A case study in Zimbabwe

Martin Moyo, Thabani Dube, Henning Bjornlund, Andre van Rooyen, Jamie Pittock, Michael Wellington and Peter Ramshaw

1. Abstract

Climate change presents a challenge for rural people in southern Africa, causing water shortages and droughts in some areas and floods in others. Smallholder irrigation schemes have been portrayed as a panacea to climate change adaptation, but they have been trapped in a build – fail – rebuild cycle with low crop productivity. The Transforming Irrigation in Southern Africa (TISA) project aimed to address this by introducing social (Agricultural Innovation Platforms) and technological (soil monitoring tools) and interventions to smallholder irrigation schemes. There is evidence of rapid changes in irrigation practices due to irrigators learning from the soil monitoring tools with 80% of farmers having changed practice by 2021 and 94% of farmers indicating that they are still practicing changes they made prior to 2017. The most changed practice related to reduction in irrigation frequency. Changes in irrigation practices were complemented by introduction of high value crops and improved linkages to output markets, which contributed to improved household income. The COVID-19 pandemic impacted both TISA and non-TISA schemes, but the magnitude of the impact differed, being lower in TISA schemes. This implies that TISA interventions helped farmers cope better with the shock that COVID-19 pandemic caused, and this adaptive capacity may be transferable to perturbations arising from climate change.

Generation of greater socio-economic benefit was substantially decoupled from increasing land and water consumption. This Zimbabwean case study points to ways in which climate adaptation and resilience in agriculture in Africa can be greatly enhanced at modest costs with appropriate technologies (in this case, soil monitoring tools) and social capacity building processes.

2. Introduction

Climate change is already stalling progress towards food security in Africa. The climate in Zimbabwe is highly variable and thus the country, with its limited coping capacity and endemic poverty, is considered highly vulnerable to climate change and variability impacts, like most developing countries in Africa (Chagutah 2010). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2007) indicates that the impacts of climate variability are not evenly distributed, severely affecting the poorest the most. Additionally, in the case of Zimbabwe, the political and economic instability that has occurred in the past has exacerbated the situation, rendering many smallholder farmers increasingly vulnerable to climate variability and change.

Agriculture is the mainstay of the economy in Zimbabwe, contributing 7% of GDP and providing employment to about 70% of the population (Worldbank 2020). Cross-national poverty profiles show that poverty is endemic in the country, with more than 70% of the population classified as poor and 84% of these living in rural areas (Malaba 2013). Climate change impacts both the demand and availability of water for agriculture, affecting the proportion of people suffering from insecure access to water. Smallholder farmers are among the most vulnerable to the impact of climate variability. Given the huge role of the agricultural sector in the Zimbabwe economy, the millions of smallholder farmers whose livelihoods depend on it, and the growing challenges of hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition in rural and urban settings, adaptation of agriculture in Zimbabwe is critical to building resilience. Without adaptation strategies, the impacts of climate change may be potentially severe for the country due to its heavy dependence on agriculture and lack of financial resources for mitigation and adaptation to climate change. Climate change adaptation strategies, especially in the agricultural sector, are therefore a principal development challenge in Zimbabwe.

The challenges related to unpredictable rainfall patterns have seen the Government of Zimbabwe, with support from development agencies, investing in irrigation development and maximising use of existing water and irrigation facilities (Mwadzingeni et al. 2022). Development of irrigation infrastructure allows continuous crop production and can facilitate increased productivity where farmers supplement rainfed agriculture. Irrigation development enables expansion of agricultural activities by turning dry areas into highly productive lands. There is mounting evidence that large investments are being channelled towards irrigation development in Zimbabwe to depart from unreliable rainfed agriculture through judicious harnessing of available water resources. The Government of Zimbabwe has proposed to develop 29,000 ha of smallholder irrigation schemes (SISs), increasing the area by 112% to 55,000 ha by 2025 (GoZ, Accelerated Irrigation Rehabilitation and Development Plan 2021–2025).

