adopt soil conservation practices are that they tend to foster the development of paternalistic attitudes toward farmers on the part of program staff, they cause farmers to become increasingly dependent on outside assistance, and they create disincentives within communities (see Box 4.10). Including incentives in Title II technology transfer programs can also adversely affect the quality of the work, according to Bunch (1994), with extension agents becoming “deliverers of benefits and labor bosses, rather than educators.”
Box 4.10. Arguments Against
using Artificial Incentives to
Encourage the Adoption of Soil
Conservation Technologies
“…all the arguments in favor of the use of artificial incentives are useless if we want the technologies to outlast the program. What is the point of attracting more people, or enabling the poor to participate, if the benefits do not last? What is the objective of getting a fast start if in the end the medium- to long-term impact is reduced, in spite of the costs having been increased? On the other hand, the argument against artificial incentives are legion: they cause dependency, create paternalistic attitudes, create divisions within the community, make future development work more difficult, blind people to the need to solve underlying problems, are monstrously expensive, destroy the possibility of a multiplier effect, and make accurate program evaluation difficult.”
4-18 Agriculture, Natural Resource Management, Livelihoods, Income Generation
The approaches being promoted by the soil conservation community have been changing, however, with a growing number of practitioners coming to recognize that soil conservation practices, to be more widely adopted, need to provide concrete economic benefits in a much shorter time period.82
As a result, more recent innovations are moving away from an emphasis on building structures designed to stop water that is already running down the surface of the soil to simpler, less expensive solutions that focus on taking away the causes of erosion. These include maintaining high organic content in the soils; keeping the soils covered; reducing, changing, or ending tillage; and preventing compaction. Many of these techniques, such as green manure and cover crops, improved fallows, and using more live barriers with a greater variety of grasses, bushes, and trees can also provide additional economic benefits, including food, fodder, and firewood. The Title II programs in the FAFSA-2 universe were making progress in this direction, but more efforts/actions are still needed. In Bolivia, for example, programs began placing less emphasis on the promotion of stone structures (see Figure 4.3) during the FAFSA-2 time period and more emphasis on the development of live barriers and the integration of NRM with income generation activities (see Figure 4.4). According to the Bolivia Joint Final Evaluation, the farmers that built the stone terrace in Figure 4.3 “enthusiastically adopted other soil conservation methods, such as straw barriers and mulching instead of burning, but they would only build stone terraces for FFW, or to compete in a contest” (p. 222).
The FAFSA-2 universe also included efforts to better integrate soil conservation techniques with technologies and practices designed to increase yields and, in environments where water is a limiting factor, small-scale irrigation and water
82 Bunch argues that soil conservation will be sustainably
adopted by poorer farmers only if each year’s benefits more than counterbalance the costs (1999). A similar lesson was learned from an IFPRI analysis of the adoption of NRM techniques in Burkina Faso and Niger—that “farmers are more likely to adopt resources conservation techniques if at least one innovation or component provides significant benefits in the first or second year” (Reij et al., 2009, p. 57).
harvesting. In northern Uganda, the conservation agriculture technology package that ACDI/VOCA was introducing at the time of the FAFSA-2 field visit (see Box 4.9 and Figure 4.5) includes soil conservation as well as yield-increasing techniques. In southern Malawi, the conservation agricultural package that CRS and its consortium partners are promoting in their FY 2009–FY 2014 project, which is based on technology packages developed in Zambia, also includes a recommendation that farmers begin planting their crops in shallow basins (see Figure 4.6).83 These micro-catchments, which
83 The FY 2005–FY 2009 CRS project also included a
conservation agriculture component, but it is being given more emphasis under the FY 2009–FY 2014 project.
Figure 4.3. A stone terrace in Bolivia that would not have been constructed in the absence of FFW
Jef
fery Bentley
Figure 4.4. A live barrier of alfalfa helps hold and fertilize the soil in a peach orchard in Bolivia
Jef
farmers are being encouraged to construct in their own fields, are a form of water harvesting that, when coupled with recommendations that farmers add manure, fertilizers, and/or mulch to these basins, also helps improve soil fertility.
