Search

Copyright of Irrigation & Drainage is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In research-policy debates on food and agriculture in Africa, the phenomenon of farmer-led irrigation development is now receiving wide attention. This can be seen as the adoption of the ‘farmer lens’ in research on the use and management of common pool land and water resources for irrigation. While it emancipates a farmer’s perspective in irrigation, we also observe that the farmer lens obscures attention for inequities and gender and social diversity in debates on African smallholder farming. Therefore, we reflect in this paper ex-post on survey data and field observations from two of our finalized research projects in Mozambique on farmer-led irrigation development, and we scrutinize the assumptions that we made in the design of these projects. Based on our reflections, we come to the conclusion that an emphasis on farmers’ agency in general indeed has the effect of a gender blinder, because it invokes an image of the ‘African farmer’ that is one-dimensional – agential but gender-less – and we suggest that a stronger focus in research on (irrigated) plot use, virilocality and flows of mobility could produce more accurate representations of inequities and gender and social diversity in irrigation. Such data, in turn, can critically inform the design of more grounded, human-oriented irrigation policies in Africa.

Farmer-led irrigation is valued for its resilience and ability to cope with shocks and benefit from opportunities. Yet, typologies of farmer-led irrigation are mostly static categorisations without analysing farmers' decision-making over time, and without studying 'failed' cases. We therefore analysed temporal changes in farmers' irrigation strategies to expand, downscale or cease practices as part of wider livelihood decisions and aspirations. This longitudinal study presents irrigation trajectories of 32 farmers in the arid lands of two contrasting socioeconomic settings in Kenya and Zimbabwe. Data were collected through multiple rounds of surveys and in-depth interviews. Results show that farmers frequently alternated strategies or ceased or restarted operations over the years, both by force and choice. Although many farmers were able to start, expand or sustain irrigation, not all managed or aspired to remain engaged in irrigated farming, even if the enabling environment was conducive for market-oriented irrigation development. We therefore conclude that farmers' needs cannot always be expressed in general terms of growth or commercial farming, nor can they always be satisfied by improving the enabling environment, which may be based on static ontologies of diverse types of farmers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rainwater harvesting for irrigation (RWHI) systems offer many benefits to smallholder farmers in Kenya, including the possibility of agricultural intensification and improved resilience to climate change in more arid areas. However, the scaling of RWHI systems could inadvertently pose risks to environmental, social, and economic sustainability. Governance institutions in Kenya tasked with managing RWHI adoption processes are often unaware of such risks and ill-equipped to manage them when they emerge. To address this gap, this article first presents key insights from the literature on innovation scaling and adaptive governance on how undesirable effects of scaling can be mitigated. Then, based on the results of a global literature review and a case study in Kenya, it outlines potential environmental, social, and economic risks of scaling RWHI that may manifest in the Kenyan context. Environmentally, the biggest risk is that widespread adoption of RWHI, while increasing water availability at the household level, will alter hydrological flows and impact ecosystem functioning. Socially, major risks of scaling RWHI include increased inequities in water access and rights, as those with the resources to adopt RWHI are able to store and use more water than others. Finally, economic risks may emerge when farmers who have adopted RWHI to grow cash crops experience heightened vulnerability to market fluctuations. The article ends with a discussion on governance approaches that could be applied to ensure responsible RWHI scaling in Kenya. Key recommendations include creating institutions that embed adaptive governance mechanisms, democratizing the development of scaling strategies to ensure their collective ownership, and enhancing monitoring and data collection capacities for effective response. These measures aim to balance short-, medium-, and long-term objectives across various scales and user groups to maximize sustainability outcomes during RWHI scaling processes.

