W'A-f.htVtj l RURAL DEVELOPMENT: pRODUCTIVE WATER FIAsiresources.bgs.ac.uk/sadcreports/zimbabwe1995mbetuwaterforrural... · purposes) and rural development. The issues of water are

•

w

ZIM,,?>POtJE:. .

U1\AJ ~

W'A-f.htVtj

tJ{C l

RURAL DEVELOPMENT: pRODUCTIVE WATER

FIAsi

Paper prepared for the Water Pricing Options and Implications First Workshop 17th October 1995

by

Ramson M. Mbetu Consultant: Rural Development

-1-

THE REAL VOYAGE OF DISCOVERY CONSISTS NOT IN SEEKING NEW

LANDSCAPES, BUT IN HAVING NEW EYES

MACIEL PROUST 1871-1922

A DRUNK WAS LOOKING FOR HIS KEYS LATE ONE NIGHT UNDER A STREET LAMP. A PASSERBY, TRYING TO HELP ASKED HIM WHERE HE HAD DROPPED THEM. "OVER THERE!" ANSWERED THE DRUNKARD, POINTING TO A DARK CORNER. "THEN WHY ARE YOU LOOKING FOR THEM HERE?" THE PASSERBY QUERIED. "BECAUSE THERE IS SO MUCH LIGHT HERE," REPLIED THE DRUNKARD.

ANON

-2-

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction: Statement of the problem - guiding prinCiples: WRMS: changes in the air;

poverty alleviation; shift in emphasis from social to productive services

2. RURAL DEVELOPMENT IN ZIMBABWE A definition Arguments against

RD as populism and not sustainable from the experience of other countries Large scale irrigation economically more viable, small holder irrigation grossly uneconomic and unsustainable

- Arguments for RD Social justice and political stability through land reform essential Redistribution of productive water in marginal areas more important than land reform per se No other viable alternatives exist in the forceable future: employment,

incomes, food production Issues of environment rehabilitation and maintenance only with

appropriate, sensitive rural development

3. THE EXISTING SYSTEM Skewed distribution land and water Production systems and processes in communal and resettlement areas

formal and informal irrigation livestock and production

the constraints in the field of productive water policy framework competition with social service sectors legal framework status of underground water poor information lack of resources for access and utilisation

- how RD is affected by the issues of water availability and access;

4. MAKING USE OF PRODUCTIVE WATER FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT A Proposal

Community involvement in productive water development and use: capital, operation and maintenance

recognition of informal irrigation and building on that practice dambo, shallow wells, sand abstraction, water rights and gardens, research and technologies on better water harvesting

Tenure structure on irrigation improvement Community ownership of boreholes and use for productive activities

-3-

Community ownership of boreholes and use for productive activities Motorised pumps for viable boreholes/ use of artesian wells Planning for small to medium dam with user community participation Reducing costs through appropriate designs and implementation Lines for resources to convey and distribute water for small scale

irrigation Recognition of livestock as economic/ productive units with value Producing high value crops for the market

5. OPTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF PRODUCTIVE WATER IN RURAL DEVELOPMENT

(a) Greater community role in the planning for productive water use (b) Reorient NRWSS programme to productive water

upgrade existing supplies for productivity increase options from sand abstractions motorise boreholes /diesel/grid/photovoltaics intensify livestock production through water use option seek deeper drilling options for productive water integrate mining and water use for productivity increase numbers of small to medium sized dams recharge water cycle as one system inculcate informal irrigation into acceptable mode of irrigation

(increase access to dambo, shallow wells) GPS investigation/aquifers/deep drilling Collector well potential exploration

(c) Redistribute water rights (d) Redistribute water from government dams (e) Change tenure system in irrigation

-4-

Purpose of Report

Rural poverty is a persistent problem in the marginal rural areas of Zimbabwe. 1

This is not cOincidental but a reflection of the historically and politically determined unequal access to productive resources. Water or lack of it, is a key issue in the development, or non-development of the rural areas. This paper looks at the link between water (in particular water for productive rather than reproductive purposes) and rural development. The issues of water are pertinent given the proposed legal changes in water resource management and distribution. Key elements of these changes involve the suggested amendments to the Water Act of 1976 which look at transfers of public water, redefinition of primary purposes, bringing underground water under same regulatory system as surface water, eliminating the theory of private water, and bringing the whole water regime under one umbrella. Two other policy contexts in water resources management are crucial. A clear stance has been given that the development of water resources should be implemented on an economically viable and environmentally sustainable basis. Secondly, that a water pricing structure be based on the user pays principle and that this be socially acceptable to the different interest groups in the water sector.

Poverty alleviation is a key motivator for these proposed changes in the water regime. Rural communities are vulnerable to the vagaries of the weather patterns. They have become less able to produce adequate food or incomes for themselves through these persistent droughts and crop failures. Government is constantly assisting with food relief over the years through direct handouts, through food for work, grain loan schemes. These subsidies call for the allocation of billions of dollars through government borrowing, causing more inflation, pushing interest rates up and denying greater investment by the private sector and less economic growth, less employment etc. In the words of one rural woman in Gwanda, " Why has the situation of our inability to feed ourselves become so permanent? What has gone wrong?"

The current rural water sector has been laying emphasis on clean safe water for I domestic and primary use for communal lands and resettlement. The approach I has been successful in providing access to "social water" from 30 percent of the

\

rural population in 1980 to 78 percent in 1994. Improvements in access to clean potable water have however been occurring within an environment of decreasing capacity of food production in these same areas.

The argument in this paper is that there is a need for change not necessarily in

1 THE HERALD Newspaper of the 11 October 1995, in a front page article, describes the Zimbabwe Farmers Union's President's concern about rural poverty. The ZFU estimates lhat 33 percent of all communal dwellers are poor, with 10 percent in dire poverty. In resettlement areas, the reform sector, the srtuation is even worse with 41 percent of the people there being poor, and 14 percent in dire poverty. His suggestion for poverty alleviation is quoted as that" The smallholder sector must be treated as atop priority in resource allocation, not just in terms of direct agricu~ural measures but equally in terms of infrastructural development, new water investments, and in all areas of key significance."

-5-

emphasis, but in striking a sustainable balance between "social water" provision and provision of productive water in the communal and resettlement areas. Turning around the thinking for a balance between the two requires years of positively discriminating in favour of productive water: productive water first!

The National Action Committee (NAC) for rural water supply and sanitation has established a Sustainability Subcommittee to see how the achievements of the programme could be sustained especially by the target groups themselves. A suggestion made in this paper is that a reorientation by the NAC itself is required in seeing water not in its disaggregated form solely for reproduction but as a key instrument in production. It is agriculture and other forms of rural production and trade which often generate much of the financial resources needed for social services. Sanitation is not a priority in many communities because the key question facing the grassroots workers, is quite blunt in many cases: "We must /

have the food before we need the toilets!" .v,Lllii'1 e;/;:" &1/ O'fI'IN'J.) f;; Ct !ft/I)

The NAC is not the only body needing to reorient their viewpoint:V The water r: 1/(1'';', ,

departments, extension and irrigation departments as well as funding \", v .. ' " ,

organisations need to change as well. The target groups as well have to value the commodity of productive water.

The issues will be analysed in the following manner. First, rural development in Zimbabwe is contextualised with arguments for and against it. Here the importance of social justice and political stability through a land reform exercise that redistributes productive water by increasing access to its use to a majority of the rural communities are alluded to. Secondly, the current status of productive water in rural Zimbabwe and the problems of the distribution and its impact on rural poverty, The constraints in the provision of, and access to, productive water, and the manner in which RD is affected by the issues of water availability and access are examined. Thirdly, a proposal is made on how productive water can aid rural development. What necessary steps could be taken? Fourthly, the implications of of such a proposal are considered especially their impacts on the price of productive water in rural areas.

Should Productive Water be the priority for rural development? Why should productive water be "first"? There is competition for the use of water in the country and more so in rural areas. In rural areas and in particular the communal areas, much emphasis has been on safe domestic water for the majority population in these areas. The Water and Sanitation programme has now expanded to cover most of the country. What is becoming evident as well is that in addition to providing access to safe drinking water, the central government and other agencies are also busy providing food supplements to a majority of the communal people. The persistent drought is a result of inadequacy of water for agricultural production2 . Commercial farmers have fall back positions on irrigated

2 The HERALD Newspaper of the 11th October 1995 had an article on 8eitbridge communal farmers at Jalukange Irrigation Scheme(started in 1967) as being required to to start paying the agricultural blend price of $47 per MI of irrigation water. What is most interesting is the fact quoted in the paper that" Communal farmers at the scheme have already appealed to the government to do away with the grain loan scheme and replace it with adequate water supply.'

-6-

farming, something very limited for communal and resettlement farmers. Commercial farmers have access to dams, riparian rights, water rights and ground water sources. How far can similar facilities be made for the communal! small holder sector so that the difference between commercial and communal is not necessarily limited to access to productive water?