However, there is rising concern about the need to build the resilience to climate change and protect the investment made in the sector. Under the changing climate, irrigation cannot be business as usual since it is also likely to be affected by the increasing frequency of droughts. There is evidence that established schemes are becoming vulnerable to increased climate variability and change, particularly increased water stress (Nkomozepi & Chung 2012; Muzari et al. 2013; Mutambara et al. 2017). Rising temperatures and changes in precipitation patterns, a rise in evaporative demand, increased frequency of floods, greater depletion of water supplies, an increase in population, rapid urbanization, and industrialization contribute to water stress (Mutambara et al. 2017). For example, in the Mkoba Irrigation Scheme, only 20% of irrigated land was utilized in 2015, as the dam could not meet irrigation water requirements (Moyo et al. 2017). Irrigation development is also a challenge in Zimbabwe because of the high cost of irrigation infrastructure development and the limited suitable hydrogeological conditions (Bjornlund et al. 2020; Mwadzingeni et al. 2022). Water management in smallholder irrigation systems in Zimbabwe has been associated with inefficient and inflexible scheduling, making it challenging to maximize yield and profit (Moyo et al. 2020). Poor water management; low input use; relatively small, irrigated plots; and complex group dynamics have been implicated in the low crop yields in smallholder irrigation systems in Zimbabwe (Moyo et al. 2017). Zimbabwe’s primary focus on production of staples at the expense of high-value crops has resulted in farmers’ failure to make sufficient profits to pay for the schemes’ maintenance and development demands (Bjornlund et al. 2020; Mwadzingeni et al. 2022). Therefore, adapting smallholder irrigation and other forms of agricultural water management to climate change to ensure sufficient availability and reliable access to water is a priority for their livelihood security.

3. Methods

3.1 The irrigation schemes and their climate change vulnerability

The Transforming Irrigation in Southern Africa (TISA) approach was first introduced at two irrigation schemes: Silalatshani and Mkoba (Figure 1). Silalatshani supports 845 irrigators in five blocks covering a total of 442 ha, while Mkoba supports 75 irrigators covering 10.1 ha. Major crops are maize, wheat, sugar beans, leafy vegetables, and onions. Both schemes are serviced by surface water dams.

The Silalatshani and Mkoba schemes are in the semi-arid tropics and the climate is characterised by distinct wet and dry seasons. Climate change is likely to increase the volatility of rainfall received, leading to numerous effects on the irrigation schemes. Firstly, this could decrease the total volume of water available for irrigation in some years. It could also lead to increased frequency of flooding and crop waterlogging. Secondly and indirectly, this reduces reliability of dryland agricultural production and thus places greater pressure on irrigated agricultural production for food supply. The Silalatshani and Mkoba schemes are therefore useful sites to investigate the resilience of smallholder irrigation schemes to climate change.

Figure 1: Location of Silalatshani and Mkoba irrigation schemes and natural regions within Zimbabwe (Source: Ardhi University, 2015)

3.2 TISA Interventions

The TISA project adopted a two-pronged approach to transforming the small-scale irrigation schemes, which combined technological and social interventions.  The project introduced soil water and nutrient monitoring tools and agricultural innovation platforms (AIPs).

3.2.1 Agricultural Innovation Platforms

AIPs were introduced at the Landela block of the Silalatshani scheme and the Mkoba scheme in 2014, and to other blocks of Silalatshani in 2017. Their aim was to foster interaction among stakeholders in the irrigated agriculture and food value chain around shared interests. In Zimbabwe, these included farmers, government authorities, extension agents, water regulators, input suppliers, and traders.

Through a series of AIP sessions, participants (i) undertook a visioning exercise in which they assessed the existing situation and developed a vision of how their schemes would look in five years; (ii) identified barriers that needed to be overcome to achieve the vision, mainly factors affecting the productivity and profitability or farming such as marketing and value adding opportunities; (iii) Identified  solutions to overcome the barriers; and (iv) identified relevant stakeholders to implement the solutions. Several other AIP activities were implemented since 2014 and these included gross margin training, experiential demonstration plots, collaborative mapping, and market linkages.

3.2.2 Soil moisture and nutrient monitoring tools

The second intervention involved the introduction of soil moisture and nutrient monitoring tools, with the aim of facilitating farmer learning on soil moisture and nutrient dynamics. Two tools were introduced: Wetting front detectors (WFDs) and Chameleon soil moisture sensors (Stirzaker et al. 2017). Table 1 describes these soil monitoring tools.

Table 1: Soil monitoring tools deployed at irrigation schemes.

Tool	FullStop Wetting Front Detector	Chameleon Soil Moisture Sensor
Measures	Depth of wetting front in soil Salinity and nitrate levels	Soil moisture
Feedback and learning	Identifies over irrigation where deep drainage below the rootzone occurs. Identifies optimal irrigation volumes by detecting the wetting front reaching a desired depth. Identifies leaching of nutrients below the rootzone.	Illustrates distribution of soil moisture through the profile using intuitive readings: blue = wet, green = desirable moisture, red = dry. This informs optimal timing and volume of irrigations by identifying if soil is sufficiently wet and no irrigation is needed, or if soil is dry in the rootzone. Combined with the WFD, farmers learn that when the chameleon is consistently blue fertilizer leaches below the root zone and is lost to the plants.

