micro-agricultural water management technologies for ...

MICRO-AGRICULTURAL WATER MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR FOOD SECURITY IN SOUTHERN AFRICA: PART OF THE SOLUTION OR A RED HERRING?1 Douglas J. Merrey Food Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network (FANRPAN) and Hilmy Sally International Water Management Institute (IWMI) [email protected]. Private Bag X813, Silverton 0127, Pretoria, South Africa Fax: +27 12 845 9110 Phone: +27 12 845 9100 Introduction Sub Saharan Africa has over 204 million hungry malnourished people, of whom 33 million are children – roughly 33 % of its total population. It is the only region in the world where hunger is increasing – there are 23% more hungry people now than there were in 1990. On current trends, SSA will not achieve the Millennium Development Goals of reducing poverty and malnutrition (Africa Water Task Force 2002; UN Millennium Project 2005a, 2005b; InterAcademy Council 2004). Southern Africa is doing especially badly: unlike the rest of SSA, consumption levels in calories per day per capita have declined from just above 2,100 calories/day in 1980 to less than 1,800 in 2002. Although the impact of periodic civil unrest and drought-induced famine is highly visible, most poor rural people suffer chronic or seasonal hunger, which is less visible but no less devastating. UNICEF reports that of 17 countries analyzed in southern and eastern Africa, only Botswana is on track to meet the MDG target of reducing poverty and hunger by half by 2015 (UNRIACSO 31 May 2006). The purpose of the paper is to examine the potential contributions to poverty reduction and agricultural growth of small-scale low-cost individualized agricultural water management technologies and practices, and suggest policy options to support their up take. We use “microagricultural water management” (micro-AWM) to refer to the large set of small-scale technologies and practices such as low-cost water lifting technologies (for example treadle pumps), low-cost water application technologies (e.g., drip irrigation kits), technologies to capture and store rainwater either in small reservoirs or in the root zone (rainwater harvesting), and conservation tillage and other soil nutrient and water conservation technologies. Review of Literature on Policy and Institutional Frameworks Supporting or Limiting micro-AWM With 70% of the population still living in rural areas, most of them poor, improving agricultural production is critical to increasing incomes and food security (NEPAD 2003). Water is central to sustainable development. Africa has very high spatial and temporal variability in rainfall compared to other continents (FAO 2003; World Bank 2002; Africa Water Task Force 2002), which together with rainfall unpredictability represent some of the greatest challenges facing African agriculture. Meteorological drought, i.e., rainfall that is 1-2 standard deviations below 1

This is a revised and shortened version of a keynote paper presented at the Second Workshop on Agricultural Water Management in Eastern and Southern Africa, Maputo, 18-22 September, 2006: Douglas Merrey and Lindiwe Sibanda, “Opportunities, Options and Trade-offs for Poverty-Reducing AWM Policies and Institutional Frameworks: From Water Poverty to Water-Driven Prosperity in Sub-Saharan Africa.”

average in any given year, affects 44% of the land area of SSA. This is compounded by the high frequency of “dry spells,” i.e., short periods of 10-30 days with little or no rainfall even in years when total rainfall is “average” (Falkenmark and Rockström 2004:107, 120-125). Such dry spells can lead to disastrous crop failure even in a year of “average” rainfall. Southern Africa is especially vulnerable to dry spells and drought. This low average and highly variable rainfall has led many observers to advocate massive increases in formal irrigation, and to lament the very low level of irrigation development compared to Asia and elsewhere: only 3.7% of arable land in SSA compared to 40%, 29% and 41% respectively in North Africa, East and Southeast Asia, and South Asia (NEPAD 2003:25). NEPAD’s Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program (CAADP; NEPAD 2003) and the Commission for Africa (2005:230), among others, therefore call for massive investments in irrigation. The other side of the low development of irrigation argument is that about 90% of rural cultivators depend on rainfed agriculture, which produces 30-40% of GDP (Rockström et al. 2003), but its unreliable and low yields (roughly 1 ton/ha) trap farmers in poverty. There is no panacea for the low productivity and growth rates of African agriculture. Raising agricultural growth rates will require attention to a wide range of issues, as has been emphasized by every recent study (e.g., InterAcademy Council 2004; NEPAD 2003; Commission for Africa 2005; UN Millennium Project 2005b; World Bank and IFPRI 2006). Huge investments over the long term are needed in rural infrastructure of all kinds, research and development, health and education, and other areas. Most observers agree that massive irrigation investments were a key element of the Asian Green Revolution in the 1960s to 1980s (see Hussain 2005; Hussain and Hanjra 2004). However, this does not mean the same solution is appropriate for Africa today. For one thing, global prices of staple grains had temporarily spiked in the 1960s to 1980s, making irrigation for staple grain production economically attractive; however this was no longer the case by the early 1990s, is not the case today, and is not likely to be so in the future (Rosegrant et al. 2002). Everyone also agrees that SSA has a very low rate of irrigation compared to other regions. Some reports jump from this observation to place a heavy emphasis on investing in formal irrigation. For example, CAADP proposes nearly doubling the area “under improved land and water management” through investment of $36.9 billion up to 2015, broken down as follows: • • •

On-farm and small scale irrigation development, $14.4 billion (39%) Strategic rehabilitation of formal, large-scale irrigation schemes, $8.9 billion (24%) Expansion through new large-scale irrigation development, $13.6 billion (37%).

The first category includes small-scale irrigation, wetlands and inland valley bottoms, water harvesting and soil and water conservation, and land improvement (NEPAD 2003: 91, Table 9). Sixty one percent of the total investment is proposed for large-scale irrigation (and 55% of the first category of investments is for small-scale irrigation). Combining the allocation for smallscale irrigation with the two large-scale irrigation categories, 82% of the total is proposed as conventional irrigation investment. The Commission for Africa makes similar ambitious recommendations for doubling the area under irrigation by 2015 (Commission for Africa 2005:230). However, these studies do not systematically assess the relative advantages, disadvantages, and costs and benefits of investing in improved rainfed agriculture, including supplementary irrigation, new individualized low-cost pumping and water application technologies, and formal conventional irrigation, from large- to small-scale. Indeed we are unaware of any systematic research on this issue; but there are several arguments suggesting a more balanced approach is needed in SSA.