1. RURAL DEVELOPMENT IN ZIMBABWE

A definition Rural development is a process that nurtures the self-sustaining improvement of the living standards of the mass of the low income populations residing in rural areas. Improving the living conditions of the mass of the rural poor is achievable through the mobilisation and allocation of resources for the improvement of the social and productive services, by outsiders or the target groups themselves. The participation of the low income regions and classes is an essential element in that process if success is to be guaranteed. A self-sustaining effort therefore requires the development of appropriate skills and the development of institutions at the local, regional and national levels for the effective use of resources.

Water is one crucial resource that fits adequately into rural development goals. Water can be mobilised and allocated for the improvement of the social and productive services. It can also be used to improve living conditions and lead to self-sustaining development. It is agriculture and other forms of rural production and trade which often generate much of the financial resources needed for social services. Agriculture in marginal agro-ecological regions where rainfall is sparse and erratic is a combination of irrigated farming and livestock, formal and informal irrigation, formal and informal employment.

There are various arguments regarding rural development in Zimbabwe. The Second Five Year National Development Plan, 1991-95 emphasises issues of rural development and agricultural development with special emphasis on communal and resettlement areas but still praises the achievements of the large scale commercial sector. A win-win outcome between commercial and communal sectors requires specific positive discriminatory efforts for communal area production.

Arguments against rural development There are conflicting debates about the meaning and context of rural development. One view derides the focus on rural development as mere populism. Examples from the developed countries and the newly developing countries of south east Asia indicate a marked and progressive decline in rural populations and the decrease in the share of the GDP of agriculture, and the decline in employment of the majority population in agriculture and an increase in the urban population and a rise in the share of the manufacturing sector in GDP. In Zimbabwe, agriculture contributes 14 percent of GDP, and manufacturing 25 percent. Advocacy for rural development is in this view seen as myopic and unlikely to lead to sustained development. This concept is based on a belief in growth as the basis for development, with a trickle down after growth.

-7-

Related to this, is the argument that large scale commercial farms have the capacity to produce enough for domestic consumption and to generate enough resources through exports to enable procurement of food required for domestic consumption. This same sector is capable of producing adequate resources for agro-based industries. Laying emphasis on developing the smallholder sector in this view, is therefore not in line with long term strategic planning for sustainable economic growth and development. Rural development would entail a land reform programme emphasising the purchase, demarcation of large scale farms for distribution to small holder producers. Better farming methods and support mechanisms would also be required to ensure increased productivity. Such a thrust would not be economically viable and therefore almost impossible to fulfil. Peacock(1995) argues that smallholder irrigation, "as we know it, is grossly uneconomic, not sustainable and a drain on resources, and is not the best option for for food security." In their argument, purchasing food on the international market is an economically sound option.

Justification for rural development About 70 percent or 6.6 million Zimbabweans live in communal and resettlement areas. This size of the population dependent on the rural areas cannot be ignored in any development equation. The arguments above are rather weak in the context of Zimbabwe. Large scale commercial production was heavily subsidised historically. A clear and deliberate discrimination was practised by the government of the day including pricing, irrigation, water rights, and finance in addition to land allocation within favourable agro-ecological regions. However the major difference is that communal lands agriculture "employs" largest section of the population. It is highly unlikely that there will be adequate investment in industry to generate enough growth for the employment required to sustain current requirements of nearly 250,000 job seekers every year. Current capacity of industry stands at about 30, 000 new jobs a year. Agricultural and rural development are the backbone of the rural economy and rural employment. In the foreseeable future the solution lies in ability to generate enough productive activity on the land by a majority of the rural populations in the rural areas. The Second Five Year National Development Plan: 1991-95 states the promotion of agricultural development through a number of measures including (1) land re-distribution; (2) acceleration of the development of irrigation facilities; (3) intensification of agricultural research and development, and (4) training of communal and resettlement farmer in agricultural and managerial skills. Current income support through food subsidies is a drain on the same investment for industrialisation. Enabling rural communities to produce more on their land is a better option for employment, productivity for both subsistence and for the market. The pOlicies that denigrated rural communal farmers into second class citizens are no longer tenable. Communal and resettlement farmers have shown their capacity to respond to positive agrarian pOlicies especially in the production of the staple crop maize and a cash crop cotton.

Social justice simply means equity and fairness. As a goal, social justice demands that all nationals have reasonable equitable access to resources and assets necessary for their reproduction and production. If the legal and institutional

-8-

framework bars reasonable and equitable access to some, then mechanisms need to be put in place for the achievement of social justice. Post independence government laid emphasis on land reform as redistribution of land to the poor and landless. As Mhishi (1995) states the resettlement programme displayed an " implicit bias towards political and social objectives". Land reform is not only important in terms of redistribution of land and water rights, but also of changing the distribution of income and wealth in the economy as a whole.

The question of the degradation of the environment will not be adequately addressed other than through a comprehensive rehabilitation of communal lands agriculture. That rehabilitation has to be sustainable. The best option is through an appropriate, sensitive rural development programme that increases production and a trust in the land by the communal population. Irrigators, formal or informal look after their land remarkably better than dryland farmers.

~ THE EXISTING SYSTEM

The skewed land distribution The disparity in land distribution in Zimbabwe is legend. Land distribution and the inequity thereof has a direct bearing on the distribution of water as well. At independence in 1980, land distribution was as in Table 1 below. The disparity in access to that land is now worsened by the population increase. Whereas in 1980 there were about 7 million Zimbabwean, that figure now represents only the communal population. Even rural urban migration has not been able to contain the explosion of rural population. A lot of the people in some densely populated districts are landless or till unpalatable land adding to degradation and erosion.

TABLE 1: Land Distribution in Zimbabwe in 1980 by sector.

SECTOR HECT ARES (mill ion Percentaqe Households Larqe Scale and State farm 15.5 47 6,000 Small scale commercial 1.4 4 8,500 Communal 16.4 49 700,000 TOTAL 33.3 100 I

In 1980 there were about 6000 large scale commercial farmers mostly white holding 15.5 million hectares of land, 8500 small scale commercial farmers holding some 1.4 million hectares, and nearly 700,000 communal farmers holding 16.4 million hectares of land. This would give a ratio of 2580 hectares for each large scale farmer's needs, 164 hectares for the small scale commercial farmer, and 23 hectares for the communal farmer's every need. Since 1980, government has acquired 3.4 million hectares for resettlement from state land and large scale commercial farms. The land for communal and resettlement farmers now stands at 19.8 million hectares pushing up the ratio up somewhat but considering population increase at 3 percent per annum, making a very limited dent on the ratios. About 18.9 percent of the land is in natural regions I and 11; 21.9 percent is in region Ill;

-9-

59.8 percent is in regions IV and V. Over 74 percent of the communal and resettlement land is in regions IV and V.

Under the land redistribution scheme, most of the land purchased is in agro­ecological regions Ill, IV, and V, where most of the communal areas also lie. Combined, regions Ill, IV and V have 81 percent of the resettlement land. Only a paltry 18 percent is in region 11 and 1 percent in region I. The same problems faced by small holder farmers in the communal lands are faced by resettlement farmers in terms of erratic rainfall and persistent drought, lack of surface water and persistent poverty. Key among these are drought and poor performance in production.

While the initial focus in rural development was on land redistribution, the pendulum appears to have shifted somewhat towards water. One can only speculate why, most probably due to financial constraints, or the failure to perform by the resettlement areas. Another reason may be due to the vocal and influential emerging African large scale commercial farmers failing to break into the established mainly white commercial farmers. Be that as it may, a survey in a number of wards in Chiredzi indicated a greater need for productive water than for land. In the case of Chiredzi, land was never mentioned as a priority need. Water for agricultural production and livestock emerged as a priority. The same prioritisation was evidenced during a survey of priorities of the communities in Lupane. In the view of the communities water is a priority need, for domestic use, for livestock, and for agricultural production. Appendix 1 shows a problem tree by combined farmers from Chivi and Mutoko. Three items stand out as major problems: unreliability of rainfall, lack of supplemental income normally obtained from small irrigation and fruit sales, and poor harvests due in part to lack of draught power, implements, and manure.

The skewed productive water distribution The major resource in marginal areas is water. How is productive to be defined. Does it mean agriculture water through irrigation as the only productive element or does that mean agro-based industrialisation or the growth points needing more water for industrialisation? Productive water can be defined as water used for purposes other than primary or domestic. Productive water is used for irrigation, livestock, game ranching, agro-based industries such as tanneries, crocodile farming, etc.

Formal irrigation , Access to productive water is as skewed, if not more so than the land distribution. '/ Appendix 3, shows the available usable MAR. Of the 150,000 hectares under

irrigation, 83 percent is on large scale commercial farms, 2 percent is for small " scale outgrowers to estates, 8.9 percent to parastatal estates and only 7 percent to i communal and resettlement areas cultivating some 8400 hectares. If these figures ~ are left in that broad categorisation, the true picture of disparity is hidden. There \ are about 4000 large scale commercial farmers in Zimbabwe as opposed to over ) 600,000 communal and resettlement farmers. The large scale farmers own about

'-{ 5700 dams in addition to their utilisation of the government owned dams. The

-10-

recent pronouncements of reserving 10 percent of MAR for small holder farmers is a recognition of this disparity in access to productive water. 10 percent of the

~I existing water rights are 0 be made available to the smallholder sector. There are

\1 \ some 11000 water rights throughout the country mostly held by the large scale

commercial farmers.

