Institutional innovations for improved water security in smallholder irrigation schemes in KwaZulu-Natal and Eastern Cape Provinces, South Africa

Smallholder irrigation schemes are regarded as a key strategy to eliminate poverty and increase food security in rural areas in South Africa. While the South African government has invested heavily in rural development schemes, most irrigation schemes face a myriad of challenges, including deficient infrastructure, weak institutional arrangements and water insecurity. Weak institutions have been identified as a major bottleneck in the performance of smallholder irrigation schemes in developing countries, including South Africa. Two main reasons have been identified for this challenge. Firstly, the agency of the irrigators was ignored during the design of the schemes. Treating farmers as passive rather than active agents resulted in institutional arrangements that were not context-specific, as well as weak farmer commitment to the ownership and management of the schemes, leading to system breakdown. Despite being noble in intention or design, institutions designed by outsiders often fail due to a lack of legitimacy. Secondly, institutions have failed to evolve to cope with dynamic challenges and opportunities in the sector. Stability over a reasonable period is required for institutions to effectively perform their crucial role of establishing reasonable expectations in dealings among people. Institutional innovations are required to keep up with the changing nature of development. In particular, farmer-led institutional innovations have been touted as key to improving the management of water resources in irrigation schemes. Farmer-led institutional innovation refers to a process, in which farmers themselves initiate, establish, and improve institutions based on their context-specific challenges or opportunities. Farmers’ groups are regarded as an important institutional arrangement to reduce transaction costs, improve social networks, and increase livelihood outcomes. However, little is known about the internal dynamics of these farmer groups, how they operate, and whether or not they are inclusive and innovative, as well as what makes certain groups more successful than others. Furthermore, there is a paucity of research on whether these farmer groups embrace institutional innovations to improve water security and strengthen their design principles that are crucial for collective action. It is against this background that this study aimed to examine the internal group dynamics within the farmer groups; determine whether smallholder farmers are capable of implementing institutional innovations that are novel, useful and legitimate; determine the nature of these innovations (incremental or radical) and their role in improving water security. The main theories that underpinned the study were induced institutional innovation theory, collective action theory, random utility theory and Ostrom’s eight design principles. Multistage sampling was used to collect data from 28 farmer groups and 401 irrigators in smallholder irrigation schemes in KwaZulu-Natal (Tugela Ferry and Mooi River) and the Eastern Cape (Qamata and Zanyokwe). Data were gathered by means of focus group discussions, key informant interviews and household surveys. Several empirical tools were employed to analyse the data (descriptive statistics, thematic analysis, logit model, propensity score matching, PCA and OLS). The study found that group membership was associated with higher levels of water access, adoption of inorganic fertiliser, incomes and assets. Group members had an additional four days’ access to water in a month and applied at least 130 kg/ha more inorganic fertiliser than non-group members. Group members also had a higher household income per capita and more assets than non-group members. However, the results revealed a heterogeneous effect among group members, with the benefits varying according to members’ socio-economic characteristics as well as internal group dynamics. The results suggest that organising farmers into groups should be promoted to improve farmers’ access to productive assets such as water, technology adoption and welfare outcomes. However, the study findings also indicate that smaller groups should be promoted, programmes targeted at empowering women should be prioritised, and that it is imperative to invest in improving farmers’ human capital through various training initiatives. The results indicated that farmers could develop and implement institutional innovations that are novel, useful and legitimate. Of the 28 groups, 21 (75%) had implemented institutional innovations in the past three years. Examples of innovations include, among others, the introduction of a secret voting system to improve marginalised people’s participation in decision-making processes, designing daily rotation rosters to reduce conflict, using an attendance register for participation in group activities, and rewarding members according to their participation levels. Most of these innovations were designed to improve the graduated sanction mechanism (22.2%), enhance the penalty system for non-compliance; improve collective action arrangements (27.8%); monitor attendance of group meetings (18.5%); democratise decision making; and ensure equitable water distribution. However, they mainly focused on addressing challenges rather than exploiting opportunities and were largely incremental (94%), involving an adjustment or reinterpretation of rules and regulations. Furthermore, the innovative groups were small in size and were dominated by male farmers. Based on these results, it is recommended that the government should build on the irrigators’ agency to improve the effectiveness and legitimacy of institutional arrangements in irrigation schemes. The findings also suggest that small groups should be actively promoted, while tailored training should be offered based on the groups’ specific needs to improve institutional innovations in the smallholder irrigation sector in South Africa. A positive association was established between belonging to an innovative group and water security, highlighting the importance of institutional innovations in water security. The propensity score matching indicated that water secure irrigators produced an additional 569-622 kg of maize and earned additional income of R2 037.81. The study’s findings suggest that organising farmers into groups is a promising strategy to improve farmers livelihoods and water security. The government and private donors should thus continue to promote the formation and organisation of farmers into groups. The innovative agency of the irrigators should be acknowledged and harnessed to strengthen institutional innovations. The focus should be on strengthening the institutions designed by farmers themselves, as these are locally contextualised and socially embedded, and hence legitimate. It is recommended that small groups should be actively promoted, while tailored training should be offered based on groups’ specific needs to improve institutional innovations in the smallholder irrigation sector in South Africa.Thesis (PhD) -- Faculty of Commerce, Economics and Economic History, 202