Preamble
Article written by Eng. Jane A. Simiyu, Irrigation and Drainage department Ministry of Water and Irrigation

The Government of Kenya has recognized the role of irrigation development as a key drought mitigation measure as stipulated in the Vision 2030. Tremendous strides have been made by the government, the private sector and the donor community in the area of irrigation development since the 70s. It is estimated that about 120 000 ha are currently under irrigation of which 47% (54,800ha) fall under Smallholder community-based irrigation schemes. The other percentages are 41 %( 49,000ha) and 13 %( 16,000) under privately run irrigation schemes and National irrigation schemes respectively. (Ministry of Water and Irrigation - Department of Irrigation and Drainage – 2010)

Smallholder Irrigation has been promoted as a means of ensuring food security, increased productivity, improved incomes and nutrition and employment creation. As from 2003/04, Government budgetary allocation for the smallholder irrigation subsector has been on a steady increase. The same incremental trend applies for the development partner contributions.

The subsector has a major role to play in vision 2030 in ensuring a substantial increase in productivity and production for enhanced food security. Inspite of the steady increase in budgetary allocations, there still exists a major gap in financial resources requirements for smallholder irrigation expansion needed to make a contribution in meeting the envisaged targets in the vision 2030 of expanding at a rate of 32,000ha annually.

Often questions are raised about the viability of smallholder irrigation schemes such as; Are smallholder irrigation schemes financially viable? Are the schemes sustainable? Is it worthwhile developing more schemes? Are these projects not inducing a financial burden on the government as far as operation and maintenance is concerned? Are smallholder irrigation projects the best way of investing the limited financial resources at the government’s disposal? Are the farmers able to manage these projects?

This article attempts to answer most of these questions. The term ‘Smallholder irrigation’ requires some clarification as it means different things to different people. In the recent past, this term has created a lot of ambiguity within the irrigation subsector and the debate that seems to arise is whether it is worth investing further in smallholder irrigation development. Many think smallholder irrigation in terms of size, others in terms of irrigating a kitchen garden, others in terms of bucket irrigation, others in terms of small with no major impact to the communities where it is practiced, while others in terms of lack of need for investments in the construction of irrigation infrastructure and so on.

Defination of smallholder irrigation
Smallholder or community–based irrigation schemes are demand-driven farmer-managed irrigation schemes. A bottom-up or ‘grass-roots approach is used for development. Here, farmers are involved in the planning decisions, contribute at least a part of the capital costs, and accept full responsibility for operation and maintenance. The Government facilitates development and may at times provide incentives; however, the farmers drive the process through participation in the planning, financing, implementing, operating and maintaining the irrigation system. . These farmers irrigate together and share the same water source that originates from an intake, mainly a weir. The water may be conveyed through piping or open channels with a designed distribution system that ensures equitable sharing of water to all the irrigators. There is individual control of irrigation and farming activities by each farmer in his/her plot. The individual plot sizes normally range between 0.2 and 2 ha (FAO 2000). However, the total acreage may vary from 10ha to as large as 400ha. Such irrigation schemes are considered as formal in the smallholder farming sector. At each irrigation scheme, farmers Irrigation Management Committees (IMCs) have been established with the help of the government agency in place.

Individual irrigation farmers who practice irrigation using different types of pumps that operate either sprinklers or  drip systems are a subset of smallholder irrigation. Such farmers exist throughout the country and are the main producers of horticultural products in the market today. Access to credit for such potential farmers will continue to be important, particularly to ensure that irrigation equipment and inputs are sufficiently affordable and accessible to farmers.

The main objectives of the IMCs are to enhance farmer’s participation in management and decision making at the scheme level, introduce a system of discipline among the farmers and to control infield water distribution. The IMC function in such a way as to prepare farmers for a complete take-over of the management functions after withdrawal of government support. Government’s objective, since 1980s has been to promote farmer-managed schemes where possible.

Main characteristics of smallholder irrigation schemes
Farmers participate in or preferably drive all the project phases from planning to implementation and evaluation in order to create a sense of ownership of, and consequent commitment to, the scheme. A bottom up approach is followed for irrigation development, treating farmers as “owners” rather than “beneficiaries” of the projects, Participatory Rural Appraisal methods are applied. They are farmer managed irrigation schemes, as they result in very little financial burden on the government for operation and maintenance. Success and sustainability demand careful holistic design. Sustainability here referring to the long-term ability of the beneficiaries to operate and maintain their schemes profitability with little or no external intervention other than the normal extension services. Capacity building in water management, general crop production and marketing are important. It might be important to help farmers with inputs for the first season so that they can build a cash flow base Institutional support should be enhanced in smallholder irrigation development. Continuous monitoring of irrigation schemes is necessary to provide feedback information that helps in the planning, implementation and management of future schemes. An integrated rural development approach should be followed to maximize benefits from the intervention meaning that rural physical infrastructure and markets should be developed alongside irrigation development. Developing the skills and broadening the experience of the farmers is key. Smallholder Irrigation development has shown throughout the developing world that it can be used as a key drought mitigation measure and as a vehicle for the long-term agricultural and macro-economic development of a country. However socio-economic evaluations of smallholder irrigation schemes are needed at regular intervals in order to be able to derive lessons from past experiences and also help policy makers in formulating sound policies for future development.

