The intensification of small-scale irrigation is now, in my judgement, one of the most important tools that Africans should give priority to over the next few decades. The majority of holdings in Africa are small, often ranging between 1-3 ha. But there is nothing economically amiss with small holdings. In fact, there is ample international evidence that small holdings are often more productive that larger units, i.e. in terms of yield per hectare and profit per hectare. It is with this realization that Fraenkel (1986) devoted a handbook on water pumping devices.
Fraenkel (1986) cites a number of studies to demonstrate that smallholdings generally achieve better energy ratios than larger ones i.e. the ratio of energy available in the crop produced, to the energy required to produce it. Smallholder family farms also offer greater impact on alleviating poverty, hunger and unemployment. In addition, smallholder farmers who use irrigation generally achieve much higher incomes than their rainfed counterparts. The difference in incomes range up to about 500% depending on the country.
This generally favorable economic disposition of small-scale irrigation will be examined in the context of East and Southern Africa. This discussion will hopefully, demonstrate that small-scale farms could use to greater advantage, low-cost equipment, particularly pumping devices for greater productivity and energy efficiency.
Financial profitability of small-scale irrigation
There is growing evidence from studies in East and Southern Africa that Small-Scale irrigation is generally financially viable. Ruigu and Rukuni (1990), Rukuni, Svendsen, Meinzen-Dick with Makombe (1994) and Ubels and Horst (1993) are some among the growing literature demonstrating the viability of small-scale irrigation.
TABLE 3 Gross margins, per hectare and per unit water, by holding size
|
Agritex Systems |
Summer |
Winter |
||||
|
Gross margin per total ha |
Gross margin per ha-m |
Sample size |
Gross margin per total ha |
Gross margin per ha-m |
Sample size |
|
|
(Z$/ha) |
(Z$/ha-m) |
(holdings) |
(Z$/ha) |
(Z$/ha) |
(holdings) |
|
|
<0.25 ha |
831 (1338) |
980 (1901) |
40 |
3119 (2351) |
2430 (1604) |
14 |
|
0.25 - 0.49 ha |
1045 (992) |
1109 (1206) |
42 |
1595 (1929) |
1684 (2410) |
26 |
|
0.50 - 0.99 ha |
679 (688) |
767 (805) |
51 |
1143 (813) |
1520 (1162) |
35 |
|
1.00- 1.49 ha |
475 (520) |
387 (453) |
18 |
268 (350) |
409 (519) |
9 |
|
1.50 - 1.99 ha |
97 (326) |
59 (256) |
11 |
633 (610) |
361 (358) |
8 |
|
2.00 - 5.00 ha |
369 (377) |
351 (365) |
4 |
241 (110) |
922 (619) |
4 |
|
Community Systems |
||||||
|
<0.25 ha |
916 (1988) |
821 (2225) |
58 |
1897 (1965) |
2239 (1830) |
28 |
|
0.25 - 0.49 ha |
267 (391) |
345 (550) |
16 |
1490 (1627) |
1482 (1626) |
16 |
|
0.50 - 0.99 ha |
98 (276) |
29 (439) |
10 |
333 (190) |
392 (661) |
5 |
|
1.00 - 1.49 ha |
304 |
692 |
4 |
492 |
398 |
5 |
|
1.50 - 1.99 ha |
519 (0) |
1046 (0) |
1 |
n.a |
n.a. |
0 |
|
2.00 - 5.00 ha |
342 (0) |
493 (0) |
1 |
887 (0) |
2524 (3) |
1 |
|
Garden Systems |
||||||
|
<0.25 ha |
3097 (2921) |
1868 (1517) |
37 |
2582 (2576) |
3395 (2631) |
20 |
|
0.25 - 0.49 ha |
1774 |
1242 |
15 |
1417 |
3452 |
12 |
|
0.50 - 0.99 ha |
2022 (1502) |
1165 (759) |
12 |
947 (990) |
1522 (1567) |
9 |
|
1.00 - 1.45 ha |
1969 |
1669 |
3 |
159 |
365 |
3 |
Source: UZ/IFPRI/Agritex survey date, 1990/91, n.a. not available; - not applicable
This section draws heavily on evidence from Zimbabwe to demonstrate the economic viability of small-scale irrigation in spite of low levels of capital investment. Table 3 shows that the garden and community systems out-perform the government (Agritex system) in terms of financial return per hectare. Community owned schemes also perform better than government schemes in terms of participation in marketing and savings clubs (Table 4). Table 5 shows the range of the low-cost equipment owned and used on smallholder systems. It is clear that farmers are not investing in low-cost pumps and this therefore is an area that needs to be addressed, particularly for garden (bani) systems.
Moving beyond Zimbabwe, Tables 6 and 7 show respectable financial rates of return to capital in a range of African countries. Table 8 shows a negative return to large systems, particularly in Bura, Kenya.