Informal irrigation Peacock(1995) estimated that there is informal irrigation in the communal and resettlement areas to the order of 30,000 hectares in the dambos and shallow wells. Communal and resettlement farmers therefore contribute about 20-25 percent of the total irrigation land in the country from both formal and informal figures. One can recount the tomatoes from Lower Gweru in Gweru, and Mutoko and Murewa communal areas, all produced through family shallow wells. A survey carried out for COOPIBO in 1987(Govearts, 1987) gave a ranking of income sources among Mutoko smallholder farmers as the second most important source of income to crop sales in agricultural production. Table 2 below indicates the level of income derived from small scale irrigation using dambos and shallow wells in Mutoko. Their contribution to rural incomes cannot therefore be overemphasised. In a discussion with a group of the very poor families, (and acceptable description of poverty were cattle and a garden with perennial water), they wandered why they were not allowed to use a very prolific deep well which many of the well-off communal farmers with own wells hardly used. They were not allowed to use it for their garden by the water committee and the vidco as instructions from DDF. This illustrates that even among the communal farmers, there is unequal access to irrigation water too.

Mvuramanzi Trust, an NGO has reported high successes in the upgrading of family wells. This is not specifically for domestic use but for small gardens as well.

TABLE 2: MUTOKO COMMUNAL FARMER INCOME SOURCES, 1985

Source of Income % of Total Income % of Households

from income source 1. Crop Sales 27 30 2. Cattle sales 2 7

3. Small stock 5 25 4. Vegetable sales 11 40 5. Fruit Sales 6 21 6. Non-formal casual work 16 57 7. Remittances 17 33 !

_8. Salaries __ andwages l§. ___ ... 4 ___ I

Source: Govearts, 1987.

Irrigation in communal areas has been seen mostly as a social service. The Second Five Year National Development Plan 1991-95, under the topic rural

-11-

development sets as its target "transformation from subsistence to commercial agriculture", One could safely say that commercialisation is already taking place where there is available productive water. What should be the focus is increasing the access of the communal and resettlement farmers to productive water. Some of the post independence schemes such as Mushandike in Masvingo, Mavhaire in Midlands have tended to be productive units where focus and size of holdings has enabled farmers to produce for the market in addition to their own subsistence.

In the communal and resettlement areas, water is considered especially by the central government more as a social good for the improvement of health and hygiene, as a basic need for both humans and livestock. Even where irrigation has been introduced, this was to supplement nutrition requirements and not to produce effectively for the market. The size of the holdings(0.1 ha) in many cases is an insignificant plot size to impact incomes. Some communal and resettlement farmers themselves have practised irrigation though on a very small scale using dambos and shallow wells or river beds for water.

Underground water Underground water has been exploited in the communal and resettlement areas for the purposes of providing domestic primary water for the rural communities.

- Ground water is free water. One pays for the establishment and pumping and operation costs. Commercial farmers have supplemented their productive water with underground water especially in the dolomite aquifers for winter wheat and the alluvial aquifers of the Save catchment. Borehole water in the communal is mostly used for domestic use. This is a post independence emphasis based on the international decade for safe drinking water and sanitation(1980-1990) and the gross inequities in access to this basic human need. There are 29,000 boreholes and deep wells in the communal and resettlement areas, It is estimated that one third of the boreholes, i.e. about 10,000, have enough water to be motorised. The Integrated Rural Water and Sanitation Programme is in the forefront of the water development in the communal and resettlement areas.

The Integrated Rural Water and Sanitation Programme: Emphasis on social water Over the past ten years, emphasis has been on primary water for domestic purposes. Since the production of the National Master Water Plan(NMWP) in 1985, emphasis has been on the objectives of the International Decade for Water and Sanitation with emphasis on access to clean safe domestic water for a majority

(

' of the rural poor. A number of donors have assisted with financial resources in the very impressive Integrated water and sanitation programme(IRWSSP) which has now covered over 40 districts out of 57. As a result, the figure of accessibility has

, risen from 38.65 percent in 1980 to 78 percent in 1992. Plans and proposals are on the table for the remainder of the districts. The NAC mandate is solely to

I concentrate on primary water provision. Bikita rural District Council in their water

(

' and sanitation project proposal in 1992 included requests for funding of some small and medium sized dams in order to provide water for livestock whilst enhancing recharge into the aquifers. The idea was rejected by the NAC mainly

. because delving into productive water issues was not the mandate of the NAC.

/ The issues of technology choice in the IRWSSP are still to be resolved. The hand

/\ -12-

( pump is the chosen technology for the programme. All other technologies are : suspect for purposes of operation and maintenance. The assumption is that rural \ people have static needs and wants. Their perceptions will remain the same still , keen on the bush pump when the rest of contemporary society is moving towards

,,---, " reduced labour for women. World wide it has been proved that with improved '-..,', standard of living the technology chosen becomes more complex for a higher

service level too. Population increase will also mean that more people have to be served by fewer water pOints but with increased pumping capacity. The total exclusion of piped schemes in the IRWSSP is not sustainable as evidenced by the

• i breach of same instructions by both the two chief water agencies DWR and DDF , who still construct piped schemes in the communal areas. The key issues are

ownership of the water points and the decision makers particularly on technology and the use to which the water can be applied.

Institutional Problems with the IRWSSP: What is happening at grassroots level?

1,1 The question of operation and maintenance is now very topical as the central i government can no longer fund this aspect as the figures allocated to DDF, the

(

maintenance organisation show. How can a social service pay for itself then? Can this be achieved in an environment where productivity is low? Shouldn't a balance be achieved between productive water and social water? In a presentation to a donor conference in 1991, the then National Chairman of the NRWSSP the then

/ Senior Secretary for Local Government Rural and Urban Development, stated that <, it would not make sense to expect cost recovery or even maintenance and ) operation costs from rural peasants being supplied with drought relief to afford \. money to maintain their water pOints. His argument therefore was that these same ~ points should afford a measure of income generation in terms of vegetable '> production and sales, as well as use in cattle fattening or upkeep, goat rearing or \, some such activity to enable understanding by the communities that borehole I water was not a social service per se, but a productive item too.

There is already a problem with the upkeep of the provided water points in the communal and resettlement areas. Table 4 below illustrates the falling government allocations for operation and maintenance from 1988/89 financial year to 1994. In real terms the allocation has fallen from Zim$ 114 in 1988 to Zim$47 in 1994195

I, financial year. Communities are now expected to contribute some cash and time towards operation and maintenance. While DDF is instituting these changes, central government is supplying these same communities with food supplements.

Community ownership of the water pOints especially where there is knowledge about the capacities of the boreholes is an opportunity for use of the water productively where possible. Examples using the collector wells in Zaka, Masvingo Province are very illustrative of micro irrigation schemes that assist incomes and food for communities.

-13-

TABLE 3: EXPENDITURE ON OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE DDF:1989 TO 1996

FISCAL YEAR Nominal bud~et Real Value Real Value O&M Number of WPoints

1988/89 1,400,000 1,885,000 114 16,467 1989/90 1,901,000 2,191,000 123 17,823 1990/91 2,385,000 2,384,000 123 19,423 1991/92 2,636,000 2,138,000 103 20,841 1992/93 4,050,000 2,312,000 104 22,178 1993/94 4,269,000 1,909,000 79 24,171 1994/95 3,262,000 1,196,000 47 25,405 1995/96 ... ].,.2.62,000 1,196,000 41 L __ 29,150

Source: DDF and CSO, 1995 (Price Index 1990 deflator)

Problems related to current use of underground water Borehole water under the IRWSSP is assumed to be solely for primary use. In some areas where NGOs have sunk boreholes, underground water is used for small scale irrigation of gardens. Some communities in Bikita are capturing waste water from the boreholes to irrigate successful little gardens round the bore holes even though the instructions from the operating agency, DDF discourages small scale irrigation around these water pOints purportedly for health reasons. In many communal lands, individuals and groups extract water from some streams for gardens of their own. In Chivi in Ward 21 for example, 38 women's groups have established gardens using water extracted from river beds using sand abstraction methods to water gardens from which they draw incomes apart from supplementing their food. These examples from surface and underground water help to illustrate lack of concern and therefore policy based on the rural household needs and priorities and actual practice. The emphasis is still based on the United Nations World Health Organisations guidelines on health, hygiene, safe drinking water and safe sanitation based on the international decade for drinking water and sanitation.

As the quotations on page two of this document show, there is need for some lateral thinking, "new eyes" of looking at the current programmes especially the uses underground water can be put to.

