Water resources and rural development 6 (2015) 12–23

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Water resources and rural development

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s e v i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / w r r

Setting up agricultural water management

interventions – learning from successful case
studies in the Volta and Limpopo river basins
Annemarieke de Bruin a,*, Rachel Pateman a, Jennie Barron a,b,1,
Mariam Balima c, Issa Ouedraogo b,c,2, Evariste Da Dapola d,
Mathias Fosu e, Frank O. Annor f, Manuel Magombeyi g,
Jean-Marie Kileshye Onema h
a Stockholm Environment Institute, University of York, Heslington Campus,YO10 5DD, Heslington, York, UK
b
Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Kraftriket 2b 10691, Stockholm, Sweden
c
Institut National de l’Environnement et de Récherche Agricole (INERA), 04 BP 8645, Ouagadougou, Burkina
Faso
d Department of Geography, University of Ouagadougou, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso
e
Savanna Agricultural Research Institute (SARI), P.O. Box 52, Tamale, Ghana
f Civil Engineering Department, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), Kumasi,

Ghana
g
School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of Witwatersrand, P. Bag 3, WITS 2050,
Johannesburg, South Africa
h Waternet, PO Box MP600, Mount Pleasant, Harare, Zimbabwe

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: Long-term investments in agricultural water management (AWM)

Received 6 March 2015 interventions in the Volta and Limpopo river basins have aimed at
Revised 14 July 2015 improving water availability and quality for smallholder farming
Accepted 2 September 2015
systems. However, sustained and wider uptake of AWM technolo-
Available online 9 September 2015
gies and approaches has not been as successful. We need to learn
from successful AWM interventions, those interventions that have
Keywords:
led to a sustained or increased uptake of AWM technologies or ap-
Agricultural water management
Limpopo proaches, and which have led to improved well-being of farmers
Volta and livestock keepers in the rural development context of sub-
Successful interventions Sahara Africa. This paper explores AWM interventions, specifically,
Soft components the impacts these interventions have had and the factors contrib-
uting to the success of these interventions.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 (2015)1904322888; fax: +44 (0) 1904 432898.
E-mail address: annemarieke.debruin@sei-international.org (A. de Bruin).
1
International Water Management Institute (IWMI), PO Box 2075, Colombo, Sri Lanka (j.barron@cgiar.org).
2 World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), BP 33 Ouaga 12, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso (I.ouedraogo@cgiar.org).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wrr.2015.09.001
2212-6082/© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 A. de Bruin et al. / Water resources and rural development 6 (2015) 12–23 13

In four countries within the Volta and Limpopo river basins, con-
sultations were carried in 33 case studies of successful AWM
interventions with implementing organisations and beneficiaries
using a participatory GIS methodology. A systematic text analysis
of 55 case study reports showed that these 33 interventions have
had a positive impact on the well-being of beneficiaries and there
was a sustained and wider uptake of the AWM technologies or ap-
proaches introduced. A clear demand for the technology, appropriate
design of the technology, input support, training and capacity build-
ing, and a sense of ownership of the community helped to sustain
the uptake of AWM technologies and approaches. We conclude that
implementing organisations would benefit from investing in the soft
components of an AWM intervention, as this will increase the like-
lihood of successful adoption and adaptation of the AWM
technologies and approaches in the long-term.
© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Long-term investments in agricultural water management (AWM) by, for example, governments
and NGOs, in the Volta and Limpopo river basins have aimed to improve food security and income
levels for smallholder farming systems (Douxchamps et al., 2012; Douxchamps et al., 2014). However,
other institutional and technical constraints in the wider context of these interventions have influ-
enced the sustained and increased uptake of AWM technologies and approaches (de Bruin et al., 2010;
Karpouzoglou and Barron, 2014; Stroosnijder et al., 2012) and despite the investment in AWM, overall,
smallholder farming systems still produce below potential yields, and with marginal input and man-
agement resources (Barron and Noel, 2011). There are success stories in the region, however, where
AWM technologies and approaches, ranging from rainfed to full irrigation, have had positive impacts
on the well-being of smallholders and rural communities (e.g. Mortimore, 2005; Reij and Smaling,
2008), but these impacts are often not monitored or reported upon in a systematic and holistic manner.
Monitoring of impacts is mainly done per intervention and not at the basin-scale across multiple
interventions of different investors. This makes it difficult to find examples of AWM technologies and
approaches in which agricultural production has increased and this increase has coincided with other
social, economic and ecological positive (or desired) changes at the basin-scale (Barron et al., 2009).
Indicators often used to understand whether AWM interventions have contributed to the well-being
of beneficiaries are: changes in agricultural production, biophysical factors, agriculturally derived income,
poverty and skills (Gabre-Madhin and Haggblade, 2004; Noble et al., 2004). Whether changes are con-
sidered to be positive, and AWM interventions considered successful, depends ultimately on the desired
development trajectory, often a subjective and value-laden definition, taking into account actors’ po-
tential trade-offs between gains and losses both in biophysical and social dimensions. We consider
successful AWM interventions as those interventions that have led to a sustained or increased uptake
of AWM technologies or approaches, and which have consequently led to an improved well-being of
farmers and livestock keepers in the rural development context of sub-Sahara Africa. To contribute
to an understanding of the impact of AWM interventions, this paper presents a systematic analysis
of multiple interventions, across the Volta and Limpopo river basins.
In addition to the lack of systematic analysis of the impact of AWM interventions, there is only
limited evidence for a wider uptake of AWM technologies and approaches within the Volta and Limpopo
basins by farmers not part of an AWM intervention. Sustained and increased uptake of AWM
technologies and approaches is a dynamic process (Sietz and van Dijk, 2015). The creation of over
1000 small- and medium-sized reservoirs has been facilitated by external investments in the Volta
Basin since the 1970s (e.g., Venot et al., 2012) and is evidence of outscaling of this AWM technology.
However, there is a lack of understanding of the proliferation of informal privately owned irrigation
14 A. de Bruin et al. / Water resources and rural development 6 (2015) 12–23

