the innovation of low-cost drip irrigation technology in
TRANSCRIPT
i
The Innovation of Low-Cost Drip Irrigation
Technology in Zambia
A study of the development of drip by International Development
Enterprises and smallholder farmers
MSc. Thesis by Obed Kofi Tuabu
September, 2012
Irrigation and Water Engineering Group
ii
iii
The Innovation of Low-Cost Drip Irrigation Technology in
Zambia
A study of the development of low-cost drip by International Development Enterprises and smallholder farmers
Master thesis Irrigation and Water Engineering submitted in partial fulfillment of the degree of Master of Science in International Land and Water Management at Wageningen University, the Netherlands
Obed Kofi Tuabu
September 2012
Supervisors:
Dr.ir. G.J. Veldwisch
Ir. S. van der Kooij Irrigation and Water Engineering Group Wageningen University The Netherlands www.iwe.wur.nl/uk
iv
v
Content
Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... x
List of Abreviations ................................................................................................................. xii
Acknowledgement .................................................................................................................. xiii
Chapter 1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Reflections ............................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 International Development Enterprises ......................................................................................... 2
1.3 IDE Zambia ................................................................................................................................... 3
1.4 Micro Irrigation Technology Development by IDE Zambia ......................................................... 3
1.5 Low –Cost Treadle Pumps ............................................................................................................ 4
1.6 Low-cost Micro Drip Irrigation technology .................................................................................. 5
1.7 KB Easy Drip Irrigation technology .............................................................................................. 5
1.8 MIT promotion, challenges and evaluation. .................................................................................. 6
1.9 The research ................................................................................................................................... 6
1.10 Outline of thesis ........................................................................................................................... 7
Chapter 2. Theories and Concepts ............................................................................................. 9
2.1 Constructivists perspective ............................................................................................................ 9
2.2 Social-technical approach ............................................................................................................ 10
2.2.1 Social construction of technology theory ............................................................................. 10
2.2.3 Actor-network theory (ANT) ................................................................................................ 11
2.2.4 Systems of innovation (SI) approach .................................................................................... 11
2.2.5 Socio-technical systems (ST-systems) ................................................................................. 12
2.3 Concepts definition ...................................................................................................................... 13
2.3.1 Configuration ........................................................................................................................ 13
2.3.2 Bricolage ............................................................................................................................... 14
2.3.3 Over-the-wall ........................................................................................................................ 14
2.4 Research problem ........................................................................................................................ 14
2.4.1Research objectives ............................................................................................................... 14
2.4.2 Research questions ............................................................................................................... 15
Chapter 3. Methodology .......................................................................................................... 16
3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 16
3.2 Research design ........................................................................................................................... 16
3.3 Research approach ....................................................................................................................... 17
3.2.2 Research Domains ................................................................................................................ 17
3.2.3 Research methods and techniques ........................................................................................ 18
3.4 Limitations ................................................................................................................................... 22
3.5 Analysis, evaluation and presentation of research findings ........................................................ 23
4.1 IDE project design ....................................................................................................................... 24
4.1.1 PRISM .................................................................................................................................. 24
vi
4.2 IDE Zambia Project Phases ......................................................................................................... 29
4.2.1 In the beginning .................................................................................................................... 29
4.2.1 Smallholder Market Creation Project (2003 – 2005)............................................................ 32
4.2.2 Rural Prosperity Initiative (RPI) Projects (2006 – 2010 : 2011 → ) ................................... 32
4.3 Development of the treadle pump ............................................................................................... 35
4.4 Development of the low-cost drip ............................................................................................... 38
Note some terminologies ................................................................................................................... 41
4.5 The Supply chain ......................................................................................................................... 41
4.6 Promotion and sale ...................................................................................................................... 45
Promotional messages on drip kits ................................................................................................ 46
Supply chain actors ........................................................................................................................ 47
4.6.2 Farmer identification and group formation .............................................................................. 49
4.6.3 Crop Selection and Training ..................................................................................................... 49
4.6.4 MIT sale and financing ............................................................................................................. 50
Micro Finance Loans ..................................................................................................................... 50
Cash crops ..................................................................................................................................... 50
Other sources ................................................................................................................................. 50
4.7 Market Linkages ................................................................................................................ 51
4.8 Project evaluation and learning. ........................................................................................ 53
4.8.1 Development of micro irrigation technologies ..................................................................... 53
4.8.2 The Farm Business Advisor (FBA) ...................................................................................... 56
Roles and incentives of the FBA ................................................................................................... 57
Brokering ....................................................................................................................................... 58
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 59
Chapter 5. The Farmer domain ................................................................................................ 60
5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 60
5.2 Introduction to the farmer domain ............................................................................................... 60
5.3 Farmer’s relation with ‘low-cost’ drip ......................................................................................... 64
5.3.1 Farmers who did not use drip ............................................................................................... 64
A Case of Mr. Mubere. .................................................................................................................. 64
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 65
5.3.2 Farmers who abandoned the use of KB drip kit ................................................................... 65
Case 1: Mr. Esau Ngandu .............................................................................................................. 65
Case 2: Mr. Allen Hatimbula ......................................................................................................... 66
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 68
5.2.3 Farmers using the KB drip technology ................................................................................. 69
Case 1: Mr. Markaloni George ...................................................................................................... 70
Case 2: Mr. Kalenga and Mr. Chuma ............................................................................................ 73
Case 3: Mr. Mutempa Elliot .......................................................................................................... 76
vii
Case 4. Mr. Geoffrey Chulu .......................................................................................................... 81
Case 5. Mr. Justin Mukuni............................................................................................................. 83
Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 86
Chapter 6. Innovation network relations .................................................................................. 87
6.1 Manufacturer domain innovation networks ................................................................................. 87
6.2 Farmer domain innovation networks ........................................................................................... 88
Chapter 7. Analysis .................................................................................................................. 93
7.1 Interpretative flexibility of the KB drip ............................................................................. 93
7.2 Innovation of the KB drip .................................................................................................. 95
7.2.1 Innovation by IDE .................................................................................................................... 95
7.2.2 Farmer innovation .................................................................................................................... 96
7.2.3 Innovation network and diffusion in the farmer domain .......................................................... 98
7.3.1 Integrity of drip technology network actors ............................................................................. 99
7.3.2 Drip system constraints ......................................................................................................... 101
7.3.3 Institutional limitations .......................................................................................................... 105
Chapter 8. Discussions and conclusion .................................................................................. 107
8.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 107
8.2 Development the KB ‘low-cost’ drip ....................................................................................... 107
8.2 Innovation of the KB low-cost drip .......................................................................................... 108
8.3 Failing the KB drip .................................................................................................................... 108
Chapter 9. Recommendations ................................................................................................ 111
9.1 Recommendation for further research ....................................................................................... 111
References .............................................................................................................................. 113
Appendix 1. Study respondents ............................................................................................. 118
Appendix 2. Treadle Pump manufacturing manual [protocol]. ............................................. 121
viii
Table of Figures
Figure 1. IDE Project timeline .................................................................................................................. 3
Figure 2. Treadle pumps (Left: river pump, Right: pressure pump) ......................................................... 5
Figure 3. KB drip system in Zambia ......................................................................................................... 6
Figure 4. Element and resources of socio-MIT system (adapted from Geels, 2004) ............................. 13
Figure 5. Social groups which carry and reproduce Socio-MIT system (Modified from Geels, 2004) . 13
Figure 6. Map of study area .................................................................................................................... 18
Figure 7. PRISM in Action ..................................................................................................................... 27
Figure 8. The PRISM strategy ................................................................................................................ 28
Figure 9. Prototype drawing of the Mosi-O-Tunya pump ...................................................................... 36
Figure 10. Prototypes of pressue treadle pumps (older versions from right to left) .............................. 37
Figure 11. The Mosi-O-Tunya pressure pumps (in colour blue. Newer versions from left to right) ..... 38
Figure 12. Basic components of the low-cost drip (IDE, no date) .......................................................... 40
Figure 13. Schematic drawing of 100 square meter drip kit (IDE, no date) ........................................... 41
Figure 14. MIT Value/supply chain ........................................................................................................ 42
Figure 15. Drip packages on shelves of importers and retailers in Zambia ............................................ 44
Figure 16. Some manufacturers of treadle pumps in Zambia ................................................................. 45
Figure 17. Promotional message by Cropserve, retailer of KB drip kits ................................................ 48
Figure 18. IDE market linkage programme ............................................................................................ 52
Figure 19. Mr. Mwiinga's farm in Shimabala ......................................................................................... 62
Figure 20. Low-cost drip on Mr. Kalenga's farm .................................................................................... 63
Figure 21. Some field observations of drip kits ...................................................................................... 68
Figure 22. Mr. Markaloni's farm ............................................................................................................. 72
Figure 23. A bricolage on Mr. Markaloni's farm .................................................................................... 73
Figure 24. Drip system on Mr. Kalenga's farm ....................................................................................... 75
Figure 25. A bricolage on Mr. Kalenga's farm ....................................................................................... 76
Figure 26. Adaptations on Mr. Mutempa's farm ..................................................................................... 78
Figure 27. Repairs made to drip kits by Mr. Mutempa .......................................................................... 79
Figure 28. Drip configurations on Mr. Churu's farm .............................................................................. 82
Figure 29. Adapatations on Mr. Chulu's farm ......................................................................................... 83
Figure 30. Drip system on Mr. Mukuni's field ........................................................................................ 85
Figure 31. Adaptation on Mr. Mukuni's field ......................................................................................... 85
Figure 32. Innovation network of the manufacturer and farmer domains .............................................. 92
Figure 33. Map showing Mungu, Kabweza and Chikupi communities .................................................. 98
Figure 34. Manufacturing network of the treadle pump ....................................................................... 100
Figure 35. The network of drip kits ...................................................................................................... 101
ix
List of Tables
Table 1. Study areas ................................................................................................................. 17
Table 2. MIT manufacturers, importers, distributors and retailers .......................................... 43
List of Boxes
Box. 1 The Practical MIT development programme (1997 - 2002) ........................................ 31
Box. 2 IDE Success parameters ............................................................................................... 33
Box. 3 MIT development process by IDE ............................................................................... 35
Box. 4 Meeting the target? ....................................................................................................... 49
Box. 5 IDE project success ...................................................................................................... 51
Box. 6 The Farm Business Advisor (FBA) concept ................................................................ 57
Box. 7 The Mapepe Bible College 'Survival Garden' project .................................................. 70
Box. 8 Mr. Markaloni's experiences with the drip kit .............................................................. 71
Box. 9 Mr. Kalenga's experiences with drip ............................................................................ 74
Box. 10 The 'successful' drip model farmer in Mumbwa ........................................................ 84
x
Abstract
International Development Enterprise (IDE) is dedicated to eliminating poverty in developing countries not through hand-outs but building the capacity of farm families to access appropriate technology and knowledge of use to increase their household income. In Zambia, IDE has been developing and marketing the low-cost drip kit and other micro-irrigation technologies such as treadle pumps, rope pumps and small gasoline pumps as a response to the labour and productivity needs of smallholder farmers. The purpose is for them to have control over water to increase crop productivity and income as a way to invest their way out of poverty. The low-cost drip has been in developed and promoted over a decade in three consecutive phases namely, the Practical Technology Development programme, Smallholder Market Creation project and the Rural Prosperity Initiative project which is currently in implementation phase two (started 2011). During the first phase of the Rural Prosperity Initiative project, thousands of low-cost ‘Krishak Bandhu’ (KB) drip kits were imported from India and sold to smallholder farmers through different financial arrangements along with other micro irrigation technologies.
An evaluation conducted by Wageningen University showed that few farmers were actually using the drip kits on their fields. Majority of the farmers abandoned the drip kit and some farmers did not use it. As a follow-up, this study was conducted to evaluate the development of low-cost drip in two domains: the domain of the manufacturer and the farmer. The objective of research was to understand the development process of drip in these domains, the activities that characterize innovation of the technology, and to find out how drip is being sustained or failed on farmer’s fields. A three month field study was conducted in eight farmer communities and in the domain of local manufacturers, exporters, distributors and retailers of drip and other micro irrigation technologies in the Kafue, Kabwe and Lusaka districts using a mixed approach qualitative research methodologies and techniques such as technography and case studies, field observations and interviews. Using the social construction of technology theory, actor network theory, innovation systems approach and relevant concepts as a framework for analysis, this study presents three arguments.
The study argues that the development of KB drip is taking place independently of the domain of the manufacture and the farmer and influenced by different realities. The reality of the technology being successful in IDE country programmes in Asia much informed the design and promotion of the technology in Zambia. It is argued that the KB drip is still a prototype of a drip technology imported from India and has not been tried tested and evaluated on the field of farmers before it was rolled out for promotion. The artefact was not tailored to meet their daily requirements for use. This was implied in the way different farmers interpreted the object of the technology. It is argued further that, activities that characterized innovation of the KB drip by IDE are mostly focused on creating enabling conditions for the drip kit to be sold out to smallholder farmers in order to meet project objectives of a number of technologies targeted to be sold, which is the measure of project success. Sustainability and support services requirements such as the availability of spare parts to replace worn out components of the drip kit, after sales support services and relevant others that could have created an enabling condition for farmers to adapt, adopt and continue using drip kit were not available. To make the KB drip kit work, farmers have found their own innovative way of developing the technology by redesigning it using desirable components of other drip technological packages locally available materials. Finally, the study argues that the main determinant of the KB drip being failed or sustained on the field is the integrity of the network of actors involved in the development of the technology. The availability of the KB drip is sustained and made available to farmers by a stable network of importers, distributors and retailers of the drip kit who make the drip kit available by importing it. However, network of actors that could have supported the sustainability of the use of the KB drip on the field of farmers was not available. There is no local manufacturing capacity (or actor) of the low-cost technology in the network input supply of IDE to tailor the design of the KB to the needs and requirements of farmers. Also dealers only have complete drip kits and not spare parts so that farmers can replace worn parts of their drip kits. There are virtually no after sales support services to help who could not install the drip kit properly and carry out repairs on damaged parts. The drip kit is also being
xi
failed in the domain of farmers because most of them failed to support the technology because of the weak configuration of the network supporting the development and sustainable use of the KB drip. Some farmers were not able to install the drip kits properly after training and therefore abandoned it. Most of them did not repair and maintain the drip kit as the manner of few who are still using the technology. Some farmers did not buy all the components required to configure a complete drip system therefore abandoned the drip kit.
Key words: IDE, farmers, low-cost, micro irrigation technology, innovation, KB drip kit, development, process
xii
List of Abreviations Actor Network Theory ANT
Farm Business Advisor FBA
Food and Agriculture Organization FAO
International Development Enterprises IDE
Krishak Bandhu KB
Mapepe Bible College MBC
Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives MACO
Micro Irrigation Technology MIT
Non-Governmental Organizations NGO
Rural Prosperity Initiative Project RPI
Social Construction of Technology SCOT
Smallholder Market Creation Project SMC
Systems Innovation SI
Women and Development Project WADEP
xiii
Acknowledgement This study is part of International Development Research Centre (IDRC) sponsored project on “Gender Differentiated adoption of Low-cost Irrigation Technologies in Zambia” jointly implemented by International Development Enterprises (IDE) Zambia and Wageningen University and Research Centre, to whom I acknowledge for funding this research. I had nightmares and sometimes ‘daymares’ about this thesis. The images they present was that I would not finish writing it. There were days I could not write, there were days I wrote a page, there were days I could not concentrate, there were days I was left so frustrated. This is to say they were one of most challenging moments I have ever had as a student. But they were challenging as well not to quit and not to give up. I had scores of people to whom I owe so much thanks for helping me work out this thesis. I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to IDE farmers in Zambia. I was so much welcomed and had a nice working time on the field I did not want to leave. You bared out your hearts and minced no words in telling me all you had in your heart to tell IDE and the drip kits “tell IDE that next time, they should bring bigger tanks” I hope IDE is hearing. I had wonderful hosts in Lusaka, Kabweza and Kabwe. To Mr & Mrs. Anita Mweemba, Mr & Mrs Sue and Kevin Chelemu, Natassja & Yambala Chelemu, To Mr & Mrs Sikatunga, I appreciate your wonderful services. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to IDE officials in Lusaka and field staffs who contributed immensely to this thesis especially to Duncan Rhind, IDE Country Director who reviewed the initial draft, to the technical team, marketing team, value chain department, financial department, IDE drivers who took me to the field, I would like to say thanks. I would like to say much thanks to Ethel Mukanba for the tireless visits with me to the Zambian Immigration when I had visa issues and for sorting logistics for my movement in and out the field. To Mr. Chelemu, I owe you much thanks, I started the research with you from the airport and ended at the same venue. I appreciate your kind support throughout the research periods and for responding promptly to my distress call at the airport to sort out my missed flight and trouble with the Immigration Authorities. To my friends Lawrence Acheampong, and Isaac Gershon, I appreciate your encouragement throughout the thesis period not to give up. To Vera Borsboom, I appreciate your nice company and being my ‘ethnographic eye’ during research and for the comments on my thesis work. I started this research without an idea about innovation. I had my first orientation by Cora van Oosten of the Centre for Development Innovation and later by Prof. Onno Omta of the Wageningen University Business School. I would like to appreciate your efforts and contribution to this study. To my study advisors Bert and Nynke I appreciate your kindness whenever I approach you. I would like to appreciate my supervisors, Saskia van der Kooij and Dr. Ir. G.J Veldwisch for your tireless efforts in reading and giving comments promptly from the initial proposal phase, through research on the field and to the writing phase. Dr. Veldwisch visited me on the fields and gave the needed guidance for the research. I had mails from Saskia who could not do a field visit but gave the necessary support as. I would like to appreciate you also for your tireless support in shaping this thesis and for the much patience you had to tolerate me during the writing process. I am indeed grateful.
xiv
To my family, I appreciate your support and encouragement throughout my study. Tuabu Obed Kofi, Wageningen, Netherlands
1
Chapter 1. Introduction
1.1 Reflections Before I got admitted to Wageningen University, I worked with farmers as the project officer Agriculture with the Women and Development Project, a local Ghanaian NGO. My job descriptions was basically to work with smallholder farmers in the Nkwanta districts of the Volta Region. Working with farmers in a remote and one of the rural parts of the region could not be the best thing that has happened to a young college graduate, but very necessary for practical experience and personal development in the field of Irrigation. Work was hectic and challenging especially in the first six months of probation but I loved it. I loved to ride the Yamaha motor bike assigned to me when I visit farmer’s fields. I worked together with them in activities related to agronomy, irrigation, market linkages, and other livelihood activities such as beekeeping and mushroom cultivation. I got exhausted most times after travelling tens to hundreds of kilometres on muddy [in the wet season] or dusty trails (in the dry seasons) to farmer communities. I sometimes come back drenched in rain. I followed the routine although I got so exhausted whenever I returned home. My motivation to mount my lovely motor bike to visit farmers comes not only from the pay check I received at the end of the month (which I was grateful for), but mostly from enthusiasm. The friendly greetings and familiar shout “Agric” by children and farm families who hear the familiar [and distinctively loud] sound of my motor bike, the generous ‘bush allowance’ I receive from farmers after harvest, the enthusiasm on their faces after we try out new or alternative ways of doing things which it worked out [mostly with problems of colonization of beehives and pest activities in vegetable farming]. I rejoiced with them when they counted gains from their hard work and investments into their lands.
My experiences were not always gay. There were moments of anguish as well when farmer’s fields were invaded by pests, and saddled with crop disease conditions we could not find immediate solutions to. Although challenging, we sometimes found remedy before all were counted lost. The most depressing moments in my life as a field officer came when farmers who were encouraged to plough and plant their crops after few deceptive early rains followed by dry spells in critical moments when crops needed water. In moments like this, I saw forlorn looks on farmers faces - a situation they have virtually no control over the elements that give rain. They mostly looked into the horizon for signs of rain clouds. They clanged hopes on scattered clouds in the sky hoping they would be discerning enough to come together to satisfy the parched fields and their withering crops. In such [near] hopeless situations, farmers [who are religious] last resort on last activity. Prayer. They often told me we needed to pray for the rains all the sooner otherwise their investments would be in ruins.
In the course of time, I learnt farmers in other developing regions elsewhere are confronted with similar situations. A video documentary made by International Development Enterprises India (IDE, 2001), captured the desperate prayer of an Indian farmer sitting by a camp fire and making invocations. A female narrator run commentaries on the scene saying:
Only the form of invocation deferred, but every culture in the world has had this ritual with a
common objective [suspense]; to appease the rain gods. Good timely rains meant good
harvest, prosperity and progress; the gods were not always pleased.
I found my attention drawn her argument about the ‘gods’ with flashbacks to my days on the field. In a monologue, I agreed with her claim that good timely rains were needed but not certain that the ‘rain gods’ must be appeased. Farmers in other regions of the world did not appease the rain gods yet they made good timely harvests from their fields. They were farmers had control over the elements through technology. As far back as the early 1970s the development of irrigation technology mainly sprinklers and drip dominated the landscape of
2
agriculture in Israel where farmers grow crops in near desert conditions and only experience about 200 mm of rainfall in a year (Fishelson and Rymon, 1989). I was certain the rain gods must not be appeased. She went over her lines and said:
Technology liberated the farmer from the mood swings of the gods [indeed.] or so we thought
[suspense]. But the technology also seems to have passed the small farmer by. [She stated the
precarious situation of the small farmer saying] With increasing water scarcity, he is still at the
mercy of the elements. Whether it is his meagre means or his limited capacity to invest, his
labour is still shrouded in uncertainty
Her lines of argumentation are augmented by arguments from lead authors and advocates for smallholder water technologies for poor farmers including Paul Polak, saying the irrigation technologies that liberated ‘big’ farmer passed small farmer by in many different ways: (1) they were designed in whole for very large plots of the ‘big’ farmer and not divisible enough to fit into the plots of ‘small’ farmers whose landholdings are in many cases about a quarter of an hectare or less. (2) The technologies were prohibitively expensive hence afforded only by ‘big’[rich] farmers, and not ‘poor’ smallholder farmers (Postel, 1999, 2001; Polak et al, 1997). Paul Polak run a commentary in his book “Out of Poverty: What Works When Traditional Approaches Fail” saying:
These people told me they were poor because they couldn’t earn enough from their one-acre
farms. They said they needed access to affordable irrigation before they could grow the high-
value crops that would increase their income, and sometimes they needed help to get these
crops to markets where they could sell them at a profit. So in 1981 I started an organization
called International Development Enterprises (IDE) that helped them meet these needs. We
designed a range of affordable irrigation tools such as treadle pumps, and mass-marketed them
to small-acreage farmers through the local private sector (Polak, 2009, p.28).
The designs are claimed to be simple, divisible enough to fit into small plots, affordable and yet explores the potential advantages of conventional irrigation technologies. Other technologies included in the design were low pressure drip irrigation and sprinkler systems (IDE, 1995). The services of IDE was not relegated only to the design of small scale irrigation technology designs. Polak commented on other activities of IDE saying:
We helped farmers pick four or five high-value fruits and vegetables they could grow well in
their area, set up private-sector supply chains that sold them the seeds and fertilizer they
needed to grow these crops, and helped them sell what they grew at a profit in the
marketplace. This effectively ended the poverty of 17 million dollar-a-day rural people( Polak
2009, p.28).
1.2 International Development Enterprises International Development Enterprises is an international non-profit making organization (or social enterprise) with a mission to create income and livelihood opportunities for rural poor households in developing nations. IDE is dedicated to global poverty reduction in developing nations through developing and marketing of low cost smallholder irrigation technologies. IDE’s approach to development recognizes farmers as an entrepreneur who have the capacity to invest their way out of poverty. To realize this, IDE helps build the capacity of farm families and help them to access low cost irrigation technologies and the relevant knowledge they need use them to increase their income (IDE, 2012). IDE is dedicated to the manufacture, marketing and distribution of affordable low-cost scaled-to-fit micro irrigation technologies (MITs) to smallholder farmers. IDE facilitates the manufacture of affordable MITs locally through well-established supply chains that sell to farmers. After production, farmers are
3
Practical MIT
Development
Programme
2006 – 2010
2002
1997 - 2002 2003 – 2005 2011 – 2015
2002
Smallholder
Market
Creation
Project
Rural
Prosperity
Initiative
Project 1
Rural
Prosperity
Initiative
Project 2
assisted to market their produce in high demand markets. IDE has its country programmes in different countries across Asia and Africa. 1.3 IDE Zambia Zambia is IDE’s first Africa country programme. Before its inception, the country was faced with recurrent drought conditions for over a decade which posed a great challenge to smallholder farmers who depended on rain-fed agriculture. In a bid to stabilize food production, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) initiated a food security programme, for low income food deficit countries (LIFDCs) in 1996 with a primary aim of promoting existing and proven appropriate agricultural related technologies to boost food production. The prime component of the programme was promoting the use of treadle pumps to replace the labour intensive use of buckets for watering crops by hand on irrigated fields. The treadle pump was technically suitable to Zambia because of the availability of low-lying rivers and, shallow groundwater or dambos and other sources of water such as springs (Kay and Brabben, 2000). FAO commissioned IDE in 1996 to use its considerable experiences and successes in the production of treadle pumps in Asian regions such as India and Bangladesh to access the manufacturing and use potentials, as well as possible transfer of the technology to Zambia. Local manufacturers were identified for training and this commenced a pilot programme in 1996. In 1997, IDE established a country office in Zambia and registered as a non-profit Non-Governmental Organization with the aim to promote and build a supply chain for the manufacture and sale of treadle pumps (ibid). In the year 1998, IDE introduced the low-cost micro drip irrigation technology after scouting for suppliers within the Southern African regions and later from India to get a regular supply of the components of the drip kit. IDE started the process of promotion and sale of the technology between 1999 and 2000. To support the development, promotion and sale of micro irrigation technologies (MITs) in Zambia, IDE currently has offices in Livingston, Kalomo and Choma in the Southern province, in Kabwe in the Central province, In Kafue and Lusaka in the Lusaka province, and in Kitwe in the Copperbelt province. 1.4 Micro Irrigation Technology Development by IDE Zambia The development of micro irrigation technologies by IDE Zambia is project based and funded by different donors with different financial commitments to project activities and MIT development. Since its inception in 1997, IDE Zambia has been developing the treadle pump alongside the low pressure or low-cost micro drip irrigation technologies over four different projects such as the Practical Micro Irrigation Development Programme, Smallholder Market Creation (SMC) Project, Rural Prosperity Initiative (RPI) 1 and the Rural Prosperity Initiative (RPI) 2 (Figure 1.1).
Figure 1. IDE Project timeline
4
The Practical MIT Development Programme is the starting phase of MIT development by IDE Zambia from 1997 to 2002. IDE won the World Bank Development Marketplace Award of $ 120000 in 1997 with the objective of extending “the reach of treadle pump technology by reducing production costs and making it more affordable to larger numbers of poor farmers”
in Zambia (World Bank, 2012). With this award, IDE Zambia continued increased
the local production of treadle pumps, and started developing its supply chains throughout Zambia. To start the local manufacture and supply of the low-cost drip irrigation, IDE recruited Duram Limited for training in the manufacture of drip kits in India in 2002. IDE Zambia introduced the Smallholder Market Creation Project in 2003 as a build up on the Practical MIT development programme. The SMC project was a two year project which ended in 2005. The rational was to build a sustainable MIT supply chain on private sector enterprises instead of the supply chain heavily supported by IDE Zambia. The objective was to introduce about 2000 smallholder farmers to the supply chain to access treadle pumps, low-cost drip irrigation technology and agro inputs, to strengthen their capacities to intensify agricultural production. The project was jointly implemented by IDE and Winrock International, an International non-profit NGO. The SMC project was funded by USAID.
1
In 2006, IDE Zambia launched the first phase of the Rural Prosperity Initiative (RPI) project. It was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The RPI is a continuation of the SMC project focused on introducing farmers to new and improved method of farming using improved inputs (seeds, fertilizers etc) and other improved array of micro irrigation technologies such as affordable wells, pressure pump, rope pump, micro-diesel pump, solar powered pump, wind powered pump, header bags for drip systems, enclosed water storage, low pressure drip and low pressure sprinklers among others proposed technologies. The objective was to link up 14,000 smallholder farmers to these array of MITs through a consolidated private sector supported supply chain to increase their annual household income by $ 300. The components of the Project were: the development of affordable water technologies, the development of rural markets using the IDE project design methodology called Poverty Reduction through Irrigation and Smallholder Markets (PRISM) approach, value and supply chain development through microfinance, capacity building environmental sustainability, gender mainstreaming, geographic information systems (GIS) and monitoring and evaluation.
2The first phase of the RPI project
ended in 2010. It is succeeded by the second phase of the project which is expected to end in 2015. The RPI 2 retains all the components of the RPI 1 but with a different objective of linking 11,200 smallholder farmers to MITs to increase annual household income by $300 between 2011 to 2015.
1.5 Low –Cost Treadle Pumps The treadle pump is a manual water lifting device that is capable of drawing water from a depth of seven meters or less. The pump is fitted with pistons which are in close contacts with the pump cylinder. The pump works by stepping up and down on the treadles joined to the pistons to create a suction and pushing action which lifts water from rivers or groundwater through inlet pipes and delivers it through its outlet. Four different types of treadle pumps where developed by IDE Zambia: the tube well pumps, modified pumps, river pumps and pressure pumps. The tube well, modified and river pumps are suction only pumps modified to suit water sources (Kay and Brabben, 2000). The pressure pump is however able to suction
1Winrock International website (2012). Putting Ideas to work. Using Market-based Approach to Guide
Smallholder Farmers to Sustainable Income.
Assessed from http://www.winrock.org/fact/facts.asp?CC=5467&bu on 17/06/2012 2 Rural Prosperity Initiative Project. Accessed from (http://rpi.ideorg.org/) on 12/06/2012
5
lift and deliver to certain heights on the field. Currently, IDE Zambia is actively developing the river and pressure treadle pumps under the trade name “Mosi-O-Tunya”.
1.6 Low-cost Micro Drip Irrigation technology Low-cost micro drip is a composite irrigation technology which convey, distribute and apply water from a source through a network pipes, valves tubes and emitters to plants on the field. It is made up of different components that are configured into a drip system. A typical low-cost drip system comprises a water source, a pressure unit, control valve, filter, mainline (main lateral), a sub-main (sub-lateral) and lateral fitted with or without a microtube. A packaged set of drip components is referred to as “drip kit”. An ideal drip irrigation system however has a water lifting device included in system configuration.
IDE Zambia started developing low cost-cost drip irrigation technologies during the five year practical MIT development programme by importing the components of the drip system due to the absence of a local manufacturer. IDE configured the drip kit into different system designs such as 100 m
2, 200 m
2 or 500 m
2. IDE recruited and trained a local enterprise to
commence local production. Local production started but the costs of drip kits were higher than those imported. IDE continued the import and systems design of drip kits through the SMC project. With an objective to increase promotion of MITs during the RPI project, the KB drip was touted as a successful innovation with high adoption rates in the Asian regions and was therefore recommended for promotion in Zambia. IDE entered into partnership with Cropserve Zambia, a private MIT and agro chemical supply enterprise to import the KB drip kit, developed by a supply chain manufacturer for IDE India. 1.7 KB Easy Drip Irrigation technology “KB” stands for “Krishak Bandhu” in the Hindi parlance which means “farmer’s friend”. The
KB drip is considered as a major breakthrough in the development of low cost because it “was
developed from thin plastic tube used to sell cold candy (Freez-it)” (IDE, no date, p. 7) and
also because it was manufactured a low cost. A hectare of a KB drip system in India costs $
600 for crops such as cotton and vegetables which are closely spaced. The pressure head for
Figure 2. Treadle pumps (Left: river pump, Right: pressure pump)
6
the drip system range from 0.3 to 3 meters (ibid). The KB drip comes with different sizes
ranging from 20 m2, 100 m
2, 500 m
2, 1000 m
5. In Zambia the 200 m
2, 400 m
2 and 500 m
2 and
1000 m2
are available.
Figure 3. KB drip system in Zambia
1.8 MIT promotion, challenges and evaluation. IDE Zambia promoted the treadle pump and the drip kit throughout its operational programmes. Under the Rural Prosperity Initiative (1) project (1996 to 2010), thousands of drip kits and treadle pumps were sold to smallholder farmers through by IDE Zambia and private sector supply chain. MITs (drip or treadle pump) were purchased by farmers using discount vouchers with which they top up their own finance. IDE trained farmers to install, use and maintain the technologies on their fields. As part of the evaluation and monitoring component of the RPI, an evaluation was made by Wageningen University, an evaluation partner of IDE. Results shows that very few of the drip kits are functioning on the field. Most farmers either did not install the drip on their fields or abandoned the drip kits after using for some time (Magwenzi, 2011).
1.9 The research This research is part of International Development Research Centre (IDRC) sponsored project on “Gender Differentiated adoption of Low-cost Irrigation Technologies in Zambia” jointly implemented by International Development Enterprises (IDE) Zambia and Wageningen University and Research Centre. The field study was conducted in three months in selected farmer communities in Kafue, Kabwe and Chibombo districts as well as in Lusaka. The study was done as a follow-up evaluation of the development of low-cost drip promoted by IDE
7
after Magwenzi (2011). The call for research was to have a re-look into the situation causing few farmers to use the drip while the rest is being failed on their fields. Unlike Magwenzi whose study had a micro focus on adoption study of the low-cost drip. There has been various critiques as well on technology adoption studies as not adequate in explaining the actions of people adopting or not adopting technologies (van der Kooij, 2009) or how technological artefacts are blamed on failure (Latour, 1996). In this research, I take a broader look at technology innovation study which embraces adoption of technologies as well but has a wider focus on learning interactions between people and organizations involved in technology development (Geels, 2002).
1.10 Outline of thesis
Chapter 2 provides an overview epistemological and ontological background of the study as well as the theories concepts used in the study. This chapter presented a metaphor of the constructivist approach to research and discussed three constructivist theories of the sociotechnical approach to the study of technology namely the Social Construction of Technology (SCOT) Theory, the Actor-Network Theory (ANT), the Systems Innovation (SI) concepts as well as other concepts defined. Also presented in this chapter are the research problem, objectives and questions.
In Chapter 3, I present the methodology used in the study. It discusses how the research was designed and carried out. In this chapter, I discuss the research approach, methods and techniques of data collection, evaluation, validation and analysis. This chapter also discuss the limitation of the research and the study was adapted to meet the research objectives.
Chapter 4, presents study results on the development process of drip and activities that characterize innovation in the process. This chapter is organized in four parts. (1) The first part explains how project interventions by IDE country programmes are designed using the Prosperity Realized through Irrigation and Smallholder Market (PRISM) methodologies and concepts. (2) The second part presents the rationale for the development of drip and other micro irrigation technologies by IDE Zambia. This part also presents an overview of three different project phases over which MITs were developed in Zambia including the current Rural Prosperity Initiative (RPI) Project. (3) The third part of this chapter presents the development path of micro irrigation technologies, the activities that characterize the process and groups or individuals within IDE or other organizations involved in the MIT development process. (4) In the fourth part outlines of decisions taken by IDE after the evaluation of the first phase of the RPI project. As part of this decision, the Farm Business Advisor concept was introduced.