Soil conservation and water harvesting activities were also promoted in a number of the Title II development programs in the Western Sahel, including the CRS programs in Burkina Faso and Niger. Specific techniques included the construction of water harvesting structures—zais (planting pits/ holes), demi lunes (shallow depressions that are made in the soil in the form of half moons), stone walls, and grass strips—and the natural regeneration of trees in farmers’ fields. These Title II-supported NRM efforts were a small part of a much broader dissemination effort on the part of the development
community, which some observers have described as the “regreening of the Sahel,” since many of these practices have spread broadly within the Sahel, often solely on the basis of knowledge transferred through farmer-to-farmer exchanges.84 The final
evaluations of the CRS Burkina Faso and Niger programs reported that the target farmers were particularly interested in adopting the zai and natural regeneration of tree systems and, in Niger, this happened in the absence of FFW or any other type of external support other than TA, training, and farmer visits (Robins et al., 2009; Gaudreau et al., 2009). Since the zais and demi lunes, which are another form of micro-catchments, are constructed within individual farmer’s fields (also the tree regeneration activities), farmers are able to benefit directly from any of the production increases stemming from their labors on these activities, which suggests that farmers should be willing to construct them on their own without subsidies, assuming that they are profitable. The macro-catchments that were also supported by these programs, such as the stone bunds and banquettes, are more in the nature of public works, since their benefits accrue to larger numbers of farmers and were/are less likely to be adopted in the absence of some form of subsidy (see further discussion in Section 5.3.3.2).85
Outcomes. Only 10 programs in the FAFSA-2 time period reported on the percentage of farmers adopting some measure of improved NRM practices. Eight reported exceeding their targets—the SC programs in Bolivia, Guatemala, Honduras,
84 The extent of this spread and its impact has been
documented in a presentation on “Transformational
Development in Niger” (McGahuey and Winterbottom, 2007) and in an IFPRI paper on “Agroenvironmental Transformation in the Sahel: Another Kind of ‘Green Revolution.’” The “regreening of the Sahel began when local farmers’ practices were rediscovered and enhanced in simple, low-cost ways by innovative farmers and non-governmental organizations. An evolving coalition of local, national, and international actors then enabled large-scale diffusion and continued use of these improved practices where they benefited farmers” (Reij et al., 2009, p. 53).
85 CRS used FFW to promote the adoption of its entire menu
of NRM practices in Burkina Faso, but Government of Niger policy required it to limit its use of FFW in Niger to the construction of banquettes, which are a form of macro-water catchments and are more in the nature of public goods.
Figure 4.5. Application of conservation agricultural techniques in northern Uganda
ACDI/VOCA/Uganda
Figure 4.6. Application of conservation agricultural techniques in southern Malawi
4-20 Agriculture, Natural Resource Management, Livelihoods, Income Generation
Nicaragua, and Mozambique; the ADRA programs in Ghana and Madagascar; and the PCI program in Nicaragua—and one program reported meeting its targets—the CRS program in Nicaragua. It is not clear from these indicators, however, whether food rations had any influence on these adoption rates.