development alongside small reservoirs that are not part of larger AWM interventions (de Fraiture
and Giordano, 2014). As for the total agricultural area under soil and water conservation in the Volta
basin, this is still only 30% (Barron and Morris, 2014). The situation is similar in South Africa and Zim-
babwe (Giller et al., 2009).
This paper explores the impact of and factors contributing to the success of AWM interventions
in the Volta and Limpopo river basins. Specifically, we ask: (1) What evidence is there of sustained
and increased uptake of the AWM technology or approach and consequent impact on the well-being
of beneficiaries? and (2) What has contributed to the successful uptake of AWM technologies and ap-
proaches and so what lessons can be learned from these successful AWM interventions for similar
investments? In four countries within the Volta and Limpopo river basins, consultations with imple-
menting organisations and beneficiaries were carried out in 33 case studies of successful AWM
interventions using a participatory GIS methodology. A systematic text analysis of 55 consultation reports
has led to a rich understanding of the wide range of impacts of these case studies and of the key factors
that contributed to the successful uptake of the technologies and approaches.

2. Methodology

A two-part study was carried out in Burkina Faso, Ghana, Zimbabwe and South Africa. First, suc-
cessful AWM interventions were evaluated by local partners in each country through consultations
with implementing organisations and a sample of beneficiaries. The reports of these consultations
were then analysed through a systematic text analysis by the leading organisation (Stockholm Envi-
ronment Institute, SEI). The consultations and text analysis were done as part of the Challenge Programme
Water and Food (CPWF) basin initiatives in the Volta and Limpopo basins in 2011–2012.

2.1. Successful AWM interventions in Volta and Limpopo river basins

For the in-depth analysis of the impact of and factors contributing to the success of AWM inter-
ventions, local partners, with the help of governmental and NGO implementing organisations, identified
AWM interventions, or case studies, that could be considered successful, using the following defini-
tion developed by the researchers:
‘…a successful AWM intervention is one through which the well-being of farmers has been im-
pacted positively but also where, from a targeting and scaling-out perspective, beneficiaries still
use the technologies two years after the intervention ended, and/or where an increasing number
of people are using the technologies, and/or where spontaneous uptake of the technologies and
approaches has occurred’.
The case studies also needed to cover different implementing organisations (government or NGOs),
beneficiaries (farmers or livestock keepers), a range of technologies and approaches from rainfed to
full irrigation, and different geographic areas within the basins. Table 1 presents the 33 case studies
included in this study that cover a range of AWM technologies and approaches and implementing
organisations and geographic areas. They also span several decades in terms of the year in which the
intervention was first introduced. Some of these case studies share the same type of AWM technol-
ogy or approach, for example the dams or shallow wells.
The case study consultations took place with implementing organisations and with beneficiaries.
These half-day meetings and focus groups in the most relevant language for participants were carried
out by local partners: in Zimbabwe by Waternet; in Ghana by Savanna Agricultural Research Insti-
tute & Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology; in Burkina Faso by the Institut National
de l’Environnement et de Récherche Agricole & University of Ouagadougou; and in South Africa by
University of Witwatersrand. The partners were all trained in the same participatory GIS methodol-
ogy (similar to Cinderby et al., 2011), which helped structure the qualitative and quantitative questions
around a map, grounding the responses in the local spatial reality. Across all case studies, questions
were asked about the impact of the AWM intervention on people, crops, livestock and the environ-
ment. To understand what factors contributed to the success, people were asked what lessons could
 A. de Bruin et al. / Water resources and rural development 6 (2015) 12–23 15

Table 1
Description of successful AWM intervention case studies included in this study and the type and number of consultations done
in each with either implementing organisations (IO) or different beneficiaries (B).

AWM Country Type of AWM Implementing First year of Type of reports

case technology or organisation implementation (implementing
study # approach used in organisation (IO) or
the intervention beneficiaries (B))

