by A. de Bruin, R. Pateman, J. Barron, M. Balima, I. Ouedraogo, D. Dapola, M. Fosu, F. Annor, M. Magombey, S. Ncube, C. Mabiza Presented at the Final Volta Basin Development Challenge Science Workshop, September 2013

1. 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

2. 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

3. Andes • Ganges • Limpopo • Mekong • Nile • Volta
Content
Background
Methodology
Findings from expert consultations and 19 cases
Conclusions

4. Andes • Ganges • Limpopo • Mekong • Nile • Volta
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.

5. Andes • Ganges • Limpopo • Mekong • Nile • Volta
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?’

6. Andes • Ganges • Limpopo • Mekong • Nile • Volta
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

7. Andes • Ganges • Limpopo • Mekong • Nile • Volta
Expert consultations - results
Type of technology Failure Successful Not said
Rainfed Soil and water
conservation/DRS/CES
SA - BF
BF
Planting pits BF? - Zim
Trench technology SA SA
Conservation agriculture SA SA
Bunding Gha Gha BF
Contour bunds/ridges/ploughing Zim Gha-Zim
Tied ridges SA - Zim SA – Gha - BF
Cover crop Gha
Tree planting SA – Gha - BF
Mulching SA - Zim SA Zim
Shallow groundwater Gha
Shallow wells Gha BF
Waste water re-use Zim Zim
Water pumps (small scale
irrigation)
Gha Gha
BF
Treadle pump SA BF
Sprinkler irrigation SA-Zim Zim Zim
Drip irrigation SA-Zim SA-Zim BF -Zim
Punched bag Zim
Micro irrigation Gha
Supplemental irrigation (rice) BF
Roof Rainwater Harvesting Zim
Ferro-cement tanks SA
Earth dams SA - Gha BF
Underground level dams SA
Full irrigation Small dams/reservoirs SA BF BF-Zim
Large scale irrigation SA

8. Andes • Ganges • Limpopo • Mekong • Nile • Volta
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’

9. Andes • Ganges • Limpopo • Mekong • Nile • Volta
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

10. Andes • Ganges • Limpopo • Mekong • Nile • Volta
Enabling factors
Nature of the communities
Communities that had previous knowledge of the
technology
Dynamic, functional, and peaceful communities open
to innovation

11. Andes • Ganges • Limpopo • Mekong • Nile • Volta
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

12. Andes • Ganges • Limpopo • Mekong • Nile • Volta
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

13. Andes • Ganges • Limpopo • Mekong • Nile • Volta
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 up
BUT the costs related could be too high
and therefore become a barrier for scaling
out

14. Andes • Ganges • Limpopo • Mekong • Nile • Volta
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 security
increased wealth (e.g. able to buy clothes, mobile
phones, motorbikes)
Access to education
Ability to diversify income streams (e.g. fruit)

15. Andes • Ganges • Limpopo • Mekong • Nile • Volta
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