First, recent research by IFPRI (World Bank and IFPRI 2006) suggests that in many SSA countries, improving the productivity of staple food crops will make the largest contribution to reducing poverty, compared to emphasizing other areas such as livestock or export agricultural crops2. However, irrigation plays a very minor role in contributing to staple food production in SSA, especially in southern Africa. A third of SSA’s rice production and half of its wheat production are from irrigation, but production is concentrated in only a few countries. Further, these crops are minor in terms of total demand compared to maize and other grains, and root and tuber staples—which are rarely irrigated. These data suggest that investments to improve the productivity of rainfed agriculture will have much greater payoffs in terms of poverty reduction, food security and promoting agricultural growth in most SSA countries than will conventional irrigation investments. Second, Falkenmark and Rockström (2004:134-135) demonstrate that it is not possible to mobilize sufficient ‘blue’ water for irrigation to meet the food security needs of SSA over the next twenty years. Global figures suggesting SSA has large amounts of blue water mask the fact that much of this water is concentrated in a few places like the Congo River Basin and Madagascar. Further, even in those sub-regions with sufficient water resources, there are neither the financial nor institutional capacity nor the skilled human resources needed to develop the amount of water required (see Seckler et al. 1998). Large areas of southern Africa are especially water-scarce; for example IWMI now classifies the Limpopo as a “closed basin,” offering little opportunity for further water resources development. On the other hand, Rockström and his colleagues argue—and demonstrate from experimental and case study evidence—that there is ample evidence that the low productivity of rainfed agriculture is due more to management deficiencies than to low physical potential. They argue that there is considerable scope for improving yields (including productivity of water) within the available water balance in semi-arid farming systems: doubling yields is feasible and in many cases even quadrupling yields is at least technically possible (Rockström et al. 2003; Falkenmark and Rockström 2004:141-142; Rockström et al. 2006). The same authors also argue that the negative ecological consequences of large-scale water development can be minimized by concentrating on improving rainfed agriculture. Third, following from the argument above, the potential impact in terms of number of beneficiaries and improved food security per dollar invested will be far higher if invested in lower-cost interventions to improve rainfed agriculture than if invested in higher-cost formal irrigation. Although the differences are often exaggerated, the costs of irrigation development in SSA are indeed higher than in other parts of the world (Inocencio et al. forthcoming 2006). Further, formal irrigation is substantially more expensive per unit of water and per capita (and sometimes per ha) than are many micro-AWM technologies. The evidence for the latter statement is incomplete, but Merrey et al. (2006: 49ff) present evidence showing that these technologies are substantially less costly per ha or per capita than is the case for infrastructureintensive irrigation. Water productivity in well-managed rainfed agriculture or using supplementary irrigation for rainfed crops is potentially also higher than for the same crops fully irrigated. A fourth argument, though not well-established on present evidence, is based on the central role of gender equity in promoting increased agricultural production in SSA. Women produce most of the food in Africa; therefore increasing their productivity and incomes will directly improve the 2

A comparative analysis of Zambia and Ethiopia complemented by work in other countries shows that the extent to which investing in staples can reduce poverty varies considerably; and of course complementing this with investments in other sub-sectors and especially in basic rural infrastructure improves the payoffs considerably (World Bank and IFPRI 2006).

well being of children as well. Improving women’s access to water, land, markets and information is not simply a matter of social justice; it is an imperative. However, it is notoriously difficult to design and manage irrigation schemes serving groups of farmers in a gender-equitable manner: there are a few successful cases, but even small scale communal irrigation schemes are inevitably dominated by men. Van Koppen (2002) argues that in dual and female farming systems, public agencies and NGOs can successfully introduce gender-equitable modes of production if there is a strong and consistent political commitment; there are a few case studies supporting this view but the effort required is daunting. The wide range of low-cost technologies that can be purchased and used by individuals are, in principle, relatively gender-neutral: women can purchase a treadle pump or small drip irrigation system and use it independently. Unfortunately, what little evidence we have does not support this view unequivocally: hardly any women have purchased treadle pumps for example, and in East Africa they sometimes become unpaid laborers treadling for their husbands. Reports from West Africa suggest that benefits accrue more often to men than to women, although in Mali 30% of treadle pump owners are said to be women (Van Koppen et al. 2005). Nevertheless, in Tanzania there is evidence that after men have purchased treadle pumps, women do become managers, and there is scattered evidence from Malawi and Kenya of women being substantial beneficiaries. We are not aware of any NGO or government programs promoting such technologies that have explicitly sought to achieve gender-equitable objectives in SSA (KickStart is a partial exception; see van Koppen et al. 2005). The role of intensive gardening for improving food security and incomes is a strategy not wellresearched. This is invariably done by women, and there is evidence, from South Africa for example, that intensive inter-cropping of food crops in small household gardens is attractive to many poor women and can make a significant contribution to food security3. A necessary part of this strategy is capturing, storing and carefully applying water (WRC 2006). We are not arguing against formal irrigation investments; rather we advocate a more balanced approach taking into consideration local conditions and opportunities. But we do argue that in much of semi-arid and sub-humid SSA (especially southern Africa), especially where staple food production is inadequate to meet demand, a focus on improving land and water management on rainfed land for staple food production, perhaps combined with intensive vegetable gardens, may be a “best bet” to improve household and community food security and nutrition; many of these farmers will also earn higher profits from market sales, promoting trade and economic growth: we should not under-estimate the potential contribution of well-managed small-scale rainfed agriculture to growth and wealth creation. Market-driven individualized micro-AWM technologies can be an attractive investment to produce high value crops for markets and nutritious vegetables for home use. Such technologies may lend themselves to gender equity since women can acquire and use them, and may also reduce labor costs for over-burdened women and HIV-affected households. Lessons from Micro-AWM Experiences This section synthesizes some major lessons from experiences with micro-AWM technologies in SSA with special reference to southern and eastern Africa, including some comparison to experiences in South Asia. It draws on work carried out by IWMI and its partners (for example Mati 2005; Merrey et al. 2006; Van Koppen et al. 2005; Awulachew et al. 2005; Mangisoni 2006; Barry et al. forthcoming 2006; Adeoti et al. forthcoming 2006), as well as work done by others in recent years (e.g., Sijali 2001; Kay and Brabben 2000). After briefly reviewing the range of 3