1 Burkina Faso Wells NGO Before 2008 IO,B

2 Burkina Faso Gardening, shallow well and NGO 1996 IO,B
dam
3 Burkina Faso Livestock zone, dam Government 1978 IO,B
4 Burkina Faso Fruit trees, dam Government 1928/1952 IO,B
5 Burkina Faso Lowland rice, dam Government Unknown IO,B
6 Burkina Faso Dam NGO 1986/87 IO,B
7 Burkina Faso Rice and dam NGO 1970/1995 IO,B
8 Ghana Earth bunds Government 2009 IO,B
9 Ghana Stone bunds Community Unknown B
10 Ghana Stone bunds Government 2000–2006 IO
11 Ghana Shallow well Unknown Unknown B
12 Ghana Shallow well Community Unknown B
13 Ghana Treadle pump NGO 2009 IO
14 Ghana Treadle pump NGO 2011 B
15 Ghana Water pump Government Unknown IO
16 Ghana Water pump NGO 2009–10 IO
17 Ghana Water pump Government 2007/8 IO,B
18 Ghana Small reservoir Government Unknown IO
19 Ghana Small reservoir Government 1991–1997 IO
20 Ghana Small reservoir NGO 1998/1999 B
21 Ghana Small reservoir Government 1974 B
22 Ghana Small reservoir NGO Unknown IO,B,B
23 Ghana Small dam Unknown 1969 B
24 Ghana Small dam NGO 1989 B
25 Ghana small dam Unknown Unknown B
26 South Africa Ridges, mechanised basins Government 2009 B,B,B
27 South Africa Drip and furrow irrigation Government 2000 B
28 South Africa Drip and furrow irrigation NGO and government Unknown B,B, B
29 South Africa Use of manure, small tank Government Unknown B
supplied by a borehole, water
abstraction from a riverbed
30 Zimbabwe Sand water abstraction NGO 1990s B,B, B
31 Zimbabwe Pumps for fodder production NGO 2008 IO,IO,B
32 Zimbabwe Vegetable irrigation NGO 2010 B
33 Zimbabwe Conservation agriculture NGO 2008 IO,B,B,B

be learned from the intervention, how the design of the intervention was done, and how the tech-
nology or approach was adopted and adapted in terms of uptake and out-scaling.
In total 33 case studies were selected and 55 case study consultations were undertaken resulting
in 55 reports. In Table 1, the column ‘Type of reports’ shows that in some case studies, consultations
were carried out with both the implementing organisation and beneficiaries; in other case studies,
up to three different beneficiary groups participated; and in other case studies only the implement-
ing organisation was interviewed. Reports were produced in English (Institut National de l’Environnement
et de Récherche Agricole & University of Ouagadougou, 2012; Savanna Agricultural Research Institute
& Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, 2012; University of Witwatersrand, 2012;
Waternet, 2012).

2.2. Synthesis of AWM cases across the Volta and Limpopo Basins

A systematic text analysis was done of the 55 case study reports (14 from Burkina Faso, 22 from
Ghana, 8 from South Africa, and 11 from Zimbabwe) using a grounded theory approach (Eisenhardt,
1989). Report text was coded with qualitative text analysis software Nvivo to identify emerging themes
16 A. de Bruin et al. / Water resources and rural development 6 (2015) 12–23

around particular questions. In this case: what impact did implementing organisations and benefi-
ciaries ascribe to the AWM intervention(s), and what contributed to the perceived success of the
intervention? The emerging themes, those most often mentioned, are described in the results section
of this paper. To ensure a consistency within the coding of the reports, one person did the text analysis.

3. Results

3.1. Evidence of sustained and increased uptake of an AWM technology or approach and consequent
impact on the well-being of beneficiaries

In the 33 in-depth case studies, implementing organisations and beneficiaries were asked what
impact the intervention had had on humans, crops and livestock, the wider environment, and con-
flict management. The results are presented in Table 2. In almost all cases (32 of 33) the AWM

Table 2
Different types of impact mentioned in the reports of the implementing organisation (IO) or beneficiaries (B) of the AWM case
studies. X indicates this impact was mentioned in the report, n.a. indicates that no consultation was done with an implement-
ing organisation or beneficiary group.

AWM Country Type of technology or approach Increased Financial Improved Improved

case productivity benefits education connectivity
study #
IO B IO B IO B IO B

1 Burkina Faso Wells X X X X X X X

2 Burkina Faso Gardening, shallow well and dam X X X X
3 Burkina Faso Livestock zone, dam X X X X X X
4 Burkina Faso Fruit trees, dam X X X X X X
5 Burkina Faso Lowland rice, dam X X X X X
6 Burkina Faso Dam X X X X X
7 Burkina Faso Rice and dam X X X X X X
8 Ghana Earth bunds X X X X X X
9 Ghana Stone bunds n.a. X n.a. X n.a. X n.a.
10 Ghana Stone bunds n.a. X n.a. X n.a. n.a.
11 Ghana Shallow well n.a. X n.a. X n.a. n.a.
12 Ghana Shallow well n.a. X n.a. X n.a. n.a.
13 Ghana Treadle pump X n.a. X n.a. X n.a. X n.a.
14 Ghana Treadle pump n.a. X n.a. n.a. n.a. X
15 Ghana Water pump X n.a. X n.a. X n.a. X n.a.
16 Ghana Water pump X n.a. X n.a. X n.a. X n.a.
17 Ghana Water pump X X X X
18 Ghana Small reservoir X n.a. X n.a. n.a. X n.a.
19 Ghana Small reservoir X n.a. X n.a. X n.a. X n.a.
20 Ghana Small reservoir n.a. X n.a. X n.a. X n.a. X
21 Ghana Small reservoir n.a. X n.a. X n.a. X n.a.
22 Ghana Small reservoir X X X X X X
23 Ghana Small dam n.a. X n.a. X n.a. X n.a. X
24 Ghana Small dam n.a. X n.a. X n.a. X n.a.
25 Ghana Small dam n.a. X n.a. X n.a. X n.a.
26 South Africa Ridges, mechanised basins n.a. X n.a. n.a. n.a.
27 South Africa Drip and furrow irrigation n.a. X n.a. n.a. X n.a.
28 South Africa Drip and furrow irrigation n.a. X n.a. X n.a. n.a. X
29 South Africa Use of manure, small tank supplied n.a. X n.a. n.a. n.a.
by a borehole, water abstraction
from a riverbed
30 Zimbabwe Sand water abstraction n.a. X n.a. X n.a. X n.a. X
31 Zimbabwe Pumps for fodder production X X X X X X X X
32 Zimbabwe Vegetable irrigation n.a. X n.a. n.a. n.a. X
33 Zimbabwe Conservation agriculture X X X X X
Total number of reports that mentioned this impact 18 34 15 18 11 13 17 13
(19 IOs, and 36 Bs)
% of all IO or B reports 95 94 79 50 58 36 89 36
 A. de Bruin et al. / Water resources and rural development 6 (2015) 12–23 17

