Ruti Irrigation Project Effectiveness Review - Full Report

As part of Oxfam Great Britain’s (OGB) Global Performance Framework (GPF), sufficiently mature projects are being randomly selected each year and their effectiveness rigorously assessed. Zimbabwe’s Ruti Irrigation Project was selected to assess the extent that it has promoted change in relation to OGB’s global livelihood indicator: % of targeted households living on more than £1.00 per day per capita
The Ruti Irrigation Project aims to contribute to sustainable livelihoods and resilience to climatic change among poor and vulnerable households in Gutu district, Zimbabwe. The project seeks to do this through the establishment of a 60 hectare surface irrigation scheme in which 240 farmers are directly supported to cultivate individual plots of land. The farmers are provided with start-up seeds, tools, fertilisers and pesticides, and are also supported with complementary training on improved farming methods, agri-business and marketing skills, and soil conservation techniques. The year-round output of crops from this project is further intended to indirectly benefit up to 50,000 people in the surrounding wards by enabling a more diverse and secure source of food.
In October 2011, with the support of Oxfam’s Zimbabwe team, a household survey was administered to 232 beneficiary famers from the three phases of the project. Phase 1 beneficiaries were defined as the intervention group, as they had already harvested crops from the project. Phase 2 and 3 beneficiaries, on the other hand, were defined as the comparison group as they were yet to harvest or begin planting. The survey comprised of questions not only relevant to the above indicator but also a number of other measures associated with the project’s other intended outcomes. In order to control for observable differences between the intervention and comparison households, statistical analysis of the resulting data was undertaken using propensity score matching (PSM) and multivariable regression (MVR).
The results of the review found that between 8 and 10 per cent more of the intervention households are living above £1 per day per capita (PPP) compared to the comparison households. In addition, the former exhibit a greater increase in asset ownership and report being in a better position to meet household needs. The intervention households were also found to be more food secure than those in the comparison group. These findings are likely to be driven by the average increase in maize production of 240% for the intervention households between 2009 and 2011.
While there is evidence to demonstrate that the support to the beneficiary households has brought about significant positive change, there is scope to strengthen aspects of the project’s underlying approach. It is hoped that consideration of the following programme learning considerations will strengthen the support so that greater impact can be achieved: Consider increasing efforts to organise the producers and support the marketing of the agricultural commodities in order to maximise the benefit gained from increased production Review options to strengthen the health and hygiene interventions and training components of the project Consider further research to assess the food security impact of the project on the wider community Follow up on some of the specific findings from this report with further qualitative research