Chapter 5 presents results on the development process of drip and activities that characterize the process in the farmer domain. In this chapter is organized around three groups of farmers: (1) Farmers who did not used drip kits they bought form IDE or [never use drip group], (2) farmers who used drip for a period between three months and a year and abandoned the artefact [abandoned drip group] and; (3) farmers still using the low-cost drip kit. The chapter is largely discussed around farmers who are still using the drip and exams how they redeveloped the low-cost drip
In chapter 6, I discuss the network of relations within and between the IDE and farmer domains. Here, the relations between relevant actors, knowledge, resources, capacities among others that contribute to the development and support of drip are discussed.
In chapter 7, I present an analysis of results using relevant theories and concepts discussed in chapter 2. The analysis presents analysis of the arguments in the result chapters to answer the main query this study.
8
Chapter 8 draws conclusion on this study by recapping the problem of study, purpose of study and the queries. The chapter discusses and draws firm conclusion around the main findings of the study.
In chapter 9 I draw curtains on this thesis with recommendations for further research and practical recommendation to IDE.
9
Chapter 2. Theories and Concepts
In this chapter, I outline theories and concepts used in the rest of this thesis and also reflected in my methodological approach in my field research. The chapter is largely devoted to the constructivists perspective and approach to the study of science, technology and society, and how they interact – the Sociotechnical approach. In Section 2.1 I present my perspectives on scientific knowledge and how it shapes my approach to this study. Section 2.2 presents the socio-technical approach overarching the Social Construction of Technology (SCOT) theory, the Actor-Network theory (ANT), the Systems Innovation (SI) theory, and the Socio-Technical (ST) systems concepts. Other concepts used are defined in Section 2.3.
2.1 Constructivists perspective The mystery of genetics makes each individual in a society unique. No two individuals are genetically the same even if they have the same phenotypic expressions. The diversities that characterize society are not limited to our genetic makeup or the way we appear but also how we perceive, generate insight, analyse and interpret things. The proverbial six ‘blind’ men who went to ‘see’ an elephant and came back with different ‘reality’ account of what the elephant looks like (Few & Edge, 2007). The bits and pieces of the reality accounts put together did not make meaning to those with ‘vision’. But reality to people with vision also appears differently.
My vision was not like that of other persons; [...] and, at the same time, that the difference
between day-light and candle-light, on some colours, was indefinitely more perceptible to me
than to other (Dalton1798, p.30).
Dalton gave this account to explain the condition of his own colour blindness. Colour blindness in humans makes colours appear differently, making two individuals with different colour perceptions see things differently, and interpret it as such. That is to say we all see reality differently. Realists-positivists perceive reality as an objective ‘truth’ expressed in absolutes and presented as a “single story”.
3 In contrast, reality is subjective to the
constructivist; it is a multiple reality (Berger and Luckmann, 1967). It is a social construction by a group of people who “through discourse, develop an inter-subjective system of concepts, beliefs, theory and practices that they consider to be reality” (Röling, 1996, p. 6). These paradigms [and relevant others] characterize the philosophical theory of knowledge embodied in research approaches to studying realities.
My perception on reality is long-spectrumed between these two divides. Reality to me is in context and that determines where I stand. In this research, I am a constructivist who wants to understand the complexities surrounding the low-cost drip in Zambia in the two divides where the technology is developed – the manufacturers and the users. As a constructivist viewpoint, I want to develop a deeper understanding of how reality is being constructed by these groups and how it can be painted for me to understand expressly; to hear both stories and not a single story.
I was more convinced to be constructivist when I went to Zambia. I believe reality is not a single story. Back in Ghana my home country, and here in the Netherlands my host country, cars drive on the right side of the road. In Zambia, it is the other way round. My orientation on traffic regulations and the reality that existed in my mind and internalized in the way I approach vehicular traffic informed that I should give way to traffic on the left. In Zambia, they drive on the left and give way to traffic on the right. This was a new form of reality to
3Chimamanda Adichie: The danger of a single story. Retrieved from
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/chimamanda_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story.html
10
me, and engendered conflicts as well. I experience two forms of reality conflicts. My approach to oncoming vehicles as well as sitting arrangements in cars. “Look left, right and left again before you cross” was not applicable to the Zambian traffic regulation. On some few occasions, I approached the driver’s seat as well. I had to learn to adjust to the way traffic rules and regulations in Zambia are constructed. The beauty of constructivism in this research is that, I believe others see differently and interpret reality as it appears to them – like Dalton. In this study, I am ‘colour blind’ as well.
2.2 Social-technical approach In this study, I adopt the social study of technology or the socio-technical approach to understanding the development of irrigation technology innovations. This approach provides an overview on the understanding technology as an interrelated activity between society and technology to achieve an objective. It has a wide spectrum understanding on the integrated dimensions of irrigation technology. Technology as belonging to the social as well as the technical and understood as material artefact (or objects), as an ensemble of practical knowledge or skill (Mollinga, 1998). In this thesis, technology mostly refers to the artefact [drip]. Other dimensions of technology are referred to in context. This section, discusses how the socio-technical approach is conceptualized in the study of the development of drip irrigation technology by using relevant theories and concepts.
2.2.1 Social construction of technology theory The Social Construction of Technology (SCOT) theory is a constructivist approach to the study of the development of technological artefact and most noted for its work on the early development of the bicycle. It develops the understanding on the developmental process of technological artefacts as an “alternation of variation selection” (Pinch and Bijker, 1984, p. 411). SCOT theory has a multi-directional view on technology development which is considered “essential to any social constructivist account of technology” (ibid). To present a good account of the development of drip in Zambia, the concept of interpretative flexibility which is a key component of SCOT is applied to the study. It is being used as an analytical tool to understand the intentions and purpose to which drip was developed to serve, and as a diagnostic or evaluation tool to understand whether the technology served its intended purpose.
Interpretative flexibility of technological artefacts is “the flexibility in how people think of or interpret artefacts [and also] the flexibility in how artefacts are designed” (Pinch & Bijker, 1987, p. 40). It is also expressed as the ability of a technical artefact to “sustain divergent interpretations of multiple groups” or mean different things to different people (Law & Callon, 1992, Sabey & Robey, 1996, p. 120). It gives an indication of how society perceives a problem, what they have in mind as a solution to the problem and how in the ‘eye of their minds’ they perceive the technological artefacts solving them. IDE have their interpretations, farmers have theirs as well.
Different people to whom technological artefacts hold meaning are relevant groups or actors (Bijker, 1995). They are stakeholders in the development process of technological artefacts, and mostly shape their outcome through dominance or consensus in meanings - closure. In the development of the early bicycles, Pinch and Bijker identified relevant groups as cyclist, anti-cyclists, producers etc. Relevant groups also apply to stakeholders involved in the development of drip in Zambia (farmers, IDE, or donors).
Another concept which holds relevance to the study is the wider context or narrowly called domain in this thesis. This concept examines the environment or setting in which the technology is being developed and explores the factors (social, technical, economic, political etc) that hinder or enhance its development. This concept explores the development of drip as well in the domain of manufacturers as well as farmers.
11
2.2.3 Actor-network theory (ANT) Human actors involved in the development of technological inventions or innovations often blame failure on artefacts. The actor-network approach is proposed in this thesis to explain why this notions is rather the opposite. Artefacts are rather failed by their networks because actors are the network (Callon, 1991, p. 142). Artefacts do not have agency, they only function in association with human agency (Geels, 2002, p. 12). Drip artefacts do not install themselves, components are put together into a system configuration. Human agency is effected in technological objects through their relations or socio-technical linkages which means that there are no actors without networks. Latour (1991, p.110) described this relation as a chain associations between humans (H) and non-human elements (NH) or the actor-network. “Actors are configured by their position networks, by linkages to each element (heterogeneous linkages)” (Geels, 2002, p. 31). Technological artefacts work by being placed in working configuration. Artefacts are failed when their network configurations or heterogeneous linkages are not stable or fall apart.
ANT was applied in research by Latour (1991) to investigate the ‘death’ of ARAMIS in France, by Veldwish et al, (2009) to analyse top-down development process of the Bwanje Valley Irrigation (BVI) scheme in Malawi as well as the construction of success and failure in the K-12 ICT integration program in Israel (Elgali & Kalman, 2010). In this research ANT is applied in this study to analyse the integrity of the network configuration that supports the development of drip in Zambia and to argue that technological artefacts do not fail but are rather failed by its networks.
2.2.4 Systems of innovation (SI) approach Systems of innovation (SI) has in the recent past emerged as an important approach to the study of innovation. It has a broad spectrum application in the analysis of innovation from technological artefacts to firms and network of different organizations (Geels, 2004). World bank (2006, p. 5) defined innovation systems as
a network of organizations, enterprises, and individuals focused on bringing new products,
new processes, and new forms of organization into economic use, together with the
institutions and policies that affect their behaviour and performance. The innovation systems
concept embraces not only the science suppliers but the totality and interaction of actors
involved in innovation. It extends beyond the creation of knowledge to encompass the factors
affecting demand for and use of knowledge in novel and useful ways.
In this thesis, I use the SI approach basically to develop an understanding of how the networks of organizations (IDE, donors, NGOs etc), enterprises (manufacturers, importers, retailers, microfinance institutions) and individuals (farmers) interact to support the development of drip and its functioning on the field of the user. The argument I want to put up with this approach is that a technological object becomes an innovation when an enabling environment is created for the technology to be used by all actors involved its development. The concept of innovation is vague. Here I provide some guiding definitions that are applicable to the study.
Definitions of innovation
Here, I define the concept of innovation that apply to the study.
(1) A process of putting knowledge [new or accumulated] to use or used in a creative manner in response to social or economic needs (Bedegue 2005, p. 3)
(2) “putting a new idea or a new technology into use. An invention, a creation or a new product only becomes an innovation when it improves how things are done, is economically viable to adopt and has a significant impact in its area of application” (Woodhill et al, al, 2011, p. 5)
12
(3) Learning process to solving practical problems (Douthwaite, 2002; Chris Reij & Ann Waters-Bayer, 2001)
(4) A design process of “sense-making that makes do with whatever materials are at hand.” Also akin to improvisation (Weick, 1993, p. 351).
(5) The process of adapting a technology in order to adopt and use it (Akrich et, al, 2002, p. 209)
Innovation process
Innovation is much defined as a process, laden with support activities, new knowledge, accumulated knowledge, ideas to solving or putting technology into use. I find the definition of Woodhill et, al (2011, p. 11) applicable to this research.
Innovation process is the process that leads to innovation, it is dynamic and often
unpredictable and not linear, it is about the combined knowledge of the many actors in an
innovation systems [to support technological innovations to work].
Farmer innovation process
This is a learning process farmers go to solving practical problems [with drip]. I find the “learning selection” model (Douthwaite, 2002, p. 47) and the participatory technology development approach (Reij & Waters-Bayer, 2001) appropriate for this study. Here I combine the two approaches into farmer-learning selection approach
(1) Experience – here a farmer encounters a challenge with drip kit
(2) Making sense and analysing the situation – the farmer learns about the problem, analyse it and to develop an understanding or jointly with other farmers
(3) Trying out. – here the farmer identifies possible solutions, suitable alternatives and try them out through trial and error experimentations and evaluate their new found solutions
(4) Sharing results/diffusion – farmers share results through different media. By word of mouth, farm visits, sharing experiences etc.
(5) Sustaining the process – farmers continue to interact to develop new ideas around solutions and support it
2.2.5 Socio-technical systems (ST-systems) (Geels, 2004) proposed the socio-technical systems concept to understand the flow of innovation technologies from manufacturer’s environment to the user environment in an ST system. ST-systems are defined as “the linkages between elements necessary to fulfil societal functions” by distinguishing “production, distribution and use of technologies as sub-functions” (p. 900). Sub-functions in a ST-system are fulfilled by resource which consist: “knowledge, capital or funds, labour, cultural meaning etc” (ibid). The ST-systems concept is also adopted in this thesis to develop an understanding on the functioning of the environment [wider context] in which drip is being developed – the interactions, the resources engaged, the meanings that are constructed, how actors are arranged in configurations that make technology development as well as innovation take place in technology producer as well as user environments. This is also to shed light on the domain where innovation interactions are going on and to literally present how interacting involved in innovation are configured.
13
2.3 Concepts definition The following concepts were used in this thesis and are defined.
2.3.1 Configuration Configuration design is conceptualized as “a form of design where a set of pre-defined components is given and an assembly of selected components is sought that satisfies a set of
MIT
promotion
/Sale
Supply and
distribution
networks
Use of artefacts
in user practice
Farming
systems
Configuration,
Adaptations,
modification
MIT
challenges
Repair of
MIT Farmer Markets
/market Linkage Technology
material
market
Donor
funding
Training and MIT
demonstrations
MIT design
knowledge Meaning
of MITs
Adoption
and use
Process
managem
ent
Production/distribution
domain
Application
domain,
Technology-in-use
Production
of MITs
Manufacturer
(Production/distribution)
domain
Farmer (Technology
user) domain
Farmers MIT
importers FBAs
Marketeers
Market agents MIT
Manufacturers
IDE
Micro Finance
Institutions
Agro Chemical
Shops
MIT
Supply
chain
Figure 4. Element and resources of socio-MIT system (adapted from Geels, 2004)
Figure 5. Social groups which carry and reproduce Socio-MIT system (Modified
from Geels, 2004)
14
requirements and obeys a set of constraints” (Weilinga & Schreiber, 1997, p.1). This is applied to the process of installation of drip which involves three levels of activities (i) establishing systems constraints (physical, technical, socio-economic etc), (ii) establishing technical requirements that satisfy the constraints and (iii) interfacing technical components into a working configuration.
2.3.2 Bricolage This is a design process of “sense-making that makes do with whatever materials are at hand.” (Weick, 1993, p. 351). In this thesis, bricolage is used for redesigned or reconfigured drip systems by farmers using appropriate or available materials to solve practical problems in their drip systems. People who design bricolage are called bricoleur.
2.3.3 Over-the-wall Over-the-wall is an approach to technology development where ‘experts’ think they have a good understanding of technology needs of users and therefore develop products without involving them. Experts simply go ahead and develop the technology and then “toss it ‘over the wall’ to users with the belief that: (1) there is a need for it; (2) the technology is complete and ready to use; and (3) the users are technically skilled enough to use it without help” (Douthwaite, 2002, p. 28).
2.4 Research problem The problem this study is researching is the case of the low-cost drip kit manufactured and promoted by International Development Enterprises (IDE) Zambia. The drip artefact has been in development over three consecutive projects, the practical technology development programme, Smallholder Market Creation project and the Rural Prosperity Initiative project which is currently in implementation phase two (starting 2011). In the RPI, the low-cost drip is being developed together with other micro irrigation technologies such as treadle pumps, rope pumps, low pressure sprinklers, small gasoline lift pump among other water technologies envisaged to be developed in the near future. During the first phase of the RPI, thousands of drip kits were sold to smallholder farmers through different financial arrangements along with other micro irrigation technologies. An evaluation conducted by Wageningen University demonstrates that few drip kits are actually in use by farmers on their fields. Majority of the farmers abandoned the drip kit other farmers did not use it.
2.4.1Research objectives The objective of this research is to make an inquiry into how the drip kits are being failed or sustained by the network of actors involved in developing the low-cost drip technology (artefact/knowledge and skill of use).
Before I state the specific objectives of this study, I will explain the following: (1) the development path of micro irrigation technologies (MIT) by IDE Zambia and; (2) the levels of development of the technology by IDE and farmers. The development path is characterized by the following phases: (1) prototype design and manufacturing (2) prototype testing and evaluation (3) commercial manufacturing (4) promotion and marketing/sales (5) technology in use phase and; (6) revaluation and redevelopment [or research and development phase]. IDE is involved in all the phases of the development of MITs. Farmers on the other hand develop the technology they buy from IDE at the use-phase of the process, which happens in their domain – on their fields.
Specifically, this research seeks to establish the following:
(1) To study and understand how the low-cost drip is being developed in two domains; the domain of IDE [as the manufacturer] and the domain of farmers [as users].
15
(2) To understand how innovation is characterized in the development process of the low-cost drip in the two domains and;
(3) To find out how the low-cost drip technology is being failed or sustained in both domains.
2.4.2 Research questions The overarching question this research seek to answer is: How was low-cost drip being developed as a technology innovation in Zambia and how is it being failed or sustained by the network of actors involved in its development?
To answer the main question, the following sub-questions are proposed:
(1) How was the drip kit developed by IDE?
What this question seeks to answer is how the drip kit prototype was designed and manufactured, how it was tested and evaluated, how it was commercially produced, how it was promoted and sold to farmers, how the technology was evaluated in use and how or what processes were involved in research and redevelopment of the technology.
(2) How was the development of drip characterized by innovation in the IDE or manufacture domain?
This question seeks to develop an understanding of activities involved in the development process that characterize innovation or supports the technology to be used by farmers
(3) How was drip developed by farmers?
This question looks at how the low-cost drip was developed in the use phase or the domain of farmers.
(4) How was development of drip characterized by innovation in the farmer domain?
This question seeks to find out farmer activities in the development process that enable or supports the low-cost drip to be used by farmers.
(5) How was the low-cost drip failed on the farmer’s fields?
This question is looking at constraining situations that is stalling the support of the artefact not to be used by farmers or causing farmers to abandon or not use the drip kit.
16
Chapter 3. Methodology
“[...] Just follow the flow. Yes, follow the actors themselves [...]”
Bruno Latour4
3.1 Introduction This chapter discusses the methodology used for the study. It describes in detail how I was involved in the research with IDE, farmers and other relevant actors, and how these actors got involved in the research as well. It is a reflection of the constructivist approach to research and mixes with the actor network methodological concept of following the actors [human actors and micro irrigation technologies]. The research methodology is organized on these level: design, approach to data collection, analysis and interpretation, write-ups. The research was designed to be flexible and go with the flow – flow with the actors, using the qualitative research approach to data collection, analysis and interpretation in the domains of IDE/manufacturers and farmers. The research methods employed were case study, triangulation and technography, using the snowball sampling method to locate the actors. The research techniques engaged were observations, interviews, non/semi-structured interviews, field notes and secondary data searches.
3.2 Research design This study was characterized by three research phases and activities carried out in the MIT development domains; IDE/manufacturer and the farmer domain. I label them as the introductory phase that describes where and how I started the research, the field research phase where I got actively involved in data collection activities, and the mop-up phase, where I did mostly cross-checking, validation, analysis of data and some few write-ups of field findings. The phases were however not distinctively isolated but worked out in mixed transitions during the research period.
I started the study with an introduction, interaction, familiarization and establish rapport with IDE staffs in Lusaka with whom I worked closely throughout the study. Here, I developed understanding in how activities within IDE were organized around the various staff, and an overview of the current project (RPI 2) and activities that characterize it and the operational areas the project covers. I also had an overview of other organizations involved in the project, including the organization of farmers. In this phase, I was also introduced to farmers by the IDE Technical Director of Programmes, Mr. Kenneth Chelemu, who doubled as my internal supervisor during the study. I was introduced to individual farmers, as well leaders of farmer groups and IDE field officers, who later became my informants and resource persons during study in the farmer domain. I used this period to test some of my research questions and fine-tuned my research proposal.
I went into the next phase of research with and in-depth data collection in the two domains. I stayed and worked with farmers, moving from one community to the other. I worked with IDE in their main office in Lusaka and the offices of the field officers in Kabwe and Kafue and sometimes following IDE field officers to the field to observe how they work with farmers. I spent time during this period to go over the data and started the fill-ins on other areas of research that needed attention. This period was mixed with activities on validating and crosschecking information from farmers with IDE and likewise by shuttled between the two domains as and when the opportunity presented itself.
4 Latour, B. (2005, p. 237)
17
3.3 Research approach I used the qualitative research approach for data collection, evaluation, analysis and interpretation on the premise of it being a constructivist approach and also due to the nature, focus and objectives of the research. The purpose of this research was to conduct an inquiry into how the low-cost drip kit is being failed, and an autopsy on how it was failed by the network of actors developing and manufacturing the artefact, those financing its development, those facilitating its diffusions and adoption and actors using the technology. This quest require an understanding of multiple realities that exist in the MIT development domains, the motives of relevant actors involved, how they relate with each other and with the drip technology. It requires flexibility in approach to hear the opinion of relevant actors on their experiences with the drip and why they relate with the technology the way they do (Marshall & Rossman, 1999). To fulfil the quest, the study was purposed to trace the history and the development as well as phenomenal innovative activities that characterize the process, and to which qualitative research is recommended (Cormack, 1991).
3.2.2 Research Domains This study was carried out in two domains: the Domain of IDE/manufacturer and the domain of farmers. The manufacturer domain is the environment where MITs are produced or imported and sold to farmers. In this environment, one can locate IDE, private enterprises who manufacture, import, supply and retail micro irrigation technologies as well as NGOs, microfinance institutions, governmental organizations and other firms that support the activities and functions of IDE in MIT development, marketing and promotion. The farmer domain is characterized by farmers in different communities, their families, their resources used in production including micro irrigation technologies of which drip is being researched.
Study was done in eight farmer communities in Kafue, Kabwe and Chibomobo districts and in Lusaka (Table 1). The research areas were selected based on recommendations and follow up research on Magwenzi (2011). The communities were selected in consultation with IDE to research areas where drip activities on farmer’s fields can be observed and where farmers have abandoned the drip. Research in the IDE/manufacturer domains was carried out mainly in the IDE office, and with other organizations, private firms and enterprises involved in the development of drip and other micro irrigation technologies in Kafue and Kabwe.
Table 1. Study areas
Province District Study areas Domain
Lusaka
Kafue Kabweza, Chikupi, Mungu, Chilongolo Farmers/IDE
Lusaka Lusaka IDE
Central Province
Kabwe Mpima, Dackana, Mokobeko Farmers/IDE
Chibombo Mumbwa farmer
18
3.2.3 Research methods and techniques The research methods used in the study are the case study, triangulation and ethnography of technology or technography (Jansen & Vellema, 2011), and the snowball sampling technique in locating actors or stakeholders involved in the study. Research techniques used are observations, interviews, non/semi-structured interviews, field notes and secondary data searches. Central to the research methodology was the Actor-network methodological approach of ‘follow the actor’ and ‘follow the drip’ around which my observations, and interviews were structured. ‘Follow the actor’ approach is the method structured around informal conversations with actors involved in research by becoming part of the research by ‘hanging around’ observing and talking to them (Veldwisch, 2006; 2008). ‘Follow the drip’ is a gleaned methodology of ‘follow the water’ irrigation a transect and observational method (ibid). These methods were inspired following their successful application successful application in other researches in the study of technologies. Latour (1996) in the study of the demise of ARAMIS, ‘followed’ the engineers who were involved in the development of the train system in France. Veldwish (2006; 2008) followed the water in irrigation schemes in Limpopo, South Africa, and in Khorezm, Uzbekistan respectively. In this thesis, I ‘follow’ various IDE and farmer actors to and ‘follow the drip’ in the manufacturer and farmer domains.
Figure 6. Map of study area
19
Research in IDE/Manufacturer domain
I started the research in IDE with an introduction, familiarization and building rapport with staffs of IDE. I was introduced to the various departments and teams namely the management, marketing and technical teams, the financial department, fields staffs and other staffs. Here I got to know their names, roles and how they are organized activities in IDE. I observed IDE officers to be very busy people, some busy behind their computers and others busy moving in and out the office in executing their tasks until the main break period where they for lunch and then back to their desks. The lunch periods were periods I never want to miss. Nshima was served everyday with radish and this was the time, I have informal talks with IDE officers at the backyard of the office where we sit to enjoy our afternoon meals. These were vital moments, I don’t miss to ask one or two questions about drip and the RPI project. These pep talks were moments where I learnt a great deal about the roles and functions of the various staff teams. I learnt about the current project activities and also about the past activities and heard updates on information I had in my research proposal. I also used this platform later for triangulation and verification of data after research in the farmer domain.
Around this same time, I also placed several calls on Mr. Chelemu my supervisor to discuss how to go about the research, and also plan for logistics for the study. I had a series of interviews with him to have a general overview of the Rural Prosperity Initiative project and past projects. Most of the questions I asked him were open ended, and I sat back to hear him talk. I followed up on interesting issues I do not have on my interview guide and probe further to develop understanding around questions and topics not well developed in my interview list. After preliminary talks with Mr. Chelemu, I readjusted my research to cover more scope around the development of drip and treadle pumps.
In subsequent interviews, I followed up on interesting issues I heard him say in earlier conversations and I build up on them. The interviews covered issues around the motivation for the introduction of drip and other micro irrigation technologies, IDE’s motives or objectives for developing the technologies, how the technologies were developed, how the technologies were evaluated and the present situations characterizing the drip kit being failed among others. I also asked questions round how IDE’s projects were designed and implemented, how IDE conceptualizes project success and many others. He answered most of the questions and to others, he referred me either to talk with other staffs on specific issues: the marketing team, the technical team, the value chain officer or the monitoring and evaluation/quality innovation officer, the field staffs. He also recommended I talked to Mr. Peter Elkind, the past resident engineer of IDE who was on retirement to hear about how the IDE Zambia project begun, and to other private firms and manufacturers who are partners to IDE. I followed his recommendation and talked with the officers in turn, who also directed further questions to other officers.
Following domain actors
I talked to the following lists of staffs within IDE and other partners of IDE. Most of the interviews are semi-structured around specific topics and other unstructured ‘fill-ins’ that were follow ups to questions asked or entirely new topics of interest to the research I did not consider in the research design. I also ‘hang around’ a couple of them to learn in-depth around various aspects. These interviews were augmented with direct observations as well.
The IDE technical team. I had semi-structured interview and conversations with two staffs in the technical team on activities that characterize the development process of the drip and treadle pump, and how they are involved in project activities. IDE marketing team. I talked with the market linkage coordinator who briefed me on the market linkage programme where IDE trained marketing agents to sell produce on behalf of farmers in selected Zambian
20
markets. Value chain manager. I had an in-depth conversation with the value chain manager who talked a great deal about the value/supply chain, MIT financing and the Farm Business Advisor (FBA) concept. IDE field staffs. I had semi-structured interviews and conversations with IDE field staffs on their activities. They briefed me about their involvement project activities mostly in the promotion and sale of MITs. They talked about farmer identification and group formation, promotion and sale of MITs, and the training of farmers in the installation use and maintenance of MITs as part of their activities. Mr. Peter Elkind. I had conversations with Mr. Peter Elkind together with Mr. Chelemu. He talked at length about how IDE country programme was started and how activities characterized the first project phase of the programme.
I followed Mr. Chelemu’s recommendation and talked with two manufacturers of treadle pumps, three importers and distributors of different brands of drip kits, two microfinance institutions, agrochemical shops and other organizations and firms who are mostly IDE partners in the MIT value chain.
Participant observation
As part of building rapport and getting involved in the research I helped an intern working with IDE to assemble the SKI treadle pumps imported from India to augment the numbers of locally produced pumps in order to meet demand. This was called for because of widespread quality problems with the treadle pumps. I learnt a lot about the different parts and functioning of the treadle pump from the intern who was more than willing to share his knowledge on the technology. We went through various processes of assembling the treadle pump, checking for defects and alignments of the pump. When were discovered major defects, the pump is sorted out. Those that passed the observation test are further tested on the testing tower located in the premises of IDE. On this tower, the pumps are tested for suction and delivery lift as well as designed discharge. After testing, we also checked for leakages from the sides of junction box of the pump. I also joined the technical team sometimes in the testing of some petrol pumps and some sprinklers in the premises of IDE when the need be, and sometimes on their trip to the field to experience how they go about their activities in training farmers in MIT use.
Review of secondary data
As part of the data collection process, I reviewed secondary data on IDE project planning and implementation using the Prosperity Realized through Irrigation and Smallholder Markets, information on the Rural Prosperity Initiative project (RPI) website, a video on IDE India and Zambia. I also reviewed the previous study IDE of Magwenzi (2011), Mupfiga (2011).
Research in the farmer domain
I started research in this domain with a field trip with my supervisor, Mr. Chelemu to various farming communities in Kafue where he introduced me to drip farmers in Shimabala, Kabweza and Chikupi. In Kabweza, he introduced me to the lead contact farmer/Farm Business Advisor in Kabweza, Mrs. Anita Mweemba and Mr. George Mweemba the husband with whom I stayed to conduct the study in communities in Kafue and Kabwe. She later became my interpreter and informant during research. I went on the introductory field trip as well with him to Kabwe where he introduced me to Mr. Bernard Sikatunga, with whom I stayed in Kabwe. He was my resource person who introduced me to all the communities I researched in Kabwe and was as well my informant on activities of farmers in the region. During the main research phases I followed Mr. Jarius Simukoko and Mrs. Mutinta Chipepo, IDE field officers to the Chilongo community in Kafue and Mumbwa in the Chibombo districts.
21
Locating the farmers
I used the snowball approach in locating the drip farmers during the main research phase. This was the most appropriate method I could employ for this research seeing it also had its limitation on biases. This approach was chosen because the farmer communities were widely separated from each other and so are the farmers especially in Mungu in Kafue and in some communities in Kabwe. Besides, it was difficult for me to locate who a drip farmers without being told. The only sign that gives them away was a garden and an overhead tank installed on a metal or wooden platform, but this was distinctive only to Kabweza and Chikupi. There is no sign to give farmers who have abandoned the drip kit away save I ask. In the course of the research, I had to ask one farmer who recommended I talk to who is using the drip, abandoned it or not used it. Here, the lead contact farmer for Kabweza whom Mr. Chelemu introduced me to was very resourceful. She has quite an impressive overview on most activities happening around farmers in Kabweza as well as Mungu and Chikupi. She introduced me to all farmers in her group and served as an interim interpreter in two situations [most of the farmers in Kabweza spoke good English].
After research in Chikupi, she called the lead contact farmers there to inform them about my study and gave me directions to the communities. I followed suit to Chikupi and Mungu. The contact farmer also led me to other farmers, who also recommended others. I followed the same procedure in Kabwe. The IDE field officer introduced me to farmers, and I moved from one farmer to the other following the ‘flow’ and gathering more ‘snowballs’.
Interviews
Interview techniques I used were non/semi-structured. I drafted semi-structured question as an interview guide to give the thesis a structure. Responses from farmers determine my next line of action whether to probe further or move on to the next question. The structured questions I asked were to enable me make clear analysis and compare various responses from the farmers. The questions mostly revolve around crops they produce, when they started using drip technology, how did they acquire it, how were they trained to install it on their fields and by whom. I also asked them about the challenges they had with the drip kit, what they did to keep it working on their field or what they could not do for which reason abandon the technology, how the technology served their interests. I asked farmers how and where they accessed markets for their produce. I also engaged farmers in non-structured interviews or conversations without interview guides. I followed up previous interview visits to see what they are doing in their gardens. I drew more information from these forms of conversations more also because farmers are not expecting much from my ‘interview guide’ and therefore talked at length to explain what they do, their experiences with drip and why they were motivated to continue using the technology or abandon it. The challenge with this method is that, I had to rely on how much I remembered when I came back home in the evening to write in my field note.
Observations
I mostly combined direct observations with both forms of interviews. I observed how farmers related with their fields, water, treadle pumps, drip kit etc., I observed how drip kits were laid, how they were connected together with other components into a drip system, the way they repaired or modified their drip kits to make it work. I observed how farmers modified their fields to fit their drip systems and how they modified or reconfigured their drip systems in response to varied challenges and problems with the drip kits. I switched roles between direct observation and participant observation to get more involved and be part of farmers experiences on the field. I joined a treadle pump farmer in Kabweza treadle his pressure pump in a conversation with him on his experiences. I also joined the head of my host family in Kabweza to water his tomato field. My host father Mr. George Mweemba (husband of Anita
22
Mweemba) did not lay his drip kit in the early parts of my research. He lifts water from a well in his garden into a 1000 litre tank connected with a long watering hose with which he waters his 1000 m
2 tomato field. I observed him do this every day except on Saturdays when he does
not work because he is of the Seventh Day Adventist faith. I helped him sometimes on his field to water his crops and later helped to mulch part of his farm which he completed later when I realized his crops were always stressed on his field although he goes through the exercise of watering it six days in a week. After mulching, his watering regime changed to once every two days or four days in a week, saving him two labour days on his farm. Watering a thousand square meter field with a hose was labour intensive and takes about 3.5 hours to complete.
Informants/triangulation
During the research, the IDE field officers and lead contact farmers or FBAs served as interpreters, guides and informants in the study. I relied on them mostly for background information about communities I was researching and crosscheck information I hear from farmers with them. I crosschecked most information I heard from farmers with the leaded contact farmer and then with the field officers and vice versa. Although this was tedious, they were ways I validated their information. A farmer who had problem laying his field said he informed the IDE officer for the operational area but did not get the needed response. I checked this also from the IDE field officer to hear his response. In this case, most of the issues the farmer raised were confirmed by the field officer and I accepted it as a true account of the situation. I also cross checked information from farmers with officials of IDE and to find out whether they are aware of the situation on the farmer’s fields. I did this mostly during the afternoon breaks over nshima where we normally have pep talks and sometimes with Mr. Chelemu either in his office or in the car when driving to the field or going home. But the challenge is that, I could not verify every I count of farmer’s I heard. Sometimes I do with other farmers. When I observe they take a general trend, I take it as a true account. For example I took the lengthening and shortening of the drip lateral as a true account because most farmers said it. Clogging was experienced by many farmers and some farmers replaced their tanks in response to the argument that the tanks given by IDE is too small.
3.4 Limitations Limitations were part of this thesis.
(1) Language was my first limitation, I had to use the services of interpreters randomly in communities in Kabwe where most of the farmers do not speak English. I tried verifying what they were saying with the IDE field officers but they both had their opinions about the cause of the drip kit being failed. However, I compared their accounts with other accounts of farmers in Kafue and there were some trends established. I verified those trends with farmers still using drip.
(2) My association with lead contact farmers and IDE field officers as informants with whom I verified accounts of IDE and farmers respectively might introduce some biases in data. However, my observations of drip activities, abandoned drip kits, symptoms such as broken drip kits etc. were used as check considering the objectives and focus of research. Those were field evidences of prevailing situations.
(3) The number of drip farmers actively using drip (See appendix 1) I talked to were fewer than the number of farmer’s who have abandoned their drip kit. These figures may not be representative of the broader picture or trends of failure associated with the drip kits in this study. The number farmer communities I studies is a small fraction of
23
the total number of IDE supported farming communities in Zambia and I cannot independently verify that the account is true beyond the communities where I worked.
