Literature review and study methodology

This chapter reviews a selection of the existing literature on smallholder irrigation. An attempt is made to cover not only literature specific to Zimbabwe but also some literature on other African and Asian countries. The last part of this chapter presents the methodology used in the study, a brief description of the study areas selected and the justification for selecting them.

Literature Review

Literature on smallholder irrigation in Zimbabwe gives conflicting conclusions on the viability and sustainability of smallholder schemes. A number of studies have claimed that earlier irrigation schemes, established by missionaries in the 1930s, performed well in terms of agricultural performance, financial and economic viability. Roder (1965) indicated that irrigation projects have been successful in enabling farmers to obtain a certain amount of wealth, "... substantially more than dryland farmers, probably more than employees of white farmers, and comparable to levels enjoyed by urban workers". This suggests that farmers in irrigation schemes as long back as the 1930s were earning higher incomes than dryland farmers. The schemes helped in reducing the rural to urban migration by offering the rural population an alternative source of employment and income. Roder further reported that irrigators' wealth was chiefly held in farm implements and in better houses. In a comparative analysis between irrigators at Nyanyadzi irrigation scheme in Zimbabwe and their dryland counterparts, irrigators' investment was estimated to be between Z$ 150 and Z$ 200 while dryland farmers' investment was estimated to be lower at Z$ 100. This indicated that irrigators were in a better position to invest in capital items than non-irrigators because of their higher incomes.

Alvord (1933) claimed that Mutema irrigation scheme in Manicaland Province of Zimbabwe had alleviated famine in the area. The same author further claimed that 28 ha under irrigation in Mutema area reduced the need for drought relief grain from government by approximately 90 to 180 tons per year.

Meinzen-Dick et al (1993) reported that the greatest food deficits in Zimbabwe appear to occur in dryland areas of Natural Region V. In their study they noted that fewer irrigation schemes ran out of food during the year than dryland areas. The same study mentions that the majority (72%) of farmers with between 0.25 ha and 0.5 ha of irrigated land reported that irrigated land was their only source of livelihood.

Rukuni (1984) showed that, in general, yields achieved on smallholder schemes are higher than rainfed dryland yields in communal areas. Meinzen-Dick et al (1993) showed that gross margins for irrigating farmers were significantly greater than for dryland farmers. They further pointed out that the effect of irrigation on increasing crop production and incomes is even more marked in the dry winter season, when dryland production is impossible because of lack of rain.

Ruigu and Rukuni (1990) indicated that smallholder schemes are generally financially viable. Makombe and Meinzen-Dick (1993) also shared the same sentiments.

FAO (1997a) also reported benefits from smallholder irrigation. In this socio-economic impact assessment of Hama Mavhaire, Hoyuyu 5 and Nyaitenga, irrigation schemes in Zimbabwe, it is reported that:

• Farmer incomes from irrigated agriculture are significantly higher than incomes of dryland farmers.
• Levels of inputs in terms of quantity are higher in irrigation schemes than in dryland areas, suggesting that there is more intensive crop production in irrigation schemes than in dryland agriculture.
• Using the income figures from the three schemes for 1996, the returns to labour were Z$ 117 per person per day for Hama Mavhaire, Z$ 376 for Hoyuyu 5 and Z$ 234 for Nyaitenga. This is much higher than the average of Z$ 21 per person per day paid in the Zimbabwean industry for non-skilled labour. From a social point of view farmers in an irrigation scheme were found to be far much better off than labourers in urban industries who are faced with a lot of other demands such as rent, water and electricity charges.

In the same report it is further pointed out that smallholder schemes can be even more viable if aspects such as reduction in drought relief handouts, employment creation and reduction of rural to urban migration are considered in the economic analysis of these schemes. With a more integrated approach smallholder irrigation can be the basis for rural development and improved standards of living among Zimbabwe's rural communities.

FAO (1997a) also gave some principal recommendations that can improve the management of smallholder irrigation schemes and enhance the benefits to farmers. Some of the recommendations are:

• There is need to provide irrigators with security of land tenure.
• While it is important to give farmers autonomy in managing irrigation schemes, there is need to devise some mechanisms of assisting farmers to ensure minimum acceptable levels of production by each individual farmer to adequately justify the investments.
• There is need to have a clear and well defined policy on the handing-over of irrigation schemes to farmers, which should be specific on:
• Timing of hand-over
• The respective roles of farmers and government after hand-over

FAO (1997b) in a brief general overview of the smallholder irrigation sub-sector in Zimbabwe concluded that smallholder irrigation has brought many successes to farmers. The following observations were made:

• Smallholder farmers are now able to grow high value crops both for the local and export markets, thus effectively participating in the mainstream economy.
• In areas of very low rainfall, as in Natural Regions IV and V, farmers enjoy the human dignity of producing their own food instead of depending on food handouts from the Department of Social Welfare.
• Irrigation development has made it possible for other rural infrastructure to be developed in areas which could otherwise have remained without roads, telephones, schools and clinics.
• Smallholder irrigators have developed a commercial mentality.
• Crop yields and farmer incomes have gone up manifold.

The report, however, identified a number of constraints, which are hampering smallholder irrigation development in Zimbabwe. Some of them are:

• The high cost of capital investment in irrigation works when one considers that communal farmers are resource poor.
• Rural infrastructure to facilitate input procurement and produce marketing is weakly developed in some areas, for example roads, telecommunications and electricity.
• Lack of reasonably priced appropriate irrigation technology for the smallholders.
• Shortage of human resources at both technician and farmer levels.
· Poor catchment management, which results in siltation of some water bodies.
• Lack of decentralized irrigation service companies to give back-up service in rural areas.