intervention had led to improved crop or livestock production. In those cases where beneficiaries dis-
cussed how quickly this increase in crop productivity happened after the intervention started, 15 cases
stated that benefits were seen in the first year of the intervention and 8 cases saw an increased pro-
ductivity within 4 years. Impacts on livestock production related to increased accessibility to water,
decreased labour demands for animals, and improvements in quality of grazing and fodder supply.
These impacts led to healthier animals and in several cases this was linked to increased milk and meat
production. In one district in Ghana, meat and milk quality of the animals improved because good
pasture for animals had become available throughout the year as a result of a permanently wet area
near a dam.
Some type of financial benefit, such as an increase in income, resulting from the AWM interven-
tion was reported in the majority of cases (27 out of 33). However, in some case studies not all
consultations mentioned financial benefits, for example in Burkina Faso where, in three case studies,
financial benefits were mentioned by the implementing organisations, but not by the beneficiaries.
Or beneficiaries mentioned benefits, but the implementing organisation had not, as was the case in
three case studies. In some case studies, increased income was a result of having more produce to
sell (crops, livestock and milk) and in others it was because healthier animals sold at a higher price
than before the intervention. In case studies in Burkina Faso and Ghana, both implementing organisations
and beneficiaries mentioned improvements in living standards as a result of the increase in income,
for example, improved nutrition, improved housing, the ability to pay for health care and to pur-
chase goods such as motorbikes and televisions. In Zimbabwe, farmers were able to purchase household
assets with additional income. Improved living standards were not specifically mentioned in any of
the reports from South Africa.
Education also improved due to the AWM interventions. This was either related to new or im-
proved skills of beneficiaries, or to increased money becoming available to send children to school.
For example, in one district in Ghana, women were able to sell vegetables during the dry season,
which helped to pay for their children’s school fees. In some case studies, it was mentioned that
children also had more time available to go to school because they had to spend less time collecting
water.
A large number of case studies stated that interventions had resulted in beneficiaries working more
closely together, except in South Africa, where only one case study reported this impact. In most case
studies, this was at least in part due to the formation of new groups. For case studies where the a
small reservoir was developed, most new groups were water management groups, but also in case
studies with, for example, conservation agriculture or drip irrigation, new groups were set up to main-
tain equipment, train other farmers in the use of the technology and to purchase materials or apply
for loans collectively. In several case studies, farmers working together increased the harmony and
cooperation in communities. In case study 17 in Ghana: “The farmers indicated that the project has
brought harmony and cooperation among households in the villages as it requires joint efforts to pump
the water.”
The case studies were also asked whether conflict management had changed since the AWM in-
tervention. In some case studies conflict did arise, but the causes of conflict differed. In case studies
with conservation agriculture and irrigation interventions, conflict most commonly related to live-
stock damaging crops. In Zimbabwe, conflict arose between individuals who had been selected to
participate in the intervention and those who had not. In those cases where a small reservoir had been
implemented, when conflict was identified, it related to conflicting demands from people with dif-
ferent livelihood strategies. For example, in the report of case study 18 in Ghana, it was stated that
“there have been some conflicts between different livelihoods strategies due to water usage, thus veg-
etable farmers want to use the water to the last drop, whilst livestock owners want crop production
halted for animals to water till the beginning of the main season; meanwhile fishermen also want to
fish at all times.” Conflicts were generally not managed by interventions but by traditional leaders in
communities. It was also noted that, particularly related to potential conflicts resulting from demands
for the same water source, that the formation of committees had helped to resolve these conflicts. A
community in South Africa of case study 28 noted that “Conflict in terms of water sharing has been
reduced by an arrangement of giving each other turns to irrigate and also having an irrigation com-
mittee to oversee the day-to-day running of the irrigation scheme”.
18 A. de Bruin et al. / Water resources and rural development 6 (2015) 12–23

