Gert Jan Veldwisch

The Global Politics of Water Grabbing

Abstract The contestation and appropriation of water is not new, but it has been highlighted by recent global debates on land grabbing. Water grabbing takes place in a field that is locally and globally plural-legal. Formal law has been fostering both land and water grabs but formal water and land management have been separated from each other—an institutional void that makes encroachment even easier. Ambiguous processes of global water and land governance have increased local-level uncertainties and complexities that powerful players can navigate, making them into mechanisms of exclusion of poor and marginalised people. As in formal land management corporate influence has grown. For less powerful players resolving ambiguities in conflicting regulatory frameworks may require tipping the balance towards the most congenial. Yet, compared with land governance, global water governance is less contested from an equity and water justice perspective, even though land is fixed, while water is fluid and part of the hydrological cycle; therefore water grabbing potentially affects greater numbers of diverse water users. Water grabbing can be a powerful entry point for the contestation needed to build counterweights to the neoliberal, corporate business-led convergence in global resource governance discourses and processes. Elaborating a human right to water in response to water grabbing is urgently needed.

Contesting Rural Resources: Emerging ‘Forms’ of Agrarian Production in Uzbekistan

The most recent land reform in Uzbekistan, in which Large Farm Enterprises (LFEs) were split into medium-sized fermer enterprises, left, alongside the countrys overwhelming majority of small dekhan peasants, continued strong state intervention in agrarian production. Three ‘forms’ (rather than ‘modes’) of production emerged: (1) state-ordered production of cotton and wheat; (2) commercial production, in particular of rice; and (3) household production of other food staples, including wheat and rice. These production ‘forms’ or processes are characterised by distinct input and output relations, terms of trade and technical requirements. They interrelate through competition for limited resources, such as land, water and other inputs, rather than competition amongst the actors themselves (the state, the new medium-sized fermers and the small dekhan peasants). A contest over resources is particularly evident between the (state-ordered) cotton crop and the (commercial) rice crop in the case study on which our argument is based, namely the province of Khorezm, a downstream part of the Amu Darya river basin, in the western part of the country.

Sand in the Engine: The Travails of an Irrigated Rice Scheme in Bwanje Valley, Malawi

Abstract The establishment of the Bwanje Valley Irrigation Scheme (BVIS) in Malawi is a striking example of informed amnesia in development assistance. Despite the lessons learned earlier concerning a process approach to participatory irrigation development in Africa, in the case of BVIS outside interveners designed an irrigation system and parachuted it into Bwanje Valley as a black-boxed technology. Using a sociotechnical approach, this article analyses the travails of this irrigation scheme, showing that the conventional irrigation factory mindset is ill-suited for creating durable water networks. Achieving tangible improvements in rural livelihoods is better served by the interactive prototyping of water networks in situ, ensuring that new irrigation schemes are embedded in existing landscapes and complementary to existing livelihood strategies rather than supplanting them.

Lost in transition? The introduction of water users associations in Uzbekistan

A “policy as process” perspective is adopted to analyze the early period of water users associations (WUAs) in Uzbekistan (2000–2006). The article is based on extensive fieldwork (in 2005–2006) and analysis of policy and other relevant documents. It is shown that WUAs have a role and logic beyond water management and are used by the state as instruments with which to monitor and regulate “state-ordered” agricultural production. Through a state-centric policy process with room for local experimentation, the WUA was fit into the socio-political landscape of continued state control and the increased role of individualized risks and benefits.

African Farmer-led Irrigation Development: re-framing agricultural policy and investment?

The past decade has witnessed an intensifying focus on the development of irrigation in sub-Saharan Africa. It follows a 20-year hiatus in the wake of disappointing irrigation performance during the 1970s and 1980s. Persistent low productivity in African agriculture and vulnerability of African food supplies to increasing instability in international commodity markets are driving pan-African agricultural investment initiatives, such as the Comprehensive Africa Agricultural Development Programme (CAADP), that identify as a priority the improvement in reliability of water control for agriculture. The paper argues that, for such initiatives to be effective, there needs to be a re-appraisal of current dynamics of irrigation development in sub-Saharan Africa, particularly with respect to the role of small-scale producers’ initiatives in expanding irrigation. The paper reviews the principal forms such initiatives take and argues that official narratives and statistics on African irrigation often underestimate the extent of such activities. The paper identifies five key characteristics which, it argues, contradict widely held assumptions that inform irrigation policy in Africa. The paper concludes by offering a definition of ‘farmer-led irrigation’ that embraces a range of interaction between producers and commercial, government and non-government agencies, and identifies priority areas for research on the growth potential and impact of such interactions and strategies for their future development.

Politics of Agricultural Water Management in Khorezm, Uzbekistan

On the basis of intensive fieldwork in the period 2002–2006, which combined interviews with direct observations, the implementation of two policies in the field of agricultural water management in Uzbekistan is analysed: the reform of the water bureaucracy along basin boundaries and the establishment of Water Users Associations. It is shown that the Uzbek government used these policies creatively for addressing some pressing issues, while the inherent decentralisation objective was pushed to the far background. Both reforms are used to strengthen the state’s grip on agricultural production regulation. The latter is at the centre of day-to-day agricultural water management dynamics. It is shown that decentralisation policies originally developed in society-centric policy processes cannot be easily applied in countries with state-centric politics such as Uzbekistan.