There are also negative cases: for example, when settlers moved to Mwea, an irrigated rice scheme in Kenya, women lost their access to garden land and food security suffered seriously as a result (see box 1 in Zwarteveen 2006:50)

these technologies, we identify lessons from South Asia that may be relevant before discussing the major lessons learned in SSA. We divide micro-AWM technologies into four categories: • • • •

water lifting (pumping) technologies; technologies for applying water to plants; in-situ soil and water conservation (SWC) technologies including conservation agriculture; and ex-situ rainwater harvesting and water storage technologies.

Merrey et al. (2006) and Mati (2005) provide a detailed analysis of the use of these technologies in eastern and southern Africa. There are no universally applicable micro-AWM technologies. Rather, different technologies (or combinations thereof) are useful in different circumstances. For example, treadle pumps cannot draw water from more than about 6 meters below the pump’s position. Similarly, different types of water storage structures are adapted to different rainfall regimes, soils and climates: what works in moist tropical areas will not serve much purpose in arid areas. Conservation farming is included because it is a set of practices that reduces water runoff from fields and increases infiltration to the root zone, thereby increasing the productivity of water (Rockström and Steiner 2005). There are many case studies that suggest the great potential of micro-AWM technologies, and there are also disappointing cautionary cases; but there are no examples of adoption on a sufficiently large scale as to make a significant national impact, in contrast to South Asia. At one level of abstraction, South Asia (Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka) and subSaharan Africa have many similar characteristics. The two regions together are home to the largest number of poor people in the world. Both are characterized by a large range of agroecologies and climates making generalization dangerous. Large parts of both regions are semiarid to sub-humid with low and highly variable rainfall, yet in both regions millions of rural poor people depend on agriculture for their livelihoods. Resource degradation is a serious problem in both regions; and in both, low agricultural productivity is a major factor underlying poverty—but also provides an opportunity for large numbers of people to escape poverty. But there are also critical differences between the two regions. South Asian population densities are higher overall than SSA, a condition favoring agricultural intensification and innovation, including irrigation (Boserup 1965). South Asia has a more developed rural infrastructure in terms of roads, water supply, schools, health services, and communications and therefore market opportunities (which is not to say it is well-developed). At both local and national levels, manufacturing capacity and economic structural specialization is more advanced in South Asia— literally every small town has mechanics able to repair broken equipment for example, and larger towns have small factories making a wide variety of agricultural equipment. Some 40% of cultivated land is irrigated in India compared to less than 5% in SSA. However, this reflects a combination of factors including investment policies, historical traditions, and availability of both water and land resources appropriate for irrigation. Although these differences make generalizing perilous, there are important lessons from South Asian policies and experiences that are relevant to Africa. Another important difference between South Asian countries (especially the large ones like India and Bangladesh) and most SSA countries is the relatively large markets permitting substantial economies of scale in South Asia. The small size combined with poverty of most SSA countries’ markets is factor making micro-AWM technologies much more expensive in SSA; for example in Lesotho treadle pumps cost four times as much as in Tanzania, and perhaps ten times the Indian price (Merrey et al. 2006:21). Contrasting the contents of shops in small towns serving farmers in most areas of South Asia with those in most areas of SSA is instructive. An African visiting these shops will be surprised by the

variety of types of equipment available, from very low cost to fairly sophisticated and expensive. Specific to irrigation, there is generally a range of types of pumps (treadle pumps, hand pumps, power-driven pumps of various specifications) and water application technologies (sprinklers, drip systems). Some are manufactured locally (especially in India), some imported. There is intense competition at every level, among manufacturers as well as retailers, providing farmers with a choice and the possibility of getting a good bargain. While obtaining credit is not necessarily easy or straightforward, generally South Asian farmers have better access to reasonably priced agricultural financing. In terms of social marketing and provision of support services, there is a much larger contingent of (often competing) NGOs as well as private firms promoting their products (pumps, drip irrigation, etc.), and often providing services to facilitate productive use of these products (e.g., agronomic advice, output market linkages). A critical difference is that South Asian countries have generally created a more favorable policy environment for NGOs, public agencies and private sector firms to compete to provide services and products, as well as providing subsidies to encourage farmers to adopt new technologies intended either to conserve water or make its use more productive. Subsidies are often intended to be targeted to specific categories (scheduled castes, poor people), though this targeting is not always effective (ITC et al. 2003; Namara et al. 2005). A related policy in some South Asian countries has been to encourage import of low-cost power pumps (for example) with minimal or no duties or controls: in Bangladesh or Sri Lanka a farmer can often choose from diesel, petrol or electric pumps from China, Japan, Korea, and other countries (Kikuchi et al. 2003; IIMI and BAU 1996). This combination of government policies to support and encourage manufacturers, importers, retailers, NGOs and making substantial subsidies available to farmers has led to a highly competitive innovative market in micro-AWM technologies. The experience to date in SSA with introducing and scaling up micro-AWM technologies is mixed at best. While there are “bright spots,” i.e., local success stories, there has been very little success in scaling these out to a point where they have a substantial impact on productivity and reducing poverty. Examples of local success stories are KickStart’s programs for manufacturing and marketing treadle pumps in Kenya and Tanzania – some 45,000 treadle pumps have been sold to date (Merrey et al. 2006; Van Koppen et al. 2005) in what may be the best example of scaling up; positive impacts of treadle pumps in reducing poverty in Malawi (Mangisoni et al. 2006) and Ghana (Adeoti et al. forthcoming 2006); improved land management using contours, rainwater harvesting etc. in Kenya (Tiffin et al. 1994) and Burkina Faso (Kaboré and Reij 2003; Barry et al. forthcoming 2006). There is a large gap between the potential for substantial impacts if micro-AWM technologies were widely adopted, and the reality of tiny bright spots that fail to expand. Conclusions These conclusions are based on studies throughout SSA but are aimed at southern Africa, and are the basis for the policy recommendations in the following section. 1. Promoting micro-AWM technologies as part of relief, not development, is counterproductive Micro-AWM technologies such as low-cost drip irrigation kits are a favorite item for wide dissemination by donor-supported relief NGOs during droughts in southern Africa. Similarly, the governments of Malawi and Zambia imported and distributed large numbers of treadle pumps as a response to the recent drought (Merrey et al. 2006; Mangisoni 2006). These are not isolated cases but are a consistent pattern, matched for example by government campaigns to build terraces and farm-level water storage structures in Ethiopia. Unfortunately the few assessments of impacts and effectiveness have not been supportive of this strategy: in Zimbabwe for example, Moyo et al. 2005 reported that only 2% of the drip irrigation kits distributed by NGOs were in use