 

3.2.3 Assessing ability of farmers to adapt to climate change

This study uses a comprehensive set of measures to assess the ability of the TISA approach to increase farmers resilience and hence their ability to adapt to climate change. These measures can be assessed at four levels (domains of adaptation): field, household, scheme, and markets (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Climate change adaptation domains used as a framework for analysing the adaptive capacities of irrigation schemes

Within each domain, a range of quantitative and qualitative data were available to assess changes that have occurred following the implementation of the TISA interventions:

1. Three household surveys within the schemes; i) a baseline survey in 2014 providing data on the situation when TISA started and how farmers perceived changes over the last four years; ii) an end-of-phase I survey in 2017 providing data on the interventions taking place and their impact; and iii) an end-of-phase II survey in late 2021 providing data on the impact of TISA during phase II and how the COVID-19 pandemic impacted outcomes.
2. A household survey in 2021 within a non-TISA scheme to assess how the COVID-19 pandemic impacted farmers within the scheme relative to the TISA farmers, to verify that TISA has improved farmers ability to cope with shock.
3. Field books in which farmers recorded farm operations, monitoring tool readings, input use, purchases, harvest, and prices received. These records were critical in establishing accurate yield estimates and facilitated the computation of gross margins
4. Focus groups and workshops with farmers and stakeholders during the eight-year period.
5. Field observations by the project field officer and researchers when visiting.
6. Minutes of AIP meetings.

4. Results

This section details some of the key results from the study. This analysis provides evidence of TISA’s transformative impact in small-scale irrigation schemes. It also provides evidence of how the TISA approach has increased farmers’ adaptive capacity, profitability, and resilience to climate change.

4.1 Field Domain

4.1.1 Changes to timing and duration of irrigation events and number of siphons used

The results of the end-of-project household survey (TISA 1) show evidence of farmer-to-farmer learning. Only 20% of the farmers were given the tools but almost 60% of the farmers changed irrigation practice by end of phase 1 (2017) and 77% of these farmers made further changes between 2017 and 2021 while almost all of them (94%) were still using the new practices in 2021. By 2021, cumulatively 81% of the farmers had changed irrigation practices. Hence, there is evidence of ongoing and sustained changes in irrigation practices due to learning from the monitoring tools and associated AIP interventions (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Percentage of households at TISA irrigation schemes reporting a change in irrigation practice from 2014 to 2020

The most changed practice related to reduction in irrigation frequency. Farmers lengthened the period between irrigation events, reduced the number of siphons used per irrigation event, and the duration of the event (Table 2). This reduced the amount of water used, saved time, and reduced fertilizer leaching. The results from the end of project survey (2022) are comparable to the 2017 results but there is evidence of further improvements in irrigation scheduling and time taken in 2022 compared to 2017, a sign that the irrigators are adapting to prevailing climatic changes.

Table 2: Changes to irrigation practices at TISA irrigation schemes.

	2017	2022
Changed irrigation practice prior to 2017 due to what was learned from the tools (% of irrigators)		48
Still practising changes made prior to 2017 (% of irrigators)		94
Made further changes to irrigation practices for those that had made changes prior to 2017 (% of irrigators)		78
Changed irrigation practices since 2017 (% of irrigators)		31
Irrigation practices changes since 2017 (n=54)
Reduced irrigation frequency (% of irrigators)	88	100
Irrigation frequency before (days)	7	7
Irrigation frequency now (days)	15	16
Reduced duration of irrigation event
Hours of irrigation before (mean)	4	2.9
Hours of irrigation now (mean)	2	1.4

By reducing the frequency and duration of irrigation events, the time that farmers were spending irrigating their plots was diverted to other uses such as enhanced crop management or off-farm income generating activities that helps the TISA farmers cope better with shocks (Table 3).

Table 3: Benefits of soil monitoring tools in TISA Phase II.