In research-policy debates on food and agriculture in Africa, the phenomenon of farmer-led irrigation development is now receiving wide attention. This can be seen as the adoption of the 'farmer lens' in research on the use and management of common pool land and water resources for irrigation. While it emancipates a farmer's perspective in irrigation, we also observe that the farmer lens obscures attention for inequities and gender and social diversity in debates on African smallholder farming. Therefore, we reflect in this paper ex-post on survey data and field observations from two of our finalized research projects in Mozambique on farmer-led irrigation development, and we scrutinize the assumptions that we made in the design of these projects. Based on our reflections, we come to the conclusion that an emphasis on farmers' agency in general indeed has the effect of a gender blinder, because it invokes an image of the 'African farmer' that is one-dimensional -- agential but gender-less -- and we suggest that a stronger focus in research on (irrigated) plot use, virilocality and flows of mobility could produce more accurate representations of inequities and gender and social diversity in irrigation. Such data, in turn, can critically inform the design of more grounded, human-oriented irrigation policies in Africa. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the role of contract farming arrangements in agricultural intensification in sub‐Saharan Africa, combining secondary literature and original case material from Mozambique. The paper extends the scope of "contract farming" beyond the formal contracts between large companies and small‐scale producers to include less formal credit agreements between farmers and traders. It argues that such informal contract arrangements are evidence of farmers' agency in "real markets." In the studied cases, farmers use contract farming opportunities to intensify agricultural production by investing in irrigation and inputs. While informal contracts typically concern locally consumed crops, thus with more possibilities for side selling than formal contracts for export crops with company‐controlled markets, informal contract compliance reflects closely knit social ties between the contracting parties. In both formal and informal contracts, purchasers tend to seek out producers who are already irrigating, thus obtaining gains from farmers' earlier investments. This also implies contract farming as a mechanism for accelerating social differentiation arising from unequal access to irrigation. The paper argues that the significance of informal contracts in the studied cases raises the possibility that informal contract farming by local traders plays a more important role in agrarian transformation in Africa than formal contract farming by large companies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Irrigation & Drainage is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This introduction is a reflexive piece on the notion of farmer-led irrigation development and its politics. It highlights the way the varied contributions to the Special Issue support a shared perspective on farmerled irrigation development as a process whereby farmers drive the establishment, improvement, and/or expansion of irrigated agriculture, often in interaction with other actors. We analyse how the terminology is used and reproduced, and what it means for our understanding of irrigation policy and practices in sub-Saharan Africa. A central tenet of our argument is that farmer-led irrigation development is inherently political, as it questions the primacy of engineering and other expert knowledges regarding the development of agricultural water use practices in Africa as well as the privileging of formal state planning or technical solutions. We show how mainstream understanding of farmers’ engagement focuses on (1) regulation and control, (2) profitability, and (3) technical efficiency. We demonstrate how these three perspectives have contributed to depoliticised readings of farmer-led irrigation (development), which has been essential to the ability of the terminology to travel and find global allies. Second, we explore the paradox of the invisibility of farmer-led irrigation development in national policies and practices. We discuss practical and political reasons underlying this silence and point out that there are important advantages for irrigators in not being visible. In conclusion we highlight what can be gained from adopting an explicitly political analysis of the processes through which farmers engage in irrigation on their own terms

In both Mozambique and Tanzania, farmer-led development of irrigation is widespread, yet it is little recognised in irrigation policies and is under-supported by the government. This paper explores how this situation is exacerbated by modernisation ideas in irrigation policy and professional thinking. By means of a historical review, we trace modernisation thinking in irrigation development from the colonial period onwards, and analyse how this thinking continues to play out in contemporary irrigation policies in both countries. We then examine the relationship between modernisation thinking and practices of farmer-led irrigation development, drawing on policy documents, field studies, and interviews in both countries. Based on this analysis, we argue that the nature of farmer-led development of irrigation is consistent with many of the goals identified by state agricultural modernisation programmes, but not with the means by which government and state policies envisage their achievement. As a consequence, policies and state officials tend to screen out farmers’ irrigation initiatives as not relevant to development until they are brought within state-sanctioned processes of technical design and administration.

Irrigated agricultural production is viewed as key to the twin challenges of transforming agriculture and adapting to climate change in sub-Saharan Africa. Farmer-led irrigation is currently not well recognised or accounted for, and the current focus on state or public-private irrigation schemes means this activity is largely occurring outside of formal governance mechanisms or is deemed illegal. How do current institutional and regulatory frameworks relate to the apparent boom in farmer-led irrigation, and how do these shape current patterns of response, support, and regulation? To answer this question, we build a conceptual understanding of water governance which draws on critiques of current institutional frameworks for water and irrigation management, specifically using the conceptual ideas of isomorphic mimicry and capability traps, and elements of a problem-driven iterative adaptation (PDIA) approach. We then use three case studies from Tanzania and Malawi to illuminate three critical problems that state institutions encounter in approaching the recognition and regulation of farmer-led irrigation. In our conclusion we argue that current irrigation governance is creating capability traps for existing institutions. Where incremental and context-driven adaptation of governance is practised this can be avoided, creating better chances of effective support and regulation of farmer-led irrigation development.