for the planned five seasons (see also IWSD 2006)4. An clear lesson from both South Asia and SSA is that technologies like drip irrigation do not lend themselves to once-off distribution: a whole package of training and technical support are needed to help farmers use them effectively—especially where farmers have little experience with irrigation at all, and none with drip irrigation. 2. Supply-driven and project approach to promotion of specific micro-AWM technologies does not lead to sustainable development NGOs and governments often promote a specific technology such as drip irrigation kits or treadle pumps, using donor grants to import and market a set number of pumps or drip kits during a timebound project. This pattern is found in both relief programs and in development projects (e.g., Moyo et al. 2005; Mudenda and Hichambwa 2006). The measure of “success” then becomes whether the targeted number of pumps or kits have been distributed. Whether the technologies are still in use a year or so later, and whether they have really enabled people to improve their incomes and food security are rarely measured systematically. Further, at the end of the project, the NGO withdraws, regardless of whether its further support is required or not. A good example of the negative impacts of withdrawal of support at the end of the project is Enterprise Works support for local manufacture and marketing of treadle pumps in Ghana, where these did not continue (Adeoti et al. forthcoming 2006). This contrasts with KickStart’s programs in East Africa and those of IDE in South Asia, where a local long term presence enables building of capacities, market linkages and support systems that can be sustained and therefore result in long term improvements in productivity. However even in these cases, the NGO is usually focused on a specific technology and does not provide a wider menu of options to clients. The evidence is clear that integrating soil nutrient and water management can lead to substantial and sustained improvements in crop productivity (Mati 2005; Barry et al. forthcoming 2006), but just adding water using treadle pumps or drip irrigation kits without maintaining and improving soil nutrients is counterproductive. Reliable water supply to plants is essential for plants to be able to make good use of soil nutrients; but the presence of nutrients in the root zone is also essential to make productive use of water. 3. Inconsistent and unsupportive national policies is limiting expansion The previously discussed constraints largely relate to implementation strategies. Perhaps more fundamental are the broader policies and institutional frameworks that either support or retard micro-AWM technology use. We are unaware of any SSA country that has a consistent positive policy to encourage the uptake of micro-AWM technologies. Some countries do provide subsidies, but these tend to vary among government departments and over time, making it difficult for private firms to make firm investment decisions. On the other hand, formal irrigation is subsidized: governments generally absorb most of the construction costs, do not charge for water use, and often subsidize O&M as well, giving irrigation farmers a considerable advantage over rainfed farmers. Policies on importing micro-AWM technologies are also inconsistent: duties may be levied, but then, often with donor funding, governments import large numbers of treadle pumps (for example) and distribute them free through Members of Parliament (for example Malawi; see Mangisoni 2006). Curiously, there are very high mark-ups when one compares the price of treadle pumps delivered in SSA compared to the retail price for the same model in India. Nevertheless, in some countries imported equipment is still cheaper than locally manufactured pumps and drip kits. 4

A study underway at this writing by ICRISAT and the University of Zimbabwe on the impacts of drip irrigation kits distributed by NGOs comes to a similar conclusion.

Merrey et al. (2006) report that in some countries, a large number of government entities in addition to NGOs and private firms are involved in promoting or regulating micro-AWM technologies; and different ministries or departments have quite different and competing policies and subsidies for irrigation including micro-AWM technologies. Many have very limited capacity to implement programs, leading in some cases to partnerships with NGOs (e.g., in Zambia and Malawi). No SSA government has a clear “lead agency” for promoting and supporting these technologies. 4. Combination of high costs, small input and output markets and poor access to these markets are serious impediments Micro-AWM technologies are far more expensive in SSA than in Asia. In Zimbabwe and Lesotho treadle pumps cost on average $200 and $370 respectively, with a mean of over $100 in the SADC region (Merrey et al. 2006:50). Kay and Brabben (2000) reported a range of $50-120 in 2000. The most reasonably priced are in Tanzania where the retail price for the ‘Super MoneyMaker’ is $65 (2003 price, but it has changed little since) while the same model was $80 in Kenya 5 . This contrasts sharply with the costs in India and Bangladesh—where a simple bamboo treadle pump retails for $12, and a more robust steel one for $25-35 (Merrey et al. 2006: Appendix 3). Equivalent pumps in West African countries cost between $80 and $240 (Adeoti et al. forthcoming 2006). KickStart recently obtained funding for developing a program in West Africa modeled on its East African successes, but reportedly plans to import Chinese-made treadle pumps there because the delivered cost is about half the cost of manufacturing them in Africa (Nick Moon, personal communication). Some governments, for example Malawi and Zambia, have imported large numbers of pumps from Asia (Kay and Brabben 2000; Mangisoni 2006), but there are also local manufacturers. KickStart’s approach in Kenya and Tanzania has been to work with a few engineering firms to assist them to build pumps that meet exacting standards. Enterprise Works in West Africa took a very different approach, training and supporting local blacksmiths to manufacture and market pumps to local markets. Quality control however has been an issue, especially where Enterprise Works has withdrawn at the end of a project (Adeoti et al. forthcoming 2006). Finally, one does find independent manufacturers in a number of countries, such as Zambia, Zimbabwe and Malawi. Limited credit and manufacturing capacity combined with limited purchasing power and therefore demand from farmers keep these private efforts at a modest level (Merrey et al. 2006). In South Asia large numbers of small farmers have reasonable access to good markets for their produce, which is often not the case in SSA. Poor roads and other infrastructure increase transport costs for both inputs and outputs; and even where farmers have access to markets, there are relatively few consumers with good purchasing power. Credit and information are also more difficult and costly to obtain. A serious drawback from the point of view of manufacturers is the lack of economies of scale in many countries: the number of potential purchasers and their buying power is relatively limited – and made worse by unfavorable government policies. 5. Minimal research and sharing of lessons and experiences minimizes innovation IWMI’s work throughout SSA has shown that while there is research reported on technology issues (impacts of different water and land management treatments for example; see references in Barry et al. forthcoming 2006; and Mati 2005), and some interesting and useful case studies (for example Mati and Penning de Vries 2005), there has been almost no systematic work on outcomes and impacts of the various programs that have been implemented. KickStart seems to 5

