrates that a complex interaction among infrastructure conditions, water management practices, and institutional effectiveness influences irrigation performance in Rwanda. Although both schemes continue to support agricultural production, neither operates at its intended level of efficiency.

The findings reveal two distinct patterns of performance limitation. Nasho GFI is predominantly affected by sedimentation, reduced water conveyance capacity, and pump-related operational constraints. In contrast, Kagitumba is mainly constrained by pressure instability, pipeline deterioration, and sediment-induced performance losses within the pressurized irrigation network. These differences indicate that irrigation challenges are highly system-specific and therefore require tailored management and rehabilitation strategies.

Across both schemes, weak preventive maintenance, limited adoption of irrigation scheduling, inadequate technical training, and insufficient institutional capacity emerged as common factors that reduced water-use efficiency and system reliability. The persistence of these challenges suggests that investments in physical infrastructure alone are insufficient to achieve sustainable irrigation performance without corresponding improvements in management and governance.

The study highlights the need for integrated interventions that combine infrastructure rehabilitation, sediment management, routine maintenance programs, capacity building for farmers and scheme operators, and strengthening of Water User Associations. Such measures are essential for improving irrigation efficiency, enhancing agricultural productivity, and increasing resilience to climate variability in Rwanda’s irrigated agricultural systems.

Overall, the results provide evidence that sustainable irrigation development requires a balanced approach that simultaneously addresses technical, managerial, and institutional dimensions of irrigation performance.