IRRIGATION PERFORMANCE IN ZIMBABWE

Published by:

IRRIGATION PERFORMANCE IN ZIMBABWE PROJECT

UNIVERSITY OF ZIMBABWE 1994
FACULTY OF AGRICULTURE
P.O. BOX MP 167, MOUNT PLEASANT
H a r a r e . Z im b a b w e

SBN 0-86924-108-7

Page Layout & Typesetting:

Alphabetica

Origination & Printing:

The Print Shop

Citation:
Rukuni M., M. Svendsen, R.Meinzen-Dick with G. Makombe eds. 1994. Irrigation Perform ance in
Zimbabwe. Proceedings of two workshops held in Harare and Juliasdale, Zimbabwe, 3 -6 August, 1993.
UZ/AGRITEX/IFPRI Irrigation Performance in Zimbabwe Research Project. Faculty of Agriculture.
Univeristy of Zimbabwe.
 CONTENTS

Table of Contents...................................................................................................................... (ii)

List of Figures.......................................................................................................................... (iii)
List of Annexes ........................................................................................................................ (iii)
List of Tables.......................................................................................................................... (iv)
Acknowledgements................................................................................................................. (v)

1. INTRODUCTION
Mark Svendsen & Mandivamba R ukuni..........................................................................................1
2. METHODOLOGY FOR THE STUDY OF IRRIGATION
PERFORMANCE IN ZIMBABWE
Ruth Meinzen-Dick, Godswill Makombe & Johannes Makadho.............................................. 17
3. A DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS OF THE SAMPLE IRRIGATION SYSTEM
Godswill Makombe & Ruth Meinzen-Dick.................................................................................. 29
4. WATER DELIVERY PERFORMANCE
Johannes Makadho . ....................................................................................................................49
5. AGROECONOMIC PERFORMANCE OF SMALLHOLDER IRRIGATION
IN ZIMBABWE
Ruth Meinzen-Dick, Martha Sullins & Godswill Makombe..........................: ........................63
6. BANI IRRIGATION : AN ALTENATIVE WATER USE
Marc Andreini ................................................................................................................................89
7. IMPACT OF SMALLHOLDER IRRIGATION IN ZIMBABWE
Mandivamba R ukuni............................................................................................................... 101
8. WORKSHOP OUTCOMES
Mandivamba Rukuni, Mark Svendsen, Ruth Meinzen-Dick & Godswill M akom be.......... 119
 7
Impact of Smallholder
Irrigation in Zimbabwe
Mandivamba Rukuni11

INTRODUCTION a conventional budgeting approach is used to

argue for abolition of public expenditure in
smallholder irrigation, with further expansion
Assessing the impact of irrigation is complex recommended for, of course, the large scale
and multi-facetted, and, often, value-judgements commercial sector.
make a difference in approach and result of
analysis. In this paper, I shall argue that the case
of smallholder irrigation in Zimbabwe is no A FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS AND
exception. In fact, one needs to put smallholder DATA NEEDS
irrigation in its proper context with regards to its
past, present and future role in the national
economy. The ideal approach to impact assessment of
smallholder irrigation in Zimbabwe is one that
A number of studies have dealt with the political would assess what the situation would be
economy of smallholder irrigation (Roder 1965,,' j "without" the irrigation investment. In addition,
Rukuni 1984 and 1986, Mudekunye 1979). The one would have to examine what the alternatives
general observation is that irrigation investments are, and what the constraints are. A
in communal areas were regarded by subsequent comprehensive assessment should determine the
colonial governments as one of few productive impact of irrigation on incomes and food
public investments (such as roads and bridges) security. In addition, backward and forward
provided for these dry, drought-prone, commercial and economic linkages have to be
government neglected parking lots for native studied. Finally the social impact, particularly
Zimbabweans. In an attempt to enhance food employment, human capital developments,
security and settle displaced blacks (Roder health, equity and environmental sustainability
1965), a conventional cost-benefit analysis have to be accounted for. Because the
hardly asks nor answers all the rights questions. UZ/Agrite\/IFPR! study was focussed at the
system level of analysis, data is not complete for
Even today, the study by SADC (1992) is, in the framework proposed here. The paper,
my judgement an example of how not to however, proceeds to discuss the key issues of
evaluate the impact of smallholder irrigation in impact and provides a limited analysis and
Zimbabwe. As an important planning study for derives some conclusions and recommendations.
the SADCs Food Security Programme (Project
1.0.12) the report hardly addresses the role of
smallholder irrigation in food security. Instead.

a Professor of Agricultural Economics, University of Zimbabwe.