KickStart markets a cheaper ‘MoneyMaker’ for $52 in Kenya (2003 price) but these are not very popular. Since there are a number of types and capacities of treadle pumps, comparisons of costs can only be indicative.

be one of the few implementation NGOs that does try to collect data to enable periodic assessments of outcomes (Van Koppen et al. 2005:43ff; Van Koppen 2004). Various organizations make available technical information on technologies and case studies of success (e.g., Sijali 2001; Ngigi 2003; see also www.relma.org for more technical information). Work done by IWMI in southern, east and west Africa has been constrained by the lack of in-depth assessments of alternative policies and implementation strategies and impact assessments at a sufficient scale to support firm conclusions; researchers have had to rely on relatively small data sets such as rapid inventories (e.g., Merrey et al. 2006) and impact assessments using relatively small samples (e.g., Mangisoni 2006; Adeoti et al. forthcoming 2006). This lack of research is in contrast with the relatively large number of studies available from South Asia, especially India. Further, there is strong informal evidence that NGOs and other implementing agencies do not share lessons. NGOs are as competitive among themselves as private firms. They are competing for donor funds, and therefore undoubtedly prefer not to reveal problems and issues they have faced, but our experience suggests they also do not want to share positive results. Key Recommendations This section draws from the lessons summarized above as a basis for recommendations to expand the availability and use of micro-AWM technologies. The main message is that there is no single panacea that can be reproduced everywhere on a large scale; rather, approaches based on experimentation, innovation, testing, adapting, and shared learning will be essential for successful application of these technologies in a way that enables African farmers to improve their livelihoods and incomes. We propose seven specific recommendations on steps to promote the up take of micro-AWM technologies. 1. We recommend that in consultation with national and regional stakeholders, countries adopt consistent, supportive national and sub-regional policies, and designate a lead agency to promote and support micro-AWM technologies. Governments need to involve NGOs, community-based organizations active in this sector, representatives of farmers as well as both the input (manufacturing, retailing) and output (agricultural produce markets) sides. This could become the nucleus of an “innovation system” or a “learning alliance,” as discussed below. A key function of this coalition would be to lead a strategic planning process to develop a long term program for expanding the availability, uptake and use of micro-AWM technologies by small farmers. Clearly this must be in the context of Poverty Reduction Strategic Plans (PRSP), CAADP and other agricultural and water development programs. The main objective will be to optimize the contribution of micro-AWM to rural and agricultural development and poverty reduction. 2. As part of a longer term micro-AWM development strategy we recommend countries consider limited time subsidies to ‘kickstart’ a process of development. The Indian case demonstrates that even if it is difficult to direct subsidies to the poorest households, such subsidies can contribute greatly to creating a market, in turn leading to competition, lower costs, better service and quality, and more rapid rural economic growth. But the Indian example also demonstrates the dangers in open-ended subsidy programs—politically it is difficult to stop. However, if such a program is announced up front as being for a limited period, and is funded entirely by outside investors or donors whose own support is also for a limited period, it should be feasible to stick to the limited period with a phasing out of most subsidies while putting in place programs to continue supporting access to credit and technical support, and to continue some targeted subsidies to the very poor. The hypothesis—admittedly untested but certainly worth testing—is that if such a program is at a sufficiently large scale, includes support to strengthen the capacity of local manufacturers, retailers, extension services,