3.2. Sustained and wider uptake in AWM intervention case studies

Sustained uptake of the AWM technology or approach by beneficiaries in the case studies was evi-
denced by a willingness to further invest. In the majority of case studies, farmers were willing to invest
to improve existing AWM technologies or to invest in additional technologies or approaches. The reasons
most commonly given were that beneficiaries could see the benefits, especially related to improve-
ments in cropping (including increased yield, ability to farm during the dry season and an increase
in cropping area), improvements for livestock, improved livelihoods, and additional income. For example,
in a community in Ghana in case study 22, “They have invested and still they very willing to invest
more because of the stressful nature of fetching water from the dam with buckets and ropes.” It was
also reported that farmers would be willing to invest to improve the technology, for example to reduce
labour demands. The case studies did not assess whether there had been an increase in area under
the approach or used by the technology.
A wider uptake beyond the direct beneficiaries was evidenced by an increased number of users of
the technology or approach. Taking into account the different years when the interventions were in-
troduced, an increased uptake of the technology or approach was observed in 11 case studies, for example
in Zimbabwe where farmers not part of the initial project had started using conversation agricultur-
al practices at their own initiative.
Although all case studies were considered successful, participants also reflected on challenges and
improvements that could (have) be(en) made. Concerns had to do with the labour intensiveness of
introduced technologies or approaches, lack of infrastructure including market access or equipment,
lack of previous experience of the technology or the approach, and the need to modify existing crop-
ping systems or lifestyles. In the case studies, all the beneficiaries continued to use the technologies
and approaches, but similar concerns were highlighted as barriers to wider uptake. In a small number
of cases, it was mentioned that beneficiaries were willing to invest further in AWM technologies but
they could not afford to do so. For example, in a community in Burkina Faso, in case study 3, “farmers
[…] do not have sufficient financial capacity to invest themselves.” The costs related to equipment
and inputs created a barrier for wider uptake.

3.3. Factors contributing to success

When both implementing organisations and beneficiary groups reflected on what had contrib-
uted to the success of the AWM intervention, the factors mentioned most often in the reports were:
a clear demand for the technology, appropriate design of the technology or approach, financial or ma-
terial input support, training and capacity building, and a sense of ownership in the community. These
are explored in more detail below. Other factors were also mentioned but less consistent across the
case studies. The type of communities that had previous knowledge of the technology, that were per-
ceived as dynamic, functional, and peaceful, and were open to innovation, increased the likelihood
of success of AWM interventions. Physical factors that were mentioned were the availability of draught
power, moisture availability, and soil quality. In Ghana, also the wider institutional settings were high-
lighted as these had contributed to success of AWM interventions. Changes in government policies
and subsidies supported beneficiaries to make further changes in local agricultural systems.

3.3.1. Clear demand for the technology

In the South African case studies, there was a clear demand from the communities to participate
in the interventions. Farmers got involved because they wanted to reduce poverty and improve food
security. Some of the interventions involved the communities in the selection of the technologies, par-
ticularly in Ghana, where almost all case studies took this approach. In two case studies in Zimbabwe,
the community was involved in the selection of the intervention. The nature of the involvement of
communities in selection and design was not generally outlined, but where it was, the most frequent
involvement mentioned was in choosing the location of the intervention. For example in one report
Burkina Faso it was stated that farmers had been involved in identifying exploitable and exploited
parts of the lowlands. Most case studies engaged the communities early in the design and implemen-
tation process. Information and awareness sessions, and meetings between intervention partners and
 A. de Bruin et al. / Water resources and rural development 6 (2015) 12–23 19

members of the communities were held in Zimbabwe, Burkina Faso and Ghana to create interest in
the AWM technologies and approaches.
In Zimbabwe, in case study 32, beneficiaries commented that organisations had approached com-
munities and farmers got involved voluntarily. However, “the number of farmers who wanted to join
the project was higher and each village was requested to select a specified number of farmers to join
the project.” In another case in Zimbabwe, case study 33, beneficiaries were selected based on vul-
nerability criteria. Farmers were selected by the intervention team to be involved if they were considered
vulnerable, i.e., if they were considered food insecure, had no agricultural implements such as draught
power, or were affected by HIV/AIDS. The community stated that this approach later affected adop-
tion rates as conservation agriculture was considered to be a “technology of the poor” and participants
felt stigmatised. However, when other members of the community saw how conservation agricul-
ture increased the yield for those who were taking part, they adopted the technology voluntarily and
at their own initiative (so-called spontaneous spread). In one case study in Burkina Faso, the imple-
mentation organisation reflected that “it must be the producers who express their need, or groups
that are functional and dynamic, to ensure the sustainability and quality of the type of development
that we want to achieve.”

3.3.2. Appropriate design of AWM technologies or approaches

There were more case studies in which the AWM technology or approach was thought to have been
easy to adopt than those in which it was said that it had been difficult. For those case studies where
both the implementing organisation and the beneficiaries commented on this aspect in most cases
both parties were in agreement. Irrigation interventions were mentioned more often as easily adopted
than conservation agriculture. Adoption was easier in those case studies where communities had re-
quested the technology or approach, or where they had previous experience. Difficulties were associated
with the labour demand of especially conservation agriculture, or the required modification of the
farming systems, such as in the case of ridges and mechanised basins.