(4) The communities were widely spaced and that was also a limitation for me not to research many other communities.
(5) The number of respondents are limited by the qualitative research approach because of its tedious nature. The snowball sampling method may present biases also where, some farmers might have been skipped in the research. 3.5 Analysis, evaluation and presentation of research findings I consider these limitations in my presentation of research finding with a clear focus on the objectives of the research. Specifically, this research seeks to establish the following:
(1) To study and understand how the low-cost drip is being developed in two domains; the domain of IDE [as the manufacturer] and the domain of farmers [as users].
(2) To understand how innovation is characterized in the development process of the low-cost drip in the two domains and;
(3) To find out how the low-cost drip technology is being failed in both domains.
With the objectives in mind, I will follow the trends that were established along the lines of arguments that would achieve the objectives and avoid presenting numbers. The limitation of number of respondents are not grounds enough in this research to present the facts behind the scenes.
I present the results of the study on drip along with the treadle pump in order compare how both technologies are being developed and to present arguments on how the drip kit is being failed. Academic thesis can be boring and sometimes not quite interesting to read and may send you to sleep when presented with ‘dry’ and ‘hard’ facts. To keep the attention of the reader through in this thesis, I will make a fine blend of my finding with intermezzos and other interesting observations I made on the field. The nature of this study enjoin me to present most of my field observations in pictures for a better understanding of innovation and development of the low-cost drip in Zambia to the relevant stakeholders involved in this study and the reader.
24
Chapter 4. Manufacturer (IDE) Domain
[...] follow the actors [and MITs] – Bruno Latour5
This chapter presents study results on the development process of drip and activities that characterize innovation in the process. This chapter is organized in four parts. The first part explains how project interventions by IDE country programmes are designed using the Prosperity Realized through Irrigation and Smallholder Market (PRISM) methodologies and concepts (Section 4.1). The second part presents the rationale for the development of drip and other micro irrigation technologies by IDE Zambia. This part also presents an overview of three different project phases over which MITs were developed in Zambia including the current Rural Prosperity Initiative (RPI) Project under study (Section 4.2). The third part of this chapter presents the development path of micro irrigation technologies, the activities that characterize the process and groups or individuals within IDE or other organizations involved in the MIT development process (Section 4.3). The fourth part outlines of decisions taken by IDE after the evaluation of the first phase of the RPI project. As part of this decision, the Farm Business Advisor concept was introduced in section (4.8)
4.1 IDE project design The global IDE family claims it has a mission to end poverty in developing nations with a micro focus on small rural families who own or have access to small plots and depend on agriculture for their livelihood. IDE conceptualizes poverty a multifaceted problem that needs multifaceted solution approaches. IDE believes that addressing the income needs of farmers is a solution path that promises rippling effects to solving global poverty. IDE has over the years focused efforts on poverty reduction by helping small rural families in developing regions to increase agricultural productivity and income by investing ). With a claim of years of experience in poverty reduction, IDE developed a market-oriented methodology called Poverty Reduction through Irrigation and Smallholder Markets
6 (PRISM). This methodology
is a heuristic approach to project design and implementation that is adapted by IDE country programmes.
7This section is a prelude to section 4.2. It lays the foundation for understanding
the activities and functioning of IDE in the development of MITs over three different project phases. In this section I present a summary of four activity phases of PRISM involved in project design (section 4.1.1), In section 4.2.2 I introduce four PRISM concepts (or approaches) used in adapting the PRISM methodology to different IDE country programmes. I conclude this section with a pictorial summary of the PRISM strategy in section 4.2.1.
4.1.1 PRISM PRISM is a business marketing and/or market based strategy by IDE to create a sustainable supply of micro irrigation technologies to smallholder farmers in order to enhance their production activities and also develop high demand/value markets for them to sell their produce to increase household income. PRISM is applied to project design by: “(1) creating networks of small enterprises to provide agricultural supplies needed by poor farmers; (2) working with farmers to improve small farm productivity; and (3) linking small farm families to markets [...]” (IDE, 2007, p. 2).
5 Latour, B. (2005) Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford
University Press 6 PRISM is now re-labelled Prosperity Realized through Irrigation and Smallholder Market (PRISM)
7 Interview with Mr. Kenneth Chelemu 12/12/2011. For details of IDE project design see IDE. (2007). Toolkit
for Developing and Implementing Poverty Reduction through Irrigation and Smallholder Markets (PRISM)
Programs. Can be accessed from http://www.ideorg.org/OurStory/Publications.aspx
25
PRISM goals and principles
The goal of the PRISM methodology is to develop and integrate the smallholder farmer into existing or emerging agricultural markets using five guiding principles: (1) to focus on smallholder poor farmers, (2) to make markets serve smallholder farmers (3) to improve water control (4) to listen to and learn from farmers and (5) to support sustainable resource management by small farmers.
In the design of country projects, IDE focuses on poor smallholder farmers who cultivate on small plots between 20 m
2 to two hectares of land with the belief that poor rural farmers can
generate sustainable income by active and effective participation in agricultural markets. The PRISM method envisions smallholder farmers as entrepreneurs and customers in the making and not charity recipients. It further envisions that farmers would become active participants and players in the private sector input and output supply system when integrated effectively. IDE claims that its long years of experience in working with poor smallholder farmers in many developing countries revealed that “access to and control of water” through technology “is often critical to reduce poverty”. IDE also argued that “water control raises farm productivity, reduces the risk of crop failure and enables investment in high value crops”. The PRISM method is used in the identification of labour saving, “innovative, affordable, small plot” micro irrigation technologies for poor smallholder farmers “to access, store and control water” to increase household income. PRISM is therefore used identify and build the capacity of existing small business enterprise to produce and sell affordable micro irrigation technologies to farmers. Farmers are trained to use and maintain the technologies for crop production). PRISM principle claims that IDE listens and learns from the resource constraints and opportunity situations of farmers in order to champion their course in project strategies that would increase the productivity of available resources (IDE, 2007, p.2).
PRISM approaches
IDE employs four concepts in project design to adapt its country programmes along particular lines of MIT development depending on constraining situations identified with smallholder farmers. The PRISM concepts are: (1) water approach, (2) market approach, (3) opportunistic approach and combined approach.
Water approach. IDE uses water as the entry point for the promotion of their MITs. With this approach, IDE examines the water situation of an area before designing appropriate irrigation equipments that would make better use of water resources. In areas where water is limiting, the water approach used in project design. In India, IDE promotes drip irrigation technology in areas where water resources are scarce. This is done based on the needs of farmers to save water and also raise the productivity of their crops (IDE, 2007, p. 3).
Market Approach. IDE uses this approach to select crops that smallholder farmers would sell for profit – high value crops. This also involves the understanding of the market demands and accessing what farmers can produce to meet market demand. In areas where water is not a constraint, IDE uses this approach for farmer market-oriented production. In Zambia, IDE promotes low-cost micro irrigation technologies such as the treadle pump and drip irrigation to produce high value crops and vegetables (Ibid).
Opportunistic Approach. This approach is used by IDE when water is not a constraint but other factors limit farmers ability to increase crop production. A farmer may be limiting in credit, knowhow on improved agricultural methods, micro irrigation technology or other production resources. The opportunistic approach involves identifying these limiting factors and finding ways to work with the smallholder farmer overcome them (IDE, 2007 p. 4).
26
Combination Approach. A combination of these approaches is also used by IDE in designing its projects on micro irrigation technologies in situations where conditions that necessitate all the three approaches are identified (ibid).
PRISM in Action
Four basic questions are asked in the development of pro-poor market systems:
1. What market opportunities can small farm families take advantage of? 2. What constraints prevent small farm families from participating in these market
opportunities? 3. What small enterprises exist or can be created to address those constraints? 4. What assistance is required to help those enterprises better serve the needs of small
farm families?
PRISM methodology is identify and “create an integrated system of private sector enterprises that include input suppliers, small farm families, and output markets” (Figure 7) (IDE, 2007 p. 5).
27
Figure 7. PRISM in Action
PRISM strategy
Four activity phases involved in the planning process of: (1) situational analysis, (2) intervention design (3) project implementation and (4) evaluation and learn phases.
Situational analysis. In this phase, IDE conducts a reconnaissance survey to gather information on the general patterns and trend of activities in proposed project intervention area to develop an understanding of the opportunities and constraints of the smallholder farmer. Potential markets for MITs and produce markets for farmers are identified and feasibilities of intervention evaluated. Promising prospects are informs the next phase of the project – intervention design.
Intervention design. This is to design an “intervention that builds on the advantages of smallholder farmers and addresses constraints that prevent smallholders from participating in market opportunities”. IDE develops a programme implementation plan (PIP) to manage the
28
project process. The PIP provides an overview of detailed plans that would be used to manage the process, execution, monitoring and evaluation of the project. This phase is also characterized by scouting and soliciting for donor funds for the implementation phase of the project.
Project implementation. After finalization of intervention design, the project is rolled out. The implementation phase is characterized by “regular monitoring, reflection and feedback regarding the project’s effectiveness and efficiency”
Evaluate and learn. In this phase, the project is “evaluated to assess whether the goals and objectives are being met. The intervention is adapted, as needed, based on the learning generated from the evaluation” (IDE, 2007, p. 6).
Figure 8. The PRISM strategy
Summary
The PRISM principle in project design is used as a marketing instrument to bring farmers and all other market players together into a chain network as a strategy to effect mass marketing
29
of micro irrigation technologies developed at low cost by local manufacturers, and also to link farmer’s produce to the market. 4.2 IDE Zambia Project Phases Since its establishment in 1997, the International Development Enterprises Zambia has developed arrays of micro irrigation technologies over three project phases namely: Practical Micro Irrigation Technology Development Programme, Smallholder Market Creation (SMC) project, and Rural Prosperity Initiative projects (RPI 1 & 2). In this section, I present briefs on each project phase.
4.2.1 In the beginning In one of our series of interviews and conversations with the IDE Technical Director of Programmes, Mr. Kenneth Chelemu, I asked:
OKT: How was the situation like and what triggered IDE’s interventions with smallholder
MITs? [KC]: I think what triggered it mostly was the space that was identified in terms of
small scale irrigation promotion. [...] In comparison to what IDE was doing in other country
programmes, Zambia was identified after a comparative study was made here and in other
Southern African countries such as Malawi, Tanzania and Zimbabwe.
He said Zambia had a comparative advantage in water resources existing in different forms such as rivers, streams, shallow ground water (or dambos), and ‘deep’ ground water. Also farmers are already engaged in crop (mostly vegetable) production. Another advantage identified was the existence of local technology manufacturers.
Mr. Chelemu traced the history of MIT development to FAO supported project on Small Irrigation and Water use in Zambia, where FAO supported the construction of small (multipurpose) dams for production activities in livestock rearing and crop cultivation. Although the facilities were designed for both uses, the dams were predominantly used for watering because they were located in places dominated by livestock farmers. These were potentials IDE identified in the early periods of project design found them to be inappropriate in terms of their location away from potential markets, and also in livestock dominated areas which made it difficult to introduce horticultural activities. He said animals often stray into farms and destroy crops resulting in conflicts between livestock and crop farmers. To avoid these conflicts, IDE decided to build new facilities and that was the “space” identified. The ‘space’ was basically to: (1) develop a way to abstract water away from the existing facilities in locations that are closer to markets and also bar access animals from access to farms by fencing. (2) “fill in the spaces” with MITs since there were virtually none available in Zambia to begin with, and if they ever existed, they were not properly promoted.
The technology that came as an entry point to MIT development by IDE Zambia at that point
was what we called the tube well treadle pump. [...] we did not have tube wells per say but
open wells and running water. What was need was something that can be moved around unlike
tube wells that were permanently installed.
The tube well pumps were modified into the river or suction pumps that was semi permanent. They could be moved from one water source to another. That was the space and the entry points identified. In ensuing developments, the suction pumps were modified into pressure pumps to lift water to higher heights due to topography challenges.
Introducing the ‘low-cost’ drip
Mr. Chelemu said the treadle pump and drip were introduced with a common objective, and designed to be complementary to each other. Before they were developed , some smallholder farmers were already into vegetable cultivation on small plots using buckets .
30
Following what IDE has been doing in other country programmes, they talked with the smallholder farmers to know about their situation and how IDE could design technologies to meet their needs. He said, labour was one of the main issues that came up in their discussions . Also raised were issues related to productivity of crops, land and water. Farmers who cultivated small plots could not effectively increase their cropping areas because of labour constraints. There were other identified constraints such as periodic dry spells and drought conditions in Zambia that limited the production capacity of farmers. According to Mr. Chelemu, farmers who used the buckets said it was labour intensive. They were also not efficient in terms of water applicationy
[...] so we had a quick look at labour and water saving devices [...]; basically, [...]
technologies that were already tried and tested in other regions and then adapt them to our
local situations.
He said what IDE considered in developing the technologies was getting the most out of farmer’s investments and available resources: human resources available in a farm household, water resources and the land that provides medium for crop production. Focusing on drip, he said the technology was introduced to improve efficiencies in water distribution and application as well as increase productivity for smallholder farmers.
In terms of human resource, we are talking about drip providing or saving labour and if labour
is saved, then we are increasing labour productivity. Drip is a technology that saves water and
when that is realized, then we are increasing water productivity. And again in terms of land
area when you use drip you become more efficient in land use because of the other two fronts
– labour and water savings. If you increase productivity per unit area using drip, it means that
you are increasing the efficiency of your land. So we see that there is a lot of room for drip
irrigation. So whatever technology that is available to increase productivity of these resources
mentioned, IDE would continue to push it.
Mr. Chelemu later recommended I talk to Mr. Peter Elkind, to hear the story about IDE’s project in the beginning. He started the country programme and was head of the technical team that designed various MITs for IDE but now on retirement.
We visited him in his residence later after some days. Mr. Chelemu introduced me to him and started with the day’s business:
Well Obed [researcher], you have heard stories from the rest but it would be nice to hear
also from Peter Elkind. He was the idea behind all the micro irrigation technologies here in
IDE; both the drip, treadle pumps and others. All the processes were started by him so I
think it would be nice to hear from him. Peter, he wants to hear everything from the
beginning; how IDE started and the processes involved in the development of micro
irrigation technologies.
Mr. Elkind responded and said:
Well Kenneth, I can comment on treadle pumps and drips or even rope pumps [...]
Introduction of MITs
He said IDE started the manufacturing of the treadle pump in 1997 [after the comprehensive assessment talked about by Mr. Chelemu]. Although an entirely new technology in Zambia, the treadle pump had receive widespread development and promotion in the Asian regions where it was considered a success. According to Mr. Elkind, there were some forms of activities and developments of the treadle pump was going on in Africa also around that time by NGOs such as EnterpriseWorks and Kickstart on the pressure pump, but IDE started with a suction pump designed for tube wells. Local manufacturers were trained
31
through the collaborative efforts of FAO and the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives (MACO) and IDE started the manufacture of treadle pumps.
The development and promotion of ‘low-cost’ drip on the other hand was initiated in 1998. IDE scouted for suppliers within the Southern African regions and found suppliers in Johannesburg. A reliable supply was established and the whole process started around the years 1999 and 2000.
Building capacity for local production
Much as local manufacturers were identified for the treadle pump, IDE identified the owner of a local MIT supply company called Duram Limited for training to produce drip locally at more affordable prices than imported drip from South Africa.
We got a World Bank grant of about 120,000 dollars. So we gave a loan to Duram, sent him
to India and paid for his trip. He used about 28,000 dollars to purchase drip manufacturing
equipments. He got a really good deal and came back with duty free imports.
Mr. Elkind said Duram started producing drip kits locally in Zambia but the unexpected happened. The prices of the kits were higher than those IDE imported. This stalled the promotion of the technology to smallholder farmers. He claimed Duram Limited was more focused on selling drip kits to commercial farmers who could afford it. To continue the promotion of drip, IDE started importing the KB drip from India which was reckoned to be more ‘affordable’ for farmers.
Building the MIT Supply Chain
According to Mr. Elkind, IDE built the entire [IDE linked] MIT supply chain Zambia.
[...] we found little shops in town along the main rail line, [...] along the main roads from
Lusaka to Livingston, [...] from Lusaka to Chipata in Eastern province, [...] from Lusaka to
Kabwe, and beyond in Mpike in the Central province, [...] from Lusaka out to the Copper
belt and then to Kitwe. We stayed along those main routes and recruited small shops. [...] we
had to drive it [the supply chain]; we had to supply it [MITs], and make sure that the small
shops have supply.
He said IDE made transport arrangement for the supply of drip and treadle pumps from local producers to retailers. This was necessary in the beginning to keep the chain running. Although the arrangement was well intended and kept the chain functioning, it had much implication on sustainability of the project.
Collapse of the Supply Chain
Mr. Elkind said although the MIT supply chain was “up and running”, the supply chain was heavily dependent on IDE. In the year 2005, IDE Zambia was instructed from its head office to step out of the supply chain for takeover by other private market players who are into MIT supply. When they complied, the supply chain fell apart.
We had to practically build the supply chain again from manufacturing to retail all over
again. That was the task we were asked to do under the first Gates programme8 which ended
last year in 2011
Field note: 05/12/2012
Box. 1 The Practical MIT development programme (1997 - 2002)
8 The Rural Prosperity Initiative phase one.
32
4.2.1 Smallholder Market Creation Project (2003 – 2005)
After the initial five year practical technology development programme [narrated by Mr. Elkind], the Smallholder Market Creation project was launched in 2003. It was a two year project as part of a six-year comprehensive programme by IDE to reach more than 10,000 households with MITs. The rationale was to build up on IDE’s five year practical MIT development experiences in using the private sector supply chain, raise the awareness of rural farmers on the availability of MITs by promoting marketing campaigns and strengthening farmer’s capacity purchase the technologies to intensify agricultural production (Winrock website).
9 The objectives of the project was to introduce about 2,000 smallholder farmers into
the existing agricultural markets where they can access MIT and agro inputs. The target was for farmers to produce and sell high-value value vegetable crops to raise at least $300 dollars per year [for new entrants in the first year] (Ibid).
The SMC project was jointly implemented by IDE and Winrock international. There was a
division of tasks between IDE and Winrock based on each organization’s strengths. IDE focused mainly on input supply side of the “technology push” market system through the production of MIT, building the supply chains, as well the promotion and awareness creation campaigns. Winrock on the other hand concentrated mainly on the output side of the market system. It was responsible for promoting and training farmers in post-harvest technologies, output market development and linkages. For farmers to access MITs, Winrock provided inputs in terms of credit (Ibid). At the end of the three year programme, new partnerships were developed with NGOs, private as well as government credit organizations and market output organizations (Ibid).
4.2.2 Rural Prosperity Initiative (RPI) Projects (2006 – 2010 : 2011 → ) After the SMC project, the Rural Prosperity Initiative project was introduced. The RPI is a two phase project with a four year span for each project phase. The first phase was launched in the year 2006 and ended in 2010. The second phase started in 2011 and still ongoing during this study. This project was also drafted with the PRISM strategy. I asked Mr. Chelemu how RPI was initiated and for what purpose was it introduced? He said:
[...] Independent evaluators made some recommendation on what they thought was missing in
the SMC project. We had to go back and start asking question from the constraint and
opportunity analysis, looking at what we did not achieve in the SMC project from the farmer’s
point of view and also from our [IDE’s] end.
The Rural Prosperity Initiative is a Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs sponsored project. The focus of the project is to improve the lot of smallholder farmers in Zambia by introducing them to ‘new’ and improved methods of farming using improved inputs (improved seeds, agro chemicals etc) and micro irrigation technologies. The objective of the of the first phase of the project was to link up 14,000 smallholder farmers who live on a dollar a day to micro irrigation technologies such as treadle pumps and drip technology in order to increase their income by $300 annually, and 11, 200 smallholder farmers to the same margin in the second phase of the project. The components of the RPI projects are: (1) the development of affordable micro irrigation technologies, (2) market development, (3) GIS, (4) monitoring and evaluation (5) capacity building and gender (6) microfinance and (7) environmental sustainability (RPI project website, 2012).
10 In the
9 Winrock International (2012) http://www.winrock.org/fact/facts.asp?CC=5467&bu Accessed on 22/04/2012
10 The Rural Prosperity Initiative Project. http://rpi.ideorg.org/PR/IrrigationTechnologies.aspx Accessed on
03/06/2012
33
next section, I will elaborate on the MIT development component of RPI, the focus of this thesis.
[Interview excerpts with Mr. Kenneth Chelemu]
OKT: How does IDE measure success? [K.C]: [...] IDE’s measure of success, [...] goes with
IDE’s mission which links with its vision. Basically [...] the major element is enabling
smallholder farmers increase their income and other influences around them. [...] IDE
measures success is on that. If a farmer increases his or her income level as a result of
adopting the technologies IDE is promoting and also the processes that IDE is facilitating
then IDE registers that as a success.
OKT: How does income explain success? [K.C]: [...] income is relative so we have a figure
to which we relate success. [...] IDE considered figures relating to poverty levels in various
countries and worked out a based line dollar figure for each country programme. For Zambia
it is 300 dollars per year per household. So if a family generates income that is this figure or
more, IDE says it is successful. [...] There are other things we look for besides income [...];
other indicators of success. If a farmer adopts a technology that IDE is promoting or a
process or a system of doing things on-farm, that already gives an indication of success [...]
the income levels come in only as a confirmation of success.
Field note: 12/12/2011
Box. 2 IDE Success parameters
(1) MIT development component of RPI project
The Rural Prosperity Initiative project was aimed at developing controlling and micro irrigation technologies at affordable prices for smallholder farmers who live on a dollar-a-day to improve yield and increase household income The list of technologies envisaged to be developed depending on RPI country programmes are: “affordable wells, original pump head, tripod frame pump, mobile pump, large capacity pump, pressure pump, deep-set manual pump, rope pump, micro-diesel pump, solar powered pump, wind powered pump, header bags for drip systems, enclosed water storage, lined tanks/pumps, low pressure drip and low pressure sprinklers” (RPI project website, 2012).
(2) Design objectives
MITs developed by IDE are designed to realize project success [or objectives]. Talking to Mr. Festus Hanankuni, head of the IDE technical team he said:
Basically the objective was to design or look for technologies that we can sell to smallholder
farmers to increase productivity in terms of labour, crop, land, water etc for farmers to
increase their income. [...] here we are talking about water controlling technologies;
technologies that can lift water for example the treadle pump, technologies that store, control
and apply water for example drip or a combination of water lifting and application
technologies like the motorized pump with sprinklers.11
11
Interview with Mr. Festus Hanankuni on 01/12/2011
34
He listed the technologies developed by IDE Zambia out of the lot: (1) the low pressure drip, (2) treadle pumps [suction only and pressure pumps], (3) rope pumps, (4) small gasoline pumps and (5) low pressure sprinklers.
Micro irrigation technologies were designed with certain attributes so that it can be sold to smallholder farmers.
(1) Low-cost and affordable. To design and manufacture cheaply, IDE Zambia has trained local manufacturers to produce treadle pumps at low cost. Without manufacturing capacity in Zambia, IDE imported low-cost drip kits from India.
(2) Easy to install, operate and maintain. The treadle pumps were designed to be easily installed anywhere near a water source. They were designed to be operated by men, women and children.
12The low-cost drip were claimed to have similar attributes: it
was designed to be operated by farmers after little training.
(3) Applicability to smallholder situation. MITs were designed to fit into existing farming practices of farmers to complement crop production and not to change production patterns [drastically]. They were designed for smallholder plots that are mostly a hectare or less in Zambia.
(4) Control water. The treadle pump was designed to lift and deliver water either to the field by gravity [suction pumps] or to heights [pressure pumps]. The low-cost drip was designed to store, distribute and apply water to the root base of plants. Drip is attributed to water, cost, and labour savings, and productivity. With these technologies, farmers decide when to plant. They also increase production by cropping more than once a year.
(5) Light and portable. Treadle pumps were designed to be light so that farmers can carry them around from one location to the other, and easily transported on bicycles or motor bikes. The low cost drip has similar attributes as well.
13
12
I heard Duncan Rhind, IDE Zambia country director say the treadle pump brings the smallholder family
together as they take turns in treadling it. 13
Interview with Mr. Chelemu on 01/12/2011 and a review of IDE (no date). Affordable small-scale irrigation
technologies
35
MIT development by IDE Zambia are characterized by the following phases: (1) Prototype design and manufacture. Design drawing of proposed MITs are drafted by the technical team with detail specifications, materials and design cost and sent for approval from Management of the project. Approved designs and manufacturing materials are given to IDE trained manufacturers to design/manufacture the prototype. (2) Prototype testing and evaluation phase. Prototypes are examined and tested to ensure they meet design requirement. Approved prototypes are recommended to IDE management for commercial manufacture. (3) Commercial production and promotion phases. Prototype designs are mass produced, promoted and sold to farmers. (4) Use, evaluation and redesign phases. MITs are used by farmers on their fields. IDE receives feedbacks from farmers on MIT performance, problems and challenges. Designs are further reviewed based on these feedbacks and other recommendations by users. Field note 01/12/2012
Box. 3 MIT development process by IDE
4.3 Development of the treadle pump The design of treadle pumps by IDE Zambia is determined predominantly by cost. As a guiding rule, IDE tries as much as possible to manufacture a good, well functioning pump as cheap as possible. The outcome of IDE’s designs are mostly an interplant between cost and quality. In most cases, one parameter is compromised. Quality has been the issue IDE is grappling with. In this section, I will describe three phases of the development of the treadle pump by IDE. Sub-section 4.3.1 describes the prototype design and manufacturing phases, Section 4.3.2, the prototype testing and evaluation phases, sub-section 4.3.3, the commercial production phase, sub-section 4.2.4 describes the promotion/sales and use phases and sub-section 4.2.5 describes the evaluation and redesign phases.
4.3.1 Prototype design and manufacturing phases
These phases are characterized by design drawing of prototype with detailing specifications, measurements, and the preparation of bill of quantities among others made by the IDE technical staff/team. Designs are mostly reviewed by the management team of IDE Zambia for approval. IDE provides manufacturers with approved design, pre-fabricated materials, material lists and manufacturing manual for the construction of prototype. The manufacturing manual was recently drafted to enforce quality control throughout manufacture.
36
Figure 9. Prototype drawing of the Mosi-O-Tunya pump
Manufacturers of treadle pumps in Zambia are in two categories: (1) Medium manufacturing firms and (2) Small manufacturing firms. A medium manufacturing firms are big shops with well advanced manufacturing tools or machines. They have many well trained staffs specialized in fabrication of machine parts, and many arrays of technologies. They are also characterized by good manufacturing and quality finishing of treadle pumps. They are also characterized with high prices for their services. Madinawala is the only big shop that manufacture treadle pumps for IDE Zambia (figure 16)
Small manufacturing firms are limited to a small pool of staff and simple or not too sophisticated fabrication machines. Small shops have few issues with quality finishing. Four shops are in this category: Thole Engineering, Merrit, Disacare and Chokwadi enterprises. (See Chokadi in figure 16)
4.3.2 Prototype testing and evaluation phases
In this phases, the pumps are first checked for physical quality in finishing and subjected to other tests to check its design volume and overall performance and efficiency. Pumps are approved for further testing on the field. Prototypes are given to farmers to try it on their fields for 6 months
14. Farmers are advised to treadle it at least an hour a day. After the trial
period, the pumps are retrieved and checked for: (1) wear and tear, (2) newness of the pump [physical appearance], (3) ergonomics, (4) defects, (5) designed volume and overall output efficiency of the pump. These assessment informs the technical team of IDE to work further on design or recommend it to the management team/staff for commercial production.
4.3.3 Commercial manufacture/production phase
In this phase, IDE provides the manufacturers with the final design [if there are changes], pre-fabricated materials, materials list, and manufacturing manual for production of the pumps. (See appendix 2). After manufacture, the pumps are further tested. They are subjected first to visual assessments for defect and improper finishing. Pumps that does not pass the visual
14
Field testing is done mostly in the dry seasons when farmers are mostly engaged in dry season gardening and
way before the rains set in.
37
assessment are sorted out. Selected pumps are subjected to suction and delivery pumping, and priming test on the IDE testing tower to access whether they meet standard requirements for manufacture. Quality assessments are made to check for leakages, other forms of defects, attention to details, ease of operation and ergonomics. Pumps that do not pass the test and quality assessments are rejected and returned to the manufacturers. Pumps that meet the requirements are embossed with manufacturer’s sticker.
4.3.4 Promotion/sale and use phases
In these phase, the pumps are promoted and sold to farmers. Farmers who find problems with the pumps in use give feedbacks to IDE. They either call the field officers, or technical team directly or channel it through their group leaders (or contact farmers) who are IDE’s representatives in the farming communities.
4.3.4 Evaluation and Redesign
In case of widespread failure, the pumps are redesigned based on farmer’s interpretations of the problem as well as suggestions on what they think the solution should be.
The Mosi-O-Tunya (MoT) Treadle pump
The Mosi-O-Tunya (MoT) is an example of a treadle pump that has evolved in Zambia over the years from different prototype designs made from the first tube well pumps that were brought into Zambia. Farmers contributed to its design and redesign over the years by their interpretations of problems associated with earlier versions or designs, their interpretation of the solution to the problems.
Figure 10. Prototypes of pressue treadle pumps (older versions from right to left)
38
Figure 11. The Mosi-O-Tunya pressure pumps (in colour blue. Newer versions from left to right)
4.4 Development of the low-cost drip The development process of the low-cost drip follows the same trajectory as the treadle pump. However IDE has no manufacturers in Zambia therefore the drip kits were imported. In earlier projects [before RPI], components of the drip kits were imported and assembled into various systems designs (or sizes). In the RPI, recommendations were made to manufacturers in India detailing preferred sizes needed for the project. The KB drip was imported through a joint collaboration between IDE and Cropserve, a Zambian agro dealer enterprise. In this section, I present different specifications of the KB drip, the components that make the KB drip system and system configuration of the low-cost drip.
4.4.1 KB drip kit
The KB low-cost drip is claimed to be a new innovation in low-cost drip irrigation by IDE. It is claimed to be low-cost because they are made out of cheap and locally available materials and manufactured with low cost plastic extruders. The drip kit comes in various sizes and specifications (Table 4.1)
39
Specification KB Drip Kit (EDK 20)
KB Drip Kit (EDK 100)
KB Drip Kit (EDK 500)
KB Drip Kit (EDK 1000)
Area Coverage 20 m2 100 m2 500 m2 1000 m2 Microtubes 60 300 1500 3000 Number and Length of Lateral Drip Lines
4 lines 5.0-m long
10 lines 10-m long
40 lines 12.5 m long to each side of the sub-main
40 lines 25m long to each side of the sub-main
Sub-main Outer Diameter and Length
16-mm OD 3 m
16-mm OD 9 m
32-mm OD 20 m
50-mm OD 20 m
Screen Filter Size 12 mm inlet & outlet
16 mm inlet & outlet
25 mm inlet & outlet
32 mm inlet & outlet
Operating Head (Height of Tank)
1 meter 1 meter 2 meter 2 meter
Emitter Flow 2.5 liters/hour
2.2 liters/hour 2.4 liters/hour 2.2 liters/hour
Water Storage 20 liters 200 liters 1000 liters 2000 liters Crops Vegetable crops: Tomato, Eggplant, Cabbage, Paprika, Basic specifications: Microtube emitters 0.3 m long, 1.2 mm inner diameter; emitter spacing 0.30 m intervals; KB Drip tape laterals of Linear Low Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) material; row spacing at 1 m intervals along LLDPE sub-mains.
Table 4.1. Specifications for various sizes of KB Drip Kits (IDE no date)
4.4.2 Components of KB drip system
The KB drip system is a low pressure drip system is made up of various components (Figure 4.5).
40
(1) Pressure unit. Pressure is mostly supplied to small low-cost system by gravity. The pressure unit for small systems usually consist an overhead tank installed on an elevated platform [wooden, metal etc] 1 – 2 meters high for small systems. A heights between 2 to 3 meters may go for larger systems. Pressure can also be supplied to directly small systems with a treadle pump connected to a water source. Motorized pumps or other pressure units may be used for larger systems.
(2) Control valve. This is a none-return valve made out of either plastic or metal used to regulate the flow of water from the pressure unit into the system.
(3) Filter. The system is fit with a filter/strainer that ensures that clean water is delivered into the system. The size of filter is determined by discharge. Small systems usually have smaller filters and vice versa.
(4) Main lateral. The main lateral is made out of linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE) which flattens like a tape and can be coiled. It is used to convey water from the pressure unit to the sub main lateral.
1. Water
Source/pressure unit
2. Non-return control
valve
3. Filter
4. Main lateral
5. Sub-main
6. Lateral
7. Microtubes
8. ABCD - Area for
expansion
Figure 12. Basic components of the low-cost drip (IDE, no date)
41
(5) Sub-main lateral15
. It has the same material constitution as the main lateral. This is used to supply water to laterals.
(6) Laterals. Lateral lines are made of low density polyethylene. On them are microtubes installed. they are placed near row crops to deliver water to plants.
(7) Emitters. Emitters are microtubes through which water is discharged to the field.
4.4.3 KB drip system configuration
A system configuration the lay-out or the installation of components of the drip kits on the field (Figure 4.6). There are many available sizes of the KB drip imported from India by IDE and Cropserve for the implementation of the RPI project. Three systems designs most developed were the 200 m
2, 500 m
2 and 2,500 m
2.
Figure 13. Schematic drawing of 100 square meter drip kit (IDE, no date)
Note some terminologies The reader would come across the following terms later in this thesis.
(1) Complete drip package. This is the drip package the farmer buys from IDE or other supply shops. It is made up of the following components wrapped in plastics and packaged in cartons: (1) filter and connectors (2) main lateral (3) sub-main (4) laterals and (5) microtubes
(2) Complete drip system. This is made up of the complete drip package and a/or pressure unit (s) (overhead tank, treadle pump or motorized pump).
4.5 The Supply chain As part of an effective strategy to manufacture, supply and marketing of micro irrigation technologies to farmers, link farmers to produce markets, IDE facilitated the development of a supply network of local manufacturers, importers, distributors, and retailers of micro irrigation technologies, seeds and agrochemicals. Also included in the network are Microfinance institutions, market agents, farm business advisors, governmental as well as nongovernmental organizations who are partners to IDE and provide various supports to the chain (figure 14, Table 2).