What are the most important benefits that you get from using the tools (multiple answers)?	(% of irrigators)	Mean ranking
Saving time	74	1.7
Saving labour	49	2.7
Increase yield	50	2.4
Saving water	81	1.9
None	13	n/a

 

4.1.2 Changes in crop yields and water productivity

The reduction in irrigation at Silalatshani was associated with improved crop yield and therefore a large improvement in water productivity (crop yield relative to water applied) (Figure 4). Water Productivity from the end of project survey (2022) are comparable to the 2017 results. Water productivity in the 2020/21 season is lower than in the 2016/7 season due to more effective rainfall being received during the maize growing period and lesser yields being attained in 2020/21. In the 2016/17 season, there was more effective use of rainfall received, with higher yields attained from less amount of water used within the system. In both seasons, there was reduced irrigation volume that meant that the contribution of rainfall increased as a proportion of total available crop water. This represents a reversion of the irrigation schemes to their original intended purpose: as being supplementary to such rainfall (Figure 5). It also means that farm productivity is now more resilient to acute shortages in water for irrigation.

Figure 5: Water productivity (WP) quantified as kilograms of crop yield relative to cubic metres of water applied for the Silalatshani irrigation scheme

Figure 6: Contribution of water from both rainfall and irrigation to water productivity at the Silalatshani and Mkoba irrigation schemes, from Moyo et al. (2020)

4.1.3 Changes in irrigated area

From 2019 to 2021, a greater proportion of TISA farmers changed their irrigated area compared with non-TISA farmers. This clearly reflects the larger reliance on temporary access to land in the TISA schemes. Both increases and reductions in irrigated area may also relate to improved water productivity (Figure 4), as saved water at previously over irrigated fields may have been utilised by farmers who previously struggled with water access. These results also reflect a stronger willingness to adjust farming approaches in the face of change among TISA farmers, which is a key characteristic of adaptive capacity. 

Table 4: Changes in irrigated area at TISA and non-TISA irrigation schemes.

	TISA	Non-TISA
Change in area irrigated in the last four years ago
Decreased	29	7
Unchanged	39	78
Increased	32	15

 

4.1.4 New irrigated crops

A much greater proportion of the TISA farmers took on new crop types compared with non-TISA farmers (Table 5), again reflecting greater willingness and capacity to change, and demonstrating improved market linkages from the AIPs. The new crops that households took up include quinoa that was introduced by an NGO working within the scheme, and garlic that was introduced by some farmers during the first phase of the project. Almost 80% of the TISA households, which introduced a new crop, were influenced by good prices they were promised, an indication of the responsiveness of the farmers to the market incentives catalysed by the AIP. Conversely, for the non-TISA schemes, the decision to introduce new crops was mainly influenced by extension officers. The different reasons between the two schemes clearly reflect the influence of the AIP in forming market linkages and encouraging farmers’ agency. TISA farmers are therefore more responsive to market changes and hence more likely to be resilient to shocks.

Table 5: New irrigated crops introduced after 2017.

	Percentage of households (TISA)	Percentage of households (non-TISA)
New crops
Other cereals	13	2
Other vegetables	13	4
Sorghum	2	n/a
Other legumes	2	n/a
Irish potato	n/a	6
Reasons for growing new crops
demand was good	51	11
prices were good	79	22
suggested by extension officer	27	78
new market access	24	44
improve household diet	27	n/a
Influenced by others	21	22

 

4.2 Household Domain

4.2.1 Changes in farm income

Before the first COVID-19 lockdown, the majority of TISA and non-TISA households were experiencing an increase in farm income, mainly due to increased output prices and better ability to pay for farm inputs (Table 6). Farm incomes have declined since the first COVID-19 lockdown, though the increase and diversification of farm incomes, within the TISA scheme, prior to the pandemic has likely improved farmers’ capacity to respond to this shock.

Table 6: Survey respondents’ change in farm income.

	Compared to 2017 and before the first COVID-19 lock-down (% of irrigators)	How has this changed since the first COVID-19 lock-down (% of irrigators)
Change in farm income
Much worse	1.9	12.4
Worse	8.6	50.2
About the same	27.6	24.8
Better	41.0	4.8
Much better	21.0	7.6
Reasons for increase
High output prices	47.7
Better ability to pay for inputs	24.6
Access to better quality inputs	16.9
Now irrigating less, using saved time for other economic activities	1.5
increased off-farm income	12.3
increased farm production	63.1
Increase due to economic/political conditions in the country	36.9
Reasons for capacity becoming worse
Decreased farm production	54.5
Reduction due to economic/political conditions in the country	45.5
Poor access to better inputs	18.2
Low output prices	36.4

 

4.2.2 Changes in gross margin (grain maize)

From 2017 to 2021, the average gross margin realised by farmers within the TISA scheme showed an upward trend. The dip in the gross margin experienced during the 2018/19 was attributed to increase in input prices against a stagnant output price (Figure 6). The gross margin for grain maize increased during the period post the first COVID lockdown in 2020 and this was attributed to the increased prices the farmers were receiving during the period. While the gross margin was observed to be increasing since 2017, the return per dollar farmers invested declined. This was mainly due to increased costs of production due to increase in the prices of inputs at a higher rate than output prices. However, despite decline, grain maize in the TISA scheme remained profitable, with every dollar invested returning at least a dollar during this period due improved maize grain productivity levels.