etc., and is integrated with other agricultural support programs, it will create a market demand that will maintain momentum in future. The experiences of NGOs like KickStart and IDE are of interest here: in their programs donors provide continued support for the social marketing and capacity building processes (a form of subsidy), but the manufacturing, retailing and after-sales services associated with their products (treadle pumps) are on a commercial basis (Van Koppen et al. 2005; Shah et al. 2000). 3. We recommend that countries consider designing programs targeting low-cost micro-AWM technologies to specific poverty-stricken groups who may be able to use them to improve their own health and nutrition status even if they have limited access to markets. An important issue is to clarify the goals of promoting micro-AWM. On the one hand, by targeting those who have some assets already, uptake may be more rapid and the program can have relatively rapid and large impacts on local agricultural growth. The experiences in South Asia (e.g., Shah et al. 2000; Namara et al. 2005), KickStart in East Africa and Enterprise Works in West Africa (Van Koppen et al. 2005; Adeoti et al. forthcoming 2006) demonstrate this. On the other hand, being individualized, low-cost (per household), and often having immediate impacts, some of these technologies lend themselves to targeting specific groups or categories of people based on gender, poverty or other criteria. That said, there are few good examples of effective targeting on a large scale of poor people, or women, leading to sustained impacts. Relief-oriented NGO programs may succeed in ‘targeting’ but the impacts and sustainability of, for example, low cost drip irrigation kits distributed as relief has not been reassuring to date. Nevertheless, there are some examples of effective targeting, for example drip irrigation kits in Nepal (Shah and Keller 2002), that demonstrate the critical importance of longer term training and support to the users to enable them to use the technology effectively and find markets for their produce. 4. We recommend creating larger sub-regional markets for the input side in addition to the output side to achieve economies of scale in the manufacture and provision of micro-AWM technologies. In contrast with large countries like India and Bangladesh, the populations of most African countries are relatively small, making it impossible to achieve adequate economies of scale for cost-effective manufacturing and retailing of technologies like drip or sprinkler irrigation and treadle pumps. One possible solution is to encourage imports from low-cost sources, but with the high transport and transaction costs characterizing most African countries, the equipment is still likely to be costly. Another one that would also enable more synergies among sectors of the economy is to encourage sub-regional and eventually regional markets. This recommendation requires detailed studies at sub-regional level to ascertain how effective such a sub-regional approach could be, and what the costs and benefits would be. An institution like FANRPAN could be commissioned to carry out such studies and make recommendations. This recommendation reinforces others regarding enhanced regional trade in fertilizers and seeds. 5. For micro-AWM to make a substantial and sustainable contribution, we recommend promotion as part of longer term development programs. We doubt their efficacy when distributed as part of disaster relief. Donors, NGOs and governments frequently face the dilemma of trying to balance investments in longer term development with the urgent needs of disaster relief. There is an understandable temptation to try to carry out relief programs in a way that also contributes to development. However, what little evidence is available on micro-AWM technologies handed out as part of “relief” packages suggests that this approach often does not lead to sustainable improvement of people’s livelihoods. The reasons have been discussed above: long-term institutional and

technical support is critical to successful adaptation and outscaling of micro-AWM; “drop and run” tactics are not productive. Further, such projects are driven by short-term measurable outputs – number of drip irrigation kits distributed for example – and this distorts even wellmeaning efforts to try to make a lasting difference in recipients’ lives. In sum, micro-AWM technologies are most appropriate as elements of a larger development investment package, but are not as useful for short-term relief efforts. 6. Given the diversity of agro-ecologies, household capacities and needs, and market opportunities, we recommend providers offer a menu of technologies and practices, and encourage farmers to mix and match, testing and adapting combinations under their own conditions. This is really ‘Integrated Natural Resources Management”—congenial to most of the Waternet members and stakeholders. Like other sectors, agriculture too has its blind spots. These are the result of traditional western professional training in specific disciplines, like soil science, agronomy, irrigation engineering. Those trained in soil science, for example, tend to place the strongest emphasis on the need to improve soil fertility and structure. Even though most people trained in one discipline undoubtedly realize the need for an integrated approach, implementation programs and even research networks often tend to over-specialize. While the relative importance of soil fertility or water as a limitation on crop productivity may vary, the evidence is clear that integrating both is required. This is exactly what conservation agricultural practices and various types of in situ water harvesting such as zaï pits seek to accomplish. We must recognize and work with the tremendous diversity in SSA agricultural systems, diversity along multiple dimensions such as ecology, climate, soils, rainfall, as well as peoples’ values, priorities and capacities. In view of this diversity and the impossibility of implementing large programs with uniform intervention packages, the solution has to be a more nuanced and creative approach to African agricultural development including promotion of micro-AWM technologies. We must work closely with farmers and encourage and support their own creativity. Helping poor farmers to improve their productivity and profitability requires participatory approaches, emphasizing capacity building in terms of both providing new information to farmers, but no less important, promoting innovation by farmers (Twomlow and O’Neill 2003; Mati and de Lange 2003). This in turn will require training extension workers and NGO field staff in new ways of working with farmers. Second, rather than single-mindedly promoting specific technologies such as treadle pumps or drip irrigation kits, providers need to offer a wider menu of technologies and practices, and encourage farmers to choose those that match their own needs and capacities, and to test combinations and adaptations under their own conditions. The current NGO practice of focusing on a single technology needs to be replaced by more of a ‘supermarket’ approach. This may be done most effectively if the private sector is encouraged to participate at a sufficiently large scale to enable them to offer choices and advise on mixing and matching to farmers. 7. We recommend sub-regional networks or programs be initiated to create the capacity for enhancing innovation, and sharing and disseminating these innovations. Compared to South Asia, there is little applied and adaptive research in Africa on micro-AWM technologies, and almost no sharing of experiences among NGOs, government departments, researchers, and donors. Even the sub-regional agricultural research organizations with soil and water management networks (for example SWMNet in eastern Africa) do not have micro-AWM research and development programs. This is not just another call for “more research;” but for an approach that enhances innovation and sharing and disseminating of these innovations. This requires an “innovation systems” approach (Dantas 2005) combined with “learning alliances.” Both terms have the same core meaning: a network or coalition of organizations involved in