 110 Impact of Smallholder Irrigation in Zimbabwe

RESULTS OF FINANCIAL VIABILITY OF Mkoba, Mvverahari/Saehipiri, Mabodza,

FARMS AND SCHEMES Mutambara, Chakohwa and Tawona. The
problem cases which made a loss are
Farm Level Viability Results Charandura, Mondi Mataga, Senkwazi and
Farm level financial viability is measured here Chibuwe. Agritex charges are at a nominal rate
in terms of household income. Net income from of $ 145/ha for O&M expenses. This figures has
irrigation is approximated by the total of no bearing on actual costs as shown in Tables
summer and winter gross margins (Table 7.1). 7.3 and 7.4. Actual O&M costs are much lower
On average, farmers on Agritex and community on community schemes. The average O&M
schemes are making a profit ranging from about costs for Agritex and Community Schemes was
$l,300/ha to $4,300/ha. In '1991, on average, $720/ha.
farmers on community schemes are obtaining
higher net incomes than those in Agritex In conclusion, Agritex and Community schemes
systems. These profit margins are consistent are quite viable, achieving average profit of
with the yields reported in Chapter 5. With about $2,000/ha. per annum while averaging
gross margins at corresponding dryland sample $720/ha per annum in operation and
sites in the same season averaging about maintenance costs towards which farmers
$ 120/ha it can be concluded that farmers on contribute $145/ha/annum, with the balance
irrigation are on average, achieving higher subsidized by government.
returns per unit land that the average on dryland
in corresponding areas. Garden systems achieve Economic Performance
the highest gross margins per ha. averaging While financial analysis estimates profitability
above $5,000 across sample sites. from a private standpoint, economic analysis
estimates the value of irrigation to the economy
When financial returns are estimated per at large. To do this financial analysis is
household, Agritex, and Community Schemes transformed through the following steps:
are averaged about $727 compared to about
$650 on garden sites (Table 7.2). In many cases ■ account for transfer payments (taxes,
this was in addition to dryland cultivation. The subsidies, water rent, etc);
\ average for corresponding dryland sites was just
: about $200 per household in the same year. ■ adjust for efficiency prices of costs and
Smallholder irrigators are therefore achieving benefits (shadow pricing);
higher incomes on average than those on
^ dryland in corresponding areas. ■ account for intangible costs and benefits;
and,
Scheme Level Financial Viability Results
Scheme level financial viability or profitability ■ adjust interests rates to reflect social time
is estimated in terms of excess of total farm preference rates.
profit over cost of op£raiimi.aiid..imijltenance
(O&M). Tables 7.3 and 7.4 show total and per Tangible Costs and Benefits
ha. respectively of O&M cost on Agritex and In the case of Agritex and Community schemes,
Community Schemes. In 1990/91, therefore, the the following adjustments are therefore
majority of the sample schemes are estimated to necessary for tangible costs and benefits:
have produced excess income. These include:
 M. Rukuni 111
■ Deduct from the cost of farm inputs all particularly through employment generation
state taxes (sales and import duties, etc) (Table 7.7);
and deduct all taxes from O&M expenses.
The data required to perform these ■ n Smallholder irrigation contributes to
deductions were not readily available for 1’* household food security (Table 7.8 and
this analysis. It is estimated, however, that 7.9).
deductions from variable costs of farm
production would be 15 percent at a Intangible costs of smallholder irrigation have
minimum, and because of similar been observed in the following areas:
deductions (including income tax for staff)
at scheme level, O&M costs would drop by ■ Water-born diseases;
at least 15 percent;
■ Environmental damage.
■ Adjusting for efficiency prices of goods
and services allows the analyst to estimate Adjusting for Social Time Preference Rates
social costs or opportunity cost. This is Interest rates prevailing on the market basically
necessary because goods and services estimate the time value of money for private
provided by the manufacturing and investments. In Zimbabwe, as universally
industrial sector are often produced under experienced, market rates of interest are higher
imperfect competition or worse still by than the prevailing social time preference rates.
monopolies. Prices of such goods and The social time preference rate is the time value
services are generally higher than of money from society’s standpoint. This is the
opportunity cost. Prices of farm produce rate at which society is willing to forego
may also be over-priced or under-priced. consumption today, in preference for
Where regulations determine farm-gate consumption in the future, including future
prices, these have to be adjusted for. And generations, through investment today. Social
where local currency is overvalued, then time preference rates are much lower for public
corresponding adjustment have to be made investments than private, particularly in relation
for border prices. In the case of Zimbabwe to infrastructural development in communal
the above consideration would probably areas (dams, irrigation systems, rural roads,
amount to about 30 percent gross taxation electricity, telecommunication and so on). This
of irrigation incomes (Eicher and Rukuni rate is normally a single digit figure.
1993).
Capital Costs
For existing irrigation schemes that are in the
Intangible Costs and Benefits sample, capital costs are treated as sunk costs.
Intangible benefits of smallholder irrigation have The cost estimates for future schemes are,
been observed in the following areas: however, important in economic analysis. Data
on sunk costs is unavailable. Estimates of
Irrigation is associated with human capital current and future costs also vary widely. The
development in communal areas (Table 7.5 SADC (1992) reports cites differences of 300
and 7.6). percent between Halcrow Zimbabwe (1990)
estimates and FAO (1990) estimates. For
Irrigation has some backward and forward smallholder schemes in 1991 this would
linkages with the non-farm sector, translate to a range as follows:
112 Impact o f Smallholder Irrigation in Zimbabwe

