Impact analysis of smallholder irrigation schemes on household poverty reduction in Swaziland - The case of Ntfonjeni and Ngwempisi rural development areas

Abstract

Sithole Nok’phiwa Lamie The most distinguishing feature between developed and developing countries is the relative poverty rates. Poverty scourge undermines lives of many in developing countries including Swaziland (63%). The general belief is that irrigated agriculture limits crops failure, external shocks hence Swaziland has seen development of new and rehabilitation of existing Smallholder irrigation schemes (SHIS). The Poverty Reduction Strategic and Action Programme (PRSAP) advocates for the development of smallholder irrigation schemes towards achieving Millennium Development Goals (MDG 1). This study examined whether smallholder irrigation schemes had a significant impact on poverty reduction in Swaziland using Ntfonjeni and Ngwempisi Rural Development Areas (RDA) as a case study and two irrigation schemes were selected in each RDA. The study used the “with and without approach” and was based on empirical evidence from a representation of 190 households which were randomly selected from four enumeration areas located in the four irrigation schemes. Data were collected using questionnaires. Analysis involved poverty measures for members’ versus non members, socioeconomic demographics, factors influencing household decision to participate in irrigation schemes was determined using a logit model while average treatment effects using propensity score matching was used to assess the impact of smallholder irrigation schemes on poverty reduction. The study revealed that the members in Ngwempisi had significantly low poverty incidence as compared to non members of 58% versus 79%, whilst the poverty gap was 6% for members versus 17% for non members. In Ntfonjeni 53% members were poor and 83% of non members were poor. The poverty gap was 8% for members versus 34% for non members. The empirical results revealed access to credit positively influenced participation in irrigation scheme by 26% and other significant variables were age, farm size, occupation, distance to the irrigation scheme and other group membership. Finally access to the irrigation scheme had a positive impact to the households consumption and expenditure level. The Average Treatment effect of Treated (ATT) indicated that, consumption expenditure of irrigation members was 21% more than non members of irrigation showing a positive impact in poverty reduction of households. Hence the government can invest more on smallholder irrigation schemes as one of the poverty reduction tools, which should be complemented with an agrarian reform involving all the stakeholders to ensure efficiency in that value chain.