3.3.3. Input support

In most AWM case studies, the implementing organisations provided financial and/or material support.
Financial support took a variety of forms, e.g., subsidies, loans and credit to enable the uptake of the
technology. In one case study in Ghana (number 17), the project team provided subsidies and funds
for the water pumps. Material inputs provided in the case studies were often seeds, fertilisers and
equipment, such as pumps. Financial and material support was especially given in those case studies
that included irrigation technologies. Financial support was more common in projects led by govern-
ment organisations, whereas for NGO-led projects material support was more common.
In some case studies, inputs provided by the intervention increased the yield, whereas in projects
implementing conservation agriculture a reduction in the use of fertilisers was thought to be a pos-
itive impact. This is evidenced by reports on the one hand from Ghana and Burkina Faso, in which
the observed increase in yield was not only related to the AWM technology or approach imple-
mented, but also to an increase in the use of inputs such as fertilisers and pesticides. And on the other
hand, in case study 33 in Zimbabwe, in which conservation agriculture had led to a decrease in the
use of inputs “C.A is reported to have led to the conservation and reduced use of fertilisers, seeds and
manure as only specified quantities are applied in the field.” In other case studies (e.g. case studies 2,
9, and 28), beneficiaries changed the type of fertiliser they used from chemical fertiliser to organic
manure, which also led to a change in yield.
In several case studies, the AWM intervention provided inputs to overcome the initial investment
needed for beneficiaries to be able to participate. Where this occurred, it was reported that individu-
als or communities invested financially in the AWM technologies or approaches during and after the
intervention. This occurred as farmers made contributions financially towards the purchase and on-
going maintenance of equipment, labour and fuel. However, in a small number of case studies it was
reported that financial contributions, and cost of equipment and inputs required, were a barrier to
farmers becoming involved in the intervention.
20 A. de Bruin et al. / Water resources and rural development 6 (2015) 12–23

3.3.4. Training and capacity building

In almost all case studies training was provided as part of the AWM intervention and both imple-
menting organisations and beneficiaries thought this contributed greatly to the success of the uptake.
In Ghana and Zimbabwe, case studies also benefited from the presence of technical advisors and col-
laboration with government extension services. Observation-based learning helped beneficiaries to
see the benefits in Ghana. Demonstration farms in Zimbabwe provided a similar opportunity for live-
stock keepers for growing fodder crops. Study tours and farmer-to-farmer exchange were also used.
Training was mainly done to introduce the AWM technologies and approaches. Many beneficiaries
also received training in post-harvest technologies, and repair and maintenance of equipment. A small
number received training in topics related to farming business, and more generic skills such as group
management and leadership.

3.3.5. Sense of ownership

In most of the case studies communities felt they owned the technology. Feelings of ownership
were attributed to a variety of factors, including the fact that farmers had contributed financially towards
it; beneficiaries were involved from the outset, including in installing equipment; the technology had
been adapted to local conditions; and because beneficiaries could see the benefits of the interven-
tion. For example, in one case in Ghana “Farmers realizing that their livelihood could improve through
the use of the AWM considered the intervention as their own property.” However, in case study 28,
in South Africa, farmers “[…] feel they do not own the technology because of water shortage and time
consuming activities associated with drip irrigation.”

4. Discussion

4.1. Evaluating the impact of AWM interventions holistically and systematically

The case study analysis has shown that there is evidence that the case studies included in the anal-
ysis were successful as they increased or improved the well-being of beneficiaries through increased
crop and livestock productivity, leading to a.o. financial benefits, improved education, and improved
connectivity between beneficiaries.
The participatory GIS methodology evaluated a wide range of impacts, which provided a system-
atic picture of impact across the cases. If AWM interventions can evaluate their impact after two or
more years and make the analysis easily available, this can greatly improve the assessments of changes
due to AWM interventions at the basin scale.
A longer time frame for the evaluation provides evidence of whether there has been a sustained
use of the AWM technology or approach, as well as whether unforeseen impacts occurred in the long-
term. The impact of the case study in Burkina Faso of a dam which led to vegetable growing becoming
part of the livelihoods of beneficiaries could not have been observed during or directly after the in-
tervention (case study 2): “More and more young people are inspired by these success stories and
are interested in gardening and require support and advice of their elders.”

4.2. Process of sustained and wider uptake of AWM technologies and approaches

The evaluation of case studies that ended more than two years ago has provided evidence that ben-
eficiaries are still using the technology or approach and that in some cases the number of beneficiaries
increased. However, in those case studies where benefits were slow to materialise and investment costs
in terms of labour and finance were considered high, wider uptake had not occurred. The initial in-
vestment costs and labour requirements can be barriers to wider uptake. Corbeels et al. (2014) and
Giller et al. (2009) recognise this in their analysis of conservation agriculture, highlighting that it is
critical to target the right end-users and adapt conservation agriculture approaches to the local context.
Sietz and van Dijk (2015) highlight that adoption of soil and water conservation practices is a dynamic
process in which beneficiaries adopt, adapt, abandon and replace conservation practices. The case studies
illustrate this as well. The uptake of technologies and approaches was a process in which challenges
 A. de Bruin et al. / Water resources and rural development 6 (2015) 12–23 21

had to be overcome and only after some years of training, and observing benefits did beneficiaries
express a willingness to invest in the technologies and approaches.
In some case studies, factors outside of the control of the AWM intervention, such as institutional
or physical infrastructure that changed during the implementation period, improved the sustained
or wider uptake of AWM technologies and approaches. In Ghana in particular, the development of other
infrastructure, such as roads, schools and health centres increased the success of the interventions.
Changes in physical capital can undermine or increase the success of an intervention (de Bruin and
Barron, 2012; Fan et al., 2002). In Burkina Faso where the aim of several of the cases was to settle
people with nomadic lifestyles in pastoral areas, the numbers of beneficiaries increased over time due
to changes in land rights and the completion of accompanying road and market infrastructure. Mortimore
(2005) concludes that “rural development should be seen in a broader context then agriculture alone”
(p. 19). He suggests that AWM interventions need to adopt a market-led strategy and build on achieve-
ments that have taken place.

