Quantitative Assessment Of The Effectiveness Of Drip Irrigation Kits In Alleviating Food Shortages And Its Success In Zimbabwe: A Case Study Of Gweru And Bikita Districts

About 23,000 drip kits were distributed in 53 districts of Zimbabwe by 20 Non Governmental Organizations with the assistance of LEAD Zimbabwe and USAID/OFDA between 2003 and 2006. The program’s objective was to mitigate the food shortage crisis in Zimbabwe by helping families grow their own vegetables and earn extra income. The objectives of this study were to objectively and quantitatively assess the impacts and outcomes of these technologies (and the programs under which they were distributed); and to understand the main factors underlying “success” or lack thereof of drip irrigation kits, in order to derive lessons for designing future programs of this nature. A questionnaire was administered to 105 households each in Gweru and Bikita districts that received 618 and 400 drip kits from ORAP and FACT-Chiredzi respectively. Of these 105 households in each district, 35 had adopted and continue to use the drip kits, while 35 had dis-adopted and the remaining 35 had never used drip kits (non-adopters). The two implementing agencies in Gweru and Bikita Districts had different beneficiary selection criteria. ORAP’s beneficiaries were paid-up members of the Vukuzenzele association while FACT insisted on beneficiaries being able bodied and having a reliable source of water. Two contrasting extension systems were noticed in the two study areas. In Gweru District it is typically farmer-to-farmer training/extension with limited involvement of the implementing agency. A co-coordinator based at the growth point did the extension in Bikita. Three types of drip kits (Plastro, IDE and Netafim) were distributed in Gweru while only one type (Netafim) was distributed in Bikita. Non-adopters had significantly more net garden income (NGI) than adopters in Gweru while adopters had significantly more NGI than non-adopters in Bikita. On a per hectare basis, adopters had higher NGI than non-adopters in both districts. For similar garden sizes, the analysis suggests that drip kits can be used as a tool to mitigate food shortages and at the same time generate income, in that drip irrigation gives more income. However, that said, in both districts the contribution of dryland agriculture to net household income was far higher than drip irrigated gardening. The contribution of drip irrigation to the well-being measures used was not discernible, possibly because of the small size of gardens compounded by the lack of local markets. Several reasons were advanced for dis-adoption in the two areas, including water availability, health and unavailability of inputs. Successful adoption is dependant on availability of water, availability of affordable inputs, appropriate training and appropriate extension services. Dis-adoption rates were lower in Bikita than Gweru. In Gweru, dis-adoption rates varied according to availability of water. Two of the wards had high dis-adoption rates because water resources are limited. Selection criteria of the beneficiaries are also important. Though the program targeted the elderly, the study shows that they have higher dis-adoption rates than the able-bodied because they do not have the labor to fetch and lift the water into the tank. Training of trainers on drip kit management is crucial in such short programs, because it ensures sustainability even after the program has terminated. The Gweru case is a good example in that the program was embedded in a viable association and it ensured continuity and sustainability where other prerequisites, like availability of water, are met. The program was successful in Bikita because, even though funds for the drip kits were exhausted, FACT continued to use its other funds for paying the field co-coordinator. The area covered by the drip irrigation kits is small compared to the area under bucket irrigation such that most farmers who had drip irrigation had another portion devoted to bucket irrigation. It is recommended that beneficiaries should have an area under drip of their own choice so that they can have the full benefit of using drip irrigation. We came across a few farmers combining treadle pumps with drip kits, and they seemed to be doing better than those supplied only a drip kit. Overall, we conclude that drip irrigation kits did not have a significant an impact on the incomes and well-being of poor farm households. However, it is clear that under the right conditions (for example, inputs, technical support and spare parts available, and local markets for sale of produce), drip irrigation kits can make an important contribution to farm incomes.