Poor knowledge about amounts of underground water A major problem with the IRWSS programme in particular and borehole drilling in general is the lack of pump testing to determine the amount of water available. A third of the boreholes sunk could safely be fitted with motorised pumps and more water extracted for more productive use. In Gokwe for example, the deep drilling by the Japanese, struck 7 artesian wells in addition to some high yielding boreholes. There are another 11 artesian wells already in Gokwe. Some estimates show that as much as 2 million cubic metres are available from the wells suitable for irrigation which is lost and not utilised for irrigation. In a communication with mining companies, it has emerged that a lot of underground water is available in one case to the tune of 70 million cubic meters a year which is never budgeted for or considered for use. Mines are situated closer to rural areas, usually on higher ground. Initial pumping and subsequent gravitation could be all

-14-

that is required to get water to communal and resettlement areas. An attitude change is required by all towards real rural development.

Poor quantification and orientation towards productive use of water There are 20,000 boreholes fitted with hand pumps in the communal and resettlement areas. These are described as simply wet or dry as no systematic pump testing is done on these presumably because its too expensive to do, Pump testing is done where outside donor agencies have been involved. Very little analysis of the results of those tests are done to give data on status of the formations and capacity. Because the major assumption is that water is for domestic use, only enough water should be extracted using hand pumps. Design criteria do not include water for livestock of which there are over 3,6 million cattle, and about 2.6 million sheep and goats in communal and resettlement areas.

The water sector in Zimbabwe has a major problem in terms of lack of consolidated \ data on the scope of both surface and underground water. There are various

\

' institutions, individuals and agencies responsible for water and information storage. Whilst the Ministry of Lands and Water Resources is the ultimate

" responsible agency, it is very difficult to know the number of bore holes in the commercial farmers, the number of boreholes in urban areas, the numbers sunk by other agencies other than the central government agencies such as DWR and DDF. As for small to medium size dams, NGOs also assist communities especially in the drier provinces with the help of Agritex and DDF. There is no systematic quantification of this data. DDF runs some 488 piped schemes in communal lands

il on behalf of the local authorities. In many of the DDF run schemes communities U contribute nothing. The DWR also runs some 500 piped schemes for which

consumers pay operation and maintenance costs. Some communities also run their own schemes mostly handed over to them by some NGOs. DDF constructs and maintains 2311 small dams in communal lands. This structure of unconsolidated data isa major problem in terms of getting insight into the state of water use or misuse.

Lack of a mandate on water for productive purposes Because there is no pump testing, even boreholes suitable for pumping for small scale irrigation are not exploited for better use over and above the primary uses. Compare this scenario with commercial farmers who in some cases put up boreholes not for hand pumps but for motorisation for both livestock and irrigation supplementation. Standing rules by the NAC and the DDF do not allow for gardens at boreholes. In Geophysical Surveys, should the opportunity for irrigation use not be part of the mandate? In Chiredzi, boreholes funded by an NGO have gardens around them, whilst those by government have nothing as a matter of policy. The question of mining water is a real fear, but excluding a majority of people from access to productive use is not justifiable. The lack of knowledge about the availability of underground water is a major drawback on utilisation. The

)

I! lack of data is in both the technical arms of DWD and the DDF. Monitoring the ,. ground sources is not done and therefore there is limited knowledge of whether

I \ mining of water is actually taking place or not. Garaba(1995) laments the apparent f neglect of underground water exploitation for the development of Zimbabwe's I

-15-

,

( urban water supplies3 . The demand for domestic primary water has led to a fetish ! emphasis on higher level drilling without exploring potentia Is for deep drilling for

reasonable quantities of water especially in the Greenstone formations in the country. The same argument can be used for rural schemes.

Livestock watering: Productive or primary use? Table 4 below shows that cattle are valued as productive assets and are used in much the same way as tractors and trucks are on a large farm. Cattle are viewed then more as units of production. Scoones(1992) assessed and ranked the economic value of cattle functions as indicated in Table 4 below. To consider the 3.6 million cattle as primary items as suggested in the tabled proposal for the amendment to the Water Act [76 is in our view not the best option in the quest to value water. In Lupane, for example only 2 percent of the population own more than 40 herd of cattle. The majority have fewer cattle than the 50 livestock units{put as a minimum for consideration as commercial activity), in the amendment to the Water Act. A community group involved in cattle fattening in Lupane sunk a borehole and motorised it for purposes of watering their cattle as in their words "queuing for water for our 52 herd of cattle was becoming a major problem and raising animosity from the rest of the community. Some of the members of the community were making concerned remarks like" we do not share the money afterwards!" The user pays principle should apply for all cattle owners as well.

Grazing schemes in communal lands tend to be beset with innumerable problems of community participation and poor management. One of the key reasons is that rural communities are considered as potential or actual livestock owners. The tendency then is to expect everyone to contribute towards establishment in the the same way and not proportionally. In research in Mutoko and Gwanda, if anyone joins a group at a later stage, they are expected to contribute much more as joining fee to cover the work and contributions by the older members. The only way to acknowledge that communities need to contribute differently is to value the water they use for livestock too.

TABLE 4: RANKED ECONOMIC VALUE OF CATTLE FUNCTIONS

RANKED ECONOMIC VALUE OF CATTLE FUNCTIONS

FUNCTION ECONOMIC VALUE($) FARMER RANKING

Draught 462 2 Milk 187 4 Transport 131 1 Manure 26 5 Sale 15 6 SlauSjhter 0 7 Bridewealth 0 3 - -- ----------- .~ ------------- -

Source: lan Scoones, "The Economic Value of Livestock in the Communal Areas of Zimbabwe" Agricultural Systems 39(1992), 339-359.

3 W.B.H Garaba,"Augmentation of Urban Urban Water Supplies Using Groundwater Resources" Paper presented at a Seminar on URBAN WATER CONSERVATION, 5 October 1995, conducted by the Institute of Water and Sanitation Development, University of Zimbabwe, Harare.

-16-

TABLE 5 CATTLE FIGURES IN ZIMBABWE AMONG SECTORS. 1994

Province Communal Resettlemen Small scale Larqe Seal Total Mash . Ea, 810,000 66,000 154,000 279,000 1,309,000 Mat. NorH 407,000 19,000 11,000 90,000 527,000 Manicalan 394,000 103,000 12,000 80,000 589,000 Midlands 533,000 60,000 23,000 215,000 831,000 Masvinqo 251,000 33,000 27,000 125,000 436,000 Mash. Wes 273,000 58,000 36,000 359000 726,000 Mat. Soutt 260,000 16,000 12,000 203,000 491,000 Mash. Cen 300 .. 000 32,000 27;000 137,000 496,000 Total 3,228,000 387,000 302,000 1,488,000 5,405,000

SOURCE: Veterinary Department, Republic of Zimbabwe

About 40 percent of communal farmers do not own cattle. This means benefits from common inputs used are then available to the well-off members of the community. In the IRWSS programme, communities are increasingly being asked to provide inputs towards the construction of headworks and eventual maintenance of these water points. While the general community draws benefits from drinking water, more benefits will be drawn by those with livestock. There are more than 2.5 million sheep and goats in the communal areas. The provinces dominating in small stock production are in the drier ones of Matebeleland South, Midlands, Masvingo and Matebeleland North. These provinces have the least rainfall and water for livestock is even more difficult to get other than from boreholes.

Constraints in the utilisation of water for rural development

Policy Framework and Access Access to water for productive uses is one of the major constraints to communal and resettlement farmer productivity. Access relates to:

the current legal framework, • access to information about utilisation, and

the resources to lay the infield works. present land distribution and emphasis.

Water rights on a first come first serve basis favoured the white commercial farmers. The communal were excluded both from access and knowledge to enable that access. Even after independence the situation remained the same. The interest associations such as the ZFU have championed a relook at the legal framework. In Chiredzi, there are communal farmers close to the Runde river but have no water rights. The same applies to a number of river basins and catchments, such as Mutirikwe. There is scope for access to water within a changed legal framework.

-17-

There is a fear that water right redistribution could simply lead to greater disparity between the better off wet areas such as Mashonaland Provinces, parts of Manicaland, Parts of Midlands and disadvantage further the marginal areas of Masvingo, Matebeleland South and North and parts of Mashonaland Central. Can access in the drier areas be improved without massive capital injection? Can the country afford it? Or shouldn't the drier areas concentrate on issues here they have a comparative advantage like livestock, small scale irrigation using underground water and use of small dams for livestock rearing and greater recharge of the aquifers?

Equity, social justice, and national stability issues demand deliberate consolidated efforts by both the private sector and government to address the margins. Government could concentrate on those areas least attractive to the private sector but letting production from these areas be linked to the market. Micro level production in say Chiredzi, Lupane and Binga be of valued commodities for resale in cities or on the international market.

In the case of India, some suggestions were put forward on how the very poor and marginalised could have access to water for irrigation. These suggestions could be useful in the case of Zimbabwe as a starting point. These suggestions are applicable to both surface and ground water.

Helping poor people develop their own water supplies by credit programmes for individuals or groups. Extension work can then be facilitated later.

Providing publicly run boreholes which may be used to pump water into canal systems, providing water on identical terms to canal water where both surtace and ground sources are used; or sale water directly at a small profrt or on subsidised terms.