15
Sub-mains are mostly absent in the low-cost drip systems observed in Zambia. Here the laterals are connected
directly to the main laterals. Water lifting devices used in most smallholder systems are the treadle pumps and
motorized pumps. Overhead tanks are mostly the 200 litre, 1000 litre and in some cases 3000 litres
42
Figure 14. MIT Value/supply chain (Source IDE, Zambia)
43
MITs Brand Importer Local
manufacturers
Distributo
rs
Retailers
Pressure
pump
Money Maker MRI Agro,
SARO
None MRI Agro,
SARO
Cropserve
SKI
IDE
None
IDE
IDE
Mosi-O-Tunya
None
Thole Eng,
Chokwadi,
Merit,
Disacare,
Madinawala
IDE
IDE
Motorized
pump
Dayliff,
Kippor,
Various
Honda
Davis and
shirtliff
SARO
MICMOR/
Others
Various
None
Davis and
shirtliff
SARO
MICMOR/
Others
Various
Rope &
washer
pumps
DAPP,
Thole
Engneering
Drip
KB drip
Others
Rain drip
Netafim
Metzerplast
KB drip
IDE
SARO
Rotor
Amiram
Green 2000
Cropserve
None
IDE
SARO
Rotor
Amiram
Green 2000
Cropserve
Pipes
Poly pipes
Layflat canvas
Open market
Lamasat/
Rotor
MICMOR
Tanks
Lamasat/
Rotor
MICMOR
Table 2. MIT manufacturers, importers, distributors and retailers (Source, IDE Zambia)
44
The value/supply chain in Figure 14 is part and not the full representation of all actors in the chain supply being facilitated by IDE Zambia. Then also, there are other institutions which are not official partners of IDE and therefore not represented in the chain but contribute in diverse ways to technology development especially in the domain of farmers.
Manufacturers represented in the supply chain (Figure 14, Table 2) are local manufacturers of treadle pumps (suction and pressure), rope and washer pumps and other appropriate technologies. They also carry repair works on pumps and fabricate spare parts for the pumps. These manufacturers produce varieties of pumps under different brand names. The brand name for IDE’s pump is the Mosi-O-Tunya locally produced by the manufacturers.
Importers in the chain also supply or distribute treadle pumps, drip kits, sprinklers and other MITs as well as stock and retail (Table 14). The KB drip is retailed by cropserve (figure 15) and IDE. Netafim drip is retailed by AMIRAN (figure 15).
Important in the supply chain also are microfinance institutions that provide funding to farmers to purchase MITs. MFIs in this chain are the Christian Enterprises Trust Zambia (CETZAM), Vision fund (fig. 14) and Micro Bankers Trust (MBT). Other important financiers of the chain are group savings and predominantly the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the donors for the project.
IDE also collaborates with other nongovernmental organizations such as PLAN Zambia, CARE international Zambia, Development Aid from People to People, and others, as well as with the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives.
Figure 15. Drip packages on shelves of importers and retailers in Zambia
KB drip package on shelves of Cropserve Netafim drip package on shelves of Amiran
45
Madinawala, Treadle pumps manufactured by Madinawala
Chokwadi Enterprise Treadle pumps manufactured by Chokwadi
Figure 16. Some manufacturers of treadle pumps in Zambia
4.6 Promotion and sale In this phase of MIT development, technologies are sold through the dealership or supply network developed by IDE. Project activities that characterize this phase are: (1) advertisement and promotion, (2) farmer identification and group formation, (3) crop selection and training (4) MIT sale and financing and (5) market linkage for farmer produce. Different activity components are executed by IDE staffs. The field officers are mostly involved most activities in this phase. In this section, I will discuss the listed activities.
46
4.6.1 Advertisement and promotion
Activities around advertisement and promotion of MITs by IDE were strategies to create farmer awareness on different arrays of MITs available for their production needs and to prime demand for the technologies directly from IDE or indirectly from the private sector MIT supply chain. Awareness creating activities are in forms of radio announcements on private FM radios, technology demonstration in farmer communities, technology and trade fairs organized by the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives (MACO) in farmer at various levels – farmer community, district and provincial levels. The Field Officers said before demonstrations were carried out in farmer communities, reconnaissance surveys were conducted following the PRISM methodology to identify opportunities and constraints mostly in terms of farmer’s access to land, water, markets, inputs and potentials to purchase MITs. Water was said to be the most critical element considered as an entry point into those communities and without which MIT promotion would not be carried out. Curious to know, I asked:
OKT: How do you establish the water situation in the area? [Field Officer 1]: We ask the
community members about their water situations. Those who have access to water do inform
us. OKT: How do you access water in sustainable quantities? [Field Officer 1]: By asking
farmers to tell us when they have water available [...] either three months, six months or
throughout the year. OKT: How about water quality? [Field Officer 1]: No. We do not do
quality tests. We only identify the sources, whether it is a well, river or dambo.
Promotional messages on drip kits MIT advertisement by IDE goes with promotional messages – what IDE says about treadle pumps, drip kits, rope pumps, small motorized pumps etc. In my series of interviews, I talked to two IDE Field officers (FOs) and asked:
OKT: What do you tell farmers out there about drip during promotion? [Field Officer 1]: I first
explain what the technology is, how it works and its advantages. OKT: How about the
disadvantages? [Field Officer 1]: [with a smile] I also mention disadvantages of drip, but more
in terms of the challenges farmers may encounter as they use it such as clogging when the
water is not clean […] as a way to sell the technology, I tell them more about the advantages
than the disadvantages. OKT: Now let’s talk about what you tell them – the advantages
[…][Field Officer 1]: I tell them it saves labour, water, cost and time […]. OKT: How do you
explain the savings to them? [Field Officer 1]: [explaining labour and time savings] I tell them
the technology works on its own when you set it up. […] you put water into the tank and after
that you can do other things while the drip waters the crops in the farm. OKT: Other things
such as? [Field Officer 1]: I tell them you can leave your farm and cook for your kits, or bath
them, you can go to the bush and fetch firewood. […] I tell farmers few weeding is required
with drip because water is delivered to the root area which does not promote weed growth
unlike with the use of buckets where the whole vegetable bed is wet.
In a similar conversation with the second Field Officer (FO), similar promotional messages were repeated. Others there are:
[Field Officer 2]: […] we tell farmers about the potential benefits of drip especially benefits
that appeal to farmers. […] we tell them crops produced with drip experience fewer disease
problems because water is delivered directly to the roots of the plants and not applied to the
leaves. […] they can apply fertilizer directly to crops while irrigating. […] we tell them crops
produced with drip are quality and sells better in the market. Farmers themselves know the
47
value of quality produce. They sell faster in markets because traders look out for quality and at
a better price because farmers can negotiate for better prices.
On disadvantages, the FOs said, it is not a marketing strategy to tell farmers more about the challenges that come with the technology than the potential benefits they would derive from it. They mostly advice farmers on what to do to avoid the challenges. For example, tell them to avoid clogging by flushing the drip system after fertilizer application.
Supply chain actors Supply chain actors [Amiran, Green 2000 and Cropserve] I visited shared the same opinion with IDE about drip irrigation. They also talked about the potential advantages of drip in terms of labour savings, water savings, quality produce etc. I captured the promotional message of Cropserve (figure 17).
48
Figure 17. Promotional message by Cropserve, retailer of KB drip kits
49
Box. 4 Meeting the target?
4.6.2 Farmer identification and group formation According to the IDE FOs I talked to, farmer identification and group formation is an activity that cuts across the project phase.
17They [FOs] carry out promotional activities to identify
potential farmers with MIT needs in various farmer communities. Identified farmers are asked to form groups and elect a leader. Leaders of farmer groups are also called contact farmers (CFs). They are the contact persons for IDE in the farmer communities and liaise between IDE and farmers. According to IDE FOs, farmers are asked to form groups because of the advantages they have over individual farmers so as to access loans, bulk and transport goods at cheaper costs and also help each other with production activities. To encourage group formation, IDE has it as a rule [although not cast in concrete], not to sell MITs to individual farmers.
18
4.6.3 Crop Selection and Training After the group formation process, farmers are advised on MIT and crop selection based on prevailing water situations on their fields. The FOs said famers who do not have water throughout the year or do not have very good water yields in their wells are encouraged to use drip to save water and as well plant crops that do not demand lot of water. On crop selection,
16
Vera Borsboom also made a similar observation (see Borsboom, 2012, p. 29) 17
IDE Field Officers are given percentages or number of farmers to add to their client base as well as target
number of MITs to sell in a project phase in order to meet the overall or project milestone target numbers agreed
with donors for the project. MIT demand from farmers and sales peaks mostly during the dry season and that is
the busiest period for Field Officers to carry out their activities and get their required target numbers – farmers
and MIT sales 18
Field research 03/12/2011
‘[...] meeting the targets?’ I heard a lot of phrases around the word ‘targets’.
16 “[...] we are almost halfway through our
target” a field officer said. Another field officer said, “I have exceeded my target” . In one of my interviews, an IDE official said “[...] we have milestone targets that we must reach [...]”. “Targets” were indeed important. So I asked. I heard two versions of the story, one from field officers and others from management staff in Lusaka. From officials in Lusaka, ‘targets’ relates to meeting the objectives of the RPI project: (1) selling a number of technologies for the project period to a number of farmers that are added to IDE database and (2) ensure farmers increase their income by $300 in a year [for new farmers]. From the field officers ‘targets’ are: (1) a number of technologies to sell and (2) quota on the number of farmers to be added to IDE’s database. What they said clarified my observation of their busy moments and schedules with their field activities. There were days I wanted to talk to them but they were busy and not available. In most instances I followed them to the field. I asked an IDE Official about the ‘targets’; about the numbers IDE is looking for:
OKT: Who want numbers? [Official]: [with a smile] everyone; numbers are needed by
everyone [...] of course you cannot rule them out. OKT: In your project situation who is
more interested in numbers? [Official]: It is the donor eventually. Who determines the
numbers? [Official]: We [IDE and donors] all agree on the target numbers. OKT: What
happens when the numbers are not realized? [Official]: They would ask ‘[...] have you made
the targets that we agreed on for the project?’ or say ‘it was indicated you [IDE] said you
will come up with this number of technologies at this price. Were you able to fulfil it?’
Field Note 12/12/2011
50
they said farmers are given the liberty to select their own crops but they also recommend they plant high value crops such as tomatoes, cabbage, carrots, rape etc that have high market prices [in certain parts of the year] in order to increase their income. And in choosing crops, it is also recommended they crop at the same time or alternatively depending on prevailing market situations and also focus on crops that they can bulk together to transport in order to beat down high transport costs as individuals.
19
4.6.4 MIT sale and financing After crop selection and training, MITs are sold to farmers. During the first phase of the Rural Prosperity Initiative project, farmers bought treadle pumps and components of the KB drip system with discount voucher from MEDA. The token were given to them after attending demonstration training on MIT installation, use and maintenance. With the vouchers, farmers bought either a treadle pump or a complete drip kit [Main lateral system, drip laterals, microtubes and punch (without an overhead tank)]. The overhead tank for the drip system was sold separately. Farmers paid for MITs with top up money from their savings or with loans from Microfinance institutions (MFIs) linked by MEDA to the RPI project. After a year, the voucher programme was phased out and the microfinance component was maintained [till date of this study]. The IDE value chain Manager, Mr. Lottie Senkwe, told me farmers have other sources of MIT finance besides microfinance loans namely loans and savings schemes, cash crops, and relevant others. In this section, I will run briefs on each source of finance as narrated by Mr. Senkwe.
Micro Finance Loans Microfinance institutions continued to provide lending to farmers after the voucher programme. IDE is in partnership with microfinance institution such as the Christian Enterprise Trust Zambia (CETZARM), MICRO Banker’s Trust (MBT) and Vision Fund (formally HARMOS) to provide loan facilities to farmers who do not have the needed funds to purchase MITs.
Loans and saving Schemes
PLAN Zambia an international NGO that is running an economic empowerment programme which promotes savings among youth and communities in agriculture. In this programme, farmers are encouraged to start savings as groups with microfinance institutions. After saving for a period of time, farmers can be given loans from their group savings in turns while the MFI manages the loans for the group. These savings schemes are in operation in farmer communities in Kabwe and Kafue and has been one of the sources for MIT purchase by farmers.
Cash crops
MIT purchase is also financed through the sale of cash crops especially maize. The government of Zambia is implementing an agricultural subsidy programme called the fertilizer support programme (FSP) targeted at mass production of maize in Zambia as a measure for national as well as household food security. In this programme, ‘poor’ farmers are given inputs such as fertilizer and maize seeds for cultivation. After harvest, the Zambian government buys their produce at a fairly good price – sometimes higher than prevailing market prices. Farmers sometimes finance MIT purchase with proceeds from the sale of their maize or other cash crops.
Other sources Mr. Senkwe said farmers also buy MITs with income from other sources: (1) remittances from children working in cities in Zambia or abroad, (2) from burning and selling charcoal, (3) sale of livestock.
19
Field research 03/12/2011
51
[Interview excerpts with Mr. Kenneth Chelemu]
OKT: When do you consider a project a success? [K.C]: [...] success is realizing our target
for the project period. [...] OKT: What are the targets for the RPI? [K.C]: in the case of RPI,
success is measured by three parameters: (1) scale (2) impact and (3) cost effectiveness. If
we talk about scale we mean how many farmers do you have on board [client base] and how
many of them are adopting the technology?
On impact [...] if a farmer adopts an irrigation technology so what? How is this interpreted?
IDE interprets this by the farmer’s income and that is $300 per farmer household per year.
The third parameter is cost effectiveness. That is to say how much does it cost IDE to effect
the adoption of a technology? How much does it cost for us [IDE] to enable a farmer adopt
the technology and also achieve the $300 at the end of the year? In terms of cost
effectiveness, IDE Zambia has a target of $250 per technology uptake. So with this 250
dollars, a farmer should be able to adopt an MIT and be able to register an impact of 300
dollars a year. And this cost is all the cost that we need from the [IDE] Headquarters up to
the field staff. Field note 12/12/2011
Box. 5 IDE project success
4.7 Market Linkages Marketing an activity carried out by IDE in the use phase of MIT development. It is considered by IDE as one of the crucial activities in the production cycle of the smallholder farmer that may lead to gains or losses. As part of the component of the RPI project to develop markets for MITs as well as farmer’s produce to increase the income level of the smallholder farmer by $ 300 per year. In the previous project years, IDE linked farmers to produce buying companies in Zambia such as Fresh Markt, Fresh Pikt, Shoprite, Silvia Catering services and others. However, farmers had challenges with some of these outlets in what they considered unfair prices for their crops. As part of a response and also to make marketing of farmer’s produce more efficient to meet its project objectives, IDE is collaboration with an ICT based organization in South Africa called the Southern African NGO network (SANGONeT), the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, and telecommunication companies such as MTN and Airtel, to build on an existing market linkage system called Limalink in 9 Zambian markets to facilitate smallholder farmer market access using mobile phone technology. In this section, I present a summary of the observations I made in the Kabwe central market, which is part of the pilot programme, and the comments of the IDE market linkage coordinator on the project as well as one the IDE field Officer in charge of the programme in Kabwe.
Commenting on the programme, the field Officer said farmer markets in Zambia are hostile environments where market forces (traders, institutions etc.) sometimes rob farmers of their hard work. This is because market institutions regulate trade activities in these markets sometimes does not favour farmers who are full-time traders. To trade in some markets require registrations with market authorities and the payment of some associated fees (or taxes). Traders who are not registered with market authorities are not able to sell in the market (in Kabwe) or restricted to sell on a limited number of days (Thursdays and Fridays in Kafue). On these restricted days for instance, farmers who were not able to sell all their goods are coerced to sell them very cheaply. Marketers who sell at retail often buy the produce (vegetable) from farmers and in most cases dictate very low prices knowing the perishable
52
nature of the vegetables, the fact that cannot go back with their produce after transporting them a long way from their communities.
20
As part of the Limalink programme, IDE has identified and trained market agents (who are experienced registered traders in the markets) to stock and sell crops on behalf of farmers in selected market centres. At the end of the day, farmers pay a commission fee to them for their services. The market agents are equipped by IDE with a Java enabled mobile phone with GPS and a software package developed by SANGONeT called the Muulimi which is a software package with different applications used for registering and keeping details of farmers that bring their produce to the market agents. After sales are done, farmers are informed by a phone call or text to come for their monies.
21The market linkage coordinator made the
following remarks about the project:
Previously [early pilot phase], farmer’s who brought their produce to the market had to sit and
wait for the market agents to finish selling their goods. But with the muulimi, [latest upgrade
of the software package], farmers do not spend time waiting. When they bring their goods, the
market agent registers it. Farmers can now spend time in their farms while their goods are sold
for them. Once this is done, a text message is sent to their phones indicating how much was
sold and at what price.
He said plans are underway to start banking for farmers using the software package. Here farmers decide to come for their monies or instruct the market agents to bank it for them.
Farmer’s and produce in front of Agents office in Kabwe A phone showing the Muulimi apps
Figure 18. IDE market linkage programme
20
Conversation with Mr. Bernard Sikatunga, IDE field officer for Kabwe on 09/09/2011 21
Conversation with the IDE market linkage coordinator, Mr. Daura Douglas on 14/12/2011
53
I observed the activities of the IDE marketing agents in the central market in Kabwe where several creates of tomatoes were brought to the office of the market agents (see figure18). I however did not observe their activities however in Kafue.
4.8 Project evaluation and learning. Listening and learning is a core component of the PRISM goals and principles used by IDE in project design and structured in the PRISM strategy as evaluation and learning to assess whether the goals and objectives of an intervention programme are being met. Fall outs from the process informs IDE to adapt intervention programmes “as needed based on the learning generated from the evaluation” (IDE, 2007, p. 6). IDE did an internal evaluation of the first phase of the RPI and came out with decisive actions on the next phase of the project. In this section, I present details and summaries of fall outs of the evaluation and actions taken for the next phase of the project. In sub-section 4.8.1 I present evaluation and decisions on the development of MITs including the MoT treadle pump and the KB low-cost drip. In sub-section 4.8.2 I present the Farm Business Advisor (FBA) concept as a decision to project sustainability taken by IDE Zambia.
4.8.1 Development of micro irrigation technologies IDE evaluated the performance of the MoT treadle pump and the KB drip during and at the end of the RPI project phase. In this section, I present some details of the evaluation report on the MoT treadle pump and a word-of-mouth report from an IDE official on the KB drip.
The MoT Treadle pump.
Here, I quote some details of observations and summaries of findings and recommendations of the evaluation report.
“it was observed that;
a. A good number of the 132 pumps distributed this year were unfortunately still sitting with field officers or FBAs and thus not under use [...]
b. No pump was sold has been distributed in Lusaka this year [...]
“Summary of findings;
3. The major concerns however are the inconsistencies between pumps and the overall durability of the pump [...]
4. In over 70% of the cases, customers’ indicated that the pump started giving problems within the first three months of purchase.
5. Main areas of failure can be classified and ranked as follows;
i. Pulley and chain design
This is the primary area of weakness of the pump. All pumps inspected exhibited evidence of metal fatigue with respect to the pulley; feedback was that problems start after about three months of usage. Specific cases include friction between chain and pulley leading to serious wear and tear of the parts, increased play in the in the pulley thus affecting chain/piston alignment, constant breaking/snapping of the chain and in some cases, the collapse of the system.
54
ii. Rubber caps
The second area of failure relates to rubber cups evidenced by either the piston getting stuck in the cylinder and or water squirting pas the cups. This stems from the seemingly short lifespan of the current cups (average 3 – 6 months) and the use of the wrong size of cups (and inserting of rubber washers which in most cases compounds rather than solve the problem). More than 60% of the pumps inspected exhibited this problem.
iii. Piston alignment and strength
In more than 10 cases, the pistons were not sitting at right angle in the cylinders. It was found that the stirrup/piston guide on the treadles came in different sizes, strengths and positions. This had a net effect of allowing too much play/flexibility. The piston rod was in 4 cases found bent.
iv. The rod to which the treadles were pivoted in a number of cases [were] found to have curved in giving undesirable extra play to the treadles
v. Poor workmanship was seen on almost all pumps. This is evident through untidy welds, weak welds (parts falling off), lack of uniformity in joined parts, leaks from joints and ‘incomplete’ works.
vi. [There] are also cases which can be attributed to poor performance of valves e.g. water running back from the discharge pipe past the cylinders, pump discharging only from one cylinder, and inconsistent water discharge.
vii. Inconsistencies were also observed in the height of the handle.
viii. There was also evidence of poor maintenance and poor product knowledge on the part of some customers and thus the need for after sales support.
“The net result of the above has been the lost confidence in the MoT and to some extent IDE as the sponsors of the brand. The current arrangement is not market sustainable as it favours the manufacturer as the expense of IDE and the farmer. Sooner than later IDE will be stuck with volumes of a product for which there is no market.
Recommendations
With a fault rate of over 90% within the first one year of usage, it is clear that the Mosi-O-Tunya in its present form needs further works and not yet ready for commercialization. The following steps are recommended;
1. Suspend the production of MoT.
2. Take immediate steps to correct damage and inconveniences to customers caused by the faulty product.
3. Separate the MoT development from commercialization and only market the product once it has been fully developed and tested.
4. Improve on the durability and efficiency of MoT with attention given to
a. Pulley/chain system.
b. Position and strength of the pistons.
c. Durability of the rubber cups.
55
d. Improvements to the valve system.
5. Establish the true market cost of producing such a MoT.
6. If found viable, revise manufacturing strategy – few competent suppliers.
7. Allow MOT to compete fairly on the market.” (source)
[See footnote for comment of IDE Zambia Country Director on decisions taken.22
]
The KB low-cost drip
Evaluation on the KB drip I was privy to was word-of-mouth report I heard from an IDE official and a field officer that suggested there was a challenge promoting the technology. [In this phase of research, I was crosschecking and verifying facts I heard from farmers on the field]. The official said:
To some extent, there was a push out there saying drip is a brilliant programme, you need to
promote it in your various country programmes [...] we are scoring highly from the numbers
and getting the technology out there [...]. And we’ve been rushed to promote it [...].
The arguments made here was that, the KB drip was claimed to be a success in the Asian regions (India, Nepal, Bangladesh etc.) and farmers are adopting the drip technology in earnest.
IDE and Croserve did a combined investment [to import the drip kits from India]. So we more
or less convinced Cropserve that drip was a fantastic technology [...] but we later experienced
some sluggishness of uptake [...]. Our challenge now is in two areas: (1) we are pushing a
supply chain system where players are conscious of what they import because they don’t want
to tie down their money. Before, IDE could afford to stock drip; we do not mind tying capital
but we want to push it to other supply chain participants who are now arguing that they can
only sell if farmers are satisfied and change their attitude towards purchase. (2) farmers also
want something that they feel is convenient for them and giving them the maximum returns
that the end of the day.
And at the same time, we are getting some feedback from farmers saying drip is good but the
lay-flat has some inadequacies. [1] there are so many blockage, farmers say I have to unclog
the emitters, the laterals are blown by the wind, it contracts and expands. Then after a
cropping season, they have to be gentle in pulling it out of the field and when laying it back as
well. But compared to other types of drip, you don’t have to take so much care pulling it out of
the field or laying them.
There were many things that were taken for granted as a country programme. We did not
spend much time investigating what was ideal for our situation. It was a bit difficult to go into
thorough investigation because as you know most of the project phases are sponsored and
priority in each phase is basically to get the numbers in terms of income, MITs sold out
without looking more in-depth [...]. Now the question is, is the easy drip a really good entry
point for our farmers? It works elsewhere perfect but why it is baffling why it is sluggish in
uptake in our case?
22
“[In] August 2011, iDE place a moratorium on its purchase of MoT pumps form local manufacturers due to
widespread pump failure in the field. The local manufacture programme has since been out on hold. Where iDE
is still involved in the supply chain it supplies SKI pumps manufactured in India which it imported in 2011.
Where at all possible iDE links farmers to commercial retailers who stock and sell, in the main the Kickstart
Money maker pressure treadle pump.”
56
After talking with the Officer, I talked with other field officers as well on the KB drip. An officer said:
The drip kit is not doing well. The type of drip kits we are promoting is not good and not user
friendly. It can only be used for some few cropping seasons say in two cycles. The main
problem is in storage where mice have access to the drip kits [...]. Very few farmers are using
the lay-flat drip sold to them using the voucher system. Emerging farmers use it better because
they are able to hire labour to install the technology. Lusaka farmers are a bit advanced and do
better than other farmers.
Project feedback system
The feedback system in place within IDE cuts across different communication channels. The management of IDE are privy to the performance of MITs in use by farmers through direct contact by farmers, contact farmers, verbal reports of field officers during project meetings, field reports of field officers as well as field visits by management officials.
4.8.2 The Farm Business Advisor (FBA) After evaluation of the RPI 1, IDE Zambia proposed a restructure in the organization of project activities in order to be more efficient and also ensure project sustainability. As part of the restructure the Farm Business Advisor (FBA) concept was introduced in 2011 to train and groom lead farmers who are business oriented to become private entrepreneurs to provide goods and services erstwhile provided by IDE to farmers. As part of the training and capacity building process, IDE involves the FBA in most of its activities in farmer communities as a strategy for a takeover in the near future. In this section, I explain the following concepts: (1) Contact Farmer, (2) the Programme Promoter and (3) the Farm Business Advisor. I devote the later parts of the section to explaining the roles of an FBA and reasons why IDE Zambia has so much attachment to the concept.
The Contact Farmer
A Contact Farmer is the leaders of farmer’s groups. He or she is identified and endorsed by members of farmer groups as leader to become a CF. They liaise between IDE and farmer groups relaying information to and from both domains as part of their role. They also organize their members for training activities by IDE and in some instances facilitate training activities related to agronomy, MIT use and maintenance
23.
The Programme Promoter
A Programme Promoter is a contact farmer or another farmer within farmer groups who are technically oriented and trained by IDE to for referral trainings in MIT use, maintenance and repair, as well as in agronomy. They are motivated by IDE to carry out MIT demonstrations and promotion activities in the farmer communities to advertise and link up farmers to IDE or supply chain.
23
Conversations with IDE field Officer for Kabwe on 09/11/2011
57
The Farm Business Advisor is a borrowed concept from IDE Cambodia however the concepts is different in Zambia. FBAs in Cambodia are “small scale entrepreneurs who live in rural areas. They receive training and support from IDE to help small farmers in their area to be more successful at vegetable growing.”
24They advice farmers on vegetable production
and sell quality products such as seeds, fertilizers and agrochemicals to farmers and help them in market linkages. The FBA concept however in Zambia is different in context and application. Farm Business Advisors in Zambia are either Contact Farmers, Programme Promoters or newly identified farmers who are business oriented, motivated and are more or less in good standing with a community of farmers whom they represent to become private entrepreneurs to promote the activities of IDE and supply chain partners in farmer communities, and to prime demand for goods and services in between farmers and the supply partners.
The FBA concept is being developed as part of the market-based approach to make the private sector vibrant in the production of goods and services, and creating a sustainable linkage of farmers to input and output markets. IDE is playing a facilitating role in bringing together agricultural services-based input and output market actors together into a supply chain link. IDE has and is still identifying lead farmers in communities that are business oriented and are ready to become private entrepreneurs in providing services such as trainings in value chain development, linking of farmers to credit facilities and ensuring the recovering of loans. Others include linking of farmers to technology input market (MIT and agro retailers, distributors and manufacturers) and also linking farmers to competitive produce output markets where farmers are guaranteed good prices for their products. IDE with collaborative support from CARE International is building the capacity of FBAs to start stocking agro chemicals, seeds, and MIT reduce the distance farmers to travel to cities to access these technologies and services.
Currently, IDE Zambia does not deal with retailers because of the presence of FBAs. They generate demand for micro irrigation technology and other agro inputs such as seeds, fertilizers, herbicides and other agro chemicals from farmers for retailers of these products in farmer communities. For every technology or agro demand they generate, they are paid for their services by the retailer or the next upward link in the supply chain. They are also paid for linking farmers to credit facilities for MFIs and for timely recovery of loans. For their entrepreneurial role in stocking agro inputs, they have the third means of generating income by selling them to farmers
25.
Box. 6 The Farm Business Advisor (FBA) concept
Roles and incentives of the FBA I have observed through my interactions with IDE officials that they have similar perception about the FBA concept, who they are and what their roles should be. I have also observed that IDE staffs or team have particular attachments to the FBA concepts depending on how crucial they were in facilitating their work to meet project (organizational) targets. This prompted me to ask Mr. Senkwe if the roles of the FBA is so crucial to IDE what then is their incentives for work? Do they work out of love for IDE or they are paid for their services? In this section, I will present to the reader a fall out of the responses and the intricacies of the roles and incentives of the Farm Business Advisor.
24
As defined by Mike Roberts, Director for IDE Cambodia retrieved from http://www.ide-cambodia.org/fba/ on
08/04/2012 25
Conversation with IDE Value Chain Manager, Mr. Lottie Senkwe on 09/12/2011
58
MIT Promotion and Training
The FBAs maintain their activities as programme promoters in organizing promotional activities such as technology demonstrations in their communities and link up farmers with MIT needs to IDE or supply chain. They also organize members of their groups for trainings activities. The FBA in Kabweza organizes her farmers for training in conservation farming, the use of agrochemicals and other activities such as nursery preparation and management.
26
During these training activities, loan officials of MFIs and managers or staffs of agro dealers shops attend most of these trainings.
Needs Assessment
The FBAs are in contact with their colleague farmers through formal or informal meetings and are able to identify their needs through discussions. In Kabweza [where I observed the FBA concept operate], farmers meet regularly to share ideas, challenges and learn new things from each one another. Through this and other channels, farmers needs for inputs and services are assessed.
Brokering After needs assessment, promotion and training, the FBAs assess the farmer’s ability or inability to purchase readily with available cash. The needs are then channelled to IDE field officers who supply the needed MITs. If the farmer does not have the ready means to purchase the technology, they are linked to microfinance institutions to secure credit for desired MIT or seeds, agro chemicals and fertilizers. MFIs provide lending to farmers in groups and uses the groups as collaterals instead of individual farmer collaterals. It is the duty of the FBA to organize farmers into groups and also facilitate the screening of the group
27.
Once the groups are ready, they are trained by the MFIs on group processes and then given the loans.
28 For linking farmers to MFIs, it has been proposed that going into the future, FBAs
are paid a percentage of an agreed amount of money for credit linkage. MFIs do not know farmers but the FBAs are in close contact with them so they are used also to recover loans. Once a loan is recovered by the FBA, he or she is paid the rest of the agreed sum for credit linkage. In the same vein, if the product is agro chemicals or MIT, FBAs are also paid for generating demand. Paying the FBA thus serves two purposes: to be paid for his or her services for generating demands and stimulating supplies, and also to keep the FBA motivated to sustain the chain supply of inputs into the farmer domain
29.
Entrepreneurial Role of the FBA
Distance between farmer communities and the town and cities where farmers can access goods and services such as buying agro chemicals, seeds and MITs [I travelled to the field several times and I appreciate the distance that needs to be covered to reach farmers]. Farmers often travel these distances to buy few needed inputs such as seeds or fertilizer. To reduce costs incurred on such travels, IDE is training and building capacities of FBAs in collaboration with CARE international to start stocking agrochemicals, seeds, fertilizers and MITs. The FBA thus generates income from the sale of agrochemicals, seeds and fertilizers,
26
Interview with IDE field Officer for Lusaka on 03 12 2011 27
Farmers know themselves and knows those who have borrowed money from the other and have not paid back,
so they know those who can pay back loans and then select them into their groups 28
Once the terms are defined and the loan agreements signed, farmers are given the loans. Farmers are not given
physical cash but rather the products they requested for and the product distributor or retailer is paid by the
MFIs. Farmers are not given physical cash to avoid them diverting the money from its intended use 29
Conversation with IDE Value Chain Officer on 09/12/2011
59
and MITs and get additional income from credit linkage and loan recovery and for linking farmers to agro retailers
30.
Sustaining the MIT Value and Supply Chain
Besides FBA’s role in making work easier for the IDE field officers, IDE is thinking about what would happen to the value chain if they pull out of Zambia. Pete Elkind said the whole supply chain collapsed when IDE was instructed to pull out of the sector in 2005 To IDE, the system may collapse again if the value chain is not structured to involve the private sector becoming vibrant and seeing good and services to and fro the farmer domain through the services of FBAs. IDE cannot reach all farmers considering the distance, the resources needed and the capacity of one field officer to serve a client base ration of 1: 3000 farmers. The worrying fact is that this ration is not fixed. IDE seeks to reach out to more farmers and are making aggressive campaigns on showing Farmers whey they need irrigation technology to meet a project target. With the existing pressures on the IDE field officers to ‘meet their targets’ they need helping hands to do the job. IDE cannot do the job all alone.
Conclusion The FBA concept is well argued by IDE as the way forward to ensure not only to ensure project sustainability but also as part of an exit strategy to cede production, distribution and retail of micro private enterprises while IDE plays a facilitating role. One of the arguments made for the FBA concept is that private enterprises make profit out of service provision to farmers but not in the case of IDE. It would therefore be appropriate to make the FBA an entrepreneur who would provide different services to farmers for income. The FBA concept envisioned as a way to effectively reach out but also in terms of service provision to smallholder farmers.
Although much was talked about the FBA, my observations in the communities I visited showed that, the reality of the concept only exists in the domain of IDE. Lead contact farmers who were supposed to be called FBAs do not identify themselves as FBAs. They prefer to be called contact or lead contact farmers. I only observed few activities by the lead contact farmer in Kabweza that identified her to be an FBA such as some forms of needs assessment for inputs such as seeds, fertilizers and other agro chemicals. In these cases, the needs are met by rechanneling the request through the IDE field officer for the area or other officers who were likely to visit Kabweza to procure the inputs and deliver them during occasional visits. The lead contact farmer said she also links farmers to access credit and plays a role in the retrieval of loans.
However, did not observed any lead contact farmer (FBAs) in communities I studied stocking micro irrigation technologies, seeds or agro inputs.
30
Ibid
60
Chapter 5. The Farmer domain “Talk to the people [who live with the problem] and listen to what they have to say”
Paul Polak31
[my emphasis in italics]
5.1 Introduction I followed the development process of the low-cost drip to the domain of farmers to study the technology in use phase of the KB drip. In this phase of research, I lived with, talked with, and observed the activities of farmers and how they related with the low-cost drip they bought from IDE and Cropserve, and how the drip artefact was related with other micro irrigation technologies as well as with their main livelihood activity which is farming. They narrated their experiences, challenges and problems with the drip artefact, that was promoted as a response to their labour and productivity constraints to increase income and wealth. The experiences were varied. There were farmers [I talked to and others I was told] who did not use the drip kit. Most farmers abandoned the technology and few others are still using the technology. Most of the farmers I talked to who were actively using the drip kits on their fields redeveloped the KB drip into different design configurations by unpacking the ‘original’ system design and repacking it with components of other drip technologies such as the Netafim and Metzerplast drip system, and/or with other locally available appropriate materials into a configuration or bricolage, that worked for them. Their motive for redesigning the drip system was different, but related to finding a practical solution to the problems they experienced with the KB drip kit. This chapter is divided into three main sections. Section 5.2 presents a summary description of how I started researching the use-phase of the low-cost drip by with an introduction to farmers, leaders of farmer groups and IDE field officers who work with farmers. In section 5.3, I discuss the experiences of three different groups of farmers and how they related differently with the KB drip in three separate sub-sections. Most of their experiences are presented as cases and others as interviews characterized by narrations and quotations of what farmers said. Sub-section 5.3.1 presents results on farmers who did not use the drip kit [or the Never use drip group]. In this section, a case study is presented along with arguments on reasons why they did no use the drip kit. Sub-section 5.3.2 I present results on farmers who used the drip kit for a period between three months to a year and later abandoned the drip artefact [the Abandoned drip group]. In this section, I present two cases of farmers who abandoned the drip kit and other farmers whose arguments I presented in narrations and quotes. In sub-section 5.3.3, I present results on farmers who are still using the low-cost drip [or still using drip group]. Most of the farmers in this category re-developed their drip systems into different design configurations [bricolage]. In this section, I present five cases of farmers who reconfigured their drip systems as a practical response to problems and challenges they encountered with the artefact in use. In this section also, I present an interview with a lead contact farmer or Farm Business Advisor. I conclude this chapter with a summary of the sub-conclusions of each sub-sections.