Contract farming and the reorganisation of agricultural production within the Chókwè Irrigation System, Mozambique

This paper contributes to the discussion about ‘inclusive business models’ as alternatives to large-scale land acquisitions by analysing a case in which a foreign agribusiness investor, within an impact investment paradigm, acquired and rehabilitated a rice processing plant in Chókwè, Mozambique. A contract farming programme drawn up to source raw produce for the factory led to radical shifts in control over land and water resources. The case is set against the background of a large-scale irrigation system that has played an important role in national agricultural policies since colonial times. The private sector-led development approach is strongly supported by the state which portrays it as an opportunity to reduce its dependency on rice imports. The investor redirected the benefits of land and water use through taking a role of coordination and control within the irrigated production system. The ensuing rural transformation reminds one of earlier periods in the development of the irrigation system: the central control over production, and the very high level of agricultural inputs and mechanisation, remind one of the state socialist period, while the removal of smallholders from their land and its concentration in the hands of a few bears a strong resemblance to the schemes establishment under colonial rule.

SAFI Survey Results

SAFI (Studying African Farmer-Led Irrigation) is a currently running project which is looking at farming and irrigation methods. This is survey data relating to households and agriculture in Tanzania and Mozambique. The survey data was collected through interviews conducted between November 2016 and June 2017. The survey covered such things as; household features (e.g. construction materials used, number of household members), agricultural practices (e.g. water usage), assets (e.g. number and types of livestock) and details about the household members. This is a teaching version of the collected data, it is not the full dataset. The survey is split into several sections:A – General questions about when and where the survey was conducted. B - Information about the household and how long they have been living in the area C – Details about the accommodation and other buildings on the farm D – Details about the different plots of land they grow crops on E – Details about how they irrigate the land and availability of water F – Financial details including assets owned and sources of income G – Details of Financial hardships X – Information collected directly from the smartphone (GPS) or automatically included in the form (instanceID) key_id Added to provide a unique Id for each observation. (The InstanceID field does this as well but it is not as convenient to use) A01_interview_date, Date of Interview A03_quest_no, Questionnaire number A04_start, Timestamp of start of Interview A05_end, Timestamp of end of Interview A06_province, Province name A07_district, District name A08_ward, Ward name A09_village, Village name A11_years_farm, Number of years the household have been farming in this area A12_agr_assoc, Does the head of the household belong to an agricultural association _note2 Possible form comment relating to the section B_no_membrs, How many members of the household? _members_count Internal count of members B11_remittance_money, Is there any financial assistance from family members not living on the farm B16_years_liv, How many years have you been living in this village or neighbouring village? B17_parents_liv, Did your parents live in this village or neighbouring village? B18_sp_parents_liv, Did your spouses parents live in this village or neighbouring village? B19_grand_liv, Did your grandparents live in this village or neighbouring village? B20_sp_grand_liv, Did your spouses grandparents live in this village or neighbouring village? C01_respondent_roof_type, What type of roof does their house have? C02_respondent_wall_type, What type of walls does their house have (from list) C02_respondent_wall_type_other, What type of walls does their house have (not on list) C03_respondent_floor_type, What type of floor does their house have C04_window_type, Does the house have glass in at least one window? C05_buildings_in_compound, How many buildings are in the compound? Do not include stores, toilets or temporary structures. C06_rooms, How many rooms in the main house are used for sleeping? C07_other_buildings, Does the DU own any other buildings other than those on this plot D_no_plots, How many plots were cultivated in the last 12 months? D_plots_count, Internal count of plots E01_water_use, Do you bring water to your fields, stop water leaving your fields or drain water out of any of your fields?E_no_group_count, How many plots are irrigated? E_yes_group_count, How many plots are not irrigated? E17_no_enough_water, Are there months when you cannot get enough water for your crops? Indicate which months.E18_months_no_water, Please select the months E19_period_use, For how long have you been using these methods of watering crops? (years) E20_exper_other, Do you have experience of such methods on other farms? E21_other_meth, Have you used other methods before? E22_res_change, Why did you change the way of watering your crops? E23_memb_assoc, Are you a member of an irrigation association? E24_resp_assoc, Do you have responsibilities in that association? E25_fees_water, Do you pay fees to use water? E26_affect_conflicts, Have you been affected by conflicts with other irrigators in the area ? _note Form comment for section F04_need_money, If you started or changed the way you water your crops recently, did you need any money for it? F05_money_source, Where did the money came from? (list) F05_money_source_other, Where did the money came from? (not on list) F06_crops_contr, Considering fields where you have applied water, how much do those crops contribute to your overall income? F08_emply_lab, In the most recent cultivation season, did you employ day labourers on fields? F09_du_labour, In the most recent cultivation season, did anyone in the household undertake day labour work on other farm? F10_liv_owned, What types of livestock do you own? (list) F10_liv_owned_other, What types of livestock do you own? (not on list) F_liv_count, Livestock count F12_poultry, Own poultry? F13_du_look_aftr_cows, At the present time, does the household look after cows for someone else in return for milk or money? F14_items_owned, Which of the following items are owned by the household? (list) F14_items_owned_other, Which of the following items are owned by the household? (not on list) G01_no_meals, How many meals do people in your household normally eat in a day? G02_months_lack_food, Indicate which months, In the last 12 months have you faced a situation when you did not have enough food to feed the household? G03_no_food_mitigation, When you have faced such a situation what do you do? gps:Latitude, Location latitude (provided by smartphone) gps:Longitude, Location Longitude (provided by smartphone) gps:Altitude, Location Altitude (provided by smartphone) gps:Accuracy, Location accuracy (provided by smartphone) instanceID, Unique identifier for the form data submission