Factors which determine the performance of Smallholder Irrigation schemes include planning, group cohesion, institutional support, strength of the Irrigation Management Committee, choice of crops, and appropriateness of the technical design and the commitment of the farmers.

A success story from a smallholder irrigation scheme
Every year during the dry season, Esther would sit at home without much to do and unable to plant because, like most rural Kenyans, she needed rain to grow food for her family. Her family’s food availability for the entire year depended on one harvest grown during the rainy season on a small plot, which made them unable to grow enough food to last the entire year. Successive years of drought and other production shocks in Kenya have reduced crop productivity and undermined livelihoods, leaving smallholder farmers like Esther and her family increasingly food insecure and vulnerable and making recovery more difficult.

To feed her family after their own food production ran out, Esther would do casual labor, working in the fields of other farmers to earn 2 kg of maize meal per day. However, doing this left her with little time to do her household chores and tend to her fields. In years of severe drought, Esther and her family were dependent on food aid distributions when their food stocks ran out.

In 2006, Esther’s life changed with the arrival of Government-funded Smallholder Irrigation Scheme in her village. Esther can now irrigate crops during the dry season, allowing her to harvest up to three times a year. In 2007and 2008, Esther grew a variety of crops under irrigation, including tomatoes, onions, cabbage and maize. After feeding her family, Esther sold the surplus vegetables and maize in the market, making in three months what she had never made in her life. Esther purchased a bicycle,guinea fowls, goats, and chickens—none of which she had prior to the smallholder irrigation project and which allow her to earn additional income through the sale of eggs and meat. Esther is also proud to have a leadership role in the project as secretary of the Irrigation System Water Users Committee (WUC). Through the WUC, community members participate in all aspects of operating the irrigation system, including planning, construction, and maintenance.

Esther describes the changes in her family’s life, “Now, casual labor is history!” Before, I was in dire poverty and stayed at home during the dry season. Now, we have food all-year round and do not depend on food aid. I can pay my children’s school fees and will be able to send them to secondary school, and perhaps even university.” When asked about the future, Esther is convinced that she will be at a better stage of her life in three years. She plans to start a small business to buy and sell beans and, in a few years, will go toTanzania to buy new and used clothes for sale in her community. The future is indeed bright for Esther and her family.

Smallholder Irrigation Development has had a significant impact on the lives of many smallholder farmers. A measure of the program’s success has been the interest expressed by other communities in establishing smallholder irrigation schemes.

The transfer of government-run (public) irrigation schemes to farmers’ associations, often referred to as irrigation management transfer (IMT), has been widely promoted in developing countries as a means to decentralize functions of the state, to reduce public expenditure, and to instill a sense of local ownership and responsibility in farmers. Kenya’s new proposed irrigation policy thus constitutes a significant departure from the past emphasis on costly government-supported irrigation schemes administered in a top-down fashion. Public schemes were largely built and designed to be managed by government or an agency of government and often had a resettlement objective. The design was not created with commercial viability in mind and the government of the day were willing to subsidize capital costs, management and some of the running costs. Times have changed and farmer management is being encouraged to enhance sustainability.

Examples of smallholder successes in Kenya

Emening Smallholder Farmers Group
This was started when one individual farmer bought a motorized pump in 1988 and started growing vegetables with water from Emening River. Soon, a few more farmers also bought pumps and the number of irrigators grew quickly. By 2004, there were 47 farmers actively engaged in irrigation. The farmers then formed and registered a self-help group, which has a well-organized management structure, to ensure coordinated water sharing, and provision of credit to new and upcoming farmers. They grow local horticultural crops, with special emphasis on watermelons, as the crop is not eaten by goats (an important livestock resource). Capacity building was provided by government extension system, and has been instrumental in assisting farmers formalize their governance structures and introduction of other crops to complement watermelons.