5.2 Introduction to the farmer domain My research supervisor, Mr. Chelemu offered to introduce me to farmers in some selected communities so that I can start research in this domain.
[...] We would visit Kabweza and I will introduce you to Anita our contact farmer there with
whom you will be staying for your research. Students who were on research with us stayed
31
Polak, P. (2009). Out of Poverty: What Works When Traditional Approaches Fail: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
61
with her also. Vera32
is staying with her as well. Afterwards we would visit other communities
so that you can start your research.33
On our way to Kabweza we passed through Shimabala to meet a drip farmer called Mr. Mwiinga Derrick.
34He was barely leaving the premises of his farm when we met him. After
exchange of necessary pleasantries I was introduced.
[...] Obed [researcher] is with us this year. His interested in the challenges you face with the
use of drip and the modifications you have made to the drip kit. I am sending him round; we
would visit the other communities and later he will come back to you.
After the introduction, we took a tour of his farm.
The garden
The garden occupies about a hectare of land and fenced with dry brown grasses to bar access to grazing animals. The entrance door is made of corrugated roofing sheet nailed to wooden planks that swings on a hinge. Some portions of the farm laid fallow with dried crops residues from the previous seasons, and other portions occupied by growing vegetables. I saw onions and garden eggs planted in rows on a long strip of slightly raised beds separated by a shallow drainage ditch. Mr. Mwiinga talked about his crops saying part of the onion fields were already harvested and sold in Lusaka and the other portions are ready for harvest as well. I was looking around for signs of a drip kit laid on the field but did not see anything. The only thing that suggested he ever used drip as a pile of old worn out drip laterals near the entrance to garden and some broken main lateral I saw outside the garden.
35 I asked him how he
irrigates his farm. He replied that he has a mechanized borehole from which he pumps water to water irrigate his field using electricity.
The Pigs
After a tour of the farm, Mr. Mwiinga invited us to have a look at his pigs. He showed us the pigs and later said he was planning to sell some and a cow to settle some outstanding electricity bills. I was lost in thought for a while and was wondering to myself what pigs have to do with my research on drip technology? I have not seen any drip activity yet and that was one of my main reason for coming to the field. As expectant as I was that morning to see how drip works on farmer’s field, the enthusiasm was all gone when all I saw in Derek’s garden was a fallow field in part, the other with vegetables which were not grown with drip, and some few pigs I was not interested in anyway.
From the pig sty, we went to inspect some old planters and animal drawn ploughs Mr. Mwiinga uses in ploughing his field. When our visit was almost over, I asked Derrick whether he was still using his drip kit. He replied in the affirmative but said they were not installed because he planted onions on bigger portion of the field. He pointed to a fallow portion of the
32
Vera Borsboom was my colleague researcher on the IDRC project, but with a different focus on gender impact
of drip. See Borsboom, V. (2012). You have to dig for the money in the soil. A discourse analysis of low-cost
irrigation technologies in rural Zambia. Master Thesis, Rural Development Sociology Group, Wageningen
University 33
Field note 18/10/2011 34
He was part of the IDE-Wagenignen University joint research on the evaluation of the drip planner chat the
previous year with Elvis Mupfiga. See Mupfiga, E. T. (2010). The Farmer and the Drip Planner Chat. A user
based evaluation of the Application of Smallholder Drip Irrigation Scheduling Tools. Masters Thesis, Irrigation
and Water Engineering group, Wageningen University 35
Mr. Mwiinga pointed them to me later when I went back that after the initial visit that the drip kits were fragile
and not durable. They got worn out and broken [damaged he said] on the field after using it for a year
62
garden and said he was planning to plant tomatoes before the early rains with the drip. With those last words, we bid him a goodbye and headed for Kabweza.
Vegetables The pigs
Abandoned drip laterals Abandoned main lateral
Figure 19. Mr. Mwiinga's farm in Shimabala
We arrived in Kabweza almost mid-day. The landscape is characterized by clusters of houses and between these clusters large tracts of relatively flat land and empty spaces as we were driving through. Most of the house are built with mud or burn bricks and roofed either with thatch grasses or roofing sheets. The weather was hot and dry, and the sun scorching when I came out of the IDE 4x4 air-conditioned pick-up vehicle when it came to a stop in the house Mr. Royd Kalenga. Mr. Kalenga was away when we arrived but we met his wife and son. After the introduction, Mr. Chelemu asked them if we could have a look into the garden. Mrs Kalenga and Willard her son led us into the garden.
I saw nice healthy looking tomato plants growing near well laid drip lines on slightly raised ridged beds. My otherwise lost enthusiasm on the morning came back. I made close observations of things and features around the drip kit which are of interest to the study. I observed how the drip kits are laid, how close the emitters were to the tomato plants, the wet portions around tomato plant and scanned around the farm and paying attention to the drip system setup on the field and how the system was configured. I observed the some interesting ways the system was configured with components of two different drip laterals. When I finally found my voice, I asked Mr. Chelemu about the drip kits on the field. He identified one as the KB drip kit IDE and Cropserve imported from India for the RPI project and the other as Netafim drip lateral given to the farmers by a faith based organization, the Mapepe Bible College.
63
Figure 20. Low-cost drip on Mr. Kalenga's farm
I posed some questions to Mrs. Kalenga and her son on who does what in the garden. They answered Mr. Kalenga does the watering and sometimes the son helps him when he is on holidays. Mrs Kalenga [interpreted from the Tonga language by Mr. Chelemu] enumerated planting, weeding, staking and spaying of the crops with agro chemicals as some of her roles.
We ended our visit with twalumba36
and went to visit other farmers in the community. I was introduced to Mr. Anita Mweemba and her husband Mr. George Mweemba as the new IDE student on research. From Kabweza, we visited Chikupi community and ended the tour on Kafue. I came back within the week to start to start research. After a period of research in Kafue, I went on a field tour again with Mr. Chelemu to Kabwe where I he introduced to the IDE field Officer, Mr. Bernard Sikatunga with whom I stayed during my research in the Kabwe district.
5.2.1 Conclusion
My research in the farmer communities started after the introductory tour with Mr. Chelemu. The farmer communities were very distant apart. The only close communities I observed were those in Kafue district. In this district, the closest communities were about 5 km apart. The farthest were in the Kabwe districts. I started research in the Kafue district starting with Kabweza and later researched other communities in Kabwe and Chibombo districts. The people I was introduced to were relevant during the study. They helped me in one way or the other in identifying other farmers, providing the necessary guidance and information. Mrs. Anita Mweemba and Mr. Bernard Sikatunga were my hosts, interpreters as well as informants.
36
A Tonga word for “thank you”
64
5.3 Farmer’s relation with ‘low-cost’ drip This section presents details of my research findings on the use phase of the development process of the KB drip kit. Three groups of farmers were identified during the study: (1) farmers who did not use the KB drip, (2) farmers who abandoned the drip kit and (3) farmers still using the drip kit. In this section, I will describe bring out the arguments made by the various groups of farmers and their interpretations of the KB drip following their numeric presentation.
5.3.1 Farmers who did not use drip This group of farmers are characterized by: (1) those without the necessary components required to configure a functional drip system and (2) those who with the needed components who could not install and use the drip kit. During the study, the snowball did not gather enough around farmers in this group. To make them representative, I talked to farmers who knew the experiences of those farmers, I talked to contact farmers who have an overview of the situation, I talked to IDE field Officers who are aware of the situation. I also reviewed the study of Magwenzi (2011) and Mupfiga (2011) for more information about these farmers. Besides these source, I talked to Mr. Anderson Mubere in Mpima who narrated his story about how he did not use his drip kit. In this section, I present the case of Mr.Mubere first and later present the arguments I heard [on second accounts] and reviewed.
A Case of Mr. Mubere. Mr. Mubere is a vegetable farmer in Mpima about 15 km from the district capital Kabwe who bought the necessary component required for installation of drip on his farm partly with the discount voucher and part of his own savings. He said after the training session, he tried to configure the drip system on his field but could not install the components together.
I called the IDE office and told them the problem. They promised to come but did not come. I
followed up to the office again. I met (mentioning the name of a field officer) and told him
about the problem. He promised to come but did not. [...] so later I just abandoned it.37
I talked to the IDE field officer in mentioned in this case. The officer acknowledged that Mr. Mubere’s complaints and gave following reasons much help was not offered. The officer said the said farmer received training enough to set up a drip system without further assistance and does not understand why he is complaining. The officer submitted that the period the complaints were lodged was in the dry season which is the critical moment for the sale of MITs to meet targets. There were so many requests for technologies within the period and that could practically not be put on hold to attend to the farmer’s problem. Besides, fuel and other logistics does not cover unplanned schedules. Every activity is planned and approved for the release of logistics (vehicle, fuel etc) from Head office in Lusaka.
The review from farmers, contact farmers/FBAs and previous research suggests that farmers did not use the drip kit because most of them did not buy an overhead tank because it was expensive (Magwenzi, 2011, p.27). This is probably because voucher does not cover the overhead tank which was sold separately. It was argued farmers claimed a tank of equal capacity could be bought locally. It however turned out that they did not follow up on their arguments to buy a tank to set up their drip systems.
I followed up on the case and crosschecked with IDE field officers. Most of them expressed misgivings about the way the voucher programme was ordered. An officer said:
37
Interview with Mr. Anderson Mubare on 10/11/
65
We were told to give the voucher to farmers who participated in the programme. Some
farmers did not follow through the training but attended part of the training [...] some attended
once and were given the vouchers. OKT: Why was this so? [Field Officer]: MEDA instructed
us. They said we should give the voucher to those who participated so we gave them the
voucher [...] I think MEDA was just interested in the number of vouchers given to farmers
than the training [programme]. [...] so when farmers realized that, they started inviting their
families and friends. Some attended the programme not out of need to use the drip [...] because
it was cheaper than the those sold on the market. So some bought it without the tank. Those
who wanted to use it bought either the IDE tank or those sold in the market.38
Conclusion The field officers assertion was further confirmed by another officer. However a contact farmer/FBA
confirmed the officer’s assertion but said that was just part of the problem. The main challenge was
the cost of the tank. But this did not rule out why they did not buy one locally. I could not
independently verify these claims so I counted both opinions as ‘true’ accounts to suggestings why
farmers did not use the drip [but a claim I will not . In conclusion, four reasons were assigned [by
farmers and IDE] with farmer not using the drip kits.
1. Farmers did not install or use their drip kits because they could not buy the IDE tank which
they claim was expensive.
2. According to iDE Officials, some farmers did not buy the drip kit out of need. They took an
advantage of a promotional programme and therefore did not use the drip kit.
3. Farmers did not use the drip because they could not install/configure it properly
4. Farmers who had challenges in the installation and use of their drip kits did not get the
necessary assistance from IDE
5.3.2 Farmers who abandoned the use of KB drip kit Some IDE farmers bought the complete drip package (the KB drip kit and tank) or used other drip system components they already had or bought locally to configure the drip system on their field. They used the drip kit for a period of time
39and abandoned it. I talked to fifteen
(15) of such farmers who narrated different experiences, challenges and problems with the use of the KB drip technology on their field relating to: (1) theft of components of the drip system, (2) drip system clogging (3) material nature and components of the drip kit (4) activities of field rats and mice. In this section, I present the case of Mr. Esau Ngandu and Mr. Allen Hatimbula who are drip farmers in Mungu. In these cases, Mr. Ngandu used the drip kit for less than two months because he could not configure the drip system properly on his field. In the other case, Mr. Hatimbula configured his drip system properly and used it for 12 months and later abandoned it. I will narrate their experiences with the KB drip as well as the summary of other experience listed by other farmers.
Case 1: Mr. Esau Ngandu Mr. Ngandu started vegetable farming using buckets and later bought a treadle pump. He later acquired a 200 m
2 drip kit from IDE during the first phase of the RPI project in 2009 with a
discount voucher after participating in the demonstration training of drip technology by IDE in Mungu. He followed the instructions given at the training session and configured the KB drip system on his field. Mr. Ngandu intimated that when he started using the drip system, he
38
Conversation with IDE field Officer 39
The time period ranging between 1 – 6 months and 6 – 12 months.
66
experienced water dripping on some parts of the field and not in the entire drip system. The water distribution becomes worse during the day when it is sunny and hot. The system does not work and (in his own term) “blocks”. I asked him some few questions and he responded on this wise:
OKT: How were you instructed to use the drip kit? [Mr. Ngandu]: They told us to prepare
ridges and plant near the small pipes [microtubes][...], I did what they told me to do [...], the
water dripped at some places and not the whole farm. OKT: What did you do to solve the
problem? [Mr. Ngandu] I tried but I could not. I visited Mr. Hamueni’s garden last year and
saw how he was using it. I came and tried again but it did not work. OKT: Did you inform
IDE about the problem? [Mr. Ngandu]: No. I didn’t. I was so frustrated.40
After the frustrated attempts, Mr. Ngandu abandoned the drip kit on his farm and bought a motorized pump with which he now waters his vegetables.
Case 2: Mr. Allen Hatimbula Mr. Allen Hatimbula acquired his drip kit 2008 during the first phase of the RPI project. He used the drip kit for twelve months and abandoned it
41. He narrated his experiences with the
KB technology:
OKT: Why did you abandon the drip kit? [Mr. Hatimbula]: When IDE came to meet with us
[...] we told them we needed drip. But what they brought to us was not the right materials.
They gave us something that was difficult to use. OKT: Which one is the right material? [Mr.
Hatimbula]: The hard pipes. These ones are soft and easily gets damaged. OKT: What other
challenges did you experience with the drip kits? [Mr. Hatimbula]: The tank is small. When I
pump water into it, it finishes in no time because water comes [running through the microtube]
like ‘pipe’[tap water]. It does not drip [...] I have to start the engine again which consumes
fuel. A bigger tank would have been better. OKT: How do you water your crops now? [...]
after abandoning the drip? [Mr. Hatimbula]: I went back to furrow irrigation using my pump.
He explained that in principle, drip irrigation had so many advantages. He related the drip kit to effective fertilizer use, less soil compaction (which he said required additional labour to loosen), less crop diseases and quality produce especially tomatoes. I asked him to sum up his experiences and tell me the main reason why he stopped using drip. He reasoned that the cost of running the drip system was high for a 200 m
2 drip area.
Other farmer experiences with the KB drip
1. Theft of drip system components
Farmers in Dackana experienced the activities of thieves in their community. They stole components of their drip systems installed on the field especially the overhead tank. When farmers discovered these activities, they begun uninstalling the drip system in the evenings and configuring them during the day. They reasoned that, the repeated process of taking the technology to and off the field had its toll on the drip lines causing them not to last. Some farmers said they stopped using the KB drip due to fatigue involved in the reinstallation process of the drip system every day.
40
Interview with Mr. Esau Ngandu on 26/10/2011 41
Interview with Mr. Allen Hatimbula on 26/10/2011
67
2. Clogging in drip systems
Majority of the farmers who used the KB drip indicated they experienced clogging problems in their drip systems. They mentioned causes for the problem such as dirt, algae growth in drip overhead tanks and hard water. Mrs. Chingo in Chilongolo community
42 stopped using
her drip kit because of clogging problems she experienced saying her drip system became “jammed”.
43
OKT: What do think is the cause of the problem? [Mrs. Chingo]: [...] because the water is
hard. OKT: how does that explain the problem? [Mrs. Chingo]: [...] see those white things that
looked like salt all over the pipes [laterals, microtube].
I observed crystallized forms calcium deposits on abandoned drip laterals and tip of the microtubes [as I did in most drip systems especially around joints where there are leakages]. I also observed algae growth in her (transparent) overhead tank. In other farmer communities, I observed rusty iron deposits on overhead tanks.
3. Material nature of the KB drip technology
Farmers who abandoned their drip kits mentioned reasons related material nature of the components of the KB drip technology. They intimated that: (1) the drip lines are soft and easily damaged (2) the laterals expand (elongate) and contracts (become shorter) in response to change in temperature (3) the overhead tank (in their opinion) is ‘too’ small requiring frequent refill. Mrs. Muntakwa in Chilongolo abandoned her drip kits in a related case. In her opinion:
The drip line is too soft and fragile [...] the pipes are useless [...] rats even eat them on the field
[...] the tank is so small, you need to put in water again and again which is laborious [...]. The
tank has no lid [...] leaves and dirt end up in the water. The filters are small and clogs easily
Mr. Muntakwa remarked that the KB drip tanks are best fit for storing grains. She proposed the tanks should be bigger and with lids. The pipes should be hard so that rats would not eat them.
4. Activities of rodents
Farmers gave reports on activities of rodents on their fields. They gnaw on the drip line (in search of water they said) on the field or mostly during storage after harvest. Farmers did not mention this problem as reasons why they abandoned the KB drip but rather a contribution to the problem because (some farmers) could not repair the drip kit and also do not have access to spares.
Field observations:
I made observations of some of problems and challenges confronting farmers in the use of the KB drip and the results of their actions (see figure 5.3).
42
Chilongolo was exceptional in this study where source of water for drip systems came from tap water from the
national water grid in Lusaka 43
Interview with Mrs. Chingo in Chilongolo on 15/12/2001
68
Figure 21. Some field observations of drip kits
(Top left: abandoned drip on Mr. Ngangu’s field. Top right: crystal deposits on a drip lateral. Bottom left: a ‘beyond repairs’ main lateral and right: an activity of field rodents)
Conclusion Farmers mentioned some other challenges that contributed to their inability to maintain the use of the KB drip on their fields. (1) Absence of water lifting devices. Some farmers said the ideal setup of drip on their fields among other drip components should have been a water lifting device (a treadle or small gasoline pump). They do not have one because they could not afford it. They recounted that filling the (200 litre) overhead tank with a (12 litre) bucket is a very laborious process. (2) Access to spare drips. Some farmers said they do not know any outlet locally where to buy drip lines to replace worn out or damaged ones. (3) Little or no after sales service by IDE. Some farmers said the last time they saw IDE officials was when they sold the drip kits to them after training them on how to install the KB drip. They were assisted by colleague farmers who were able to configure properly their installation. Some farmers were also helped by experienced farm hands had worked for commercial drip farmers. IDE field officers I talked to mentioned reasons why it is challenging for them to provide effective after sales service. They said: (1) they have a target number of farmers to reach and train to access MITs and a target number of technologies to sell. (2) Resource allocation (vehicle, fuel etc) for their activities does not deliberately target after sales services,
69
but rather immediate activities needed to reach their targets. They respond to some calls from farmers based on available resources, often referring the cases to the technical team. (3) The client base they serve is large. For Kafue, Lusaka and Kabwe respectively, the field officer to client ration is 1:3000; 1:2000 and 1:3000.
5.2.3 Farmers using the KB drip technology I talked to farmers using the KB drip kit in Kabweza, Mungu, Chikupi and Mumbwa. They were farmers who configured their drip systems properly and were still using them during the study period. In this section, I present five (5) cases
44 on how farmers reconfigured the KB
drip installation on their fields in response to constraints, challenges and problems (with their fields and the KB drip technology) confronting them in the use of the KB drip system on their fields. I present the cases of Mr. Markaloni George, Mr. Kalenga and Douglas Chuma, and Mr. Elliot Mutempa in Kabweza, the case of Mr. Geoffrey Chulu in Chikupi and Mr. Justine Mukuni in Mumbwa on how they responded similarly or differently to the same confronting situation. I also present an interview of the FBA of Kabweza later in this section. Before I present the cases however, I will run a general commentary about these three communities – they have a common story.
Background. Farmers in these communities cultivate crops such as maize45
, groundnuts, beans and other crops on open fields the rainy season. Before IDE started MIT promotion in these communities, some farmers cultivated vegetables such as rape, tomatoes, amaranth, and other crops on small plots using buckets. Most of the farmers started using MITs during the first phase of the RPI project. Some farmers started with a treadle pump and later bought a drip kit. Others started using the two technologies at the same time. In some cases, farmers bought small gasoline pumps and bigger overhead tanks with loan facilities from CETZAM. Farmers were trained by IDE to install and configure the drip system on their fields as well as in agronomic practices. Farmers started growing other crops such as cabbage, carrots, improved varieties of tomatoes. Farmers in most communities (most especially most especially in Kabweza) own livestock (cattle, goats, chickens etc) and use their droppings to grow their crops. After the configuration of the KB drip system, some farmers in this communities experienced some constraints, challenges, and problems with (their fields and KB drip technology). The confronting factors were: (1) some farmers had experienced drawdown of water in their well due to (i) poor recharge in well because of rock formations at the bottom of dug out well (on the fields of Mr. Royd Kalenga and Mr. Douglas Chuma) (ii) drawdown of water in well (of Mr. Justine Mukuni), (2) the lengthening and shortening of the KB drip lines in response to change in drip system temperature (3) clogging problems (4) rodents gnawing on drip lines and damage to drip lines in use. They responded differently to the situation by making changes (reconfiguration) to the drip setup on their fields.
KB drip system reconfiguration in Kabweza
Kabweza is an ‘exceptional’ community46
in this study where all eight the farmers who bought the KB drip from IDE were able to configure it properly and are still using it.
47
However during this study, three farmers were actively using drip on their fields. Other
44
I did not bring a case out of Mungu although farmers claimed they were still using the KB drip. This is
because they were not in active use – not configured on the field. However observed some components of the
drip systems were either changed or modified (repaired). This I mention in my general observations. 45
Maize is the predominant crops grown by most farmers 46
This community is predominantly the Tonga tribe. They are mainly known for keeping livestock. In this
community, most farmers own cattle, goats, poultry etc. 47
This was the claim of Mrs. Anita Muemba, the lead contact farmer for Kabweza 22/12/2011
70
farmers claim they are still using it but pulled them off their fields after the last harvest reasoning that they were busy with other activities
48 demanding attention therefore they did
not lay their drip49
. I selected the cases of Mr. Royd Kalenga and Douglas Chuma50
, Mr. Markaloni George and Mr. Elliot Mutempa in this community because they were actively using the KB drip during the study period and had interesting argumentative cases for this thesis. the KB drip systems on farmers fields were composed of: (1) a hand dug well (2) a water lifting device (3) overhead tank (4) main lateral system (connectors, main valve, filter, bend connectors, T-connectors, field lateral valves etc) (5) drip laterals with microtubes. In this section, I present how these farmers responded to situations confronting them with the use of the KB drip system on their fields. In the presentation, I will focus on different aspects of the interview in each case in detail to curtail monotony [I asked them same blue print questions with differences only in follow up questions based on their responses and peculiarity of their cases]. Most of the responses from Kabweza farmers were similar. However I will describe the drip systems configuration of each case in detail since that is at the heart of this thesis.
Box. 7 The Mapepe Bible College 'Survival Garden' project
Case 1: Mr. Markaloni George Mr. Markaloni started using the KB drip in 2008. Besides IDE, he was also trained in the installation and configuration of smallholder drip systems by the Mapepe Bible College (MBC). The size of his field is about 1 ha but the plots under cultivation is less than half the entire field. The cultivated plots were of three category based on the way they were irrigated. The categories are: (1) vegetable beds irrigated directly using a lift only treadle (or river) pump or with buckets. On these different beds were rape crops and tomato plants (mulched with dry grasses), (2) two compost beds growing with tomatoes (and well mulched) under the Mapepe Bible College drip setup and (3) tomatoes growing on a much ‘bigger’ portion under the (IDE) KB drip system. Challenges: Mr. Markaloni had some confronting challenges and problems in the use of the KB drip system on his field after a successful installation. He experienced frequent clogging problems, the lengthening and shortening of the drip laterals in response to change in temperature in the drip system, strong winds shift the drip lines from plants, and the activities of rodents that gnaw on the drip lines on the field and during storage.
48
A farmer was building her new house ‘modern’ house and therefore did not install her drip system
49
I observed various installation in the drip systems (or where the I however observed different types of
overhead tanks installed (on wooden or metal) platforms (2 to 2.5 meters high) on their fields where their drip
systems were supposed to be installed. 50
The case of Mr. Kalenga and Mr. Chuma is one. They are cousins who share the same plot and well 51
See http://zambiafrenches.blogspot.nl/2009/11/food-security-at-kabweza-kafue-district.html 52
Farmers said they were asked to buy 20 litre plastic buckets for the overhead tank. They however reasoned
with MBC that the bucket besides the cost would not last in the sun. They suggested alternatives such as 20 litre
cooking oil containers and used those to set up their drip system.
The Mapepe Bible College (MBC) located in Lusaka implemented a food security programme called ‘Survival Garden’
51in Kabweza in 2009 targeting people living with HIV
or care givers people with HIV. Farmers in the community (including IDE farmers) were trained in vegetable production using soil and water management practices such as composting. They trained farmers to prepare compost beds using green manure and animal droppings to avoid the use of chemical fertilizers. They were later trained to install drip on compost bed. They were given Netafim drip lines and trained to configure the drip system using available materials.
52 The programme was aimed at to help farmers grow vegetables
to improve nutrition and sell the excess for income. The drip lines were given to farmers to reduce farmers labour engagements in growing the vegetables.
71
He was watering his crops around 7.30 am when we visited his field. Mrs. Anita Mweemba, the Farm Business Advisor (FBA) for Kabweza accompanied me first to introduce me first to Mr. Markaloni and to help with interpretation
53in the Tonga language (should there be a
need). During the interview, narrated his experiences with the drip saying drip has added advantage to vegetable cultivation.“Drip saves time, labour and water
54” He recounted
challenges he experienced with components of the KB drip system. He mentioned clogging, lengthening and shortening of the drip lines with response to temperature change in the drip system, gnawing of the drip lines by rodents, the strong winds blowing the drip lines out of position from the plants and water dripping on parts of the field and not others. I asked him how he deals with the challenges? Dealing with clogging problems. Mr. Markaloni said he identifies clogging situations using dark wet patches of soil around plants. When he does not see the soil wet around plants then he suspects either the microtube is clogged, or the system filter is dirty. He identifies a clogged microtube when the absence of wet patches is random and the filter when laterals closer to the tank (sometimes first, second or third laterals) receives enough water and those further (mostly towards the end) do not because the force of water [pressure] is reduced. He said to unclog a microtube, he removes it from the lateral and sucks or blow the dirt out and reinstalls it. To solve the filter (or system) clogging, he cleans the filter [He demonstrated this. He unscrewed filter cap and took out the screen filter (which was a little dirty), washed it, and reinstalled it] and opens the ends of the laterals and opens the main valve to flush out dirt that might have accumulated in the system. [I observed a screen filter covering the overhead tank]. He explained why he covered the KB tank saying the tank did not come with a lid therefore fine sand and debris lodge into it when it is windy. Moreover, his well is not properly lined and covered therefore the water used in the drip system is not very clean. He related that, he experienced clogging problems less frequently since the installation of the filter on the tank. Lengthening and shortening of drip laterals (and being blown by strong wind). Mr. Markaloni said he responded to this challenge by tying the ends of the laterals to wooden pegs to keep the laterals taut. Damaged laterals in use or chewed by rodents. Mr. Markaloni said he repairs it by making clean cuts of the end and rejoins them with a pvc pipes, small rubber hoses or other available materials. [He showed me exhibits of (what he claimed was recently) chewed portions of the KB drip lateral he had in storage. I observed the drip laterals on his field was not KB but rather the Netafim drip lines given him by the Mapepe Bible College. He however retained other ‘desirable’ components of the KB drip]. Mr. Markaloni said he pulled out the KB drip laterals because of the afore mentioned challenges and replaced them with the Netafim drips to see how they would work out.
Box. 8 Mr. Markaloni's experiences with the drip kit
The KB drip system reconfiguration. The KB drip system on Mr. Markaloni’s field is composed of an (1) a well (2) a lift only treadle (river) pump (3) Screen filter (4) 200 litre IDE overhead tank (4) main lateral system (5) Netafim drip lines. The size of the drip system installed is 75 m
2 (5m x 15m) and configured in this manner: the river pump delivers water
through hoses into basins on the field. Mr. Markaloni lifts water with bucket into the overhead tank covered with the screen filter [installed on a 2m wooden platform]. The water is delivered the field through the main lateral system and distributed to the (75 m
2) field by the
Netafim laterals. Water is regulated in the main system and the field by a main system valve and valves on T-connectors linking laterals to the main lateral. Mr. Markaloni made the following changes to the ‘original’ installations of the KB drip on his farm in response to the
53
She did interpret some few questions and answers but Mr. Markaloni spoke some clearly understandable
English 54
I asked why drip is perceived to save water when he said earlier that water was available in the well
throughout the year?. He explained that the level drops considerably in the dry season
72
challenges and problems confronting him in this manner: (1) He covered the overhead tank with an mosquito netting using a steel wires to secure it to the wooden platform on which the tank rests. (2) replaced the KB lateral with Netafim laterals he got from the Mapepe Bible College. He tied rubber bands around the connection between the Netafim laterals and the T-connectors on the main lateral [because they did not fit tightly].
Figure 22. Mr. Markaloni's farm
Bricolage. This is a description of the redesign of the drip system appropriate components (originally not part of the description of the KB drip system) to increase or support the functionality of the KB drip system or farmer innovation (FI). I assign farmer innovation (FI) identity to ‘new’ components [ideas, alternatives, materials, insights] used in the reconfiguration of KB drip system. The following is a schematic description of a bricolage [Redesign/reconfiguration].
(1)Well---(2)Suction only pump (FI)---(3)Screen filter (FI)---(4) KB overhead tank---(5) KB main lateral system---(6) Rubber bands (FI)---(7)Netafim drip lateral (FI
73
Figure 23. A bricolage on Mr. Markaloni's farm
Case 2: Mr. Kalenga and Mr. Chuma Mr. Royd Kalenga and Mr. Douglas Chuma [who are cousins] share a 1 hectare plot on which they grow vegetables – mostly tomatoes, cabbage and rape. They share similar challenges on their fields as Mr. Markaloni. But they have a bigger challenge – water. In the rainy season the two cousins have enough water to grow vegetables from their well. In the dry season however, there is very low recharge from the well because of what they claim rock formations at the bottom of the well. Due to the is challenge, they alternate production in the dry season [Mr. Chuma showed me where he cultivated tomatoes in the previous year]. This year Mr. Kalenga cultivated tomatoes on a 300 m
2 plot [Mr. Chuma’s drip kits are stored].
He was staring at his tomato plants with a sullen look on his face when we entered the garden. Mr. Chuma [with whom I came] introduced me to Mr. Kalenga. He looked up and said “I was waiting for you. My wife told me you came here the other time with Mr. Chelemu”. I replied in affirmative. He looked back at his crops and said “my crops are dying [...] the water is not enough [...] I am failing. [He was wearing the worried look almost through my interview with him and his cousin]. He said he dug four wells, three of them did not yield enough water and are now silted outside the garden. The well he is using now also has a problem. Recharge is low especially in the dry season. He explained the water situation and said there are rock formations at the bottom of the well limiting recharge. They tried digging further but could not break through the rocks with simple tools.
OKT: How do you plan to solve the problem? [Mr. Kalenga]: I am planning to construct a
borehole. I would talk to IDE to see if they can help me with a loan from CETZAM. OKT:
Constructing a borehole costs a lot right? [Mr. Kalenga]: Yes. I think I would cost about 15
Netafim lateral
Rubber band
KB Main Lateral
Netafim lateral
74
million Kwacha [$3000; €2500]. OKT: That is a lot of money [...] when do you pay back?
[Mr. Kalenga]: I have more land. The water is not enough that is why I have this 4 lima
[1ha] garden. [...] with enough water available, I will increase the size of the garden. [...] I
will pay back after some few years.
[I raised eyebrows in surprise and he smiled. He was so convinced a borehole would solve his water problem and with much confidence that he can pay back the loan in some few years. He enumerated how the drip system on the field was financed after he talked about the loan]. Financial reconfiguration of drip system: The drip system on field
55was financed in
different ways56
: (1) he provided labour and finance for the construction of the well (2) the small gasoline pump was bought with a loan from CETZAM (3) Tank with loan from CETZAM (4) KB drip with discount voucher from MEDA and his personal savings (5) the Netafim drip laterals were gratis from the Mapepe Bible College (6) rubber bands, wooden pegs, stakes, wires were financed from his own savings. Mr. Chuma on the other hand bought a treadle pump with his voucher. He had two different sizes of drip kits: (i) a 200 m2 KB kit which belongs to his wife [acquired with MEDA voucher] and 625 m
2 drip kit (25m
x 25m) he bought from Duram Limited in Lusaka.
Box. 9 Mr. Kalenga's experiences with drip
KB Drip System reconfiguration
The drip system on his field is composed of: (1) a well, (2) a small gasoline pump (FI) (3) a 1000 litre Rotor overhead tank (FI) (4) KB main lateral system (5) KB laterals, (6) Netafim laterals (FI). Mr. Kalenga’s drip system is different from Mr. Markaloni in the system components and the way the drip kits were installed on the field. One half of the field is installed with KB laterals and the other half with Netafim laterals from the Mapepe Bible College. The Netafim drip lines were installed on the main lateral with rubber bands at the joints to secure it and to prevent leakage (as in Mr. Markaloni’s farm). I observed the ends of the laterals were tied to wooden pegs at the end of the farm. Mr. Kalenga’s opinion on using the Netafim drip kit was different. He sees no difference in functioning of both drip kits save the response of the KB to temperature differences and clogging experiences which does not come with the Netafim. He said his main concern is water dripping on his field and both drip lines serve the same purpose. He added the Netafim drip lines to the drip system because most of the KB laterals were either damaged or worn out and unusable. He however said he has problems with system when all drip lines are functioning. He observed water dripping more in the KB drip lines and less in the Netafim lines. To distribute water evenly, He closes the valve on one side of the farm and opens it on the other side and does the opposite when one part of the farm is watered. (This seem to explain what his son said about watering part of the field in the morning and the other in the evening. But his explanation seem to suggest pressure distribution in the drip system was the cause for this action rather than water shortage I thought).