Figure 6: Average grain maize gross margin (USD/ha) TISA Scheme: 2017-2021

4.2.3 Changes in household food security

The proportion of households at Silalatshani indicating that they had experienced food shortages over the last five years decreased from 2014 to 2019 (Figure 7). Prior to the first COVID-19 lockdown, 43% of households within the TISA schemes improved their household food security. This reflects improvements in off-farm income, but also in farm production and income. Since the first COVID-19 lockdown, 30% of households within the TISA scheme reported worsening food security situation compared with 48% within the non-TISA scheme. The loss of on and off-farm income due to lockdowns adversely affected the capacity of a significant number of households. The lesser proportion of TISA scheme households reporting a decline in food security demonstrates improved resilience to shocks arising from better on and off-farm incomes. The levels of food insecurity reported during the COVID-19 pandemic were also much lower than those reported prior to TISA interventions, demonstrating improved resilience to food system shocks.

 

Figure 7: Percentage of households at Silalatshani that had experienced food shortages in the past five years, for three survey periods

4.2.4 AIP initiatives: How did farmers engage in these initiatives

The study found that female members of the households were relatively more active than male members across all AIP activities. The activities most undertaken by female farmers were gross margin analysis and growing high value crops (Table 7). These findings demonstrate how the TISA interventions, and the AIPs in particular, have enabled female farmers to further assert their agency.

Table 7: Participation in Agricultural Innovation Platform activities by various household members.

Who in the household participated	Mapping (n=39)	Gross margin (n=52)	Demo plot (n=46)	High value crops (n=68)	Input market linkages (n=15)	Output market linkages (n=24)
Husband	21	11	25	14	21	22
Wife	36	53	43	53	36	39
Joint	25	18	27	18	14	17
Other females	14	18	7	18	36	16
Other males	4	7	2	6	0	0

 

4.2.5 How important did irrigators find the AIP activities?

Table 8 shows the level of awareness of AIP activities and outcomes by farmers since 2013. Over 90% of the farmers indicated that they were aware of these activities. The most common activities relate to farm production, such as introduction of high value crops and demonstration plots. These were mainly implemented during the first phase of TISA and their focus was on ensuring the success in integrating the soil moisture and monitoring tool into the irrigation practices of farmers. The two activities were also ranked first or second in terms of importance by a relatively higher proportion of farmers. Collaborative mapping was also known by many because of its participatory nature. A high proportion of farmers were also aware of gross margin analysis and business planning, which took place from the start of TISA. Fewer farmers were aware of AIP activities such as improved input and output market linkages. Experiential demonstration plots were ranked as the most important AIP activity by the highest number of farmers (30%) followed by the introduction of high value crops. Farmers highlighted the demonstration plots during focus group discussions as being critical in the acceptance of the monitoring tools as an option to improve water management. The AIP activities were crucial in building knowledge amongst irrigators as well as preparing them to cope better with shocks.

Table 8: AIP Activities

Activity/outcomes 2013-21	% of households aware of the activity	% Households ranking each activity 1-3 in order of importance (1 = very important….
Introduction of new high value crops	85	22	31	20
Experiential demonstration plots	76	30	8	13
Collaborative mapping	66	14	14	24
Gross margin workshop/training	58	7	21	12
Business plan	59	16	12	13
Improved output market linkages	49	5	10	13
Improved input market linkages	42	6	5	3
Improved linkages to financiers	13	0	0	1
None	9	0	0	0

 

4.3 Community Domain

4.3.1 Changes in conflict over water

During the 2014-17 period farmer conflicts reportedly declined by 42%, reflecting that water savings from using the tools and the AIP had increased water supply for tail-end users and therefore reduced competition over water. This was observed between farmers within the Landela Block, but also between blocks (35%) as well as with other water users depending on water from the main dam (35%). Conflicts also decreased within households (69%) as incomes were increasing, reducing conflicts over resource allocation.