4.3. Critical factors for success

The analysis of the case study reports showed that beneficiaries and implementing organisations
thought that a clear demand for the technology, appropriate design of the technology, input support,
training and capacity building, and a sense of ownership of the community helped to sustain and in-
crease the uptake of AWM technologies and approaches. Similar factors of success came up in a systematic
analysis of why adoption occurred in 63 soil and water conservation (SWC) cases in western Africa.
Sietz and van Dijk (2015) assessed that ‘external assistance and implementation approaches’ signifi-
cantly contributed to success. They state that the provision of material and technical and logistical
support in their case studies were factors of success, but training had varying effects and did not guar-
antee uptake of SWC practices. Davis et al. (2012) assessed the impact of farmer field schools and
concluded that these are especially helpful to engage women and those with low levels of education.
In national expert consultations that were held in the Limpopo and Volta river basins in another
part of the CPWF project (de Bruin et al., 2012), experts involved in the AWM sector in Burkina Faso,
Ghana, Zimbabwe, and South Africa reflected on what had contributed to the success or failure of some
of the interventions they had been part of. They mentioned that the natural, physical and financial
context, or as Sietz and van Dijk (2015) call it ‘local resources, agro ecology, institutions and markets’
were important. However, what was mentioned most in those consultations were factors to do with
the implementation process of AWM interventions. Examples were ‘Community owns initiative’, ‘early
engagement with stakeholders’, ‘continuous assistance and backstopping’, ‘clear demand’, ‘appropri-
ate design of the technology’, and ‘appropriate implementation’. Similar aspects came forward in the
33 case studies in this paper. The process of engagement and the appropriateness of the AWM inter-
vention approach in relation to demand were considered critical for successful AWM out scaling. Barron
and Noel (2011) call these aspects the ‘soft components’ of a development initiative and conclude that
investment in the human and social capacity of the beneficiaries is critical to ensure sustained uptake
of AWM technologies and approaches. By linking up with extension services and companies provid-
ing materials as well as training, an AWM intervention can step back from a community whilst still
ensuring support.

5. Conclusion

This paper has provided a systematic analysis of the impact of 33 case studies of successful AWM
interventions in Burkina Faso, Ghana, Zimbabwe and South Africa in the Volta and Limpopo river basins.
Firstly, the analysis has shown that the introduction of a range of AWM technologies and approaches
in these countries has led to positive impacts on crop and livestock production and livelihoods of ben-
eficiaries through improved income, education and collaboration. Secondly, it has provided evidence
of sustained and increased uptake of the technologies and approaches by evaluating case studies that
have ended more than two years ago. However, the uptake of AWM technologies and approaches is a
dynamic process and therefore likely to change in the coming years. This highlights the need for sys-
tematic and multi-dimensional evaluation of the impacts of AWM interventions at a basin-scale. Thirdly,
22 A. de Bruin et al. / Water resources and rural development 6 (2015) 12–23

the case studies show that factors contributing to the success of sustained and increased uptake of
these technologies and approaches are a clear demand, the appropriate design of the technology, input
support, training and capacity building, and a sense of ownership of the community. Implementing
organisations would benefit from investing in the soft components of the intervention as this will in-
crease the likelihood of successful adoption and adaptation of the AWM technologies and approaches.

Acknowledgements

This research was carried out through the CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food (CPWF)
in the Volta and Limpopo with funding from the European Commission (EC) and technical support
from the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) with contributions from SEI. The results
are part of the V1 and L1 ‘Targeting and Scaling out’ project in Limpopo and Volta Basin
(http://volta.waterandfood.org and http://waterandfood.org/basins/limpopo-2/) coordinated by the Stock-
holm Environment Institute (SEI) in partnership with Institut National de l’Environnement et de
Récherche Agricole (INERA), Department of Geography of the University of Ouagadougou, Savanna Ag-
ricultural Research Institute (SARI), Civil Engineering Department of the Kwame Nkrumah University
of Science and Technology (KNUST), University of the Witwatersrand, Waternet, and IWMI. We thank
the local communities and experts for contributing to the development of this work and would like
to thank the helpful comments of several anonymous reviewers.