4.3.2.3 Irrigation
Title II development programs provided support to smallholder-focused irrigation activities in at least 15 countries during the FAFSA-2 time period: 10 in Africa (Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritania, and Niger), 2 in Asia (Bangladesh and India), and 3 in LAC (Bolivia, Guatemala, and Nicaragua). The characteristics and size of these systems varied considerably, depending on the local context, but usually included some combination of gravity, manual, and diesel pumps and main and feeder canals to deliver the water from nearby rivers, springs, and/or underground aquifers to farmers’ fields by flooding the entire field, into basins or furrows, or through sprinklers or drip pipes (drip irrigation). A few programs provided minimal help—free vegetable seeds and watering cans combined with some training in improved production practices—to enable farmers to take advantage of water in nearby rivers or existing wells to plant small gardens during the dry season. Other programs were more ambitious and involved the construction of dams, relatively large water intakes along rivers, major canals, and smaller “overnight” storage reservoirs. Title II Awardees helped with the engineering designs and helped organize and train the water user groups needed to take over responsibility for operating and maintaining the systems. FFW was also used for some of the larger- scale activities, which were more in the nature of public goods, for example, the dams, the major canals, and the night storage reservoirs. (See Chapter 5 on “Infrastructure” for a more detailed discussion of the uses of FFW in irrigation projects as well as a discussion of some of the other water management and control activities that Title II development programs helped implement.)
Rationale for the Programs
Numerous mid-term and final evaluations emphasized the importance of irrigation in the context of the Title II programs, arguing that helping small farmers obtain access to water to irrigate their crops was one of the most important steps these programs could take to enhance the food security of their target populations. Many evaluations also argued that these programs should have done more to increase access to irrigation in their target areas. This included evaluations of programs in Bolivia, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Ghana, Guinea, Malawi, Mozambique, Nicaragua, and Niger. When improved access to water is combined with the provision of improved technologies, the impact on farmers’ incomes can be even greater than when the intervention involves only one or the other intervention. When farming areas are drought-prone and farm holdings are small, which is the situation facing many Title II client farmers, the only way that many of these farmers are going to be able to produce more is to increase their yields and/or harvest more crops per year. The team found numerous examples from the FAFSA-2 time period of Title II-supported irrigation systems that were doing both. That is, these systems provided farmers with a more assured source of water when it was needed for crop growth, which helped improve yields, and for more months, which enabled farmers to produce an additional one or two crops a year. Examples of Systems Developed
Several programs in West Africa helped target farmers expand their access to water during the dry season so that they could make more money producing vegetables for sale (market gardens) and secondarily for home consumption.86 Several
of these programs also supported the development
86 Market gardens are a common practice in West Africa,
according to FAO, particularly in urban and peri-urban areas, and are also used in rural areas to grow vegetables for sale during the dry season. The use of watering cans to deliver water is also a common practice. Watering cans are cheap and provide farmers with considerable control over the application of the water, but, according to FAO, this is also a relatively labor intensive technology. FAO, p. 101.
of new wells, including TNS in Ghana and CPI in eastern Niger. CPI/Niger had already financed the construction of several boreholes in existing wetlands (oases) at the time of the FAFSA-2 field visit and had provided groups of farmers with diesel pumps to make it easier to pump water into their fields (see Figure 4.7), along with TA and training in improved agricultural practices. One of the wetlands where CPI was beginning to work appeared to have tremendous production potential once the boreholes were drilled and the irrigation pumps installed, and was located close to good markets in northern Nigeria.
The SC/Bolivia program brought more than 230 new hectares under irrigation. The program got off to a slow start, due in part to its initial reliance on the municipal governments to develop the proposals and SC’s lack of in-house engineering capacity— problems that were corrected after its mid-term evaluation. The program concentrated on developing sprinkler irrigation (see Figure 4.8),87 which makes
better use of the scarce water resources in the region than flood irrigation. It was also a better choice in areas where the slopes were moderate because the systems can be operated without having to make additional investments in the construction of terraces. These sprinkler systems are also simpler and require less labor to operate than gravity-fed systems. In addition, SC was able to connect its clients with private equipment suppliers, who had already begun providing limited amounts of TA to SC’s clients at the time of the final evaluation. SC staff also conducted value chain analyses for the priority products it had identified for these irrigation systems and worked with the farmers on technology transfer and marketing issues.
One hundred eighteen small-scale irrigation systems were built under the CRS/Malawi (I-LIFE) program (FY 2005–FY 2009), using a combination of Title II and OFDA resources. These systems benefited more than 6,000 households, with women accounting for 55 percent of the membership.