Government installations of boreholes or shallow wells which are rented, sold or managed by the communrties themselves at cost or subsidised terms

Affecting the terms on which ground water is sold from private wells, by encouraging as many fanmers as possible to invest in wells, thus increasing competition.4

Inability to utilise water Having access is not enough if there is limited ability to utilise the water. This is a common claim by the CFU that water should be availed to those better able to utilise it. Communal and resettlement farmers have a problem in ability to use water for irrigation purposes. The common problem is that irrigation requires close linkages with research, the market, knowledge and skills for managing it. Capital infrastructure is also necessary to get water from the reservoir to the fields. This aspect assumes that water is utilised solely for sizable irrigation purposes.

It is more practical to start irrigation in ways already familiar to the communal farmers.

4 Camilla Toulmin and Mary Tiffen, "Groundwater Management: Equity, Feasibility, and Efficiency", ODIIIIMI Irrigation Management Network Paper 87/1 e, April 1987, pages 9-10.

-18-

Lack of assets to enable utilisation The key elements necessary to enable utilisation are the physical and financial assets to bring a return on capital. Water is a crucial element in the marginal areas of agro-ecological regions IV and V. In some cases like in Matebeleland, land pressure is not that bad in terms of persons per square kilometre, the problem is that there is poor access to water particularly for small scale irrigation and livestock watering. Non governmental organisations have assisted groups in many instances to access river water or through boreholes in micro level enterprises.

4 MAKING USE OF PRODUCTIVE WATER FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT: A PROPOSAL

1. Water for rural development is divided into sutiace and underground water. Sutiace water is harnessed in dams, weirs or abstracted from rivers and streams. Underground water is extracted through pumping mechanically through hand pumps or motorised pumps, or through artesian wells.

2. Water from these two sources is then used productively in a variety of ways. Three uses come to mind. First, water is used for irrigating crops for food, sale, or for industrial use. Secondly, water can be used for watering livestock such as beef cattle, dairy cows, pigs, goats, sheep, horses, donkeys, and wild life for ranching, tourism. The low rainfall areas such as Matebeleland provinces, Masvingo and parts of the Midlands are suitable mostly for livestock production. Crop production is a very risky business without irrigation water. Ventures into maize production are ill advised even though people in these areas are hooked onto the practice. Thirdly, water.in rural development can be used in agro-based small scale industries such as canning of fruit and vegetables, "eco-tourism", etc.

Surface Water for irrigation for rural development 3. Productive water for irrigation in the marginal areas is a risky business. But it is access to water that provides the key to power in arid areas. What is often described as the "green revolution" in south east Asia, and the claims to Zimbabwe as a food secure country is cheap credit and subsidised irrigation. Dam construction is an expensive business especially where the central government has limited financial resources and is continually now relying on donor funding. There are proposals to construct 90 new dams with about 70 of those for communal and resettlement irrigation. Conditions are now being put forward by these agencies on how this irrigation for small holder should pass the same stringent cost benefit analysis of major companies. The viability of small scale irrigation is covered elsewhere. With spare capacity in existing dams, redistribution of water rights, management and ownership of irrigation, construction of new dams, and expansion of micro irrigation, and a greater effort at community management and accountability, there is scope for making greater and significant use of productive water.

Murungweni (1992) quotes a study commissioned by the the Ministry of Energy

-19-

Water Resources and Development (MEWRD) on the extent of the underutilisation of existing dams in Mashonaland East and Midlands Provinces. In Mashonaland East, 203 small to medium size dams were identified and 46 of these had capacities greater than 200,000 cubic metres, sufficient for domestic purposes, livestock watering and for irrigating about 10 hectares. Through out the country DDF maintains 2311 small to medium size dams. Almost all of these are used for domestic and livestock watering purposes.

The Lutheran World Federation is an NGO that has had long experience in building small dams in arid areas especially in the south of Midlands, Masvingo and Matebeleland South provinces. While deep wells are also sunk for domestic potable water, small dams have been constructed for small irrigation schemes. There is general understanding in the dry areas that dam construction is the way forward for some of these districts.

There is therefore scope for increasing formal irrigation in the communal and resettlement areas. Some of the farms acquired for resettlement have irrigation facilities which unfortunately are destroyed, stolen or are not used by the new settlers. One wanders whether the policy framework is the problem!

One of the major problems related to small holder irrigation is the practice and management aspects utilised. Makhado(1984) succinctly puts across the problems inherent in current small scale production. Chief among these is that irrigation planning and practice are top-down affairs with very limited inputs of the communities at an early stage. There is never scope of starting with what people know and in the way that meets their everyday needs. Some of the pertinent recommendations he makes are also taken up by Peacock(1995). These issues are:

Adapting project design and technology according to the farmers's neees and managerial abilrty, building on the basis of existing farming system.

Involving the intended beneficiary farmers in scheme affairs as early as the planning stage. Communrty work and the formation of farmers' associations basee on common interests should be promotee, together wrth training of farmers to take operation and maintenance responsibilities.

Encouraging the build-up of close liaison between farmers' associations, research and extension services, input supply, creert. a fair and stable market and other services. Such institution building which is an important element in any irrigation development plan, can be accomplishee through farmer in service and formal training(emphasis addedS )

Small scale irrigation using ground water The small scale irrigation using ground water is possible in the over 20,000 5 Johannes Makhado, "A Review of Some of the factors affecting the viabilrty of smallholder irrigation schemes in Africa" a Paper presentee to the African Regional symposium on Small holder Irrigation, in Harare, 15-7 September 1984.

-20-

boreholes in the country maintained by DDF. Boreholes sunk by some NGOs are used small scale irrigation like community gardens are a very critical element in household food security. It is quite interesting that in places like Mutoko, Murewa and Lower Gweru, households survive on ground water use for horticulture. Most of these families use shallow wells even during the dry months. Boreholes could also be utilised for community gardens. The operation and maintenance costs could be met from proceeds from the sales of outputs from the gardens.

The are two major drawbacks on the use of these water pOints. First, there is poor records on the capacity or issue rates of these water pOints. The Department of Water Resources tend to classify water points as either wet or dry. This does not give enough information to the users as to the capacity. When a commercial farmer sinks a borehole for either livestock or wild life watering, he/she would definitely like to know the issue rates with a proper pump test to enable himlher to know what pumping methods will be suitable. In most cases, the water pOints are established for productive purposes. In the case of the bore holes and wells in communal and resettlement areas, the primary goal is to supply domestic water for human consumption. Livestock watering is an additional not seriously inculcated in the design criteria for the siting of water points. Is there any serious logic why the issue rates for water pOints are not done and where applicable these points can be used for productive purposes. The argument is that pump tests are expensive, but if productive water is also being sought, it should be a requirement as benefits will outweigh the costs.

International experience in borehole use can be approximated to the practice in Bangladesh. While the geological, climatic and institutional situations are different, some pertinent. In India one third of all irrigated land depends in ground water

i exploitation. Toulmin and Tiffen(1987) quote the work of Dhawan as estimating

\

' that ground water productivity is double that of surface water. He accounts for this difference by the act that well water under the farmers control and is applied as and when required, and in the right quantity. Public tubewells or bore holes are less efficiently used as compared to private ones due in part to the measure of ownership exercised.

Livestock watering is productive use. If in the design of water pOints, watering of animals. According to guidelines for livestock, beef cattle require an average of between 45 and 55 litres of water per day especially in the dry months. The figure is much lower during the rainfall months. For dairy cows the need is between 45 and 70 litres a day. Sheep, goats and pigs require about 10 litres a day to be productive. There were 3,616,218 cattle in communal and resettlement areas as of September 1994 as compared to a total of 1,790,132 cattle in the large scale and small scale commercial farming areas.

The national distribution of cattle by by province is illustrated in the diagram below. There is an obvious correlation between the areas of higher and reliable rainfall and the absolute numbers of cattle among the communal farmers. The only difference is Matebeleland North where there is a high concentration of cattle among the communal farmers based on the fact that cattle rearing is the only viable

-21-

economic option in the area. Where as in Mashonaland East cattle watering is shared between dams, rivers and streams and boreholes, in Matebeleland North most of the watering of livestock is by boreholes and riverbeds through sand abstraction.

Livestock production for income generation, draught, beef, and milk is an important aspect of rural development rarely accorded the significant role it plays in many communities. This latter aspect requires water too. Whilst surface water is dominant in rural development, the role of underground especially in livestock production. The question of underground water as a productive resource tends to be underplayed and undercosted, let alone underpriced. The significance of underground water is explored.