However, by 2019, 48% of the farmers felt that the conflict over water had increased in association with the severe shortages of water that were experienced during the year because of drought. The water authorities subsequently introduced water rationing, which could have been the source of the upsurge in the conflicts. For many (72%) households, the perception about conflict over water did not change after the first COVID-19 lockdown and farmers that indicated that conflict had increased were more than those that perceived it to have decreased. These findings reflect the contested nature of water access, especially during drought. They also demonstrate the influence that external policies can have on conflict. The reduction in conflict prior to 2017 meant that community cohesion was better during the 2019 drought period than it may have been otherwise.

4.3.2 Changes in participation in irrigation association meetings

From 2017 and prior to the first COVID-19 lockdown, 21% of households within TISA schemes increased their participation in scheme meetings. The onset of COVID-19 came with restrictions on gathering and as a result, there was an increase in the percentage of farmers that reduced their participation in irrigation association meetings. This was expected as some of the COVID-19 control measures that were put in place limited the number of people per gatherings. However, 57% of the households within the non-TISA schemes reported reducing their participation in scheme meetings compared to 31% within TISA schemes. This may suggest that TISA schemes were better able to adapt their meeting and governance strategies to the shock of the pandemic and those farmers were more committed to attend.

4.3.3  Changes in willingness to pay for water and scheme maintenance

In the TISA schemes, we found that at the end of phase 1, over 75% of the farmers had increased their willingness to pay for water. Many (78%) did not change their position during the second phase of the project. However, since the first COVID-19 lockdown, there was an uptick in the number of farmers whose willingness to pay decreased. This could have been caused by challenges the farmers were experiencing in accessing water as a result of works that were taking place in the scheme. In 2017, almost 90% of the farmers had increased their participation in scheme maintenance. During the period 2017-2019 a large proportion of the farmers involvement in scheme maintenance did not change, with a relatively higher proportion (14%) increasing their level of participation compared to 11% decreasing their participation. A higher proportion of farmers remain engaged in scheme maintenance, and this reflects stronger governance capacity.

4.4 Market Domain

4.4.1 Changes in amount of farm output consumed and sold

Prior to the first COVID-19 lockdown, the non-TISA scheme saw a bigger shift toward consuming more of their crop than they sold while within the TISA scheme more farmers shifted toward selling more than they consumed (Table 13). Since the first COVID-19 lockdown, the number of households consuming more than they sold increased within both schemes. That more farmers within the TISA scheme increased how much they sold likely reflects the emphasis the AIP put on shifting the farmer system from subsistence to being more commercial. At the Silalatshani scheme, there has been a number of other initiatives by different NGOs that have aimed at market linkages. Produce markets have been established in Bulawayo, increasing the market linkages at the TISA scheme.

Table 13: Changes in amount of farm output sold and consumed in 2017-2019 at TISA and non-TISA schemes

Compared to four years ago how are you now:		Decreased a lot	Decreased	Unchanged	Increased	Increased a lot
TISA (% of irrigators)	selling a larger proportion of my crop relative to consuming it.	4	19	47	21	9
Non-TISA (% of irrigators)	selling a larger proportion of my crop relative to consuming it.	6	38	35	12	9

 

4.5 Did the TISA approach increase farmers’ ability to cope with the COVID-19 pandemic?

4.5.1 Farm and Household Domains

A greater proportion of TISA households reported that COVID-19 pandemic had no effect on the household (Table 9). The main effects related to children not being able to access education; breakdown of social networks, and the loss of off-farm income by family members (Table 9). A much lower proportion of TISA households reported insidious impacts such as a decline in household food security and declining farm and off-farm income (Table 10).

Table 9: Impacts of COVID-19 pandemic on households at TISA and non-TISA schemes.

	TISA	Non-TISA
How did COVID-19 impact your household/farm/scheme?
Impacted it positively	2	2
No Impact	18	4
Minor negative impact	34	37
Moderate negative impact	26	40
Severe negative impact	20	18
How did COVID-19 and the lockdown affect you and your household?
Family members lost off-farm income jobs	30	43
Loss of transport	38	69
Children could not attend school, tertiary education	53	52
Reduced access to food as shops closed, or transport unavailable	28	44
Breakdown of social networks	20	40

 

Table 10: The biggest impacts of COVID-19 pandemic on households.