87 The final evaluation reported that SC/Bolivia had estimated
that the cost of developing these sprinkler irrigation systems was approximately US$3,500 per hectare. p. 12.
Five hundred sixty-three hectares were brought under irrigation—75 percent by diverting water from nearby rivers and 25 percent using treadle pumps to pump the water out of a river or shallow well88—with main and feeder canals distributing
water to the farmers’ fields (see Figure 4.9). FFW was used in only five systems. The consensus of the staff that worked on the systems was that FFW “lowered the sense of ownership by the water users involved and creates an expectation of compensation in other developing schemes nearby” (I-LIFE Final Evaluation, Robins et al., 2008, p. 11). The exception was the use of FFW to develop the night storage reservoirs, which are more in the nature of public goods. Members of the I-LIFE
88 The final evaluation reported that the estimated cost of
developing the stream diversion with the gravity flow system was US$613 per hectare and US$808 per hectare for the shallow well/river using the treadle pumps system. p. 11.
Figure 4.7. Inspecting a recently completed borehole and pump in a wetland in eastern Niger
Eamonn Kilmartin/CPI/Niger
Figure 4.8. Sprinkler irrigation and contour plowing that was part of the SC/Bolivia program
Jef
4-22 Agriculture, Natural Resource Management, Livelihoods, Income Generation
consortium helped with the design of the systems. They also helped organize and train user groups in the operation and maintenance of the systems and helped communities and user farmers work through complicated and potentially contentious land tenure issues.
The Tomoyo irrigation project in Bolivia was a major undertaking for FH, diverting enough water to irrigate 600 hectares of land spread among three communities along a river valley. The construction of the intake that diverts the water from the river upstream and the main canal that delivers the water to the communities was completed during a previous FH/Bolivia Title II development program. During the project included in the FAFSA-2 universe, FH helped farmers systematize their plots for irrigation and finish the canals that deliver water to their fields, provided farmers with information on improved technologies and practices and marketing assistance, and helped organize and increase the capacity of the irrigation association to operate and maintain the system. FFW was used appropriately, that is, to pay community members for the work they did on the intake and the main canal (public works) but not for work they did on the feeder canals that delivered water to their fields or on their own fields. The number of cropping cycles per year increased over the life of the project from one to three, production became more diversified, production levels rose, and the value of sales through forward contracts and producers’ associations increased from nothing in 2002 to almost US$65,000 in 2008. Average
household income also increased from US$238 in 2002 to US$1,725 in 2008 (p. 134).
Providing Advice on Farming under Irrigated Conditions
Farmers also need information and advice on better practices with respect to farming under irrigated conditions, a step that not all Title II development programs in the FAFSA-2 time period paid enough attention to, based on comments in some of the final evaluations. Helping farmers understand that these water resources are still scarce and how to make the most efficient use of them was/is also important. Using water more efficiently means applying appropriate quantities at strategic stages in a plant’s growth. Using too little water can be wasteful, since it will not produce the desired effects, and using too much water (flooding) can be harmful, leading to nutrient leaching as well as inducing greater evaporation and salinization. Making more effective use of the limited water resources available was one reason why SC/Bolivia decided to focus on the development of sprinkler, rather than gravity-fed, irrigation systems in Bolivia. It is also why a number of other programs experimented with and promoted drip irrigation, including programs in Nicaragua and Niger.
Organizing and Strengthening Water Users Associations
Most programs also helped organize and train water users associations, which experience has shown are critical to the long-term sustainability of these systems. Programs helped organize these user groups and taught them how to maintain the systems and to develop simple operating plans, rules, and schedules for water distribution; set up fee structures and collect fees; and manage the funds that are necessary to cover the costs of operating and maintaining the systems. Helping users get organized and learn how to operate and maintain their systems needs to be a high priority in any irrigation development