creating, diffusing, sharing, using, applying and evaluating new knowledge plus the organizations responsible for coordinating and supporting these processes. The core of this learning alliance at national level can be the coalition facilitated by a national micro-AWM lead agency recommended above; but we perceive it as going beyond national to at least sub-regional if not regional levels. Innovation is interactive, non-linear and applicable at various levels. Research is therefore not the business only of specialized research organizations; it is the business of the entire value chain and network of participating institutions. Such a ‘Micro-AWM Coalition” should be closely linked with other existing networks, such as sub-regional agricultural research organizations (e.g., ASARECA in eastern Africa), FARA, SEARNET, and especially with Waternet, and should have strong links to Asia, especially South Asia, for mutual sharing of lessons. In contrast with other sub-regions, southern Africa does not have a functioning sub-regional agricultural research network: we therefore suggest that Waternet and FANRPAN should take the lead in establishing such a ‘Micro-AWM Coalition.’ Acknowledgements: Most of the work behind this paper was carried out while the lead author was at the International Water Management Institute (IWMI); financial support was provided by IPTRID, USAID and FAO as well as IWMI and FANRPAN. We are grateful to Regassa Namara and Marna de Lange who worked with the first author on the SADC study, and to Nuhu Hatibu who commented on a very early version of this paper. References Adeoti, A., B. Barry, R. Namara, and A. Kamara. Forthcoming, 2006. Manual irrigation and poverty in West Africa: Treadle pumps in Ghana. Draft Paper under review as possible IWMI Research Report. Accra, Ghana: IWMI. Africa Water Task Force. 2002. Water and sustainable development in Africa: An African position paper. Pretoria, South Africa: IWMI. Awulachew, S. B., D. Merrey, A. Kamarra, B. V. Koppen, F. P. de Vries, E. Boelee, G. Makombe. 2005. Experiences and Opportunities for Promoting Small-Scale/Micro Irrigation and Rainwater Harvesting for Food Security in Ethiopia. IWMI Working Paper 98. Colombo, Sri Lanka: IWMI. Barry, B., A. O. Olaleye, R. Zougmoré, and D. Fatondji. Forthcoming, 2006. Rainwater harvesting technologies in the Sahelian Zone of West Africa and the potential for outscaling. Draft Paper accepted as IWMI Working Paper [may be co-published with CORAF]. Boserup, E. 1965. The conditions of agricultural growth: The economics of agrarian change under population pressure. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co. Commission for Africa 2005. Commission for Africa report: March 2005. Internet [accessed 0505].http://213.225.14043/english/report/introduction.html Dantas, E. 2005. The ‘system of innovation approach, and its relevance to developing countries. Policy Brief, April 2005 (part of a set of papers available from www.scideve.net). Falkenmark, M.; Rockström, J. 2004. Balancing water for humans and nature: The new approach in ecohydrology. London, UK: Earthscan. xxiv, 247p. FAO. 2003. “A Perspective on Water Control in Southern Africa: Support to Regional Investment Initiatives,” Land and Water Discussion Paper 1. Rome, Italy: FAO. Hussain, I., and M. A. Hanjra. 2004. Irrigation and poverty alleviation: Review of the empirical evidence. Irrigation and Drainage 53: 1-15.

Hussain, I. 2005. Pro-poor intervention strategies in irrigation agriculture in Asia: Poverty in irrigated agriculture—Issues, lessons, options and guidelines. Colombo, Sri Lanka: IWMI. Inocencio, A., D. Merrey, M. Tonosaki,, A. Maruyama, I. de Jong, and M. Kikuchi. Forthcoming, 2006. Costs and performance if irrigation projects: A comparison of sub-Saharan Africa and other developing regions. Draft IWMI Research Report (in press). Colombo, Sri Lanka: IWMI. International Irrigation Management Institute (IIMI) and Bureau of Socio-Economic Research and Training of the Bangladesh Agricultural University (BAU). 1996. Study on privatization of minor irrigation in Bangladesh. Final Report, TA: BAN 1822, March, 1996. Colombo: IIMI. Institute of Water and Sanitation Development (IWSD). 2006. Experiences with micro irrigation technologies and practices: Zimbabwe. Report written for IWMI. Pretoria, South Africa: IWMI. Inter Academy Council. 2004. Realizing the promise and potential of African agriculture: Science and technology strategies for improving agricultural productivity and food security in Africa. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IAC Secretariat. www.interacademycouncil.net. [Accessed 0505] Intermediate Technology Consultants (ITC); HR Wallingford; EDA Rural Systems Pvt. Ltd., India; International Development Enterprises, India; Birsa Agricultural University and Grammin Vikas Trust, India; Intermediate Technology Development Group, Zimbabwe; and Ian Hancock. 2003. Low cost micro irrigation technologies for the poor. DFID KAR R7392 Final Report. London, UK: ITC. Kaboré, D., and C. Reij. 2003. The emergence and spreading of an improved traditional soil and water conservation practice in Burkina Faso. Successes in African Agriculture Conference Background paper No. 10 and IFPRI EPTD Working Paper 116. Washington, DC: IFPRI. Kay, M., and T. Brabben. 2000. Treadle pumps for irrigation in Africa. Knowledge Synthesis Report No. 1. Rome: IPTRID Secretariat, FAO. Kikuchi, M., P. Weligama, R. Barker, M. Samad, H. Kono, and H.H. Somaratne. 2003. Agrowell and pump diffusion in the Dry Zone of Sri Lanka: Past trends, present status and future prospects. IWMI Research Report 66. Colombo, Sri Lanka: IWMI. Mangisoni, J. 2006. Impact of treadle pump irrigation technology on smallholder poverty and food security in Malawi: A case study of Blantyre and Mchinji Districts. Report written for IWMI. Pretoria, South Africa: IWMI. Mati, B., and M. de Lange. 2003. Emerging practices and water management under rainfed agriculture in eastern Africa. In: Beukes, D., M. de Villiers, S. Mkhizwe, H. Sally, and L. van Rensburg, eds. 2003. Proceedings of the Symposium and Workshop on Water conservation technologies for sustainable dryland agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa (WCT), held at the Bloem Spa Lodge and Conference Centre, Bloemfontein, South Africa. Pretoria, South Africa: Agricultural Research Council (available on CD). Mati, B., and F.W.T. Penning de Vries. 2005. Bright spots on technology-driven change in smallholder irrigation: Case studies from Kenya. Chapter 3 in: F.W.T. Penning de Vries, ed. Bright spots demonstrate community successes in African agriculture. IWMI Working Paper 102. Colombo: IWMI.