	TISA	Non-TISA
The three biggest impacts of COVID-19 on household:
Household food security	18	37
Health of household members	7	6
Declining farm income	68	81
Declining off-farm income	35	56

In terms of access to markets, information, income, and effect on production, we found that the COVID-19 pandemic had similar impacts on farmers in both TISA and non-TISA schemes, but the magnitude of the impact differs, being lower in TISA schemes. For example, access to output markets, access to information, breakdown of social networks, and family members losing off-farm income were all reported at lower levels in TISA schemes (Table 9 & Table 11).

Table 11: COVID-19 pandemic impacts at the household in terms of access to markets, income, and production.

	TISA	Non-TISA
How did the lockdowns affect you, and your farming operations?
Access to output markets	64	82
Access to information	21	35
Reduced production and farm income	26	31

 

4.5.2 Community/Scheme Domain

At the scheme level, COVID-19 had similar impacts on farmers in both TISA and non-TISA schemes but just like at the household level, the magnitude of the impact differs, with far more farmers in the TISA scheme reporting no effect (Table 12). At the TISA schemes, the indication is that there are less maintenance jobs not being carried out compared to non-TISA schemes. This means that the non-TISA schemes are more likely to face infrastructure decay than the TISA schemes, compromising their sustainability. In terms of access to extension services, the access was far more impacted in the non-TISA schemes than in the TISA schemes, compromising their coping ability. More land was farmed due to returning family members in the TISA schemes than in non-TISA schemes.

Table 12: COVID-19 impact at the scheme level.

	TISA	Non-TISA
How did COVID-19 and the lockdowns affect your scheme?
Maintenance jobs have not been carried out	12	38
Extension officers could not get to the scheme and help	26	46
Other stakeholders who provide advice could not come to the scheme	28	24
More land farmed as family members returned to the scheme	10	4
No effect	46	29

Overall, responses indicate that TISA schemes generally suffered less acute and deleterious impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic than non-TISA scheme, suggesting they have greater capacity to respond to shocks.

5. Discussion

Investment in farmer learning and networking has increased irrigators’ adaptive capacity at the field, household, community, and market domains. Producing crops with less water, in varying conditions, and adapting to changing market conditions enhanced resilience and enabled better adaptation to climate change. This was demonstrated by the irrigators’ capacity to adapt to changing policy and social conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In the field domain, improvement of crop production alongside a reduction in total irrigation water applied (Figure 4) means that irrigators have greater adaptive capacity to future water shortages (Moyo et al. 2020). Hence, production losses will be lower despite climate change making water availability more volatile. Improved resilience of crop production was observed during the COVID-19 pandemic as farmers were able to maintain production and adapt agronomic practices to accommodate more uncertain input supplies.

Improved field production practices translated to more diversified income and time allocation at the household domain. Importantly, time saved on agricultural activities and further income received both from agricultural and off-farm enterprises can be invested into children’s education. These changes enhanced the agency and livelihoods of female farmers. This diversification of household activities improves resilience to perturbations caused by COVID-19 pandemic and climate change. Improved income and farm production was associated with better household food security for TISA project participants during the COVID-19 pandemic (Tables 9, 10 & 11). Further research and innovation in activity diversification beyond irrigated agriculture at the household domain is likely to improve resilience to shocks.

Water savings at the field domain, increased yield, increased gross-margins and income diversification for households have reduced conflict in the community domain, contributing to more cooperative water management. Better cooperation in irrigation communities improved capacity to source material and information required to trial new crop types (Table 5). In the future, these community changes may lead to the formation of collective action groups or cooperatives for purchasing of inputs, marketing of outputs, or management of natural resources. Greater participation in community activities and willingness to pay for communal services such as water and infrastructure maintenance have therefore improved irrigation communities’ capacity to change, which is a key characteristic of resilience.

Greater communication within communities has translated to better outward facing communication, including stronger linkages with markets. TISA irrigators increased the portion of their production that they sold relative to what they consumed, hence shifted from subsistence to commercial farming. They were also able to select and market new irrigated crop types based on perceived market demand and price signals (Table 5). This also demonstrates irrigators’ improved capacity to adapt to changing market needs, which will be important for climate change resilience.

As interest in intensification of southern African irrigation schemes increases, the scaling up and scaling out of innovations beyond the TISA schemes must be considered. The large number of schemes and irrigators means scaling must be cost effective. Changes to agronomic practices by farmers who did not receive direct interventions demonstrates the potential of peer-learning to drive innovation. Similar peer-based diffusion of innovations among service providers such as extension agents and water regulators may enable scaling of these changes across Zimbabwe. Further social research on the perceptions of scaling among all stakeholders will inform future investments into climate change adaptation for the irrigated agriculture sector in Zimbabwe.