55
I am referring more to Mr. Kalenga because the plot of land belongs to him. 56
The financial configuration of the drip system
75
Dug out well and a motorized pump 1000 litre Rotor overhead tank
KB main lateral with connected with Netafim drip lines on the right and KB lines on the left
Figure 24. Drip system on Mr. Kalenga's farm
76
Figure 25. A bricolage on Mr. Kalenga's farm
Case 3: Mr. Mutempa Elliot Mr. Mutempa’s field is about half the size of Mr. Kalenga’s field and lives about 150 meters away from the later. He was trained by IDE to install and maintain the KB drip kit on his field in 2009 after previous experiences with the use of the bucket and the treadle pump in cultivating vegetables such as tomatoes, rape and green maize. He now cultivates tomatoes and cabbage with the drip kit and keeps a regular maintenance culture to keep the drip kits functioning. In this case, Mr. Mutempa is also confronted with similar challenges as Mr. Markaloni and Mr. Kalenga/Chuma such as with the response of drip kits to temperature change, damage of drip laterals by field rodents and physical damage to the drip lines during harvesting of cabbages the previous year, as well as uneven water distribution on his field. In this section, I will briefly describe the composition of drip on his field and focus on the practical responses by Mr. Mutempa to the challenges confronting him.
Drip system reconfiguration
The drip system is made up of the following components (1) a hand dug well (2) a bucket for lifting water (3) a 200 litre overhead (locally acquired) plastic drum (4) KB drip main lateral system (4) KB lateral (5) additional installation of Netafim drip laterals. In this drip system there are no connections between the well and the overhead tank. Previously the two components were connected with pipes to a treadle pump but the pump broke down and has since not been repaired yet. Mr. Mutempa now lifts water into the drum with a (12 litre) aluminium bucket into the barrel with is installed about 2.5 meters high on a wooden
Netafim lateral
KB drip lateral
KB main lateral
Rubber band
77
platform. To access the tank with water, by mountain a metal barrel placed near the foot of the wooden platform – a process he claim to be very labour intensive
57.
Adaptations
Mr. Mutempa said he was able to setup the drip system on his field by making changes to different components of the drip kit to make them work, using different locally available materials. He said the main lateral system is composed of two different ‘pipes’ [ (1) from the overhead tank to the field level and (2) extension to the half end of the farm]. To fit them together, he used an PVC elbow joint to connect them, secured the connection by wrapping plastic sheets around it to prevent leakage and tying rubber bands around it (see top left of figure 26).
In response to the lengthening and shortening of the drip lateral, Mr. Mutempa tied the ends of the laterals to wooden pegs to keep the lines taut (bottom left of figure 26). He said this action limited the movement of the laterals but caused another problem. The drip lines were detaching from the T-connectors when the lines are taut with rise in temperature. He responded to this challenge by securing the joint with rubber bands (see top left of figure 26). To solve the challenge of uneven water distribution, he laid the main laterals on the field on a ridge to keep it more elevated above the ridges on which the lateral lines were laid (see bottom right of figure 26).
Repairs
To physical damages of all kinds (by rodents and physical damages) Mr. Mutempa responded to them differently depending on the condition of the drip line. To some he made clean cuts of both ends and joined them with pipes (PVC and poly pipes) and secures the joint with ropes or rubber bands (top right and bottom right of figure 5.9). For other damages he wrapped rubber sheets around them and bound them up with ropes.
57
Filling a 200 litre tank with a 12 litre bucket required lifting water about 17 times from the well.
78
Figure 26. Adaptations on Mr. Mutempa's farm
79
Figure 27. Repairs made to drip kits by Mr. Mutempa
80
Interview with Anita Mweemba
Role as an FBA
OKT: What is your role as an FBA? [Anita Mweemba]: As a lead contact farmer I was trained by IDE to train other farmers to use drip and treadle pumps. I was also trained by Chokwadi enterprises to maintain the treadle pump so when I came, I called for a meeting where I trained farmers. So in Kabweza nearly every [IDE] farmer knows how to maintain a treadle pump and lay and also maintain a drip kit. [...] I give advice on how to use agrochemicals and how to prepare and manage a nursery. In nursery management I was trained by the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives. OKT: What other services do you render to farmers: [Anita Mweemba]: To farmers, I have a lot of services [...] for rain-fed-farming, I train farmers on conservation farming where they plant in basins. In times like this when we have few rains, the basins harvest water. I also train them on how to use herbicides so that it reduces the labour of weeding. I also source markets for farmers. OKT: How do you do the sourcing? [Anita Mweemba]: I look for people who would buy from us. Last year I went to Livingston to find out how the markets there. I came back to advice my farmers to produce quality crops so that we can get good prices.
Organization of Kabweza farmers
OKT: I observed that Kabweza farmers stand out among other drip farmers here in the communities I studied in Kafue, can you tell me what makes the difference? [Anita Mweemba]: Yea, the most important thing is for you to be organized and if they are organized, nothing is impossible. You can see we Kabweza farmers here are organized. Whatever training that is organized, farmers attend it, whatever new thing that come around we try to learn. So you can see Kabweza farmers are different from other farmers in Mungu and Chikupi. Here in Kabweza, when were trained to use a drip kit, most of the farmers tried to obtain one. OKT: When you talk of being organized what do you mean? [Anita Mweemba]: If you are called for a meeting you have to come in the numbers.
Learning from each other
OKT: How do farmers learn from each other here in Kabweza? [Anita Mweemba]: Farmers learn from each other in the sense that every Monday, we farmers meet in the afternoon at 14.00 hours so if a farmer has a problem in his garden or rain-fed field, they inquire from other farmers so if there are farmers who have knowledge for tomato production, and others want to learn we teach them. How has this helped farmers? It has helped in the sense that every farmer here has knowledge on the use and maintaining of drip kits and producing vegetables. They have known that irrigation farming is a business and from these activities, farmers get money to take their children to school, they are able to by their own food at home so we have no problems of getting credits from works and from relatives as we use to do some time back. I saw some interesting connections of the drip kit on Mr. Markaloni, Mr. Kalenga and Mr. Mutempa’s fields. How did it starts, who started it and how did other farmers got to know about it?. Yes, It was started by Mr. Mweemba George my husband. When he bought the big tank, he added the drip kits Mapepe Bible College gave us and laid it on his field. Other farmers came and saw it and also started using it that way.
How happy are farmers with your services?
OKT: Are your farmers happy with your services? [Anita Mweemba]: My farmers are happy. In fact this time I have emphasised that we plant at the same time so that we harvest at the same time so that we can put our produce as a group and sell as a group so that our transport cost would reduce.
Field Note: 22/12/2011
Box 10. Interview with Anita Mweemba
81
Case 4. Mr. Geoffrey Chulu Mr. Chulu is a vegetable farmer in Chikupi about 6 km from Kabweza. He has a similar experiences as other farmers with the use of buckets for cultivating vegetables such as tomatoes, okra and green maize once in a year. He was introduced to drip irrigation during the drip planner chat research. He was given a 200 m2 drip system components and a SKI treadle pump.
58Mr. Churu now cultivates vegetables twice a year with drip and now cultivates carrots
as well. In this case, I will describe the drip system composition on his farm and present details of my conversation with him about his crops and changes he made to components of the ‘original’ KB drip system given to him in response to practical challenges and the adaptation he made to his field as well as the drip system in order to increase its functionality.
The field
Mr. Churu has two small plots of land of sizes measuring about 300 and 200 square meters on which he rotates the cultivation of vegetables and maize two times in a year. About one third of the bigger plot was cultivated with maize and the rest, okra. He irrigates this plot with a treadle pump fitted with a watering hose and sometimes also with a bucket. On the smaller plot, I saw carrots growing in closed spaces on raised vegetables beds [bigger and higher than beds I saw in other communities]. I told Mr. Chulu I was surprised to see ‘carrots under drip’ and he beamed with a smile.
OKT: How do you make sure all the plants are well watered? [emphasising how closely
spaced they were around the microtubes]. [Mr. Chulu]: That is why I made raised beds [...]
when I water the carrots in the evening [...] the bed becomes wet the following morning.59
He said water moves in all directions to wet the bed enough to “satisfy the cabbage.” I observed the top of the bed was flattened into a groove to retain water on the bed.
Drip system reconfiguration
The drip system on his field is composed of: (1) dug out well, (2) a treadle pump, (3) a 1000 litre overhead tank (FI), (4) KB main lateral system (5) KB lateral. In this system, Mr. Churu replaced the 200 litre IDE tank with a 1000 litre tank stating that it was too small to meet the water requirements on his farm because carrots need a lot of water.
I have to pump [treadle] water frequently [...] it would finish and I have to pump [treadle]
again and that is so much labour. So I bought the 1000 litre tank. [...] this one, I pump water in
once then I can sit down and relax [pointing to a chair at the end of his farm]. Because of that,
I got this metal [2.5 metal platform] so that I can put the tank on it.
58
The treadle pump was given him purposely for prototype testing of the Ski treadle pump IDE imported from
India to augment the locally produced Mosi-O-Tunya pump (MoT) to meet MIT needs for the RPI 2 project
because the later had some quality problems from manufactures which were being addressed by IDE. 59
Interview with Mr. Chulu on 24/10/2011
82
Figure 28. Drip configurations on Mr. Churu's farm
The tank is linked to the main lateral system through series and pieces of joined pipe connections of different types and diameters that were not perfect ‘fits’ so he used rubber bands to hold them together. Mr. Churu identified the first part of the main lateral (starting from the tank to the system valve and filter) as his own materials [innovation] and the second part as part of the original IDE drip package. The drip kits were installed on the carrot field with the main lateral resting partly on the ridge and partly on burn bricks placed between the beds throughout the length of the main lateral. [I was intrigued with what I saw; his adeptness and ingenuity in reconfiguring the drip kit. In other communities, the filter on the main lateral system were connected just below the overhead tank. But in his case, it was extended to the ground].
OKT: Were you trained to fix the pipes [referring to main lateral] this was? [Mr. Chulu]:
Train? No! [ he was so emphatic] I did it all by myself. I was trained by IDE to lay the drips
and grow vegetables. OKT: Can you explain why you laid the pipe on the burnt bricks? [Mr.
Chulu]: These ones [pointing at the bricks. I nodded in affirmation]. When I started growing
the carrots, I had to make the ridges so that I can water it with the drip [...] but with the ridges
[...] I cannot put the pipes across the bed without supporting it because it is soft. [...] so I used
the bricks. [...] as you can see, the beds are almost of the same height with the bricks. OKT:
Ok, can you please show me how you water the cabbage; how you do it every day. [He
nodded in approval].
He stood on the treadle and pumped some water into the tank. He opened the main valve (see right of figure 5.11). I observed water ‘running’ [not dripping] from the microtubes and ‘flooding’ the young carrots growing. I observed the drip kit does not have stop valves that control water in the laterals as in Mr. Markaloni and Mr. Kalenga’s drip system so when water is released from the tank, it run through the microtubes. I saw him move away from the overhead tank and sat on a chair he earlier pointed to.
83
The job is going on there; I am watering now. I sit here, waiting for the water to finish in my
tank. OKT: [...] and previously with the bucket? [Mr. Chulu]: I couldn’t sit; how do you sit?
You don’t have to sit when you are carrying a bucket [gesturing with his hands]. But this time
I am able to sit [with laughter].60
OKT: Do you have problems with the drip kit? [Mr. Chulu]: Problems? I don’t have problems
with the pipes. They are working well. The problem I have is with the tank and the water.
OKT: Problems such as? [Mr. Chulu]: [he asked me] Can you see those green things growing
in the tank? [referring to green algae] They sometimes block water from flowing [...] I have to
remove the filter and wash it. [...] and with the water, there are salts in it [pointing to the tip of
microtubes]. They sometimes block water from flowing. OK: Do you have any other
challenges besides these? [Mr. Chulu]: The interval of the pipe is about 1.5m. This is too wide
for growing carrots [...] I would prefer something like 60 cm intervals from IDE so that I can
make good use of the land. As you can see [gesturing] there are too much spaces between the
pipes.
Observations
Figure 29. Adapatations on Mr. Chulu's farm
Case 5. Mr. Justin Mukuni Mr. Mukuni is a Farm Business Advisor in Mumbwa. He has a similar history as other cases with the buckets, treadle pump, the KB drip kit and now has a better quality drip kit, called the Metzerplast family drip system installed on his farm. In this case, I will briefly describe the system composition, the motivation for replacing the KB drip with Metzerplast drip kit, and an adaptation Mr. Mukuni made to his field in order to install his water lifting device.
60
See video conversation with Mr. Churu.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JW_uZ6mDCiY&feature=youtu.be
Bed showing carrots and drip Adaptations in main lateral
84
Mr. Naison is a drip from Zimbabwe who settled in Mumbwa several years ago, and a neighbour to Mr. Justine Mukuni. He started vegetable farming in 2002 with buckets on a small plot less than 200 m
2. He bought a small diesel [he called it ‘motor’] pump to increase
the cultivated plot to 0.25 ha (50mx50m). In 2010, he bought the Metzerplast family drip kit from Green 2000 in Lusaka and now has a about 0.5 ha of tomatoes under drip irrigation. The drip system installed on his field is composed of a mechanized borehole powered by a small diesel generator to supply water to the 5000 m
2 Metzerplast drip system, and also
supplies electricity to his house (Muumbwa is not connected to the national grid). Out of the proceeds of the house, Mr. Naison built three ‘modern’ block houses which provides shelter for his six wives and children. He bought a truck which he transports tomatoes to the market in Lusaka and a private salon car.
On this day [of research] the IDE field Officer for Lusaka, Mrs. Mutinta Chipepo, organized a farm visit to Mr. Naison’s farm to learn from him. The field visit as planned to advertise the small gasoline pump and low pressure sprinklers IDE is promoting in RPI 2.
Field note: 21/11/2011
Box. 11 The 'successful' drip model farmer in Mumbwa
Motivation for reconfiguration
The Mukunis said they opted for the MFD due to quality issues with the KB drip kit. Mr. Mukuni claimed the MFD is stronger, harder and does not exhibit the perceived ‘flaws’ or problems (other farmers) associated with KB layflat especially with clogging because the MFD system has a bigger and more improved filter system. His wives said it was much easier installing the MFD on the field than the KB layflat because it is pre-punched. They helped their husband in assembling and installing the KB layflat drip when it was first introduced; a process they claimed to be very labour intensive, especially in punching holes to install the microtubes on the drip laterals.
[Mr. Mukuni’s wife]: [...] with this [MFD] drip, you do not need to make holes; you just lay it
on the field [...] After harvest, you can remove them from the farm without taking so much
care about it getting damaged. When it is time to plant again, you lay it again.
I asked how much it cost the family to purchase the drip kit. I was told 1.3 million Kwacha (US$260; €216.7). It was puchased with loan facility from CETZAM. I asked them whether the cost of the drip kits were not on the high side? They replied [differently] it was worth the investment in the long term and the advantages that comes along with it. They can pull it out of the field after harvest and reinstall it easier with little care and further maintenance besides frequent clogging problems and the system would be long lasting.
Drip system composition
The drip system configured on Mr. Mukuni’s field unlike the others in previous cases, is a high pressure system made up of the following components: (1) well (2) a small gasoline pump (3) Metzerplast main lateral system, (4) Metzerplast laterals. Water is pumped directly to the field from the well through network of laterals to the field.
85
Figure 30. Drip system on Mr. Mukuni's field
Adaptation
My attention was drawn to a fascinating manner in which water was lifted from a deep (concrete lined) well to the field. The water level in the well about 12 meters deep from the mouth of the well [by ocular estimation]. According to the Mr. Mukuni’s wives, the water level in the well drops considerably in the dry season to very low depth which becomes a great challenge for them to access and lift water using the gasoline pump at the field level. The best alternative they said was a mechanized well as on Mr. Naison’s field but they do not have the resources to construct one. In response, they dug a step-like trench about 5 meters from the field level to a depth of about 5 meters near the concrete wall of the well. A hole was created in the concrete wall through which the inlet pipe from the pump is lowered into the well to access water.
Figure 31. Adaptation on Mr. Mukuni's field
86
General observations/Remarks
Most farmers using the drip are facing similar challenges narrated by farmers who have abandoned the drip such as rodents gnawing on the drip kits. But the way and manner the drip kits are being stored has much cause for concern. Some farmers store them in sacks and leave them in places where rodent could have access to it or just leave them lying in the sun. Some innovative farmers tied their drip kits together and hanged them under tree shades. They said the rats cannot climb the rope and ‘chew’ them.
I also observed other farmers who have not layed their drip kits during the study made repairs to the kits they are Mr. Mutinta in Mungu, Mr. Chikumba in Kabweza
Conclusions I conclude the following about farmers still using the drip technology:
(1) The experiences of farmer using the drip kit is not far from those who abandoned the drip. But they have found practical ways to solve their own problems by innovating
(2) They solved the problem associated with the drip by adapting or redesigning their drip systems
(3) I observed that practical solution made by farmers were an interpretation of what they think the problem with the drip kit is. In their various interpretations, farmers had challenges most with the drip lateral. It was the most referred to component of the KB drip they considered their greatest challenge.
(4) Farmers seem to prefer the main lateral that has a valve regulator attached to it. With that they are able to regulate water to drip on their fields. Most farmer’s whose drip kits do not have these features complain it wastes water. However, Mr. Chulu who has a similar drip kit [without valves] does not have problems with it citing it best suits him to water his carrots.
(5) Labour savings was the most referred to potential benefits of drip by farmers followed by time savings, quality produce, and cost savings. Other potential benefits were mentioned by few farmers
(6) Farmers are motivated to continue using drip because of the potential benefits they derive from it
87
Chapter 6. Innovation network relations The relevant people involved in the development of the KB drip as well as other MITs in Zambia said a lot about activities, people, resources and many relevant others involved in the development process of the technology in the manufacturer and farmer domains. In this section, I map a summary of what I heard and was told by these people into a network of relations that support the development of the KB drip in the manufacture domain and its further development and functioning in the farmer domain. section 6.1 describes the network that supports the development of drip and other MITs in the manufacturer domain. Section 6.2 describes the network of relations that support the redevelopment/reconfiguration of the drip to function in the farmer domain.
6.1 Manufacturer domain innovation networks In this section, I map existing relations of people, institutions, resources, and others with IDE that supports the development of KB drip and other MITs in the manufacturers domain.
6.1.1 IDE – Donor
As a non-profit Organization, IDE relate with donors for funding for all activities phases of innovation design and development of micro irrigation technologies in Zambia.
6.1.2 IDE – MIT Supply/value chain
IDE relates with the MIT supply chain directly or indirectly to sell technologies to smallholder farmers. IDE’s relation with the supply chain is also an exit strategy to create sustainability of MIT supply without active involvement in the sale and distribution of MITs at project activity level or when the country programme is no longer existing.
6.1.3 IDE – Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives (MACO)
IDE has in the past collaborated with MACO in the identification and training of local treadle pump manufacturers who are into MIT manufacturing now in the supply chain. IDE is still collaborating with MACO in other phases of MIT development especially in helping IDE field officers in identifying and training farmers in agronomic practices [training of FBAs in conservation farming for referral training in the farmer domain], in the dissemination of MITs through demonstrations of MITs at technology fairs and in providing information on market prices for IDE.
6.1.4 IDE – NGOs
IDE Zambia works in collaboration with other NGO’s in Zambia that are in working around similar interventions as they do. IDE is collaborating with Development Aid from People to People (DAPP) an NGO that is into empowering smallholder farmers using irrigation technology by supplying MITs or linking them to the MIT supply chain. IDE is also collaborating with PLAN International Zambia in training and facilitation of small loans in the group savings programme and with CARE International Zambia in the training of Farm Business Advisors and building their capacities to start stocking MITs, seeds, fertilizers and agro chemicals to provide entrepreneurial services to farmers in their communities.
6.1.4 IDE – Farm Business Advisors
The FBA concept is being developed by IDE Zambia as part of the market-based approach to cede MIT supply and other services such as MIT demonstration, training, credit linkage and other services done by IDE in the farmer domain to the farm business advisors. IDE is
88
identifying and building their capacity to stock MITs and other agro inputs for effective entrepreneurial service delivery inputs.
6.1.4 IDE – Microfinance Institutions
IDE is collaborating with microfinance institutions in Zambia such as CETZAM, MBT and Vision fund that finances the supply chain by providing credit to farmers to purchase MITs, seed and other agrochemicals for crop production.
6.2 Farmer domain innovation networks In this study, I observed how farmers who are still using the drip related with people, technologies, resources and many relevant things around them to support their crop production and income generating activities as well as the development of the low-cost drip technology (artefacts, process, knowledge etc). I observed how farmers used animals to plough their fields, water to irrigate their crops, knapsack sprayers and agro chemicals to spray and protect their crops, how they used sticks, steel wires and ropes to stake their tomato crops to support its growth among many other relevant relations that supports their farming activities around the KB drip. I describe in this section the relations in the farmer domain that enabled farmers to keep supporting the functioning of the KB drip on their fields. I will describe the relations more around farmers in Kabweza where I spent more time observing their day to day use of drip and interacting with them to understand the network of relations around them. However, I will describe relations that apply generally to other farmers using the drip as well.
6.2.1 Farmer – Land/field
Farmers relate with their lands a medium for crop production. Most farmers own land or carry out farming activities on family or communal lands allocated to them by chiefs of their communities. The soils are fertile in most farmer communities and able to support crop growth with supplementary fertilizer applications. The soils in most farmer communities have good enough water bearing properties to support the construction of wells to meet water needs of smallholder families.
6.2.2 Farmer – Water
Farmers relate with water for crop and animal production, and for general household use. Most farmers access water by digging wells. The water table in most farmer communities is fairly high to access water at 5 or 6 meters depth. Most of the wells have good recharge and water in sustainable quantities for various afore mentioned uses. Water is however limited on the fields of few farmers [two distinct cases in this study] who experience either low groundwater recharge or very low drawdown in the dry season.
6.2.3 Farmer – Farmer
Most farmers in Kabweza know something about their colleague farmers [e.g.: when they started using drip, the crops they cultivated the previous year, the challenges they have with the use of the KB drip on their fields, and many more]. They are related in one way or the other to each other in the following ways: as close or extended families, by marriage and other forms of social ties [Mr. Kalenga and Mr. Chuma are cousins, Anita an extended family member to Mr. Markaloni and an Aunt to Mr. Mutempa]. Most of the farmers [6 out of 8] belong to the same religious denomination – the Seventh Day Adventist (SDA) church.
89
Kabweza farmers meet regularly61
to share their experiences, challenges and problems confronting them. Farmers who have figured out how to work around certain problems share it with their colleagues. They visit each other’s field to see how and what they are doing on their fields. The FBA for the community related that they help one another with practical challenges with the use of drip on their field. In this manner she gave her overhead tank to Mr. Markaloni to set up his drip system.
6.2.4 Farmer – Crops
“Farming is a business” is a popular slogan in Kabweza62
. This is often said by the FBA for Kabweza in attribution to the activities of farmers in her community. This assertion I observed, is reflected by the choice of crops they grow on their fields. Farmers using drip grow high yielding (value) crops such as tomatoes, carrot, cabbage, among relevant others. They related that IDE recommended they grow such crops. The penchant for high value crops according to IDE is “to make the best [income] out of farmers investments”
63
6.2.5 Farmer – Household
Farmers often engage the services of their households in vegetable cultivation. They render support at various stages of vegetable production: in land preparation, planting, weeding, spraying, watering, staking, harvesting and marketing [I observed their involvement in different field activities. In some instances, I joined them work on the field]. They also support in the process of configuring drip systems on the field. Farmers indicated that the KB drip required much labour and time to install the various components of the drip system together. Majority of the farmers I talked to remarked that laying the KB drip on the field is less labour intensive than installing microtubes on the drip laterals and that is when household labour comes in handy
64.
6.2.6 Farmer – Chattels
Farmers in Kabweza own different chattels they engage in the different stages of vegetable production and in their drip systems [cutlasses, hoe, ploughs, wheelbarrows, draft animals, other livestock, manure, oxcarts, bicycles, mobile phones etc.]. Different chattels are used in land preparation, planting, cultural practices, harvesting and marketing. Farmers call or receive calls using their mobile phones, and transport their harvests to the market using bicycles and oxcarts. Some farmers sold their livestock to buy MITs and other running costs of their farms [Mr. Markaloni bought a small gasoline pump by selling a cow. Mr. Mwinga said he will settle his electricity bills by selling his animals].
6.2.7 Farmer – KB drip kit
Farmers used the KB drip to cultivate vegetables for consumption and for income. They Although they experienced varied problems and challenges with its use, they found alternative means of making the technology work for them on their fields. Kabweza farmers were motivated to continue using the drip because of the potential benefits they derive from its use and its advantage over previous irrigation technologies and water application practices on their fields.
61
Usually once a week on Mondays at 14:00 hours 62
She said this often and often stressing that farmers in her community are serious with vegetable farming
because they treat it as a business enterprise. 63
Field research 12/12/2011 64
Field research 22/12/2011
90
6.2.8 Farmer – Mapepe Bible College
Farmers in Kabweza received further training in vegetable production and drip irrigation from the Mapepe Bible College. They were given practical lessons in identifying and using locally available components in configuring drip systems on very small plots or what they termed ‘kitchen garden’. They were given Netafim drip laterals free of charge to set up drip systems on small plots.
6.2.9 Farmer – MBC & other drip kits
Kabweza farmers installed the Netafim drip laterals they got from MBC on their fields in two ways. Some put it to its intended use in configuring the ‘kitchen garden’ [example is Mr. Markaloni] to produce vegetables. Others installed it in their existing KB drip system either to add up to the number of drip lines on the field or respond to challenges with the KB drip laterals on the field. Mr. Mukuni in Mumbwa ‘upgraded’ the KB drip system on his field using Metzerplat family drip kits.
6.2.10 Farmer – Farm Business Advisor
The relation between FBAs and farmers is mostly for service delivery. Farmers in Kabweza relate with the FBA in training in agronomic practices, installation, use and maintenance of drip and treadle pumps, supply of agrochemicals and finding better markets for their produce. The needs for these services and others are discussed at their meetings.
6.2.11 Farmer – Water lifting MITs
Some of the farmers I talked to [especially those without water lifting devices], said drip technology with all its associated benefits meets only part of the labour requirements of the their drip systems. Most farmers who are still using drip relate water lifting devices such as small gasoline pumps, pressure or suction only treadle pumps to their drip systems to lift water from their wells. [That notwithstanding, the suction only treadle pump still required manual labour to lift water with buckets into drip tanks]. Farmers also relate with water lifting devices to draw water for animals and general household use.
6.2.12 Farmer – MIT supply/value chain
Farmers relate with the supply chain directly for the MIT needs. Some farmers in this study bought their water lifting devices, storage tanks or drip kits from the supply chain without the need for IDE to mediate in providing these services to them.
6.2.13 Farmer/FBA – Agro dealers
Farmers in Kabweza have been trained by the FBA for the community to use agrochemicals in various stages of vegetable production. They used herbicides to prepare their land as part of their conservation farming practices.
65The rationale of conservation farming [as explained by
Anita] was to carry out agricultural activities with minimal disturbance of the land to preserve the soil structure and also nutrients – minimal tillage. This was also to break dominance of weeds simple tools could not control, to reduce the cost of production. They used fertilizers for crop growth and pesticides and other agrochemicals for pest control and crop protection. Farmers relate with Agro dealers directly for supply of agrochemicals or through the FBA as well.
65
The FBA (Anita) is the trainer for the conservation unit of the Ministry of Agriculture and cooperatives in
Kabweza. She advocates strongly for conservation farming in her community.
91
6.2.14 Farm Business Advisor – Farm Business Advisor
FBAs relate with each other in [in Kabweza, Mungu and Chikupi] mainly along training activities for farmers in these communities. Mrs. Anita Mweemba is a programme facilitator for the conservation unit of MACO and she organizes training programmes in these communities. Whenever there is the need for such trainings, she is consulted to organize the trainings for farmers. The FBA’s also relate with each other by sending information on market prices across to farmers, and also on markets where farmers can get good prices for their produce. The FBA’s have each other’s contact numbers and communicate mostly by phone.
6.2.15 Farmer/FBA – IDE Field Officers/IDE Technical Officers
Farmers sometimes relate directly with Field Officers or through FBAs in their capacities as contact farmers. Farmers/FBAs communicate their challenges with MITs and other things that affect their production activities for redress. The Field Officers attend to the challenges [MIT repairs, drip installations etc] or refer them to the technical Officers. The Field Officers also receive requests from farmers/FBAs for supply of MITs, seeds and agrochemicals as well as credits linkage to MFIs.
6.2.16 Farmer – Microfinance Institution (MFIs)
Microfinance institutions provide loans to farmers who do not have available resources to purchase MITs. A percentage of the loan is also allocated to the purchase of other production inputs such as improved seeds, fertilizers, herbicides, fungicides and pesticides. MFIs provide loans using farmer groups as collateral instead of individual collateral agreements. They also manage loans such that farmers start paying back loans after three to four months to enable them harvest and sell their crop to enact repayment.
6.2.17 Farmer – Group Savings
Female farmers are involved in groups savings in Kabweza where they save monthly with the Micro Bankers Trust (MBT) in order to acquire loans. Women use loans from MBT for trading purposes to support their families and farm activities.
6.2.18 Farmer – Personal (own) finance
Farmers generate income from the sale of their crops, [mostly staple crops such as maize, groundnut and vegetables], livestock and other trade activities to support the use of the KB drip and related farming activities around it besides credit facilities from MFIs. They use these finances to buy other MITs, agrochemicals and seeds, pay for cost of extra labour and other costs involved in running activities at home and on their farms. [Mr. Mwiiga said he would settle his electricity bill by selling his animals, Mr. Markaloni bought a motorized pump, and a treadle pump from the sale of his cattle and others].
6.2.19 Farmer – Markets/market agents
Farmers in Kabweza mostly sell their produce in the Kafue market. Unlike Kabwe where farmers have access to the services of market agents who sell for them, Kabweza farmers sell directly in the market on Thursdays and Fridays, the only days they could sell in the markets. They explore other markets in surrounding towns and villages as well as small shops in the Kabweza community. Traders sometimes come to farmers to buy their crops on-farm.
92
Summary
The KB low-cost drip is not functioning on its own but a being supported by the different interactions of people, organizations, their knowledge, financial resources, natural resource, markets etc. (Figure 32). It is working in Kabweza because of it is placed in a network configuration that supports it to work.
Manufacturer
(Production/distribution)
domain networks
Farmer (MIT user)
domain networks
MFIs
FBA
Chatells
supply
chain
IDE
Farmers
KB
drip MBC
agro shops
market
agents
Water
Land
Donors
MACO
NGOs appropriate
technologies
markets
Personal
finance
Figure 32. Innovation network of the manufacturer and farmer domains
93
Chapter 7. Analysis In this chapter, I analyse the study findings with relevant concepts proposed in chapter 2 to answer the main question for the study. Section 7.1 of this chapter analyses the attribution of different meanings to the KB low-cost drip by IDE and farmers. In section 7.2, I analyse the contributions to innovation of the low-cost drip by IDE and farmers. In this section, I compare innovation in Mungu to Kabweza to explain factors contributing to widespread innovation in one community and not the other. Section 7.3 presents a detail analysis of how the KB drip is being failed by the network that produce it and supports it to function.
7.1 Interpretative flexibility of the KB drip IDE claims the KB low-cost drip kit was introduced into Zambia as a practical response to the labour and productivity needs of smallholder farmers who use labour bucket method of irrigation in crop productivity. During the implementation process of the Rural Prosperity Initiative (RPI) project, the follow assumptions were made:
(1) Since IDE does not have a production capacity in Zambia, the drip kits were imported from India where it was claimed that the technology has been a success as well as with in other country programmes in the Asian regions having records of high adoption by farmers.
(2) A cheap drip kit at face value and simple that would be a good entry for farmers to buy or a technology that would sell to meet project objectives in terms of numbers.
(3) A labour, water and cost saving technology that would increase the productivity and income of $300 for farmers, and as well, pay for itself within the shortest possible time.
(4) A low pressure technology that is simple and easy to install, use and maintain by farmers with very little training.
Different systems designs were promoted. But design that appealed to majority of the farmers was the 200 m
2 which has the following system components:
1. [With or without] a 200 litre poly tank
2. A screen filter
3. Main lateral made from low density polyethylene
4. Laterals made from low density polyethylene
5. microtubes
In the study, two types of the main lateral were identified. One with a valve that controls water to the laterals and the other not. The drip kits were sold to farmers with or without a tank. And the treadle pumps promoted along with the drip were sold separately.
Three categories of farmers who bought drip were identified in the study as: (1) farmers who bought the drip kit but did not use it (never used drip group), (2) farmers who used the drip for a period and abandoned it (abandon drip group) and (3) farmers who are still using drip (still using drip group). In this section, I present what these groups of farmers are saying about the KB low-cost drip; their interpretation of the KB drip technology (as an artefact and the knowledge required to use it) as well as their proposed solution to the problem.
94
Never used drip group
Farmers interpreted the drip kit as “difficult to use” because they did not have the requisite knowledge enough to configure the drip system. They also argued the overhead tank was “expensive” and “not affordable”.
Abandon drip group and still using drip group
Farmers made the following interpretation of the KB drip
(a) The overhead tank. They said the overhead tanks is “too” small to meet the needed water requirements on their fields. The tank does not come with lid. Leaves fall into the tank and the water becomes dirty when it is windy thus clogging the filters.
(b) The filters. The filters easily clogs because they are small.
(c) Main laterals. Famers who bought drip package whose main laterals did not have regulators to the laterals said water does not drip but run “comes like pipe”. To them the drip wastes water. They related this to their arguments on labour and cost as with the tank.
(d) Laterals. The laterals are: “too soft”, “soft”, “flexible”, expand and contract with temperature change, too soft and rats eat them, they break along the flat folds, easily damaged, soft and takes the shape of the field. Farmers suggested “hard pipes”.
(e) Lateral spacing. A farmer said the 1.5m lateral spacing is too wide. He prefers 60m spacing to grow carrots.
(f) Microtubes. The microtubes clog frequently
(g) Installation process. Labour intensive especially in the installation of microtubes on laterals
(h) As a low pressure technology. farmers said “water drips here but not there” [uneven water distribution], “the system blocks when the sun is hot”. To these challenges, they suggested “hard pipes”.
(i) Use knowledge. Some farmers said it was difficult using the drip
1. IDE, abandoned drip group, still using drip group
The two relevant groups (farmers and IDE) established closure around the attribution meaning to the KB drip.