m $6,500 to $20,100/ha for capital works to ■ a food security improvement of 20%

field edge households on schemes as well as at least
an additional 50 percent household
■ $6,000 to $19,320 for infield works. supplying deficit farming; and

In this paper, the issue of capital investments is ■ a health penalty of five percent of extra
dealt with in the following manner: population suffering from water borne
diseases.
■ Treat as sunk costs for existing sample
scheme; Whilst it is difficult to weight these benefits, a
conservative weighing of at least 20 percent is
■ Use farm and scheme level incremental net due. This raises average benefits per ha. of
benefits (profit and other weighted Agritex and community schemes by a factor of
benefits) to discount for present values of 0.2. In conclusion, these irrigation schemes
capital investments that would be covered have a positive impact on the local and national
by the benefits. economy with the economic return higher than
the financial return.

PRELIMINARY FINDINGS
CONCLUSIONS

Given the framework explained above, it will be

possible to derive economic incremental benefits Smallholder irrigation in communal areas has
at scheme and aggregate level. For this paper always been a problematic area for Zimbabwe
however, preliminary estimates have been governments. Part of the problem, in my
derived on the average cost and benefit figures. judgment, is the absence of an appropriate
After adjusting for transfer payments and analytical framework, along with the absence of
shadow prices the average C>&M costs are data, necessary to determine and plan for the
reduced from average of $720 by a conservative best alternative investments. Initial data analysis
factor of 15 percent to $612. and findings of the UZ/Agritex/IFPRI study
demonstrate some of the existing and potential
On the benefit side, adjustment for shadow pay-offs in terms of increased yield, incomes,
prices has not been done. The following social and other benefits: food security and nutrition,
costs and benefits were estimated: human capital development, and employment.
The goverment of Zimbabwe is therefore urged
■ a 15 percent increase in employment; to develop a comprehensive irrigation police
which clearly spells out the role of smallholder
■ a 20 percent increase in human capital irrigation and strategy to increase investment in
development; this sector.
 M. Rukuni 113

REFERENCES
Department of Rural Development (DERUDE) Rukuni, M. 1984. An analysis of economic and
1983. Policy Paper on Small Scale institutional factors affecting irrigation
Irrigation Schemes. Ministry of Lands development in communal lands of
Resettlement and Rural Development. Zimbabwe. Unpublished D.Phil Thesis,
Harare. Zimbabwe. Department of Land Management,
Hunt, A.F. 1958. Manicaland irrigation University of Zimbabwe.
schemes: An economic investigation. Rukuni M. 1988. The evolution of smallholder
Department of Agriculture, Southern irrigation policy in Zimbabwe: 1928 to
Rhodesia. 1986. Irrigation an d D rainage Systems.
Roder, W. 1965. The Sabi Valley Irrigation 2:199-210.
Projects. Research Paper No. 99, SADC. 1992. Regional irrigation development
Department of Geography, University of strategy. Country Report Zimbabwe. ACK
Chicago. Australia (Pvt) Ltd. Harare.
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons
Attribution - Noncommercial - NoDerivs 3.0 License.

To view a copy of the license please see:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/

This is a download from the BLDS Digital Library on OpenDocs

http://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/

Institute o f
Development Studies