6. Conclusion

Although smallholder irrigation schemes have been portrayed as a panacea to climate change adaptation, there is a need to build the resilience of the farmers in these schemes to protect investments in light of a more variable climate. Irrigated agriculture in Zimbabwe must prepare for increasing disturbances arising from climate change, which may include reduced and more volatile water availability, and changing market dynamics as dryland agriculture becomes less reliable. The TISA project has demonstrated that technological and social interventions can have pervasive impacts on adaptations in farmers’ fields, households, communities, and wider food markets. Generation of greater socio-economic benefit is being decoupled from increasing land utilisation and water consumption. Better water productivity and diversification of household income-generating activities has enhanced adaptive capacity, as demonstrated by improved food security. It has also improved participation in irrigation association meetings and willingness to pay for and contribute to scheme maintenance. These findings from Zimbabwe point to ways in which climate adaptation and resilience in agriculture in Africa can be greatly enhanced at modest costs with appropriate technologies (in this case, soil monitoring tools) and social capacity building processes.

7. References

Bjornlund, V, Bjornlund, H & van Rooyen, AF 2020, 'Exploring the factors causing the poor performance of most irrigation schemes in post-independence sub-Saharan Africa', International Journal of Water Resources Development, vol. 36, no. sup1, pp. S54-S101

Chagutah, T 2010, 'Climate change vulnerability and preparedness in Southern Africa: Zimbabwe country report', Heinrich Boell Stiftung, Cape Town.

GoZ. Accelerated Irrigation Rehabilitation and Development Plan 2021–2025; Government Printers: Harare, Zimbabwe, 2020.

Malaba, J 2013, 'Poverty and Poverty Datum Line

Analysis in Zimbabwe 2011/12', Harare, Zimbabwe: Zimbabwe Statistical Agency.

Moyo, M, Van Rooyen, A, Bjornlund, H, Parry, K, Stirzaker, R, Dube, T & Maya, M 2020, 'The dynamics between irrigation frequency and soil nutrient management: transitioning smallholder irrigation towards more profitable and sustainable systems in Zimbabwe', International Journal of Water Resources Development, pp. 1-25.

Moyo, M, van Rooyen, A, Moyo, M, Chivenge, P & Bjornlund, H 2017, 'Irrigation development in Zimbabwe: understanding productivity barriers and opportunities at Mkoba and Silalatshani irrigation schemes', International Journal of Water Resources Development, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 740-54.

Mutambara, S, Darkoh, M & Atlhopheng, JR 2017, 'Water supply system and the sustainability of smallholder irrigation in Zimbabwe', Inter. J. Develop. Sustain, vol. 6, pp. 497-525.

Muzari, W, Mutambara, J, Mufudza, T & Gwara, C 2013, 'The role, potential and constraints to development of rural financial markets in Zimbabwe', Journal of Agriculture Economics and Development, vol. 2, no. 5, pp. 166-74.

Mwadzingeni, L, Mugandani, R & Mafongoya, PL 2022, 'Socio-demographic, institutional and governance factors influencing adaptive capacity of smallholder irrigators in Zimbabwe', Plos One, vol. 17, no. 8, p. e0273648.

Nkomozepi, T & Chung, S-O 2012, 'Assessing the trends and uncertainty of maize net irrigation water requirement estimated from climate change projections for Zimbabwe', Agricultural Water Management, vol. 111, pp. 60-7.

Pittock, J, Bjornlund, H & van Rooyen, A 2020, 'Transforming failing smallholder irrigation schemes in Africa: a theory of change', International Journal of Water Resources Development, vol. 36, no. sup1, pp. S1-S19.

Scoones, I, Murimbarimba, F & Mahenehene, J 2019, 'Irrigating Zimbabwe After Land Reform: The Potential of Farmer-Led Systems', in.

Stirzaker, R, Mbakwe, I & Mziray, NR 2017, 'A soil water and solute learning system for small-scale irrigators in Africa', International Journal of Water Resources Development, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 788-803.

van Rooyen, AF, Moyo, M, Bjornlund, H, Dube, T, Parry, K & Stirzaker, R 2020, 'Identifying leverage points to transition dysfunctional irrigation schemes towards complex adaptive systems', International Journal of Water Resources Development, pp. 1-28.

World Bank. 2020. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.AGR.EMPL.ZS?locations=ZW (Accessed 22 October 2022)