(a) Labour saving. almost all farmers said drip was labour saving
(b) Cost saving. savings made by drip is on production cost, and cost of water for farmers in Chilongolo who use treated water
(c) Time saving. IDE attributes time savings to “the technology works on its own”. Farmers said “I can even go and smoke”, “The job is going on there; I am watering now. I sit here, waiting for the water to finish in my tank”
(d) Increase crop productivity. A farmer said, “flowers are the tomatoes, when you lose your flowers, you are losing your harvest”. Farmers said they experienced drip to
95
increase yield. Water is delivered directly to the root area and not on the plants which cause flowers to drop.
(e) Quality produce. Farmers settle on the interpretation that drip produces quality crops especially in tomatoes. Few disease conditions were experienced with drip as with the buckets or water application methods that spread water on the plant.
7.2 Innovation of the KB drip Interpretative flexibility of the KB drip was not only in the attribution of meaning to the artefact or knowledge required to use it. It was also expressed in the design and support of the technology to sold by IDE and be used by farmers. In section 7.2.1 I will explain innovation identified with IDE in the development process of the KB drip. Section 7.2.2 is a comparative analysis of innovation in Kabweza and Mungu.
7.2.1 Innovation by IDE In the development of the KB drip, the following phases were identified by the study. (1) design and prototype development, (2) commercial manufacture/import (3) promotion and sale and (4) use and evaluation phases. The study however identified that the prototype testing and evaluation phase was largely missing. Activities that characterized innovation by IDE were identified in three phases namely: (i) the design phase, (ii) commercial development/import and (iii) promotion and sale phase.
Innovation in design
Flexible. The KB drip is a composite technology. That is to say it made up of different interrelated parts or components that can be installed together into a drip system. flexibility means that the technology is not designed as a complex whole, but opened enough such that farmers can further develop it. Flexibility in design also present the technology as “a recipe” (Weick, 1993, p. 351) – a cook book where farmers unpack and repack it. As a recipe, farmers can take out original components of the KB drip and replace them with other drip components or appropriate materials of their choice and reconfigure it to work for them.
Low-cost. Low cost is not interpreted only in monetary value but also in design. This was also expressed in the way IDE promoted the technology by selling it without ‘expensive’ tanks so that farmers can use locally available tanks. (Kay, 2001)
Low pressure. The drip was designed to have a low head (1 – 3 meters) so that farmers can use install and use the drip system and lifting water by hand without water lifting devices (ibid)
Low precision. It was designed that precision may be compromised. Precision may be lost when the drip system becomes a mixed element of low pressure, different ‘appropriate’ components but still work for farmers (ibid)
Commercial development/import phase.
IDE was innovative in priming demand for the drip kits and bringing various private sector players together to support the promotion and sale of the drip kits. It went into joint partnership with Cropserve to import and stock the low-cost drip. IDE also partnered with MEDA and Microfinance institutions to support market development by bringing suppliers as well as farmers together. These support structures were purposely put in place to effect mass marketing of drip and other MITs.
96
Promotion and sale phase.
IDE was innovative in using various disseminating channels such radio adverts, technology demonstration in farmer communities and also as at technology and trade fairs and internal adverts by FBAs to promote drip. IDE is also identified with innovation in their attempt to eliminate barriers to purchase of the drip kit with the voucher programme, and maintaining relations with microfinance institutions who provide lending to farmers.
IDE organized farmers into groups and trained them to install, use and maintain their drip systems and in agronomic practices to grow, protect and maintain their crops to increase their income. Putting farmers into groups [as a rule] was an innovative way for them to access loans from MFIs, and support one another with challenges on their fields, bulk their produce for cheaper transport to markets and form a collective bargaining force to demand fair prices for their goods.
Innovation was also identified with IDE by the market linkage programme where farmer’s produce were sold for them by market agents instead of going through the hustle to market it themselves. Although in the pilot phase, farmers I talked to were pleased with the programme.
Remarks
The study however identified some hiccups in the development process of the KB technology. It was found out that the prototype evaluation phase of the technology was unaccounted for. The KB drip package was imported and sold to farmers with the blueprint assumption that the technology was successful and recorded high farmer adoption rates in other Asian regions and would therefore record success also in Zambia if it is replicated.
66The KB drip was not tested
on the farmers’ fields by IDE to evaluate its performance to make sound decisions whether it should be commercially imported or not. The KB drip was thrown in haste “over-the-wall” to farmers in the technology-in-use phase without proper evaluation to find out it meets their use requirements. Flashy adverts were used to over promote the artefact (see Douthwaite, 2002, p. 28).
The technology use phase was characterized by very little support for farmers to install and use the drip after training and the sale of drip kits [which seem a prime importance to IDE]. Farmers were left and also in confronting ‘myriads’ of challenges and problems associated with the KB drip system as detailed in chapter 5. The groups of farmers in this study who maintained their support for the technology had to do things differently from the others; they had to innovate.
7.2.2 Farmer innovation The KB drip was sold to farmers as prototype that was not tested and evaluated by IDE. In the technology-in-use phase, farmers who were able to configure and use their drip kits evaluated their experiences, the performance of the drip kit, and the challenges and problems associated with the artefact. Different farmers evaluated the performance of the KB drip differently and decided to abandon or continue using drip. My interaction with farmers informed that they based their decisions on the advantages or benefits they derived from drip technology over existing technologies they were familiar with, and irrigation practices that worked for them over the years. Farmers who abandoned the drip kits did two things: (1) they went back to their old, familiar irrigation practices – e.g. using the buckets, treadles and; (2) they looked
66
The study found out that there was rather a ‘push from above’ recommending IDE country programme in
Zambia to promote drip because of success in other areas. Under duress, the process of acquisition was done
without testing and evaluating the technology based on the assumption that it worked in India, Nepal, and other
Asian regions.
97
for a better working alternatives to the drip – treadle pumps or small gasoline pumps.67
Farmers who are currently using drip found practical ways to solve the problems or ‘flaws’ with the drip kit by innovating. In this section, I will explain the processes farmers go through in solving practical problems or innovation process.
Innovation is a process where farmers go through different stages of learning to identify, learn about the problem and find lasting solutions to it (Douthwaite, 2002; Reij and Waters-Bayer, 2001). According to Reij and Waters-Bayer, famers learn to solve problems by trial and error experimentations by: (1) identifying the problem or challenge, (2) analysing and learning about the problem, (3) identify possible solutions, ideas or alternatives (4) trying out identified solutions through experimentation, and when they succeed, (5) they share the outcome with other farmers, and (6) keep supporting the innovation to sustain it (ibid). I may not follow the process religiously but bring out examples of how various farmers worked around problems on their fields.
Farmers using drip leveraged the constraints that came with the field and the low-cost drip with ‘appropriate’ response solutions. They generated different ideas on possible, alternative solutions to the problem and experimented them on trial and error basis observing whether it solved the problem or not. Farmers I talked to intimated that they continued trying and changing alternatives until they found lasting solutions [or design requirements] to identified constraints or problems.
Mr. Mukuni could not lift water effectively in his well in the dry season due to very drawdown in his well. He solved the problem by following the water. He adapted the field to the lift capacity of the gasoline pump by digging a deep trench behind the concrete wall lining the well and bore a hole through it to access water from the well. Likewise, Mr. Chulu adapted his field to grow carrots by making ridges in his farm. This action rather became a constraint to lay the main drip lateral across the field. A practical solution was placing burnt bricks in the middle of each bed to support it from collapsing. Mr. Kalenga and Mr. Mutempa [remember they live quite close to each other] solved the lengthening and shortening of the drip line in response to system temperature differences by tying the ends of the drip lines to wooden pegs on their fields to keep the drip kits taut. These examples were innovation s by farmers in response to physical constraints that limited the functioning of some components of their drip systems.
Farmers experienced problems with damage to the drip lines while they weed or harvest their crops. Field mouse or rats also gnawed on the drip lines in storage or on the field in search for water. To this challenges and without drip spare parts, farmers are forced to innovate – to repair the drip lines. Mr. Mutempa, [ and also Mr. Mitinta (in Mungu) and Mr. Chikumba (in Kabweza)] responded differently to this problem [depending on its nature and gravity] by rejoining the drip lines. They made clean cuts of the ends of the two drip lines and rejoined them using pvc pipes. Mr. Mutempa responded differently in another situation by wrapping polythene sheets around the damaged portion and secured it using ropes.
Mr. Markaloni experienced frequent system clogging. He identified the problem to be dirt from his open well and also from sand that lodge in his open tank when it is windy. His experiences with washing dirty filters often informed him to cover the tank with filtering materials. This action reduced the dirt loads and less frequent clogging problems.
Farmers responded differently to all other constraints or problem by redesigning or reconfiguring the drip system. They unpacked the drip system by taking out components that had problems and repacked it using appropriate and otherwise available components of other
67
Mr. Ngandu bought a motorized pump, Mr. Hatimbula went back to farrow irrigation using his motorized
pump. Mrs. Chingo and Mrs. Muntakwa went back to watering using watering hoses fitted to pipes, farmers in
Dackana opted for treadle pumps.
98
drip technologies or locally available materials into a design outcome called a bricolage. Mr. Markaloni replaced the KB lateral with Netafim lines and others used both Netafim and the KB lines They redesigned original KB drip system. The Netafim kits were not ‘best-fits’ with the KB system therefore farmers used rubber bands to hold the installation together. Some precisions were lost, but the system worked for them. Farmers who had problems with the tank bought bigger tanks or used available one they had at home.
7.2.3 Innovation network and diffusion in the farmer domain Kabweza and Mungu are two IDE farmer communities linked to each other by a 5 km feeder road which is very muddy in the rainy season. The KB drip kit was promoted in the two communities in the same year. The two communities have some common attributes. They are in the same agro-ecological area and experience similar climatic conditions, they have a similar landscape and soil characteristics, generally they have common hydrogeological features (good water yield in wells), a farmer group with a lead contact farmer as a leader, and bought the drip almost around the same time. In this study however, farmer innovation in Kabweza was found to be more widespread among farmers than Mungu. Kabweza is characterized by good organization and strong leadership, a strong social tie and close proximity of farmers, which is a contrary attribute to Mungu. In this section, I analyse how these factors contributed to widespread innovation in Kabweza and not Mungu.
Figure 33. Map showing Mungu, Kabweza and Chikupi communities (Mupfiga, 2011)
Good organization and strong leadership. Farmers in Kabweza are well organized around activities that supports their drip systems to function on their fields. They hold regular meetings to share experiences with their colleagues and help each other out with challenges and problems on their fields. Activities are well organized through the dynamic leadership of the Mrs. Anita Mweemba who is active and influential in a male dominated farmer group. A strong female leadership in a typical African community setting could have other influences
Kabweza
Mungu
Chikupi
5 km
99
as well. This could be influenced by formal educational background of the farmers and or gender training component of the Rural Prosperity Initiative project. Anita’s leadership support and the close collaboration of farmers around activities in Kabweza could also be influenced by, family, religious as well as community ties binding farmers into a strong support network. Farmers belong to the same tribe and are related in one way or the other to each other as families, and most of them attend the same church, the Seventh Day Adventist Church [including Anita]. Good organization is Kabweza was also made possible by the strong social network in the community. Social networks facilitate learning (Morone and Taylor, 2010). That is why Kabweza farmers were able to learn from each other and diffused the innovation they learnt from Mr. Mweemba.
The organization, farmer learning and innovation in Kabweza is further enhanced by proximity of farmers to each other (Cowan, 2004). They live few meters to less than a kilometre distance from one another. This enables them to meet regularly, visit, and learn from each other.
Mungu is not characterized by a strong organization of farmers as well as in leadership. Activities that characterize a well-organized group of famers in Kabweza is less observed in Mungu. The social forces that bind Kabweza farmers together into a strong network is a contrary situation in Mungu. The lead contact farmer (FBA), Mr. Timothy Hamweene is less involved in the organization of farmers. This could be influenced by the fact that he settled in the community not long ago, and does not share stronger ties with farmers here as does Anita. (see details in Borsboom, 2012, p. 59 – 61). Proximity wise, farmers in Mungu live further apart from each other. The distance between Mr. Hamweene’s house and Esau’s is about 1.5 Km, and from Mr. Hamweene to Mutinta about 1 Km. This could account for farmers not helping each other much to overcome challenges on their fields as well as learn from each other. I was wondering why Mr. Hamweene did not help Mr. Ngandu with his installations? This could probably account for the lack of support.
Bricoleurs were able to innovate by increasing learning or constructing new knowledge around their drip kits. According to Marone and Taylor (2010) knowledge exchange [or transfer] and diffusion is central to activities related to innovation. This study identified four main sources of knowledge in this study that is supporting innovation in Kabweza that made them to differ from Mungu; (1) knowledge from IDE to farmers (2) knowledge from the Mapepe Bible College and (2) agronomic knowledge from the Ministry of Agriculture engaged in training by Anita and; (4) farmer-to-farmer knowledge sharing. Farmers increased learning from knowledge shared to them to enable them install and configure the drip kits on their field, and also through experience and use of KB drip on the field.
7.3 Failing the KB drip technology
Drip artefacts have no power and can therefore do nothing. They are made to work and fulfil functions by human agency (Geels, 2002). By the tenets of the Actor-network theory, drip and other technological artefacts do not fail. They are being failed by the network involved in producing them and making them to fulfil the desired functions they were intended to serve. In this section, I present the argument that the KB drip is being failed by its networks in so many ways;
7.3.1 Integrity of drip technology network actors It is recognized by IDE in project designs to put in place an effective strategy for the development of technology and mass marketing to smallholder farmers as well as create markets for farmers to meet all the necessary requirement for project or organizational success as stipulated in the PRISM methodology for project design. IDE recognizes that developing
100
MIT as responses to needs of smallholder farmers is part of the solution and creating the environment for farmers to buy the technology requires that it be produced with cheap, readily available local materials by involving local manufacturers and dealers. Recognizing this need, IDE Zambia started building its supply chain to produce at low cost and also maintain supply to farmers. Examining the actors involved in the production, financing and supply reveals a network of designers (IDE), manufacturers (Madinawala, Thole Engineering, Merrit, Disacare and Chokwadi enterprises), suppliers (IDE, FBAs and other firms), chain financiers (MFIs) and farmers (figure 34) [as well as other actors/dealers not listed in figure 34). The treadle pump (of which the MoT is one and currently has a challenge) is a success in Zambia. It has evolved as a tube well pump into the suction pump and pressure pumps from various successful and unsuccessful prototypes (figures 10 and 11) through the contribution of farmers to its design by their interpretations, constructive criticisms and feedbacks into a socially constructed technology. The integrity of the network involved in its development is quite stable not only in is production but also supporting it in use. Within the network, farmers can locate shops where their broken pumps can be repaired or worn out parts replaced mostly using spares or simply fabricating parts because materials are available locally.
The network of actors that produce the drip kits is dominated by importers and suppliers of the drip kit; a situation where local or national production capacity of the technology is lacking in manufacturing (Figure 35). In India and elsewhere the KB drip is touted as a success has a stable network of local manufacturers, distributors and suppliers of the drip kit as well as spare parts (IDE, 2001). Farmers in the Asian regions as well as drip is placed in a network configuration that works (ibid). When key actors that supply maintains the stability of networks through reliable infrastructural supply are actively missing in a technological network, the ‘gap’ created usually causes instability and failure of the networks (Egali & Kalman, 2010). Farmers are taking out their drip lines one after the other because they cannot replace damaged. Replacing the a drip line means buying a whole set of drip kits because spares are not available. Basically, the configuration the drip network supports only the supply of drip
FARMERS FBA Thole
Engineering
Disacare
Madinawala
Micro Finance
Institutions
Merrit
Manufacturer 1
Manufacturer 2
Manufacturer
4
Manufacturer 5
Chokwadi Ent.
Manufacturer 3
IDE
Manufacturer
(Production/distribution)
domain
Farmer
(technology user)
domain
Figure 34. Network integrity of the treadle pump
101
from the domain of manufacturers to farmers but unlike the support structure for the treadle pump, the drip is not supported on the farmer’s fields to be in use.
7.3.2 Drip system constraints To configure a well-functioning KB drip irrigation system, smallholder farmers were required to establish all the different relevant physical, technical, socio-economic and other prevailing constraints and identify technical requirements of the various components of the KB drip needed to surmount the constraints. After identifying the constraints and selecting the required technical components of the drip system, they were then required to assemble the components together into a functional drip system.
68 Moreover, to keep the drip system
functioning (in the long term) to meet the objectives of design and development by IDE, farmers were required to go beyond the initial configuration of the drip system to keep a regime or culture of regular maintenance of the drip system.
In this study, three broad constraints were identified as the limiting factors that caused some smallholder farmers: (1) not to configure the KB drip system on their fields, (2) failing to configure the drip system properly and therefore could not use the drip kit or (3) to abandon the use of the drip kits after using it after a period (between six months to a year).
Physical constraints (as observed) on farmer’s fields were:
(1) water quality, (2) quantity (on a limited scale), (3) drawdown in water table (4) the weather (5) and on a limited extent, the nature of farmer’s fields.
68
Heuristics for drip systems configuration. See Savva & Frenken (2002)
Manufacturer
(Production/distribution)
domain
Farmer
(technology user)
domain
Micro Finance
Institutions
IDE FARMERS FBA
Cropserve Amiran
Importer/retailer
1
Rotor
Importer/retailer
2
SARO
Importer/retailer 3
Green 2000
Importer/retailer
4
Importer/retailer 5
Figure 35. The network of drip kits
102
Technical constraints:
(1) the material nature of the KB lay-flat drip lines (2) other components of the KB drip system (3) absence of water lifting devices in some drip system setups (4) the technical knowhow on configuring the drip system (5) lack of technical assistance to farmers
Socio-economic constraints:
(1) cost of components of the drip system (2) unavailability of drip system spares (3) running cost (fuel, maintenance and repair of pumps) (4) security of drip systems and (5) relevant others (such as bad access roads to produce markets in the rainy season)
How were these constraints a limitation to the use of the KB drip kit? I will analyse the constraints for a clearer understanding to the reader on how these conditions contributed to the failure of the drip kit on farmer’s fields.
Physical constraints:
Water quantity. Water in sustainable quantities for crop production was not major limitations in farmer communities save two cases: Mr. Royd Kalenga and Mr. Douglas Chuma in Kabweza experience very low recharge in the well on their farm especially in the dry season. Mr. Justine Mukuni experiences drawdown in water in his well way beyond the lift height of his motorized pump also in the dry season.
Water quality. The quality of water however was a major cause for concern for some farmers who experienced frequent clogging in their drip systems. The water quality problems I identified in this research were (1) particles of dirt in water in wells that were in most cases ‘open wells’ which were partly or not covered, or colloidal particles of clay (or fine dust) in the water (from very shallow wells) (2) the build-up of green algae in system overhead tanks that are transparent and (3) water laden with dissolved calcium or iron.
69 Frequent clogging
experiences discouraged farmers from using the drip system. Mrs Chingo a drip farmer in Chilongolo stopped using the drip kit after experiencing clogging problems in her drip system. She claimed “the system is jammed because the water is hard”. She was convinced dissolved calcium is the main culprit in her case, after showing evidences of white calcified substances at the tip of the microtubes and on the laterals (see figure 21). I however observed another factor could be contributing to the “jamming” in her drip system was a build-up of algae in the (‘now packed for good’) transparent poly-overhead tank used for the installation of the drip system. This tank is similar to the one in use by Mr. Geoffrey Chulu in Chikupi, who is also experiencing green algae build up in his pressure unit (figure 28).
Weather. Farmers experience hot weather conditions in the dry season.70
According to Savva and Frenken (2002) the temperature experienced in a drip system differs from the air temperature. The temperature in drip laterals “rise substantially” when exposed to the sun (p.13). Farmers reported that variation in day and night temperatures cause the drip kits to expand and contract in response to the temperature differences resulting in the displacement of the microtube from their crops. Some farmers recounted that they experience pressure variations causing uneven water distribution in their drip systems. The drip line takes the
69
I did not establish a water quality test in this research to determine the quality status of water from the wells on
farmers’ fields. However, physical exhibits of water-air interactions on components of the drip system gives an
indication of the quality status of the water used by farmers from their wells. I observed (crystal) deposits of
predominantly calcium and (limited observation of rusty) iron at the joints of components in drip systems
especially where there are leakages. Then also in some systems had open wells that were not free of particles of
dirt. 70
I started my research within this period. I monitored temperatures ranging 34degrees Celsius as the peak
temperature for Lusaka using the YoWindow software. See http://yowindow.com/
103
shape of the (not very even) fields, resulting in water dripping at some parts of the field and not the whole field.
Uneven fields. The landscape in the farmer communities I observed is generously flat. The challenge is however at field level – how farmers prepare the land for drip system installation. Farmers recounted that the drip lines took the shape of the field when the weather is hot, leaving much to be desired about the evenness of the field which is a critical requirement for the functioning of low-pressure drip system. Some farmers were challenged with identifying and making use of natural gradients best fit for the KB gravity system. I would like to point out also that natural gradients were not obvious choices for farmers to make but rather a condition depending on where they locate a good yielding well on their plots.
Technical constraints:
The material nature of the KB drip line was a major limitation to farmers ability to use the drip kit. Mr. Allen Hatimbula said “IDE brought us a drip [kit] that was difficult to use”. The majority of farmers who used the drip kit (including those who stopped using it) did not mince words in describing how disappointed they were with the performance of the drip lines on the field. The KB drip line is light and soft (subject to farmer’s and my own interpretation). This attribute is manifested in the lengthening and shortening of the drip lines in response to temperature differences experienced in the drip system. In effect, farmers experience the displacement of microtubes from the plants. The soft nature of the drip lateral made it a necessary requirement for farmers’ fields to be very levelled for effective use – a condition without with farmers experienced pressure differences in the drip lines resulting in water dripping in only some parts of the field.
KB overhead tank. The limitations are: (1) accessing the pressure unit (tank) and (2) size of the tank. Some farmers bought the complete KB drip kit without the tank claiming it was expensive. They argued further that a tank of similar capacity (200 litres) could be bought locally at half the price or less. On the other hand, some farmers complained that the tank was too small to meet the water requirement of the crops on their fields without the need to refill the tank over and over again. However, the study identified that there were other contributing factors to this claim and the reason why farmers stopped using the drip kit. (1) Farmers who used motorized pumps to lift water into the tank claim the process of refill consumed fuel and therefore expensive. (2) Farmers who configured their drip system without a water lifting device such as a treadle or motorized pump used buckets to lift water. Refilling the overhead tank over and over is a labour intensive process (a farmer with a 12 litre bucket would have to lift water approximately 17 times to fill a 200 litre tank) which discouraged farmers from continued use of the drip system. Mr. James Chisupa in Dackana said “the challenge is using buckets to draw water. The right package should have included a treadle pump”. Farmers submitted that a bigger tank would have been more than sufficient.
Absence of water lifting devices in some drip system setups. The KB drip technology was developed and promoted in response to the labour situation of the smallholder farmer. However, drip technology is a water distribution and application technology which solves part of the labour challenge of the farmer – walking to and fro on their ‘small’ plot and applying water. The system still required lifting water into the pressure unit for distribution and application – a response to which the treadle pump was promoted along with the drip kit. In this study, some of the farmers who did not own a water lifting device stopped using the drip kit as a result of labour challenges of lifting and filling the drip system tanks.
Insufficient technical knowhow on drip system configuration. One of the theoretical (thought practical) assumptions by IDE regarding the ‘low-cost’ concept of the KB drip system (as expressed in its characteristics) is that it is simple and does not need farmers to be ‘irrigation
104
experts’ to figure how to configure a working drip system. The assumption is that with little training the smallholder farmer is able to install and operate the KB drip system without supervision. In the study, KB drip system configuration was done by farmers after taking part in training or demonstration sessions organized by IDE field officers or technical staffs. Snippets of information regarding the quality of training I gathered from farmers and my observation of technology demonstrations [as substitutes for proper MIT installation and use training] leaves much to be desired concerning the required level of knowledge imparted to farmers to expect them (all) to install the drip system on their fields. Some farmers after training still required additional assistance to establish a proper installation. This is to say that not all farmers had the technical inclination and dexterity to handle a proper drip installation. Farmers (or farmer’s hands) in some communities who were able to figure things out on their own helped their colleagues to install the facility on their fields
71. Those who did not get
assistance either had challenges using the drip either because; (1) it was not properly configured. They experienced challenges such as poor pressure and water distribution on their fields and therefore abandoned the drip or; (2) failed to install it on their fields although they had all components required to configure a functioning drip system.
Insufficient technical assistance from IDE. After the training and demonstration sessions, IDE expected farmers to configure and use the drip kits on their fields. It came to light however that not all farmers were able to follow the intricacies of a proper system configuration and therefore failed to use the drip kit. To establish a clear understanding how this situation was a contribution factors to farmers inability to use the drip kits on their fields. The IDE Field Officials I talked to were aware of this challenges but could not do much to help farmers because they were overwhelmed by many attending challenges. This study identified three principal challenges limiting IDE’s capacity to assist farmers. (1) IDE field and technical staff strength (2) specialization or practical orientation of IDE field staffs to handle technical issues and; (3) additional responsibilities and resource allocation to IDE field staffs.
IDE field and technical staff strength. The number of IDE field staff to farmer ration was in my opinion, a constrain for them to attend to pressing needs of farmer domain. In Kafue, the IDE field officer claims he serves a client base of over 3000 farmer – alone. This notwithstanding the number he is required to sell MITs to, to make his target MIT sales (to add up to the base). In Lusaka the ratio is 1: 2000 or more and in Kafue it is 3: 3000. The IDE technical staff (during the research) responsible for all technical activities related MIT design and development as well as major technical challenges on the field for IDE Zambia were two (2) in number – one a full staff and the other a volunteer from New Zealand.
72They serve all
the RPI operational areas in Lusaka, Kafue, Kabwe, Choma, Kalomo, Kitwe and Livingstone.
Specialization of IDE field staffs. Most of the field staffs involved in training on MIT installation are specialized in other disciplines in agriculture such as agronomy and business which is not related in any way to agricultural or irrigation engineering – a discipline required to impart knowledge on proper configuration of drip systems to farmers. Their orientation is an asset to IDE in other project activities such as promotion and sale of MITs, training in agronomic processes. There is however a shadow of doubt however on how helpful their orientation are when it comes to the intricacies of drip systems configuration. Some of the field officers intimated that they draw the attention of the technical staff handle most technical issues on the field. [Can imagine two IDE irrigation specialists attending to the needs of farmers in all seven (7) RPI operational areas?]
71
Farmers in Kabweza assisted their colleagues in challenges of these sorts to install their drip systems. Mrs
Anita Mweemba (the FBA for this community) lent her overhead tank to Mr. Markaloni George to install his
drip system. 72
Reports however from IDE before the submission of this report states that the volunteer staff has returned to
his native country.
105
Additional responsibilities and resource allocation to IDE field staffs. Could it have been possible or easy for IDE field staff to provide after sales service to farmers? I would provide three (3) explanations here. (1) I can envisage IDE field staffs responding to the needs of only few farmers considering a client base of say 1:2000 or 1:3000. This is quite a number! (2) The other situation is that IDE field officers are awfully busy people (I stayed and worked with them on the field). They have as part of their schedule on client training, the responsibility of ensuring that targeted number of technologies are sold to meet project milestone targets – a prerequisite for (implemented) project or IDE’s success! Therefore IDE field officers are under pressure to meet their targets. This grants them little time and luxury to attend to client’s complaints, often referring them to the technical staff – a department which is woefully understaffed to respond to the larger client community. This brings me to the third reason (3). The charge and resource allocated the IDE field officer does not (in less strict terms) include client after sales service. IDE field officers are allotted resource (vehicle, fuel, cash etc) for MIT promotion, radio advertisement and training. Little was said about allocations for after sales service when I talked with them. Why is this situation so? Was there a cause or reason? Yes (see Analysis of this situation in Section 7.3.)
(1) Socio-economic constraints:
Cost of components of the KB drip system. The label thrown around the KB drip system is (an assumption) that it is ‘low-cost’ and ‘affordable’. However this is not exactly the news. As a composite technology, different components of the drip technology were sold differently. The drip kit was subsidized to whereas the tank required to install the drip system was not. Some farmers claimed the it was too costly and therefore bought only the drip kit without the tanks. This limitation is strongly linked to the explanations on access to the KB pressure unit (analysed earlier). Besides this, a practical drip system configuration that is less labour intensive requires among other necessary components needed, a water lifting device such as a treadle pump or small gasoline/diesel lift pumps. The costs of all these components may not actually qualify the system to be ‘low-cost’ and ‘affordable’. Unavailability of drip system spares. According to farmers still using the KB drip kits, it requires constant maintenance culture to continue using the facility because of the ‘fragile’ nature of the drip kit. Farmers could not replace broken or damaged drip lines because there were no outlets within or outside their communities. Some of the farmers stopped using their kits because they could not replace or repair their damaged drip lines. Security of drip systems. Components of the drip systems especially the overhead tanks were a target of theft in Dackana community.
7.3.3 Institutional limitations The constraints mentioned in relation to IDE’s limited capacity to provide effective support after sales support for farmers has other causalities. This study identified four institutional limitations to drip technology innovation namely: (1) project time frame, (2) project budgetary allocation (3) donor inflexibility to what they perceive as project ‘failure’ and (4) project success parameters (5) organizational policy towards research and development. In this section, I analyse each causality as presented numerically.
Project time frame. The process of technology development by IDE is project based and donor funded. All project activities (technology design, prototype development, field testing and evaluation, manufacturing, promotion and sales, market linkage) are carried out within an iron-clad time frame which is tied to financial commitments by donors for the project phase. A look at the PRISM strategy paints a picture of all activities that IDE deems fit for effective MIT design and research and development – the activities involved in the evaluation and further development of promising MITs. According to officials of IDE I talked to, project time frame has been one of their challenge to effective research and development of MITs
106
stating that at the end of the day, the most critical activities that define project success is what attention is given the needed attention.
Donor inflexibility to project ‘failure’. According to IDE Zambia, project success is defined by set milestone targets agreed upon by IDE and donors to achieve at the end of a project period. The questions donors ask at the end of the project phase is whether the targets have been realized or not? According to IDE officials I talked to, the most important thing at the end of the day the targets reached by IDE determine success or failure. The most important thing at the end of the day, an official told me, the number of technologies developed and bought by farmers remain critical on the success agenda therefore activities that would lead to meeting project targets is what IDE pursues aggressively.
Project budgetary allocations. Budgetary allocation for IDE’s projects differ according to donor commitments. Budgetary allocations for the SMC project was enough to set up regional offices in selected provinces and to employ regional teams. Every regional office had a manager and three specialists (field staffs) – (1) an agricultural engineer with specialization in irrigation, (2) and agronomist and (3) a marketing officer. The regional manager has competences in any of these three fields and responsible for coordination. These regional teams had all the needed competencies to train farmers in agronomic practices and MIT installation and use. With regional offices in place, the staff strength to area of operation was adequate to serve the client base (which was smaller than now). After the SMC project, RPI was introduced but with half the budget allocated to the SMC project. Project activities under the RPI project was the same as the SMC but with a higher target to reach with less financial commitment. IDE could not sustain the regional teams and there were needs to restructure. Some staffs were laid off. Those retained were selected based on critical activities needed to meet the targets for RPI and redistributed over the different project offices with some having one staff (e.g. Kafue, Lusaka, Choma Kalomo and Livingston) and project areas with a wider coverage having three (eg. Kabwe and Kitwe). Most of the staffs laid off were the irrigation specialists and agronomists. Defined project targets for RPI project bordered more on three success parameters: (1) the number of technologies developed and the number of farmers adopting
73 the technology (2) cost effectiveness of technology development – how much it
costs IDE to effect adoption, and (3) a target annual income of $300 for a smallholder farmer.
Project success parameters. The IDE project success parameter was and a condition that skewed the focus of IDE from pledging strong support to the development of drip technology because at the end of the day, all technologies count to meet target numbers of technologies developed and particularly sold (directly by IDE or its partners in the MIT supply chain). Attention was therefore given to technologies that sold faster, such as the treadle pump, small gasoline pumps and others. This and other factors listed in this section (coupled with others analysed) accounted for IDE Zambia’s inability to support and build on farmer innovation. Organizational policy on technology research and development. There are no deliberate policy by IDE Zambia towards research and development. Participatory research with users of technology is not on the policy agenda of IDE Zambia. Protocols for technology development are in the very initial stage for the MoT and the rope pumps that has been in development for more than a decade. There is none for drip.
73
Farmers who purchased MITs and those adopting MITs are different. However through my interaction with
IDE officials, the two concepts were treated alike. Farmers who installed, used and are still using the technology
are adopting. Those who bought it and are no longer using are different from the former.