Lari-Wendani Irrigation Scheme
This was started in 1986 as a group scheme, through technical assistance by the Ministry of Agriculture, irrigation and drainage department, which developed the physical infrastructure. The original farmers numbered 94 and, although the population has grown, irrigation scheduling in blocks has remained unchanged. It covers 80 ha and water is drawn from a small perennial stream. The farmers grow mainly fresh vegetables such as tomatoes, onions and kale during the dry season for sale in towns. The main innovation was management of the scarce water by the farmers themselves, through their water users association. The farmers have designed their own water-sharing plans, which are strictly timed and adhered to, ensuring equitable water distribution. Food security and poverty reduction were reported to be the greatest achievements at Lari-Wendani. Capacity development is through the combined efforts of the Ministry of

Agriculture and the Ministry of Water and Irrigation. This was particularly necessary at the beginning, since the farmers had no prior experience with irrigation and horticulture.

Mukuria-Kyambogo Irrigation Scheme
This is an example of how partnerships between large commercial farms and smallholder out-growers can succeed in enabling smallholder irrigators to fulfil the EUREP-GAP protocols and access European Unionfresh-produce markets. The scheme was started in 1994 by a group of 15 farmers. There was cost sharing as farmers built the water intake using their own contributions and labour, while a loan of US $11 000, obtained through an NGO (SISDO), was used to buy materials such as pipes, sprinklers and gate valves, for the piped, gravity-fedsprinkler scheme. Each farmer paid back the loan at US $16 per month, and within 48 months the loan was paid up.

The group started by growing local vegetables like carrots, cabbage and potatoes, but there were problems with marketing. In 2000, farmers switched to growing fresh produce for export such as snow peas, sugar snaps andgarden peas, supported by elaborate partnerships with large commercial exporters, such as Homegrown. Thepartnerships are made legally binding through signed agreements, while support capacity development services were provided by the commercial firm. Farmers estimated earnings to average about US $1200 per month from acrop of sugar snaps. The capacity-building support and supervision given by the large commercial exporters was instrumental in helping the smallholder farmers learn to grow exotic crops and to acquire EUREP-GAP certification.

New Mutaro Irrigation Scheme
The New Mutaro Irrigation scheme is unique, being one of the few schemes, which have dedicated land for irrigated fodder, which is rare in Kenya. This is because in Kenya most irrigation schemes have by-laws which forbade the irrigation of fodder. Thus, livestock keeping tends to be a lesser by-product rather than a major enterprise. The New Mutaro was constructed in 1983 as a canal-based, gravity-fed scheme with funding from the Kenya Government and European Economic Community. The original members numbered 180 but by 2004 the numbers had grown to about 2000. The scheme covers 120 ha but each farmer is allowed to irrigate 0.8 ha only, due to water shortage. Other than fodder, grown by over 100 farmers, farmers also grow local and export vegetables.Dairying was considered by farmers to be a more reliable enterprise compared with vegetables, whose market instability frustrated them. Capacity development had been enhanced through a cooperative society that the farmers ran, and which was especially instrumental in supporting the dairy activities. The cultivation, packaging and marketing of export vegetables were supported by partnerships with commercial exporters, while dairying is managed through the farmers’ cooperative.

Mitunguu Irrigation Scheme
This was initiated in 1985 through a grant from the Government of Kenya and GTZ. The funds were used for surveys, construction of new intake, pipe layouts and construction of cooperative society buildings. The original design was 400 ha for 309 farmers, but by 2004 there were over 600 irrigating farmers. The scheme operates as a gravity-fed piped sprinkler system and has seen many changes in crops grown, starting with local vegetables, dairy,Asian and export vegetables, but due to frustrations with marketing and middlemen farmers shifted to growingirrigated bananas. This has reduced the influence of middlemen, giving farmers some leverage and bargaining space(time-wise) resulting in relative price stability and a marketing system controlled by the farmers themselves. The banana crop usually earned farmers between US $500 and $1125 per month. Capacity development had been instrumental in the introduction of high-yielding banana varieties and agronomy. This had involved farmer trialswith researchers from the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, NGOs and government extension staff. Theinteraction with researchers had a great impact as farmers in the scheme were always experimenting with different methods of water application, different varieties and general field management.

Ng’uuruGakirwe Water Project
This was started in 1985 with a group of 15 smallholder farmers, who initiated plans to abstract water from the nearby River Kithinu for domestic use, but later used it for irrigation. By 1987, the farmers, now numbering 107,approached the Catholic Diocese of Meru for technical and financial assistance to implement the project for irrigation. The project was implemented in three phases through grants from donors and the government to the tuneof US $750 000. It serves 430 farming households with piped sprinkler irrigation, creating direct employment forover 3000 people. Each farmer is allowed to irrigate a maximum of 0.4 ha. The most interesting aspect of this scheme is that it produces high-value organic herbs (chamomile, carcade and lemon grass), which are processed and packaged at the factory run by farmers, and the produce is exported to niche markets in Europe and Japan. Foodcrops are also irrigated for home consumption. Capacity development of the scheme benefited from government

extension staff, who handled water management, while NGOs and the private sector taught farmers how to grow and process the herbs, which was a completely new enterprise to them. Farmers are continually learning, and thedemand to be certified as organic farmers was more than the factory could handle.