This article presents a reconstruction of the 1980sʼ research-policy debate on farmer-managed irrigation systems (FMIS) in Asia. Such a reconstruction yields important lessons for the role of academic researchers in the current research-policy debate on African farmer-led irrigation development (FLID). Two interrelated insights stand out: (1) academic irrigation research was (and is) produced in an institutional context that is infused with the politics of the professional tradition in irrigation, and more specifically, (2) academic knowledge on the institutional heterogeneity of farmer-organized irrigation was (and is) incompatible with how things really work in the institution of the irrigation tradition. These insights raise critical questions on the politics of academic research on FLID, whose research agenda is really pursued, what roles do academic researchers want to play, and how to make irrigation research in development more democratic?

Although much has been written about the indigenous irrigation systems of Tanzania, there has been no comprehensive historical study of state irrigation planning. This article fills this gap by analysing irrigation development policy in Tanzania between 1935 and 2017. Based on archival research, and using the Lower Moshi area in Kilimanjaro Region as a case study, it contains an analysis of 80 years of irrigation policy and state intervention. It distinguishes between four periods, based on changes in the perceived role of irrigation and the different actors that were considered important. It notes that the belief in the necessity of state intervention and formal engineering for proper irrigation development ran through all the time periods, and that these were the key factors defining the state’s attitude towards irrigation development planning, regardless of the political situation. This article argues that, ultimately, the development narrative of 'modern' irrigation as a driver for agricultural transformation has been successful in depoliticising irrigation interventions and has succeeded in closing the debate on whether state-controlled irrigation development is really the best way to reduce poverty and stimulate economic growth. To provide space for reflection on the possible role of governments in promoting, supporting, and regulating farmer-led irrigation development, future debates on African irrigation should start by recognising the unique contributions that can be made by farmers in realising the continent’s development targets.

Highlights • Current irrigation policy categories (such as modern/traditional) do not do justice to farmer-led irrigation development. • The same set of groundwater irrigation technologies can facilitate different forms of agricultural production. • Due to capital and market constraints, not all groundwater irrigators are able to grow cash crops. • Farmer-led groundwater irrigation does have the potential to contribute to poverty alleviation and food security. • Future irrigation policies should take into account the differentiation among irrigators using the same technology. Abstract The debate around what kind of irrigation, large- or small-scale, modern or traditional, best contributes to food security and rural development continues to shape irrigation policies and development in the Global South. In Tanzania, the irrigation categories of 'modern' and 'traditional' are dominating irrigation policies and are shaping interventions. In this paper, we explore what these concepts really entail in the Tanzanian context and how they relate to a case of farmer-led groundwater irrigation development in Kahe ward, Kilimanjaro Region. For our analysis, we rely on three months of qualitative fieldwork in 2016, a household questionnaire, secondary data such as policy documents and the results of a mapping exercise in 2014–2015. In the early 2000s, smallholders in Kahe started developing groundwater. This has led to a new, differentiated landscape in which different forms of agricultural production co-exist. The same set of groundwater irrigation technologies has facilitated the emergence of different classes of farmers, ranging from those engaging with subsistence farming to those doing capitalist farming. The level of inputs and integration with markets vary, as does crop choice. As such, some farms emulate the 'modern' ideal of commercial farming promoted by the government, while others do not, or to a lesser extent. We also find that national policy discourses on irrigation are not necessarily repeated at the local level, where interventions are strongly driven by prioritization based on conflict and funding. We conclude that the policy concepts of traditional and modern irrigation do not do justice to the complexity of actual irrigation development in the Kahe case, and obfuscate its contribution to rural development and food security. We argue that a single irrigation technology does not lead to a single agricultural mode of production, and that irrigation policies and interventions should take into account the differentiation among irrigators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although much has been written about the indigenous irrigation systems of Tanzania, there has been no comprehensive historical study of state irrigation planning. This article fills this gap by analysing irrigation development policy in Tanzania between 1935 and 2017. Based on archival research, and using the Lower Moshi area in Kilimanjaro Region as a case study, it contains an analysis of 80 years of irrigation policy and state intervention. It distinguishes between four periods, based on changes in the perceived role of irrigation and the different actors that were considered important. It notes that the belief in the necessity of state intervention and formal engineering for proper irrigation development ran through all the time periods, and that these were the key factors defining the state's attitude towards irrigation development planning, regardless of the political situation. This article argues that, ultimately, the development narrative of 'modern' irrigation as a driver for agricultural transformation has been successful in depoliticising irrigation interventions and has succeeded in closing the debate on whether state-controlled irrigation development is really the best way to reduce poverty and stimulate economic growth. To provide space for reflection on the possible role of governments in promoting, supporting, and regulating farmer-led irrigation development, future debates on African irrigation should start by recognising the unique contributions that can be made by farmers in realising the continent's development targets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]