Mupawose (1984) questioned the economic viability of smallholder irrigation schemes in Zimbabwe. The author pointed out that certain smallholder schemes have failed and are under-utilized. He attributed this to poor management, lack of inputs and irrigation experience by farmers. In the same report Mupawose advocated for the reduction of subsidies on smallholder irrigation and indicated that irrigation development has become expensive. He suggested that some form of cost recovery should be employed in these schemes.

A Southern African Development Community (SADC) report in 1992 reported that most new smallholder irrigation schemes in the Southern Africa region will not cover the cost of development and operation and are therefore uneconomic. The report further suggested that these schemes have a negligible impact on the national and household food security.

FAO (1997c) pointed out that many Sub-Saharan countries have realized the critical role of irrigation in food production, but that a number of constraints have been responsible for a relatively slow rate of irrigation development in this region. The constraints are:

• Relatively high cost of irrigation development
• Inadequate physical infrastructure and markets
• Poor investments in irrigation
• Lack of access to improved irrigation technologies
• Lack of cheap and readily available water supplies

FAO (1997c) further identified the following constraints to be affecting the capacity of farmers to invest and manage irrigation projects:

• Poor resource base of farmers
• Fragmented and small size of land holdings
• Unsecured or lack of land titles
• High interest rates
• Poor transportation and marketing facilities

The same report also identified technologies that might be appropriate for the smallholder farmers like:

• Treadle pumps and other manual pumps including hydraulic rams.
• Sprinkler irrigation including conventional systems and drag-hose.
• Micro-irrigation systems such as pitcher, porous clay pipes, micro-sprinklers, bubblers and drips.

Jansen (1993) showed that for almost all crops, except cotton in marginal areas, irrigation is only profitable when it is subsidized by government. However the report left out the analysis of high value horticultural crops.

Elsewhere in Africa, in The Gambia, in the study of an irrigation scheme in the village of Chakunda Webb (1991) gave the following as some of the benefits of irrigation:

• Increased income that was translated into increased expenditure, investment, construction and trade.
• Backward and forward linkages: traders were reportedly coming to purchase irrigation produce (rice) and in turn sell cloth, jewelry and other consumer items.
• Increased material wealth. At the village level, this was in the form of construction of a large mosque built through farmers' donations and an improvement of the village clinic. At household level, increased wealth could be seen in 55 houses built in the village, fourteen with corrugated metal roofing.

However, in the same report Webb pointed out that some of the irrigation schemes collapsed because of the following reasons:

• Frequent pump breakdowns due to poor operation and maintenance.
• Poor design of canal structures.
• Pest infestation of crops.
• Periodic fuel shortages.

In India, Sing and Misra (1960) compared the Sarda Canal irrigation and non-irrigating villages and made the following observations:

• Gross farm output per acre is on the whole 8.6% higher in the canal-irrigated villages than outside.
• The crop produce as distinct from the total farm output is 5.5% more with canal irrigation than without, mainly due to the cropping pattern under irrigation incorporating cash crops.
• The value of crop produce sold per acre is 48% higher in the canal-irrigated area than outside. This was again attributed to the superior cropping pattern incorporating cash crops.
• Total inputs per acre are 3.7% higher in terms of quantity in the canal-irrigated area than outside, indicating more intensive farming under irrigation.
• Payment to outside labour, including casual and permanent farm servants, is about 21% more in irrigated areas than outside.

The study by Sing and Misra showed the benefits of irrigation in terms of improved crop productivity and employment creation to communal people.

The foregoing literature review indicates varying and sometimes contradicting views on the economic viability and socio-economic impact of smallholder irrigation development. Some literature has pointed out that smallholder irrigation schemes are agriculturally, financially and economically viable while other literature argues that such projects are not viable. However, none of the literature reviewed has gone a step further to explore and identify the factors which make good irrigation schemes perform well and those factors which make bad schemes non-viable. This study attempts to do this by examining ten smallholder irrigation schemes in Zimbabwe, thus contributing to a better understanding of this smallholder irrigation sub sector.

Study Methodology

The study looks at the performances of ten irrigation schemes in Zimbabwe, five of which are presumed to be doing well and the other five are poorly performing. The list of the selected schemes, and a summary of their details are given in Table 4.

TABLE 4
Selected irrigation schemes

Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) techniques were used in collecting data from the schemes. Descriptive statistics were generated to identify factors, which lead to conclusions on scheme viability or non-viability. Farm and scheme level data were generated to study the financial and economic viability of each scheme. The study draws on both primary and secondary data sources. The main emphasis was on the collection of survey data from household members of irrigators and non-irrigators for each scheme.

Informal interviews were carried out with some key informants. The objective was to get enough background information on what were the main issues on each individual irrigation scheme, so as to focus on these during PRA or on the other hand to fill the gaps in information left by the PRA. A checklist of questions used is presented in Annex B. The following key informants were interviewed for each irrigation scheme studied:

• AGRITEX extension staff
• Irrigation Management Committee (IMC)
• Department of Social Welfare staff
• Local Councilor

Selection criteria for irrigation schemes studied

Five of the ten irrigation schemes selected are performing well and the other five are performing poorly. The objective of balancing the good and bad schemes was to adequately explore what factors makes good schemes perform well and what factors makes bad schemes perform poorly.

Sixty percent of the selected schemes use sprinkler irrigation technology and the rest use surface irrigation. The reason for selecting more sprinkler schemes is that in Zimbabwe water is considered to be the most limiting resource in irrigation development. There is need to promote more efficient irrigation technologies like low pressure, low cost sprinkler and localized technologies.

A balance of farmer managed and government managed schemes was considered in the selection of the schemes. Emphasis was also put on schemes in the drier Natural Regions III and IV. These are the regions where crop production is severely curtailed by climate.