For smallholder irrigation development to make a bigger impact in this country, experience shows that several broad issues must be addressed.

Technology plays a central role in irrigation development. It can reduce the drudgery of lifting and distributing water and in the process make more effective use of limited water resources. Selecting the most appropriate technology is an essential pre-requisite for success. Assistance given to farmers should be of a self-sustaining nature, which does not require continuous support from an external agency over an extended period. Any system set up to respond to farmer demand is more likely to succeed than one which is imposed, however well meaning this might be. National and local NGOs are more likely to reflect local needs for irrigation than government and so there is a need to link more strongly the activities of NGOs with the development programmes of government and aid donors for the benefit of all. It will be important to ensure private sector involvement in the manufacture, promotion, supply and support of irrigation technologies. Access to credit will continue to be important, to ensure that irrigation equipment and inputs are sufficiently affordable and accessible to farmers.

Of particular importance is the need to strengthen and sustain the education and training of professionals, technicians and ultimately farming communities. Only by developing the skills and broadening the experience of the farmers, and the institutions created to support them, can the benefits offered by technological innovation be taken advantage of.

Water User Associations play a pivotal role in smallholder irrigation schemes management. These are the organizations through which farmers manage their irrigation system and the institution to which water rights, infrastructure use rights and obligations are transferred. It is the responsibility of the WUA to further manage and develop these assets in order to maximize the irrigation benefits for its members. Similar to water rights legislation, legislation for WUA should contain a number of minimum elements in order to be successful. Water users associations, are self-governing entities, and mobilize membership fees or labor contribution to fulfill their collective needs.

One of the objectives of WUA is to operate and maintain the transferred irrigation system efficiently and economically, and with the full and active participation of all the members. It includes the criteria for assessing water charges and operation and maintenance charges from members. WUAs will be authorized to enforce discipline in water use among the users, and resolve any dispute in sharing of water by individual farmers.

The main responsibilities of the WUA include: Collecting water charges from water users (for organizing operation, maintenance and Repairs;  Registering as one water use and being granted one license (water use right); In addition it can be responsible for approving the cropping pattern and area to be irrigated for each crop within the area of operation of the WUA; It has also a power to inspect the irrigation systems under its operation, to establish a water distribution process to ensure equity and prevention of wastage and to deal with allocation of water during shortage and crisis.

Specific policies that lead to improved farming practices include promotion of high-value crops, expansion of systems for extension and technical support, investment in smallholder technologies and clarification of land tenure arrangements. These need to be fully addressed by policy makers in order for IMT to be successful (Shah et al., 2000).

Strengthening smallholder access to markets through collaboration with agri-business may provide a window of opportunity for smallholder irrigators. To help foster healthy collaboration between agribusiness and smallholders that benefit both sectors, the government needs to explore ways to make contract farming sustainable.


With the assistance of the donor community in the sector, the government has made substantial progress with the formulation of an Irrigation Policy and Strategy resulting from a broad stakeholder dialogue in which the objectives and development paths were formulated and agreed. The policy will soon be ratified by the Cabinet and will subsequently form a part of the Government’s National Agricultural Policy. The formulation and anticipated ratification of this policy represents an important milestone in the development of the irrigated agricultural sector in Kenya. It is noted that capacity building and training are important components of the Strategy.

The following are major findings by professionals in the smallholder irrigation subsector (irrigation and drainage department) that are worth noting; Projects that are planned with full farmer participation perform better than those that are planned by experts on their own do. Projects that are viewed by farmers as being their projects perform better than projects that are viewed by them as belonging to the government. Investments in operation and maintenance are determined by the feeling of the farmers on the ownership of the scheme. Those schemes for which farmers have a sense of ownership are better looked after than those for which farmers think assets belong to the government.Farmer managed schemes tend to embark on high value crops and have developed a commercial mentality

In conclusion, Smallholder Irrigation Development is the ‘RIGHT IRRIGATION’ for this country.  Smallholder irrigation schemes are financially viable and sustainable. These schemes do not induce a financial burden on the government as far as operation and maintenance is concerned since farmers with enhanced skills and knowledge are able to manage these schemes. In this respect, it is worthwhile developing more smallholder irrigation schemes as they are the best way of investing the limited financial resources at the government’s disposal.