Mati, B. 2005. Overview of water and soil nutrient management under smallholder rainfed agriculture in East Africa. IWMI Working Paper 105. Colombo, Sri Lanka: IWMI. Merrey, D. J., R. Namara, and M. de Lange. 2006. Agricultural water management technologies for small scale farmers in Southern Africa: An inventory and assessment of experiences, good practices and costs. Report submitted to USAID and FAO Investment Center. Pretoria, South Africa: IWMI (available on CD). Moyo, R., D. Love, M. Mul, S. Twomlow, and W. Mupangwa. 2005. Impact and sustainability of drip irrigation kits, in the semi-arid Lower Mzingwe subcatchment, Limpopo Basin, Zimbabwe. Paper presented at the 6th Waternet/WARFSA/GWP Annual Symposium, 1-4 November 2005, Ezulwini, Swaziland. Mudenda, G., and M. Hichaambwa. 2006. Final program evaluation for USAID funded smallholder market creation (SMC) project. Final Draft Report. International Development Enterprises. Namara, R., B. Upadhyay, and R.K. Nagar. 2005. Adoption and impacts of microirrigation technologies from selected localities of Maharashtra and Gujarat States of India. IWMI Research Report No. 93. Colombo, Sri Lanka: IWMI. New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD). 2003. Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program (CAADP). Midrand, South Africa: NEPAD. Ngigi, S.N. 2003. Rainwater harvesting for improved food security: Promising technologies in the Greater Horn of Africa. Nairobi, Kenya: Greater Horn of Africa Rainwater Partnership (GHARP) and Kenya Rainwater Harvesting Association (KRA), with support from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Rockström, J. Barron, and P. Fox. 2003. Water productivity in rain fed agriculture: challenges and opportunities for smallholder farmers in drought-prone tropical agroecosystems. In Kijne, J. W.; Barker, R.; Molden. D. (Eds.), Water productivity in agriculture: Limits and opportunities for improvement. Wallingford, UK; Colombo, Sri Lanka: CABI; IWMI. Rockström, J., and K. Steiner. 2005. Conservation farming – a strategy for improved agricultural and water productivity among smallholder farmers in drought-prone environments. Chapter 7 in: B. Swallow, N. Okono, M. Achouri, and L. Tennyson, eds. Preparing for the next generation of watershed management programmes and projects: Africa. Proceedings of a workshop, Nairobi, Kenya, 8-10 October 2003. Rome: FAO. Rockström, J., N. Hatibu, T. Oweis, S. Wani and others. Fortchoming, 2006. Managing water in rainfed agriculture [chapter in forthcoming CA synthesis book] Rosegrant, M.W.; Cai, X.; and Cline, S. A. 2002. World Water and Food to 2025: Dealing with scarcity. Washington, DC, USA: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Secker, D., U. Amarasinghe, D. Molden, R. de Silva, and R. Barker. 1998. World water demand and supply: Scenarios and issues. IWMI Research Report 19. Colombo, Sri Lanka: IWMI. Shah, Tushaar, M. Alam, M. Dinesh Kumar, R.K. Nagar and M. Singh. 2000. Pedaling Out of Poverty: Socio-economic Impact of a Manual Irrigation Technology in South Asia. Research Report 45. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute.

Shah, T., and J. Keller. 2002. Micro-irrigation and the poor: A marketing challenge in smallholder irrigation development. . In: H. Sally and C.L. Abernethy, eds. Private irrigation in sub-Saharan Africa. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and ACP-EU Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Publication (available on CD). Sijali, I.V. 2001. Drip Irrigation: Options for smallholder farmers in Eastern and Southern Africa. RELMA Technical Handbook No. 24. Published by Sida’s Regional Land Management Unit. www.relma.org/Publications_Catchwater.htm. Tiffin, M., M. Mortimer, and F. Gichuki. 1994. More people less erosion – Environmental recovery in Kenya. Nairobi, Kenya: Acts Press. Twomlow, S., and D. O’Neill. 2003. An analysis of innovative smallholder crop production practices in southern Africa. In: Beukes, D., M. de Villiers, S. Mkhizwe, H. Sally, and L. van Rensburg, eds. 2003. Proceedings of the Symposium and Workshop on Water conservation technologies for sustainable dryland agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa (WCT), held at the Bloem Spa Lodge and Conference Centre, Bloemfontein, South Africa. Pretoria: Agricultural Research Council (available on CD). UN Millennium Project. 2005a. Halving hunger: It can be done. Summary version of the report of the Task Force on Hunger. New York, USA: The Earth Institute at Columbia University. UN Millennium Project. 2005b. Investing in development: A practical plan to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. New York, NY, USA: UN MDG. Internet [accessed 0505] www.unmillenniumproject.org. United Nations Regional Inter-Agency Coordination Support Office (UNRIACSO). Southern African Humanitarian Crisis Update. Monthly Update, 31 May 2006.

2006.

Van Koppen, B. 2002. A gender performance indicator for irrigation: Concepts, tools and applications. IWMI Research Report 59. Colombo, Sri Lanka: IWMI. Van Koppen, B. 2004. Agricultural water development for poverty reduction in East and Southern Africa, Case Study No. 9: Kenya and Tanzania: Treadle pump promotion by APPROtec. Draft paper submitted to IFAD. Van Koppen, B., Namara, R., and C. Safilios-Rothschild. 2005. Reducing poverty through investments in agricultural water management. Part 1. Poverty and gender issues. Part 2. Synthesis of Sub-Saharan Africa case study reports by Peacock, Omilola, and Kamara et al. IWMI Working Paper 101. Colombo, Sri Lanka: IWMI.

Water Research Commission (WRC). 2006. Water harvesting: Sowing the seeds of knowledge. Water Wheel 5 (3): 22-24. Pretoria: Water Research Commission. World Bank. 2002. From Action to Impact, The Africa Region’s Rural Strategy. Washington, D.C.: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Rural Development Department, World Bank World Bank and International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). 2006. Agriculture and achieving the millennium development goals. Agriculture and Rural Development Department Report No. 32729-GLB. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Zwarteveen, M. Z. 2006. Wedlock or deadlock? Feminists’ attempts to engage irrigation engineers. Ph.D. Dissertation. Wageningen, Netherlands: Wageningen University.