TABLE 6: TOTAL NUMBER OF GOATS AND SHEEP IN COMMUNAL AREAS BY PROVINCE 1993

PROVINCE GOATS SHEEP TOTAL MASH. EAST 191,000 25,000 216,000 MAT NORTH 289.000 49,000 338,000 MANICALAND 227,000 34,000 261,000 MIDLANDS 429,000 26,000 455,000 MASVINGO 362,000 29,000 391,000 MASH WEST 125,000 56,000 181,000 MAT SOUTH 518,000 85,000 603,000 MASH CENTRA 126,000 12,000 138,000 TOTAL 2,267,000 316,000 2,583,000

SOURCE: Department of Veterinary Services, Republic of Zimbabwe, Harare,

What this means is that on a daily basis if each animal drinks 30 litres of water, an amount of about 1 08ML a day, equivalent to a large dam and about he water consumed by a city. This is converted to an annual uptake of as much as 21 ,600MI calculated as roughly 200 days of watering as the animals take up water from their grazing during the wet months. Free dipping of cattle by the Department of Veterinary services have gone and owners of cattle are paying for the service. An animal can afford to lose 30 percent of its body weight during a drought but if it lost only 10 percent of water from its body, it will die as the balance in body salts become distorted. There are no substitutes for water and every cattle owner knows that. Communal and resettlement farmers are aware of these facts as well. It is important to consider cattle as productive units in the lives of communal farmers.

The probable price tag on communal cattle stands at approximately $5,4 billion. If in the water equation, the true cost of providing water for livestock were known against their value, some consideration and efficiency would creep into the management of water. Offtake from communal areas is however still low in some

-22-

J

areas between about 1.5 percent sales. In commercial farms that stands at about 17 percent. However in communal areas cattle sales is a complex business in communal areas. There are additional sales taking place within the communal sector that goes unrecorded. As Scoones(1992) sates, the" typification of the communal areas as potential beef-producing areas undervalues the other productive roles of livestock".

In urban areas, water is not free even for domestic use. In the resettlement and communal areas, land is free and an entitlement, water for domestic and livestock is free and an entitlement, grazing is free and an entitlement. There are already indications that this situation will not continue for much longer. The Land Tenure Commission Report is a first step in reorienting thinking to absolute private land ownership among the communal and resettlement populations. Group ownerShip leads to group lease rights and at a later stage will be individualised. Veterinary department has reintroduced dipping fees per animal. This is still subsidised but is a first step in the payment for operation and maintenance costs.

There is urgent need to address the questions of plot sizes in communal irrigation schemes. The 0.1 ha plots are insignificant in a scheme with unreliable water supplies. Successful schemes are those with bigger plots, e.g. 2ha and the plot holders own them as against some lease system. Management is also a key aspect in successful irrigation.

5. OPTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF PRODUCTIVE WATER IN RURAL DEVELOPMENT

(a) Greater community role in the planning for productive water use: Rural development is about the process of nurturing sustainable

improvements of the conditions of life of the marginalised rural communities. A crucial element of this is their active participation in the whole exercise. It is therefore essential that the target groups be key stake holders in any programme for productive water use. Participation of target groups is usually accepted at the rhetorical level but hardly put in practice. What we suggest below are what they are: suggestions of integrating the target group for reasons of ownerShip, sustainability, cost reduction and upliftment in the life conditions of these people.

Community involvement is crucial for the success of productive water use. We suggest a tentative format much in the lines of the IRWSS programme but with a slight difference. The major point of departure is the choice of technology, based on two key aspects, first, the demands of the community, and technical advice of the "experts". The decision to adopt and eventually implement a chosen technology and programme is also based on capacity to generate resources for either capital or operation and maintenance costs. The community looks inward for what it can raise on its own and then working towards seeking outside assistance. Subsidies should as much as possible be integrated into the communities plans rather than be too high and macro level as to create dependency syndrome among the communities.

The generalisation of community involvement should also be looked at in the use of productive water. In the commercial farms, the supply of water is in two

-23-

parts: as private water from a dam, a borehole or using a water right, or purchase from a government source. A topology of water for agriculture is attempted below.

TABLE 7: OWNERSHIP STATUS AND METHODS OF ACCESS BY SECTOR

Ownership Method of Accessing Productive Water by sector

Status Large Scale commerc Smallholder sector

Private-private Dams/B/holes/Forests Shallow wells/dams

Public-Private Water rights Nil

Private-Public Purchase/ ex-dams/b/hol Small "Purchase"

To explain the matrix, there are three rights to use of productive water other than rain water. In terms of the Water Act, currently under review, water is private based on whether it is captured on private land before it enters a public stream or storage(private-private); or a member of the public can apply for and be granted use of water from a stream or river, in a water right, for private purposes without incurring charges for that use(public-private); or a member of the public can purchase water from the public, or government storage facilities for private use (private-public). The ownership status is a legal condition within the Water Act and in practice. Large scale commercial farmers have greatest latitude in having a lot of the private-private ownership status. Compared to the smallhoder sector who own mostly at the individual level of shallow wells at their homes or nearby dambos. Some communities may a have constructed "own" dams under a chief, headman or mobilised by some key personnel in the district.

Large scale farmers also have most of the over 11,000 water rights in the country whilst the figure for the smallholder sector is negligible. The smallholders have currently no legal rights to the streams other than for primary use. Even for the public water storages, the proportion is still the same with bigger rural users being the large scale commercial farmers. The interesting thing is that the LSCF purchase water from government dams, and in the case of the Middle Save, from boreholes as well. Smallholder sector only purchase small amounts on government run irrigation schemes, and no productive water from boreholes.

Options for rural development are to increase access in all three ownership status, as we believe it is going to be difficult to deal with private-private even with the Act amended, as well as addressing public-private. Some rivers are already fully righted! What scope is there for the smallholder then? Who is supposed to lose rights and why?

In the meantime we believe there is scope for moving forward in the private­private category. First and foremost is the involvement of the rural people in the programme. The demand for use of water productively must exist and not just be assumed. The technology most appropriate and affordable must be chosen by the communities themselves with technical surveys done in partnership with local experts. Design and costing of the selected technology including the amounts of labour, local materials, and cash are determined then. The community should also

-24-

identify and investigate potentials for local sources of funding to help community in its chosen course. When this is clear, a resource mobilisation plan should be prepared by the community. When a community is aware of its own contribution, and its shortfall options such as the National Irrigation Fund and government should be brought up. This plan is most suitable for group efforts. Individual efforts by households should also be encouraged. What would then emerge is that a ward could end up with 20 hectares under irrigation. A culture for productive use of water and catchment protection will eventually be taken seriously. Shallow wells can be used to greater benefit of communities.

Other measures required to increase use of productive water are as follows:

(b) Reorienting the NRWSS programme towards productive water. This can be done though the upgrading of some of the existing supplies for productivity. The options are through motorising boreholes through Idiesel/grid/photovoltaics pumping. Communities should choose the technology most appropriate to them based on the best advice from experts and their own desires for some production. Creativity is necessary so that no fixed solutions are imposed. Some communities may opt for hand pumps as the most reliable for their purposes. A policy pOSition is therefore required for the NAC to respond to needs of productive water on existing sources and for the future.

(c) There is also scope for increasing options from sand abstractions in the marginal areas such as Masvingo, Matebeleland, and Midlands Provinces where rivers are silted and yet sub-surface water still exists. The NRWSSP should conceptualise potentials for motorised pumping for irrigation not only as the technology of last resort but as a viable option for community improvements. It has always surprised me that gardens· or small scale irrigation are abandoned in the rain season and yet they offer the best options for security of production as recourse can be made to irrigation during the usually devastating dry spells. The Chilonga Irrigation scheme is based on sand abstraction. Many small gardens are also based on sand abstraction.

(d) In the drier areas of the country, and where irrigation is impossible, there is need to intensify livestock production through water use. Cattle, sheep, goats and even some wildlife can be promoted. Ostrich and crocodile farming are high value products that are possible with water. Watering 100 cattle using a very deep and hard to pump borehole in Lupane where the sex ratio is lopsided in favour of women, is a real nightmare.

r (e) There is need for seriously thinking of deep drilling for productive water. The . problem is that no such options have ever been considered for the smallholder

producers in the communal and resettlement areas. The main reasons for that are historical and an international agenda focused on safe drinking water and sanitation. Water from such deep bore holes can be pumped into storage dams especially where dry spells abound to give communal farmers a measure of

, security or insurance during dry spells through irrigation.

-25-

(f) Water from mines is never considered for integration into agricultural productivity. Take a place like Zvishavane Mine, the residents under the mine have plenty of water whilst the ROC residents sometimes have problems of supply. Mazvihwa communal is one of the driest parts of the country and droughts are perennial. At no time has there been debates let alone consideration for a link

qj between the mine excess water and the communal areas. The potentials for water If from the Siabuwa coal mines are enormous. What impact will that have on Binga

and Gokwe district? Food for thought! This also brings in the question of artesian wells. Gokwe is littered with very productive artesian wells. Some of the water is not suitable for productive use. However as the commodity gets scarcer, some research will take place to determine methods of improving its quality for productive use. For those with usable water action should be taken to improve productivity in the surrounding areas.

(g) There is also a need to increase numbers of small to medium sized dams in communal and resettlement areas. It is ironic that we continue to pump water without seriously testing the amount of recharge into the aquifer. It is important to consider the water cycle as one system. These dams will be useful for for small scale irrigation, livestock watering, fishing, and recharge of the underground sources. Approaches to these require greater community involvement as elaborated above.

