Setting up for successful Agricultural Water Management interventions: an analysis of a consultative approach in Volta and Limpopo using participatory GIS

A Partner of

Setting up for successful Agricultural Water Management interventions

an analysis of a consultative approach in Volta and Limpopo using participatory GIS

Annemarieke de Bruin1, Rachel Pateman1, Jennie Barron1, Mariam Balima2, Issa Ouedraogo2, Da Dapola3, Mathias Fosu4, Frank Annor5, Manuel Magombeyi6, Sikhululekile Ncube7, Collin Mabiza7

Institution: Stockholm environment Institute1, Institut National de l’Environnement et de Récherche Agricole (INERA)2, Dept. of Geography of the University of Ouagadougou3, Savanna Agricultural Research Institute (SARI)4, Civil Engineering Dept. of the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST)5, University of WitWatersrand6, and Waternet7

Andes • Ganges • Limpopo • Mekong • Nile • Volta

KEY MESSAGE:

The enabling factors to success are • technical support including training and financial

and material inputs; • a clear need or demand for the technology in the

community; and • creating a sense of ownership of the technology


Content

BackgroundMethodologyFindings from expert consultations and 19 casesConclusions


AWM technologies in past 50 years

Little systematic evidence about successful scaling out of technologies

Taken from: Douxchamps, S., Ayantunde, A. and Barron, J. (2012) Evolution of Agricultural Water Management in Rainfed Crop -Livestock Systems of the Volta Basin. Colombo, Sri Lanka: CGIAR Challenge Program for Water and Food (CPWF). 74p. CPWF R4D Working Paper Series 04.


Methodology

1. Expert consultations in four countries‘What are critical factors to success?’

2. 19 in-depth case studies using Participatory GIS‘What were the benefits?’‘What contributed to the success in this case?’

3. Qualitative text analysis using Nvivo software‘What are similarities and differences between 4 countries, two basins and 19 cases?’


Expert consultations – defining success

Farmers adopted technology and a positive impact on farmer’s well-being

And/or• Continued to use it more than 2 years after intervention• More farmers taking up technology during project

intervention• Volunteered adoption of the technology


Expert consultations - resultsType of technology Failure Successful Not said

Rainfed Soil and water conservation/DRS/CES SA - BF BF

Planting pits BF? - ZimTrench technology SA SAConservation agriculture SA SABunding Gha Gha BFContour bunds/ridges/ploughing Zim Gha-ZimTied ridges SA - Zim SA – Gha - BFCover crop GhaTree planting SA – Gha - BFMulching SA - Zim SA Zim

Shallow groundwater GhaShallow wells Gha BFWaste water re-use Zim ZimWater pumps (small scale irrigation) Gha Gha BFTreadle pump SA BFSprinkler irrigation SA-Zim Zim ZimDrip irrigation SA-Zim SA-Zim BF -ZimPunched bag ZimMicro irrigation GhaSupplemental irrigation (rice) BFRoof Rainwater Harvesting ZimFerro-cement tanks SAEarth dams SA - Gha BFUnderground level dams SA

Full irrigation Small dams/reservoirs SA BF BF-ZimLarge scale irrigation SA


Expert consultations - Critical factors to success

Especially project management related factors are critical to the success of AWM interventions

A third of the factors mentioned related to project management: ‘Early engagement with stakeholders’ ‘Community owns the initiative’ ‘Continuous support’ ‘Clear objective’ ‘Appropriate implementation and design of the technology’


19 successful cases

• Burkina Faso, Ghana, South Africa, Zimbabwe

• AWM technologies ranged from in situ to ex situ technologies

• Implemented at different times (on-going, finished recently, some started in 60’s)

• Implemented by Government or NGO’s


Enabling factors

Nature of the communitiesCommunities that had previous knowledge of the technologyDynamic, functional, and peaceful communities open to innovation


Clear demand from the communities• In Zimbabwe and South Africa farmers got involved

because they wanted to reduce poverty and in one case specifically because they wanted to feed their children.

Early engagement• Information and awareness sessions and meetings

between project partners and members of the communities were used in Burkina Faso and Ghana to create interest in the intervention.

Enabling factors


Enabling project implementation

Training • Demonstration farms, observation based learning, extension

services

Ownership of the technology• Communities part of the design of the technology• Beneficiaries invested in the technology with labour and/or

money


Enabling factor or barrier?

Labour could be an enabling factor – availability of human labour and draft power BUT AWM intervention could increase labour demand

Inputs (equipment, fertiliser, seeds) provided or subsidised by interventions were an enabling factor for take upBUT the costs related could be too high and therefore become a barrier for scaling out


Improved well-being

Direct benefits: Increased yield and/or improved livestock management

More cooperation between beneficiaries due to user groups being established

Indirect benefits:Increased food securityincreased wealth (e.g. able to buy clothes, mobile phones, motorbikes)Access to educationAbility to diversify income streams (e.g. fruit)


Conclusions

Both expert consultations and in-depth case studies highlighted that the enabling factors for successful AWM interventions were:

• Technical support including training and financial and material inputs

• A clear need or demand for the technology in the community• Creating a sense of ownership of the technology• Some enabling factors (provided inputs such as fertiliser and

equipment) can become barriers for scaling out