References

Barron, J., Morris, J., 2014. Agricultural Water Management Technology Expansion and Impact on Crop Yields in Northern Burkina
Faso (1980–2010): a Review. R4D Report, Challenge Programme Water for Food (CPWF) Volta/ IWMI Colombo.
Barron, J., Noel, S., 2011. Valuing soft components in agricultural water management interventions in meso-scale watersheds:
a review and synthesis. Water Alternatives 4 (2), 145–154.
Barron, J., Noel, S., Mikhail, M., 2009. Review of Agricultural Water Management Intervention Impacts at the Watershed Scale:
a Synthesis Using the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework. SEI Project Report, 2009, Stockholm Environment Institute.
Cinderby, S., de Bruin, A., Mbilinyi, B., Kongo, V., Barron, J., 2011. Participatory geographic information systems for agricultural
water management scenario development: a Tanzanian case study. Phys. Chem. Earth PT A/B/C 36 (14), 1093–1102.
Corbeels, M., de Graaff, J., Hycenth Ndah, T., Penot, E., Baudron, F., Naudin, K., et al., 2014. Understanding the impact and adoption
of conservation agriculture in Africa: a multi-scale analysis. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 187, 155–170.
de Bruin, A., Barron, J., 2012. AWM Interventions and Monitoring and Evaluation 2: Comparing Indicators and Thresholds at
the Watershed Level and from Literature and a Participatory Process. SEI Project Report. Stockholm Environment Institute,
Stockholm/York. <http://awmsolutions.iwmi.org/Data/Sites/3/Documents/PDF/publication-outputs/learning-anddiscussion
-briefs/awm-interventions.pdf>.
de Bruin, A., Mikhail, M., Noel, S., Barron, J., 2010. AWM Interventions and Monitoring and Evaluation: Potential Approaches at
the Watershed Level. Stockholm Environment Institute Project Report – 2009. Stockholm Environment Institute,
Stockholm/York.
de Bruin, A., Barron, J., Kempt-Benedict, E., 2012. CPWF L1 and V1 Project Synthesis Report Consultation Meetings. Stockholm
Environment Institute, Stockholm/York.
de Fraiture, C., Giordano, M., 2014. Small private irrigation: a thriving but overlooked sector. Agr. Water Manage. 131, 167–174.
Davis, K., Nkonya, E., Kato, E., Mekonnen, D.A., Odendo, M., Miiro, R., et al., 2012. Impact of farmer field schools on agricultural
productivity and poverty in East Africa. World Dev. 40 (2), 402–413.
Douxchamps, S., Ayantunde, A., Barron, J., 2012. Evolution of Agricultural Water Management in Rainfed Crop-Livestock Systems
of the Volta Basin. CPWF R4D Working Paper Series 04. CGIAR Challenge Program for Water and Food (CPWF), Colombo,
Sri Lanka.
Douxchamps, S., Ayantunde, A., Barron, J., 2014. Taking stock of forty years of agricultural water management interventions in
smallholder systems of Burkina Faso. Water Resources and Rural Development 3, 1–13. doi:10.1016/j.wrr.2013.12.001.
Eisenhardt, K.M., 1989. Building theories from case study research. Acad. Manage. Rev. 14 (4), 532–550.
Fan, S., Zhang, L., Zhang, X., 2002. Growth, Inequality, and Poverty in Rural China: The Role of Public Investment. Research Report
125. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC.
Gabre-Madhin, E.Z., Haggblade, S., 2004. Successes in African agriculture: results of an expert survey. World Dev. 32 (5), 745–766.
Giller, K.E., Witter, E., Corbeels, M., Tittonell, P., 2009. Conservation agriculture and smallholder farming in Africa: the heretics’
view. Field Crops Res. 114, 23–34.
Institut National de l’Environnement et de Récherche Agricole & University of Ouagadougou (INERA), 2012. PGIS Report for all
Districts and Communities in Burkina Faso. INERA, Ouagadougou.
Karpouzoglou, T., Barron, J., 2014. A global and regional perspective of rainwater harvesting in sub-Saharan Africa’s rainfed farming
systems. Phys. Chem. Earth 72–75, 43–53.
Mortimore, M., 2005. Dryland development: success stories from West Africa. Environment 47, 8–21.
Noble, A.D., Pretty, J., Penning de Vries, F., Bossio, D., 2004. Development of Bright Spots in Africa: Cause for Cautious Optimism?
NEPAD/IGAD regional conference “Agricultural Successes in the Greater Horn of Africa”, November 22-25, 2004.
 A. de Bruin et al. / Water resources and rural development 6 (2015) 12–23 23

Reij, C.P., Smaling, E.M.A., 2008. Analyzing successes in agriculture and land management in Sub-Saharan Africa: is macro-level
gloom obscuring positive micro-level change? Land use policy 25 (3), 410–420. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2007.10.001.
Savanna Agricultural Research Institute (SARI), Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), 2012. PGIS
Report for all Districts and Communities in Ghana. SARI and KNUST, Tamale.
Sietz, D., van Dijk, H., 2015. Land-based adaptation to global change: what drives soil and water conservation in Western Africa?
Glob. Environ. Change 33, 131–141.
Stroosnijder, L., Moore, D., Alharbi, A., Argaman, E., Biazin, B., van den Elsen, E., 2012. Improving water use efficiency in drylands.
Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustainability 4 (5), 497–506. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2012.08.011.
University of Witwatersrand, 2012. PGIS Report for all Districts and Communities in South Africa. University of Witwatersrand,
Johannesburg.
Venot, J., de Fraiture, C., Nti Acheampong, E., 2012. Revisiting Dominant Notions: A Review Costs, Performance and Institutions
of Small Reservoirs in sub-Saharan Africa. IWMI Research Report 145. International Water Management Institute, Colombo,
Sri Lanka.
Waternet, 2012. PGIS Report for all Districts and Communities in Zimbabwe. Waternet, Harare.