(h) There is a recognition that informal irrigation takes place and that it is beneficial to communities such as those in Mutoko, Murewa, Lower Gweru, Chivi, etc. Apart from some NGOs, very little is done to assist the development of the sector. As the Mutoko farmers realised, their wells are drying up earlier jeopardising their livelihoods. If serious consideration is taken of this trend, catchment protection, recharge mechanisms and conservation works would be gladly adopted by communities in partnerships with government extension agencies. Shallow wells are in this case similar to private dams on LSCFarms. A programme, outside the IRWSSP, maybe under the irrigation agency, could facilitate development of productive shallow wells for individuals and groups.

(i) There should be a comprehensive study of aquifer potentia Is in the country including explorations for deep drilling. Many countries in the world are surviving on underground water.

U) The collector well technology in Masvingo province offers some scope for replication in applicable areas for small scale irrigation and improved incomes of communities. In a recent visit to one such project, the presence of men in the project was enough to show the potential for improving incomes among the community. When the communities know and have explored the technology, they should be left to decide.

I (k) Redistribute water rights and where possible share private water with communal farmers: Concomitant with measures above should be the redistribution of water rights to communal and resettlement farmers to increase access to public-private water. This exercise will be fraught with serious problems in the short term.

-26-

Ability to utilise the water among the small scale farmers will remain a major draw back

(I) Redistribute water from government dams: A deliberate effort must be taken, based on water rights and access, to ensure that the small holder sector can use water for production from Lake Mutirikwi, Osborne, Mazvikadei, etc.

(m) There is need to change tenure system in the existing government sponsored smallholder irrigation schemes. Where plot holders have title productivity increases dramatically. There is scope therefore for exploration and use of the option.

IMPLICATIONS OF THESE ACTIONS? The theme in this paper is that rural development is about increasing access to productive water leading to increased production and increased incomes.

Greater involvement of the target populations will necessarily reduce costs in terms of capital, operation and mintenance. The resource mobilisation by communities will also entail the most appropriate technoloy is used rather than expensive designs of expert engineers. Donor funding in instances of greater community contribution will most likely be available. If the resulting infrastructure belongs to the communities, it should be possible to use this as collateral for financing by AFC for example in much the same way as large scale commercial farmers are assisted through the National Irrigation Fund.

The orientation of the NAC and the IRWSSP will be crucial to sustainability of the outputs of the progamme in the sense that communities will be able to relate the water supply to a social service but directly to a productive service. Efforts at requesting further supplies would then be moved towards seeking water points for agricultural use. The programme would then shift from being supply driven to one that responds to demand of specific communities.

Livestock rearing is a productive activity which must be understood in the light of dipping fees and that those who own cattle have a productive resource to be exchanged for cash, goods or services. Free dipping and free watering are oobvious subsidies, where in some cases the owners of these cattle are workers in urban areas or elsewhere. Water supply for livestock must be demand driven.

Deep drilling should be undertaken for sppecific purpose of assuring productive water. Unless all other options are exhausted one would really shudder the prospects of drilling 200 to 300 metres for drinking water for a small community. The experience of the Japanese in Gokwe illustrates the point that the costs do not justify the benefits. Much more consolidated benefits would have been assured had the effort been to get productive water for agriculture, livestock or urban development. Such efforts are guided by the international agendas of safe drinking water and sanitation thrusts.

Informal irrigation should be accorded recognition to receive funding as well.

-27-

Wells and irrigation by smallholders should be used as collateral in agricultural improvements much on the lines of boreholes. This is an area Agritex should take up as the owners could procure funding especially the poorer members in areas where shallow wells could support gardens and orchards.

If we assume that 10,000 borehole water is to be mechanically pumped, one could estimate boreholes as sunk costs and concentrate on fittings, maintenance and operational costs. A comparative study on the Photovoltaic Pumping Programme (PVP)6 showed tha tabulated figures below of the three pumping pechanisms open for the bore holes, sand abstraction, and other wells or dams and their comparative advantages. The comprisons are between the best scenario to the west through the intermediate. The PVP stands out as in the long term a more reliable option. The important fact would be the coice of the technology by the communities themselves. In a discussion, someone once commented that operation costs could be much lower if the communities engaged some people to pump usung a bush pump cutting all the other costs 0 diesel, engine and electricity or pannels.

TABLE~: COMPARATIVE COSTS OF DIESEL, GRID AND PHOTOVOLTAIC PUMPING OPTIONS

ZIM$ Capital Costs Best Intermediate Worst Case Diesel 135,646 154,161 173,840 Grid 140,596 327,457 535,483 Photovoltaic 264,920 301,691 339,626 Operation and Maintenance per annum

Diesel 21,000 34,300 52,300 Grid 12000 16200 23500 Photovoltaic 7580 9100 11100 Water unit costs per cubic metre in Zim$

Diesel 3.73 7.02 13.37 Grid 2.48 5.72 13.18 Photovoltaic 2.97 5.01 8.67

IFAD(1994) as quoted in Peacock(1995) contend that a typical one hectare garden in a communal area such as Mutoko can net as much as $26, 000 per year. There certainly are options for communities in utilising better pumping systems and maintaining them.

Developing existing dams into small scale irrigation can be done much more cheaply if the policy direction is clear and positive efforts with local authorities and communities in a demand driven programme. Rural local governments will grind to a halt unless their constituents can raise necessary incomes to contribute towards the maintenance of services and their administration.

6 P. Josef Langenkamp and Mike Bowler, "Financial and Economic Evaluation of Pumping Systems in Zimbabwe", January 1995.

-28-

. Who will pay the capital outlay for additional water? , ii Some of the water required already exists and what is necessary is a reorientation v of use and ownership by more rather than restricted uses. Examples can be found

in the use of boreholes for productive purposes rather than for domestic and .. primary uses. This can be done through a value being put to domestic water ! beyond a certain amount of water used. All water for productive use is therefore to t be paid for by anyone who uses it Questions of subsidy are important but the . amounts of subsidy must be known and the source of those subsidies should also

come from charges for water in other sectors or by levying certain levels of use more than the other uses.

There are three options too in the payment for capital costs in the marginal districts where by design of previous governments, they found themselves. Central government can put in a massive programme of dams and irrigation schemes. This

\ will certainly be too expensive, unaffordable and not particularly economic. The

, second option is for the government to explore option of ground water for irrigation , i in these areas together with smaller dams for smaller irrigation schemes. This

could work out cheaper, sustainable and will require greater community inputs in decision making, implementation and contributions towards capital costs. Irrigation does not mean complete disregard for the summer crops, but can assist the summer crops in times of stress and give an option for the winter high value crop as well. Mary Tiffen(1987) confirms the ideas just put across here when she says" The complementarity of irrigated and rainfed agriculture should be encouraged. The sequence of events that lead to an irrigation project requires the active participation of all concerned particularly the farmers beginning with the discussion of the initial concept"?

Individuals in communities are already running micro-irrigation schemes using shallow wells, sand abstraction from rivers or in the dambos. Where deliberate efforts are made using public utilities such as boreholes or small dams some steps are crucial. The example by CARE Indonesia are quite pertinent Water as a productive resource is definitely a need for rural farmers. The thinking that government should provide is fast receding as they realise inability by government and NGOs to do everything for them. Hence a general willingness to help themselves is emerging.

As alluded to above, the question of resource mobilisation is closely linked to the technology the people themselves select That selection should be based on adequate technical knowledge as well as capacity to source the funds and resources required. The design and costing will have to be done by the experts in partnership with the users/owners of the system. Annexes 4 and 5 elaborate some of the steps necessary to ensure both reduced costs and sustainable programmes. This process may however take time but that is necessary

Redistribution of water rights and access to water could increase irrigable land to communal and resettlement farmers.

? Mary Tiffen. "Rehabilitation and Participation: The views of engineers··. ODI-IIMllrrigation Management Network Paper 8713B, December 1987 p.5.

-29-

CONCLUSION There is scope for pushing the agenda of productive water as a priority for rural development. The land question has dominated the rural development agenda for a very long time but if redistribution is not linked to productive water, very limited impact will be realised. Water is a limited scarce resource which should be valued in terms of its productive importance. People are prepared to invest in water if the returns are justifiable. I n the marginal and dry areas, these returns are certainly defensible.

REFERENCES

Chitsiko, R.J., "Irrigation Development in Zimbabwe- Constraints and Opportunities" Paper presented at the Zimbabwe Farmers Union! Friedrich Ebert Stiftung Conference on Water Development for Diversification within the Smallholder Farming Sector, May 1995, Harare.

Peacock, Tony, "Financial and Economic Aspects of Smallholder Irrigation in Zimbabwe and the Prospects for further Development", presented at the Zimbabwe Farmers Union! Friedrich Ebert Stiftung Conference on Water Development for Diversification within the Smallholder Farming Sector, May 1995, Harare.

Cousins, Ben (ed). People, Land and Livestock: Proceedings of a Workshop on the Socioeconomic Dimensions of Livestock Production in the Communal Lands of Zimbabwe. Harare: Centre for Applied Social Science, 1989.

Republic of Zimbabwe, Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Appropriate Agricultural Land Tenure Systems, Volme One, HARARE, October 1994.