107
Chapter 8. Discussions and conclusion
8.1 Introduction The problem this study case of KB low-cost drip kit manufactured and promoted by International Development Enterprises (IDE) Zambia. The drip artefact has been in development over three consecutive project; the practical technology development programme, Smallholder Market Creation project and the Rural Prosperity Initiative project which is currently in implementation phase two (started 2011). In the RPI, the low-cost drip is being developed together with other micro irrigation technologies such as treadle pumps, rope pumps, low pressure sprinklers, small gasoline lift pump among other water technologies envisaged to be developed in the near future. During the first phase of the RPI, thousands of drip kits were sold to smallholder farmers through different financial arrangements along with other micro irrigation technologies. An evaluation conducted by Wageningen University demonstrates that few drip kits are actually in use by farmers on their fields. Majority of the farmers abandoned the drip kit other farmers did not use it. The main question asked in this study was how low-cost drip being developed as a technology innovation in Zambia and how is it being failed by the network of actors involved in its development. The research objectives were to study and understand how the low-cost drip is being developed in the domain of IDE and farmers, to understand how innovation is characterized by activities in the development process of the low-cost drip in the two domains and; to find out how the low-cost drip technology is being failed on farmers’ fields. 8.2 Development the KB ‘low-cost’ drip The development of the KB low cost drip in Zambia involves different relevant actors such as donors (Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) IDE, other NGOs, local micro irrigation technology manufacturers, importers, distributors, retailers, microfinance institutions, farmers, marketers and other actors this study might not have identified or considered ‘irrelevant’. Together, they define the structure and form of network that supports the direction, design outcome of the KB drip by engaging their resources, capacities, knowledge, influences and power. KB drip is being developed separately in the domain of manufacturers and that of farmer where the existence of different realities seem to have influence on the objectives for the development of the artefact by IDE and farmers. The development of the low-cost drip by IDE is premised on the reality assumption that the technology was relatively successful in India and other Asian regions where a large number of smallholder farmers are using the artefact. This is a stereotype positivist thinking on a stereotype perception rooted in the principle of repeatability that follows the idea that “technology that works under a certain set of agro-ecological and economic conditions can be transferred to a similar area, so long as the technology hardware (its physical manifestation) and software (instructions on how to replicate and use it) are faithfully reproduced. The social characteristics of the people adopting, and the way the technology is introduced, do not really matter” (Douthwaite et al, 2003, p. 245). This informs the way and manner the KB drip was developed in the implementation of the Rural Prosperity Initiative project 1. The assumption that the technology worked in Asia coupled with other institutional constraints regarding time of implementation of the project, the development process of the KB drip was truncated unlike the treadle pump. The drip kits were imported from India and promoted to farmers with catch promotional messages which projected the idea that the artefact as “good for them”. The drip kit was not tried, tested and evaluated on the field of farmers to determine whether it was suitable for them or met their daily requirement for use. The development of the KB drip started in the domain of farmers with the responsibility to test and evaluate the artefact on their fields. Different farmers evaluated the performance of the KB drip differently based on their experiences with the problems and challenges that characterized the artefact. This was expressed in the different interpretation of the drip kit, and their decision to abandon or use
108
the technology. The interpretation of the artefact informed how farmers developed the technology. Those whose drip kit were blown the wind and changed shape, pegged it. Those who claimed their tanks were small bought bigger ones. Others developed the KB drip by redesigning or reconfiguration of their drip systems. The reality that informs the farmer to develop the KB drip is not premised on assumptions of success stories of drip in India. The smallholder Zambian farmer is rather confronted with the reality of solving a practical problem that is a threat to his investment and livelihood, with a practical solution. 8.2 Innovation of the KB low-cost drip Innovation of the KB drip was identified primarily in this study as a process where different activities, resources, capacities, influences etc., were involved in the development process of the KB drip were ordered and coordinated in synergy to make a technology work by IDE and farmers. Here, both IDE and farmers were identified to be innovative. Following the development process, innovation of the KB drip was in some regards also taking place independently in the two domains. It was identified however that farmer innovation was to some degree influenced by the activities of IDE and other relevant actors. Innovation of the KB drip by IDE is characterized by the design of the technology and also by different activities aimed at creating an enabling environment for the KB drip to be bought by farmers. Innovation of the KB drip by design as a ‘low-cost’ technology is a reflection of the way IDE projects its image as pro-poor organization that is dedicated to eradicating poverty in developing countries through investment in technologies but not hangouts which is not sustainable. Innovation of the KB drip by design as a composite technology is an inherent property of a drip technology (Kay, 2001, p. 23 – 24) and defined by the low-cost concept of drip jealously guarded by IDE. The study identified that most of the activities drafted in the design and development of the KB drip were aimed at creating a mass marketing strategy for the drip kit to be bought by farmers. The reality that informs these activities is success. Success is defined by IDE as meeting the number of technologies envisaged to be sold or bought by farmers as enshrined in the project objective. This reality is also informed by the terms of agreement of IDE with donors (to design and produce a certain number of technology at a characteristic ‘low price’). This is to say that meeting donor expectation was more a priority to IDE than creating ideal conditions for farmers to adapt, adopt and use the low-cost drip. Training activities by IDE aimed at helping farmers configure their drip systems seem inadequate as some farmers after the training could not put their drip kits to use. It puts to wonder how many farmers are expected to raise $300 per year as a measure of success when activities and support services by IDE is not targeted at helping farmers to sustain and maintain the drip kit on their fields? The study found out that innovation in the domain of farmers is motivated by a different reality (8.1) of finding a practical solution to their investment in drip technology, feeding their families, creating income to meet household needs. 8.3 Failing the KB drip As pointed out earlier (8.1), different relevant actors form the network around the KB drip. The tenets of the actor network theory hold the claim that technological artefacts do not fail but rather failed by its network. This assertion means that either donors, IDE, other NGOs, farmers, local manufacturers, importers, distributors, retailers, microfinance institutions, or other ‘irrelevant’ actors not identified in this but are part of the network are failing the KB and not the drip kit failing. The study established that the drip kit is being failed in the two domains of where the technology is being developed. The market creation approach is used by IDE’s country programmes is aimed at assembling network of local manufacturers, distributors, retailers, output marketers, financial institutions, farmers, and relevant others into a configuration where the activities, needs, capacities and resources of different actors complement each other to create a conducive environment for micro irrigation technologies to
109
be manufactured at ‘low-cost’, readily made available to farmers through a supply chain, assist farmers to install and use the technologies and other services such as repairs. After production, farmers are able to sell their produce at profitable margins in output markets. This is typical of the network configuration of the KB drip in India where it was claimed a success. (Manaktala, 2005; Teri, 2007). The country programme in Zambia made this configuration possible for the treadle pump but not drip. The network configuration for drip lack local manufacturers. Unlike India, the supply of the artefact is made available and sustained by a stable network of importers and retailers (IDE and Cropserve) and lacks dealers that have in stock spare parts needed by farmers to replace worn out parts or provide repair and after sales services as the manner of dealers in India. This has different implication on cost availability, support and sustainability (Tilson, 1989; Bachelor et al, 1993) of the drip kit on the field of farmers. This is identified as the main reason the requirement for use of the KB drip has not been adapted to the needs of smallholder farmers in Zambia. It is also identified that the drip kit is also being failed in the domain of the manufacturer by donor inflexibility project ‘failure’, budgetary allocation and time constraints. These conditions had varied influences on the way activities by iDE characterize the development process and innovation of the drip kit. In the farmer domain, the drip kit is being failed not only by its network integrity but symptoms of network instability as well (Veldwisch et al. 2009, p. 20). The proper configuration of drip is challenged by socio-technical, physical, as well as technical constraints. Activities that precedes use is not being supported by IDE – configuration of the technology. Symptoms of a falling network were exhibited by farmers having limited capacities to configure their drip systems properly thus resulting in variability in pressure distribution which shows that human agency is not well configured with the drip system. Other symptoms exhibited are also broken laterals, chewed laterals, ‘jammed’ or clogged laterals, ‘myriads’ of systems constraints, farmers not maintaining their drip kits, not storing their drip kits well and farmers abandoning their drip kits. Reflections on the study The study finds PRISM as interesting blue print for designing intervention programmes for IDE country projects. It has elements that depicts a predominantly positivist way of thinking as well as some elements that portrays a constructivism. The ideals and policies of IDE in developing low-cost technologies cuts across all divides and presented as mostly positivist – to be replicated it in all country programmes under the guise of constructivist concepts of the PRISM approaches that seem to distinguish one country programme from another. One of the concepts identified in this study is ‘low-cost’. The concept of low-cost is only a reality that exists in the domain of IDE. The study identified this concept as one of the banes on technology development. The motive of the low-cost concept in Zambia is to make the technology affordable to the farmers, count the number of technologies sold and present farmer’s income as success. Low-cost might be a motivation for farmers to buy the technologies but not a motivation to keep them working. Trying to design a cheap MoT has had its own challenges and not only from manufacturing. Madinawala is attested to produce quality pumps but at ‘high cost’ as claimed by IDE. Looking for alternative shops that produce cheaply has its own prints on the technology. I interacted with one of the designers of the treadle pump and the concept of low-cost coupled with manufacturing challenges was mentioned as the main challenge to IDE not producing treadles that would last on farmer’s fields. Management approves low-cost designs and it translates as well into manufacture and the quality that goes to the farmer’s field. The same concept applies to buying ‘cheap’ drip kits at face value as entry points for farmers to adopt a fairly new technology in the Zambian context. Farmer’s are indeed motivated to buy low-cost, but they are more inclined to security of their investments and prefer technologies that would last than one season. Another interesting issue missing in the PRISM concept and also missing in IDE Zambia’s activities is the element of technology support by the country programme. It was surprising to find a marketing strategy lacking support structures for technologies that are being produced and sold to farmers as an investment out of poverty? This shrouds the farmer’s investment in
110
uncertainties and the elements of security in jeopardy. This is to say, the study found it challenging to understand the real motive behind technology development. Is it a way to claim project success or secure farmer’s investment in MITs to move out of poverty? Research and development is part of the technology development process and well captured in the PRISM concept for project design. But it is however interesting to activities around it largely missing. I state it is conspicuous because, protocols for the development of treadle pumps has been recently developed, as well and evaluation of the technology characterized by a report and clear decisive actions the MoT and not drip. The study finds it interesting that drip could not have been a suitable option for IDE but rather a prescription for IDE country programme to replicate technologies being developed and touted in other areas where it is recording ‘success’. A positivist mentality of replicating success as a ‘laboratory’ experiment is much the lesson in this study. The assumption “follows the idea that technology that works under a certain set of agro-ecological and economic conditions can be transferred to a similar area, so long as the technology hardware (its physical manifestation) and software (instructions on how to replicate and use it) are faithfully reproduced. The social characteristics of the people adopting, and the way the technology is introduced, do not really matter.” (Douthwaite, et al, 2003, p. 245). One other thing outside the PRISM approach is how IDE interprets the concept of technology adoption – whether it is the number of technologies bought or actually in use on farmer’s fields. Study approach I found the constructivist approach to this study very important in understanding how realities exist. It sheds light on two different ‘worlds’: the world of IDE, how perceive reality, and the world of farmers and how reality is constructed. In these two worlds are different objectives to technology development with a ‘common goal’ to create income. A valid argument was raised by Kooij (2008) the problems of technology adoption studies approaches not to explain the motives behind adoption of technologies. In this study, the concept of farmer innovation delves much into how farmers are motivated to make technologies work. It explains the learning scenarios that farmers go through to find practical solutions to challenges confronting them. In this study, I find the concept of innovation approach to studying technologies a wide concept that looks at the learning interactions and the networks involved in supporting drip to work. I also find the actor network theory important in arguing why technologies do not fail but are rather failed. A combination of the actor network, and the socio-technical systems concept of innovation presents a literal picture of how networks support technologies to be developed and maintained and without which technologies do not work (figure, 32). The concept of interpretative flexibility did however not delve deeper into meanings than interpretations technology, but however diagnostic enough to tell how what actors mean as reflected by their opinions on drip
111
Chapter 9. Recommendations
9.1 Recommendation for further research Recommendation 1
It is interesting to know IDE is ceding its support activities in the farmer domain to Farm Business Advisors to effect project sustainability as well as encourage private sector participation in the provision of goods and services to farmers. Theoretically, I admit the concept may help ‘fill` the yawning space between demand and supply not only goods but in better services than now for farmers and also serve as an employment opportunities for lead farmers. As promising as the concept may look or sound, it needs more background organizational research by IDE to clearly establish, the technical, cultural and economic feasibilities or viabilities of the FBA programme and not only the wishes promises following of its successful implementation [although they differ in context] in IDE Cambodia.
Social feasibility. My few months of research with farmers in Zambia and through my interaction with field officers who have knowledge of farmer’s activities revealed that, although FBA’s try to provide services but out of lack of trust, some farmers prefer to go the distance to ask for information and also buy inputs from Agrochemical shops instead of dealing with FBA’s in their communities. I heard a field officer said “some people out of jealousy would not like to buy from FBAs and not only the lack of trust [...]. The challenge is that, they see themselves as farmers who started growing and selling vegetables and all of a sudden the FBA starts to stock MITs and agrochemicals, retrieving loans and handling money [...] these are the jealousy tendencies I am talking about. [...] So socially, these are the challenges I perceive with the FBA programme”. The field officer went on to say if the programme succeeds, it would greatly augment their work currently. This assertion may sound trivial but it shows symptoms of social incompatibility with the FBA concept in the limited sense now and may be in the broad sense in the near future.
Technical feasibility. How is the FBA going to stock MITs, how would it be distributed, and by what means. These were the duties of the field officers who have means to transport. It would be interesting to note how the FBA would take over such a role without a sound means of transport. One of the promises of IDE for the FBA programme is a Zambike and a trailer to facilitate the movement of the FBA in communities in discharging his or her duties in the distribution of agrochemicals and MITs. I find this resource mobilization of the FBA woefully technically inadequate to move the stretch of farmer communities [my candid opinion]. Could it be possible the farmer is resourced with a motorbike with a trailer? [and who would fund it I guess I would be asked]. The FBA concept goes a long way not only to serve benefits to IDE but to agrochemical shops, microfinance institutions and MIT supply firms. IDE can research how these stakeholders in the process can work out modalities jointly to resource the FBA to function effectively. How the FBA runs [fuel] and maintains the motorbike shows how much economic benefits of the FBA concept to the farmer. If the concept so much promises much, the FBA can successfully run and maintain the motor bikes.
Economic feasibility.
IDE needs to research on how much economic benefits would accrue to the FBA to accept the newly assigned role of an ‘entrepreneur’. It sounds promising for the FBA to have three sources of income but how does this translate into a feasible and a viable turnover say at the end of the month to motivate the FBA to maintain services? These and other feasibility components of the FBA concepts needs further research.
112
Recommendation 2
This recommendation is coming solely my fascination on how farmers practically unpacked the KB drip and re-pack them into different reconfigurations (or bricolage) that worked for them. The practice started from Mr. Mweemba who bought a new tank and connected Netafim drip lines to the KB drip [unfortunately he did not lay his drip lines during the study period]. Others replicated it in their settings and it worked out for them. According to Kay (2001), precision does not really matter to farmers in Africa where they can ‘temper’ with low cost drip systems and come out with a lower cost system that works for them by improvising using simple materials. Farmers I interacted with, especially in Kabweza are motivated to keep their drip kits functioning because of the plausible benefits they derive from drip by using available materials because of non-availability of spare parts.
The lesson I learnt from these farmers was that consciously, they retain beneficial components of the KB drip and replace the ‘unbeneficial’ parts – a process akin to natural selection. In my opinion, farmers have shown the way for a new revolution in designing an appropriate drip system, by building up on what they have done. A participatory research with farmers to design bricolage drip systems, is the firm recommendation of this study, seeing IDE also has a firm policy to develop ‘low-cost’ technologies. A research in designing bricolage drip systems would simply mean taking the interpretation of farmers on the KB drip into account, and asking them what they think the best solution to the situation would be using different appropriate materials.
My mental design of a bricolage design after farmer’s design is: (1) overhead tank: a combination of 2 or 3 locally available 200 litre tank into a 400 litre or 600 litre tank by linking them together using high density pvc pipes. (2) KB filter/other filters (3) KB main lateral (4) Metzerplast/Netafim laterals.
113
References Akrich, M., Callon, M., & Latour, B. (2002). The key to success in innovation * part I : the art of interessement. International Journal of Innovation Management, 6(2), 187-206. Imperial College Press.
Berdegué, J. A. (2005). Pro-Poor Innovation Systems. Rome, IFAD.
Batchelor, C. Lovell, C. & Murata, M. (1993). Micro irrigation techniques for improving irrigation efficiency on vegetable gardens in developing countries. In Proceedings of workshop on micro-irrigation, 2 September 1993. 15th Congress on irrigation and drainage, The Hague, ICID. pp. 31-39.
Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge: Anchor.
Bijker, Wiebe E. (1995). Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs : toward a theory of sociotechnical change. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press
Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., & Pinch, T. J. (1987). The Social Construction of Technological Systems. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.
Borsboom, V. (2012). You have to dig for the money in the soil. A discourse analysis of low-cost irrigation technologies in rural Zambia. Master Thesis, Rural Development Sociology Group, Wageningen University
Callon, M. (1991). Techno-economic networks and irreversibility. In J. Law (Ed.), A sociology of monsters. Essays on power, technology and domination (pp. 132-161): Routledge.
Chimamanda, N. A (2009). The danger of a single story. TED. Ideas Worth Spreading. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/chimamanda_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story.html (Accessed on 16
th July, 2012)
Cormack, D.S. (1991).The research process. Black Scientific: Oxford.
Cowan, R., & Jonard, N. (2004). Network structure and the diffusion of knowledge. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 28(8), 1557-1575.
Dalton, J. (1798). Extraordinary facts relating to the vision of colours: with observations. Memoirs of the Literary and Philosophical Society of Manchester, 5. 28–45
Douthwaite, M. B. (2002). Enabling innovation : a practical guide to understanding and fostering technological change / Boru Douthwaite. London ; New York : Zed Books.
Douthwaite, B., Kuby, T., van de Fliert, E., & Schulz, S. (2003). Impact pathway evaluation: an approach for achieving and attributing impact in complex systems. [Learning for the future: Innovative approaches to evaluating agricultural research]. Agricultural Systems, 78(2), 243-265.
Elgali, Z. & Kalman, Y.M. (2010) Using actor network theory to analyse the construction of the failure concept in a K-12 ICT integration program, Proceedings of the Chain Conference in Instructional Technologies Research 2010: Learning in the Technologies Era, The Open University of Israel, Ra’anana, Israel.
114
Few, S., & Edge, P.(2007). Three Blind Men and an Elephant: The Power of Faceted Analysical Displays. Retrieved from http://www.perceptualedge.com/articles/Whitepapers/Three_Blind_Men.pdf (Accessed on 7
th
July, 2012).
Fishelson, G., & Rymon, D. (1989). Adoption of agricultural innovations: The case of drip irrigation of cotton in Israel. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 35(4), 375-382. doi: 10.1016/0040-1625(89)90073-5
Geels, F. W. (2002). Understanding the dynamics of technological transitions: a co-evolutionary and socio-technical analysis.(Proefschrift Universiteit Twente), Twente University Press, Enschede.
Geels, F. W. (2004). From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. Research Policy, 33(6- 7), 987-920. Doi:10.1016/j.respol.2004.01.015
Hughes, T. P. (1987). The evolution of large technological systems. In W.E Bijker, P. Hughes & T. Pinch (Eds.), The Social Construction of Technological Systems MIT Press: Cambridge, 51-82.
IDE. (no date). Affordable small-scale irrigation technologies
IDE. (2001). Bridging the gap. International Development Enterprises India.
IDE. (2007). Toolkit for Developing and Implementing Poverty Reduction through Irrigation and Smallholder Markets (PRISM) Programmes. Retrieved from http://www.ideorg.org/OurStory/Publications.aspx
Jansen, K., & Vellema, S. (2011). What is technography? [Technography and Interdisciplinarity: Performance, Practices and Experiments]. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 57(3–4), 169-177.
Kay, M & Brabben, T. (2000). Treadle pumps for irrigation in Africa. Knowledge Synthesis Report 1. International Programme for Technology and Research in Irrigation and Drainage, Rome
Keller, J & Blisner, R.D (1990). Sprinkle and Trickle Irrigation. New York, N.Y: Chapman and Hall
Kooij, S, van der (2009). Why Yunquera Will Get Drip Irrigation: Social Groups, Identify and Construction of Meanings as an Approach to Understand Technological Modernization. Irrigation and Water Engineering Group, Wageningen, Wageningen University and Research Centre, Netherlands.
Latour, B. (1996). Aramis, or, The love of technology: Harvard University Press.
Law, J. and Callon, M. (1992). The life and death of an aircraft: a network analyzis of technical change. In Bijker, W.E. and Law, J. (eds), Shaping Technology – Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Law, J. (1987). Technology and Heterogeneous Engineering: The Case of Portuguese Expansion. In W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, & T. J. Pinch (Eds.), The Social Construction of Technological Systems New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology (pp. 111-134). MIT Press
115
Magwenzi, K. (2011). An Analysis of Adoption of Low Cost Drip Irrigation Kits in Zambia. A case study of IDE's Irrigation Technology Dissemination in Kafue and Kabwe areas. Master Thesis. Masters Thesis, Irrigation and Water Engineering group, Wageningen University
Manaktala, S. (2005). IDE (India)'s market creation approach to development. Small Enterprise Development, 16(2), 36-43.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1999). Designing qualitative research. Sage Publications
Miller, E. & Tillson, T.J. (1989). Small scale irrigation in Sri Lanka: Field trials of a low head trickle system. In Irrigation theory and practice, proceedings of the international conference, University of Southampton, 12-15 September, pp. 616-629.
Mokyr, J. (1986). The lever of riches: Technological Creativity and Economic Progress. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Mollinga, P.P. (1998). On the waterfront. Water distribution, technology and agrarian change in a South Indian canal irrigation system. PhD Thesis, Wageningen Agricultural University. Orient Longman, Hyderabad, India.
Morone, P., & Taylor, R. (2010). Knowledge Diffusion and Innovation: Modelling Complex Entrepreneurial Behaviours: Edward Elgar.
Mupfiga, E. T. (2010). The Farmer and the Drip Planner Chat. A user based evaluation of the
Application of Smallholder Drip Irrigation Scheduling Tools. Masters Thesis, Irrigation and Water
Engineering group, Wageningen University
Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. (1984). The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts: Or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other. Social Studies of Science, 14(3), 399-441.
Pinch, T., & Bijker, W. E. (1987). The social construction of facts and artifacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. In W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes & T. J. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems (pp. 17-50). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Polak, P., Nanes, B., & Adhikari, D. (1997). A low cost drip irrigation system for small farmers in developing countries. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 33(1), 119-124. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.1997.tb04088.x
Polak, P. (2009). Out of Poverty: What Works When Traditional Approaches Fail: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Postel, S. (1999) Pillar of Sand: Can the Irrigation Miracle Last? W.W. Norton and Co., New York.
Postel, S., Iwra, M., Water, G., Project, P., & Keller, J. (2001). Drip Irrigation for Small Farmers A New Initiative to Alleviate Hunger and Poverty. Water, 26(1), 3-13. Routledge. doi:10.1080/02508060108686882
Postel, S., Polak, P., Gonzales, F., & Keller, J. (2001). Drip Irrigation for Small Farmers. Water International, 26(1), 3-13. doi: 10.1080/02508060108686882
Reij, C., & Waters-Bayer, A. (2001). Farmer Innovation in Africa: A Source of Inspiration for Agricultural Development: Earthscan Publications Limited.
Röling, N. (1996). Towards an interactive agricultural science. European Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 2(4), 35-48. doi: 10.1080/13892249685300061
116
Savva, A. P & Frenken , K. (2002). Irrigation Manual. Planning, Development Monitoring and Evaluation of Agriculture with Farmer Participation Volume IV. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Sub-Regional Office for East and Southern Africa (SAFR) Harare.
Sahay, S., & Robey, D. (1996). Organizational context, social interpretation, and the implementation and consequences of geographic information systems. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 6(4), 255-282. doi: 10.1016/s0959 8022(96)90016-8
Speilman, D.J. (2005). Innovation systems perspectives on developing-country agriculture: A critical review. ISNAR Discussion Paper 2. Washington DC: IFPRI
Teri. (2007). Socio-economic-techno-environmental assessment of IDEI products. Low cost KB drip
Veldwisch, G. J. (2006). Local governance issues after irrigation management transfer: A case study from limpopo province, south africa. In S. Perret, S. Farolfi & R. Hassan (Eds.), Water Governance for Sustainable Development: Approaches and Lessons from Developing and Transitional CountriesLondon: Earthscan.
Veldwisch, G. J., Bolding, A., & Wester, P. (2009). Sand in the Engine: The Travails of an Irrigated Rice Scheme in Bwanje Valley, Malawi. Journal of Development Studies, 45(2), 197-226. doi: 10.1080/00220380802265587
Veldwisch, G.J., (2008). Cotton, Rice & Water. The Transformation of Agrarian Relations, Irrigation Technology and Water Distribution in Khorezm, Uzbekistan. ZEF Bonn/Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität, 220pp.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Organizational Redesign As Improvisation. In G. P. Huber & W. H. Glick (Eds.), Organizational Change and Redesign: Ideas and Insights for Improved Performance. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.
Wielinga, B., & Schreiber, G. (1997). Configuration-design problem solving. IEEE Expert, 12(2), 49-56. doi: 10.1109/64.585104
World Bank. (2006). Enhancing agricultural innovation: How to go beyond the strengthening of research systems. Washington, DC: The World Bank
Woodhill, A. J., Heemskerk, W., Emana, B., Elias, E., & Ludemann, R. J. (2011). Market Linked Innovation Systems: Opportunities for Strengthening Agricultural Development in Ethiopia (pp. 66). Wageningen: Wageningen UR Centre for Development Innovation.
Internet sources
IDE. (2012). iDE. Cultivating potentials. Retrieved from http://www.ideorg.org . (Accessed on 12
th June, 2012)
Rural Prosperity Initiative Project (2009). Retrieved from http://rpi.ideorg.org/ . (Accessed on 14
th June, 2012)
Winrock International (2012). Putting Ideas to work. Using Market-based Approach to Guide Smallholder Farmers to Sustainable Income. Retrieved from http://www.winrock.org/fact/facts.asp?CC=5467&bu (Accessed on 6
th July,
2012)
117
World Bank. (2012). Development Marketplace. Turning Ideas into Action. Retrieved from http://wbi.worldbank.org/developmentmarketplace/idea/marketing-low-cost-irrigation-technology-zambia (Accessed on 17th June, 2012)
118
Appendix 1. Study respondents
Farmer domain respondents
Respondent
Code
Name of respondent
Community Position Gender Drip group
A1 Markaloni George
Kabweza Farmer M Still using drip
A2 Violet Mmulimba
Kabweza Farmer F Still using drip
A3 Royd Kalenga Kabweza Farmer M Still using drip
A4 Douglas Chuma
Kabweza Farmer M Still using drip
A5 Levi Mwemba Kabweza Farmer M Still using drip
A6 Fabian Mwakomesha
Kabweza Farmer M Still using drip
A7 Eliot Mtempa Kabweza Farmer M Still using drip
A8 Chikumba Kabweza Farmer M Still using drip
A9 George Mwemba
Kabweza Farmer M Still using drip
A10 Churu Geoffrey
Chikupi Farmer M Still using drip
A11 Timothy Hamueni
Mungu Farmer/FBA M Still using drip
A12 Ngandu Esau Mungu Farmer M Abandoned drip
A13 Allen Hatimbula
Mungu Farmer M Abandoned drip
A14 Mutinta Mungu Farmer M Abandoned drip
A15 Patricia Mibenge
Dakana Farmer F Abandoned drip
A16 Madunka Dakana Farmer F Abandoned drip
A17 Mendez Naison
Muumbwa Farmer M Still using
A18 Joseph Mazimbi
Dakana Farmer M Abandoned drip
A19 James Chisupa Dakana Farmer M Abandoned drip
119
A20 Loveness Mulinga
Dakana Farmer F Abandoned drip
A21 Mutakwa Chilongolo Farmer F Abandoned drip
A22 Chingo Chilongolo Farmer F Abandoned drip
A23 Mwiinga Derick
Shimabala Farmer M Still using drip
A24 Anita Mwemba
Kabweza Farmer/Farm Business Advisor
F Still using drip
A25 Justin Mukuni Muumbwa Farmer M Still using drip
A26 Anderson Mubere
Mpima Farmer m Never used
Manufacturing domain respondents
A26 Julia Phiri Dakana Executive director
F
A27 Bernard Sikatunga
Kabwe IDE field Officer
M
A28 Misheck Kalwani
Kabwe Cropserve Zambia Limited
M
A29 Kenneth Chelemu
Lusaka IDE Technical Director
M
A30 Daniel Kanyembe
Lusaka IDE Innovation and quality /M & E manager
M
A31 Charles Coombe
Lusaka IDE Technical Officer
M
A32 Festus Hanankuni
Lusaka IDE Technical Officer
M
A33 Douglas Daura Lusaka IDE Market Linkage coordinator
M
A34 Lottie Senkwe Lusaka Value Chain Manager
M
120
A35 Jairos Simukoko
Kafue IDE Field Officer
M
A36 Mutinta Lusaka IDE field officer
F
A37 Amiran Lusaka Amiran Limited irrigation equipments retail
M
A38 Cropserve Lusaka Cropserve irrigation equipments retail
M
A39 Chokoadi Enterprise works
Kafue Manufacturer of treadle pumps
M
A40 Madinawala Lusaka Manufacturer of treadle pumps
M
A41 Peter Elkind Shimabala Former IDE Country Director/Technical Director
M
A41 Alice Banda Kabwe Cetzarm loans Officer
M
A42 Kabwe Managing Director Micro Bankers Trust (MBT)
A43 Green 2000 Lusaka Irrigation retail company
121
Appendix 2. Treadle Pump manufacturing manual [protocol]. Stream 1.
IMPORTANT STEP KEY POINTS
Check that all components and materials are available.
Check quality and quantity. Use pump bill of materials as check list.
Cut blanks for inlet box top and bottom plates.
Measure twice and cut once. Edges must be straight and deburred. Check diagonals for square. Check dimensions.
Fold inlet box blanks. Ensure that blank is square in folding machine. Clamp securely. Check dimensions.
Mark out inlet box hole centres from template using centre punch.
Support the blank with wooden block. Clamp template to work. Check that template is square on the work. Check centre punch fit through template.
Drill inlet box pilot holes. Use correct drill bit. Use coolant while drilling.
Drill inlet box final hole size. Use correct drill bit. Use coolant while drilling.
Fit valve retention button. Screw through centre hole and weld on back. Fit inlet box halves together. Ease folded sides as necessary.
Check dimensions and for square. Tack weld.
Weld inlet box seams. Clean slag from tack welds. Mark out and drill inlet pipe hole. Use correct size hole saw.
Use coolant while drilling. Use VERY SLOW feed speed.
Mark out location of cylinders. Check alignment along and across inlet box. Fit cylinders to jig. Check cylinder dimensions and quality.
Check alignment and firmness of fit in jig. Place cylinders on inlet box. Check against marks.
Recheck alignment along and across inlet box. Tack weld cylinders to inlet box. Check easy movement of jig. Finish welding cylinders to inlet box.
Clean slag from tack welds. Recheck easy movement of jig. Keep weld bead to a minimum.
Drill outlet holes in cylinder walls Check alignment in jig. Use correct size hole saw. Use coolant while drilling. Use VERY SLOW feed speed.
Fit pressure box. Check fit of pipes against cylinders. Check alignment of pressure box vertically and horizontally. Tack weld to cylinders.
Weld pressure box to cylinders. Clean slag from tack welds. Fit inlet pipe to inlet box. Check angle of cut end of pipe.
Check that the pipe is square to the inlet box. Use inlet pipe foot to assist in set up. Tack weld pipe to inlet box and foot to pipe.
Weld inlet pipe to inlet box and foot.
Clean slag from tack welds. Check alignment and for square of pipe to inlet box and foot to inlet box.
122
Stream 2.
IMPORTANT STEP. KEY POINTS.
Check that all components and
materials are available.
Check quality and quantity.
Use pump bill of materials as check list.
Cut parts for handle support bracket. Check angle cut at bottom of angle iron.
Drill hole for handle locking bolt.
Weld bracket parts together. Ensure pipe is aligned true with angle.
Check that hole for locking bolt is perpendicular to angle.
Cut blanks for pressure box top and
bottom plates.
Measure twice and cut once.
Edges must be straight and deburred.
Check diagonals for square.
Check dimensions.
Fold pressure box blanks. Ensure that blank is square in folding machine.
Clamp securely.
Check dimensions.
Mark out pressure box hole centres
from template using centre punch.
Support the blank with wooden block.
Clamp template to work.
Check that template is square on the work.
Check centre punch fit through template.
Drill pressure box pilot holes. Use correct drill bit.
Use coolant while drilling.
Drill pressure box final hole size. Use correct drill bit.
Use coolant while drilling.
Fit valve retention button. Screw through centre hole and weld on back.
Fit pressure box halves together. Ease folded sides as necessary.
Check dimensions and for square.
Tack weld.
Weld pressure box seams. Clean slag from tack welds.
Mark out hole centres for outlet pipe
and inspection ports.
Clamp template to work.
Check that template is square to work.
Check centre punch fit through template.
Drill outlet pipe and inspection port
holes in pressure box.
Check alignment in jig.
Use correct size hole saw.
Use coolant while drilling.
Use VERY SLOW feed speed.
Mark out location of bridging pipes. Check alignment along and across pressure box.
Fit bridging pipes to jig. Check bridging pipe dimensions, radius at cylinder end and
quality.
Check alignment and firmness of fit in jig.
Place bridging pipes on pressure box. Check against marks.
Recheck alignment along and across pressure box.
Tack weld bridging pipes to inlet
box.
Check easy movement of jig.
Finish welding bridging pipes to inlet
box.
Clean slag from tack welds.
Recheck easy movement of jig.
Keep weld bead to a minimum.
Fit flanges and outlet pipe to
pressure box.
Check that pipe is square to the pressure box.
Tack weld.
Finish welding outlet pipe and
flanges to pressure box.
Clean slag from tack welds.
123
Assemble inlet pipe foot. Debur all edges.
Ease round bar to fit neatly inside ends of angle.
Tack weld.
Finish welding inlet pipe foot. Clean slag from tack welds.
Stream 3.
IMPORTANT STEP. KEY POINTS.
Check that all components and materials are available.
Check quality and quantity. Use pump bill of materials as check list.
Cut beams, step and side plates for treadles.
Measure twice and cut once. Edges must be straight and deburred. Check dimensions. Check angles.
Tack weld beams and step. Check for right angles. Check dimensions.
Finish welding beams and step. Clean slag from tack welds. Tack weld side plates to treadle. Grind side welds flush.
Check for right angles. Finish welding side plates to treadle. Clean slag from tack welds.
Debur end of rear beam. Cut pivot support beam. Check lower angle for fit to inlet pipe. Tack weld pivot tubes to treadles and support beam.
Use alignment jig and spacing washers. Ensure tubes are central on each member.
Finish welding pivot tubes to treadles and support beam.
Clean slag from tack welds.
Tack weld support plates to pivot tubes. Cut and debur plates. Finish welding support plates to pivot tubes.
Clean slag from tack welds.
Tack weld push rod tabs to treadles. Check distance from pivot tube. Check alignment along and across treadle. Use alignment rod and spacing washers.
Finish welding push rod tabs to treadles. Clean slag from tack welds. Weld on outside of tabs only.
Cut foot plates. Radius corners. Debur.
Tack weld foot plates to treadles. Check alignment along and across treadles. Check spacing to ensure clearance from inlet pipe.
Finish welding foot plates to treadles. Clean slag from tack welds. Cut push rods. Check dimensions.
Radius top end. Drill bolt hole.
Tack weld retaining bolt to push rod. Check alignment along and across the push rod. Finish welding retaining bolt to push rod. Clean slag from tack welds. Cut rubber cup support washers. Debur.
Check dimensions. Assemble push rod to cups. Check sequence of components.
Check dimension from bolt hole to centre of rubber cups.
Assemble push rods to treadles. Check dimensions. Assemble treadles to support beam. Use spacer washers.
Use PVC bush.
124
Ensure ends are pinned securely. Assemble treadles and support beam to pump.
Use spacer for height above cylinders. Check dimension from pivot to cylinder centre. Check fit of support beam to inlet pipe. Check fit of support beam to handle support bracket.
Tack weld support beam to inlet pipe and handle support bracket.
Check alignment along and across pump.
Finish welding support beam. Clean slag from tack welds. Weld handle tee and upright and pulley pivot.
Check height of pulley pivot.
Check operation of finished pump. Ease of movement. General appearance.
Source: IDE Zambia