Republic of Zimbabwe, Second Five Year National Development Plan, 1991-1995; Harare: Government Printers, Republic of Zimbabwe, December 1991.

Scoones, lan, "The Economic Value of Livestock in Communal Areas of Southern Zimbabwe," Agricultural Systems 39(1992) pp.339-359.

World Bank. Water Resources Management: A World Bank Policy Paper, Washington DC: The World Bank, 1993

Murgatroyd, Nick and Joshua Nyoni, " Social and Cultural Aspects of Improved Water Supply using Photovoltaic Pumps" a Report Prepared for Energy Programme Zimbabwe Photovoltaic Pumping Programme, April 1992.

Murungweni, Z., "Water Resources and Supplies in Rural Areas" Paper prepared

-30-

;'~

for the RURAL WATER AND SANITATION SECTOR REVIEW FOR ZIMBABWE, FEBRUARY 1992, HARARE.

Chatora, C. Paul Taylor, and J.P.M.Hoevenaars, "Identification Mission Report on Mupfure Catchment Integrated Water Management" , Harare: Royal Netherlands Embassy, 14 July 1995.

-31-

A

THE ACTORS: WATER PRICING POLICY AND IMPLICATIONS

Suppliers /. ""-

Central Government Water Resource, .~ Donors

": .. :'J:·:':i:LLJ/

Other Central Gm' ern.ment Agencies

User Son Suppliers/Us rs

~ Governmental

Local Organisations Authority!

"" Municipality Suppliers/

~'-" \ Users

la) (b) le) (d) (c) (f)

,'CaI ..ocaI 1-=u

~raditional government Political nterest ~ooperati ,. es ",,,edit"')

Groups ·\ssociatinns Precooperati\'cs ~\'elopmcnt ' locational · ... ssociation ~emberships

~ Organisational ResJxmscs I ,

... la)Suppliers/User!P) Users (c) Users 9uPrRliers/ Users/

(d) Users (e sers (f)Suppliers Farmer Urban 'Worker Informal Worker Farm Worker ~rban Resident Private Household Household Household Household ~ousehold Enterprises

\tale Male \iale Malc Male Small scale, Female Female Female Female Female Large scale Children Children Children Chlldren Children Agricultural

f"derl) Elderly Elderly Dderly Dderly Industrial Large scale urban small scale Rural

NEEDS AND WANTS

The needs and wants of the groups listed above are not homogeneous but varied based on their access or non-access to adequate water resources especially for productioo purposes. ChganisationaJ responses are also different depending on the stratum they belong to. The needs at the indi,·idual household leyels range from income, production for basic needs, as social infmstructurc, services, rising in the hierarchy of needs recreational, self-esteem and status, self-actualisation.

ROLES Planning Designing Financing- :

- - -

·Capital, Ser'Vice. Market 'Value

RamsonMbeluM'aler Oplionsl.1lFri, 0c113, 1995

-.. ~"" o 0 c C '" "1 o ~o~ o 0 0 " , ,..,. III 0:1 o rt ..... o , 0 O~ o ~

)

)

)

/ [" I--i /

'-__ .__-J i---'

(

\

0 0 0 ; , 0 ~;:1

.~ .'V -< , -u " ,0 " ,

0 0

" c, , " " " < ~ 0 ~

-----, :I . C ." .... ." " ~ 0 D 0 . X " tD

~ 0 :! r-" ~ I ~~ ~ ~ () '" " o' 01 Cl - Z >-l

~ .... :to

" '" f'l D f'l i r-'

.~

-

~~

.. --t:

oil, on •••

-""- "',

causes wind

1 '

-.~--- J ..... .'. ,,/_.>..d

,VI" time .

spent \ carir:'g tor 1.11 rltl..,t:'.r.t8 ,

___ -...·',,\1(4/

.. _-- ------- /

other \ income) besides

ta~~~g j

we very few orchards and gardens

.-

• are wage ~_ "-_, low ~.-.

<=> <> o '"

good tarming know­ledge

~

// ..... ~ ----/ -~ --

cultivation

wrong storage practi­ces,e.g. cement floor

( ~

JhJtJGx 2..

pric •• ara low

~YI fo.'taIfi; I'E

- Harvests are decreasinq.

This has many reasons: "Our land used to be fertile. but now it is hungry", "Some people refuse to take advise". certain famiJies alwa~s plant late, ..•

- People have abandoned the custom of storing a lot of grain which can feed their family during drought years. Host families have stopped this practice for practical reasons: they don·t know how to build a good storage place. or they grow only maize varieties which spoil easily. other families are so badly in need of cash that they sell too much of their crop, hoping that the next rains will be good.

HOW to yse this poster

- You can discuss the problem tree as it is, preferably with a group of people: your family. your club •..•

Do you agree with the presentation ot the problems?

You can fit more problems in the tree, by asking the question "But Why .•• ?". An example: "but why is there too much tree cutting in our area?"

- You can ask yourselves the following question: Which problems are more important, what should be tackled first?

- The next question to ask ia: "What can we do about it, how can w •• olve these prOblems in our village?" Do not give up too easily, it is often possible for a village or a group of people to overcome obstacles to their wellbeing, provided that they look, think and act together.

Then they will see the common prOblem, they wi 11 agree "this is what we can don, and th.ey will be strong to succeed.

- You ar~ welcome to send us your comments on this poster. It your farmer "-lI."OUp or women'. club ha. manaqed to .uecesstu11y counter some ot the ~roblems causing hunger in your area, please let us know!

Thi. poater i. a oint re.11.ation ott Silve:ira HOUse, ,~ :ics department, P.O.Box 545. Harare. COOPIBO. P.O.Box ':·.)3, Harare.

With thanks ~o :he lelqium-Zimbabwe Friendship Association and the COMmunity or Het ~~nl:: (Belgium) for their financial support.

HUNGER IN THE: FAMTI,Y.

Introduction.

This poster is called a "problem tree" It shows some ot the reasons why, over the past few years. there has been hunger in certain homesteads in Zimbabwe's Communal Areas.

The problem tree has been dratted by a group ot )0 tarmers, men and women. coming from the Mutoko and chibi Communal Lands. It represents their opinion on the causes for famine, which they tormulat~d durinq a workshop held at Sllveira Hou •• in august 1992.

The aim ot this poster is: to urge the public, and especially the population in the rural areas and their leaders, not to forget the 1992 famine. On the contrary, it is wise that farmers draw up a clear picture of all the factors leading to food shortage. It will help them in their search tor appropriate solutions.

How to read the problem tree

"Lack o~ cattle" ----> "late ploughing"

This means: lack ot cattle causes late ploughing. Or late ploughing is the reBult ot lack ot cattle

So, it you point at a certain problem, you rind r~sults of this problem by tollowinq the arrows uP,. and r.aaon. tor thi. problem by retracinq the arrows down.

For instance, the tarmers who made this problem tree, were ot the opinion that soil erosion was a problem. They found 3 reasons: tree cutting, no contour ridges, continuous CUltivation. They found one r~sult: soils become poor. That problem in turn leads to lower harvests and hunger.

SlImmary ot the problem tr ••

The Mutoko and Chibi farmers tound following problems which cause hunger:

- The climate changes: 11 We used to have bigger and more regular rains". Many participants said that this is a punishment trom the ancestors, for not respecting traditions. A few farmers added that wars (Gulf war, tor instance) and pollution in other part. of the wor14 dieturb the olimate.

- Host families have little other income besides dryland farming. Jobs in town are hard to find, and it is not easy to find a place to start gardening or fruit production. So, many families rely on growing arable crops, mainly maize. It this crop fails, the family goes hungry.

I GOATS AND SHEEP IN COMMUNAL AREAS PER PROVINCE: 199 3 I

MASH CENTRAL .GOATS

I!IISHEEP

MAT SOUTH

MASH WEST

MASVINGO

MIDLANDS

MANICALAND

MAT NORTH

MASH. EAST

o 100,000200,000300,000400,000500,000600,000

I CATTLE DISTRIBUTION: COMMUNAL & RESETTLEMENT AREAS BY PROVINCE 1994

Mash. Central .Communal

Mat. South I!II Resettlement

p Mash. West R 0 Masvingo V I Midlands N C Manicaland E

Mat. North

Mash East

-' 0 1,000,000

TOTAL

-26-

I ALLOCATION PER WATER POINT IN REAL TERMS I ~ ~ ~ l~::=:::.::···~---·~-·-····~·----~-··-·~--··~·······~-.- .... -....... -.~.--.~-.- .... ~ ..... . 110

',100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 o

1988/81989/91990/91991/91992/91993/91994/91995/96

I_ Real Value O&M 1

I OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ALLOCATION PRIMARY WATER SUPPLIES I I_ Nominal budget III Real Value

5,000,000,----------------------

4,000,000 .,.1------------,

'3,000, 000 -!""-.. -"-"-"--".""~"."~-"----".

2,000,000+

1,000,000

o 1988/89 1989/901990/91 1991/92 1992/93 1993/941994/95 1995/96

-25-