An Evaluation of Smallholder Irrigation Typology Performance in Limpopo Province: South Africa

Abstract

Smallholder irrigation farmers play a vital role in sustaining rural communities in South Africa. However, the performance of smallholder irrigators, both as income generators and job creators, has come under scrutiny in recent years. In Limpopo province, a study was conducted in the Vhembe District using cross-sectional data from 95 independent and 165 public smallholder irrigators, which are privately established farmers and users of government-supported and managed irrigation systems, respectively. Qualitative data were collected through questionnaires, key informant interviews, and group discussions. Quantitative data were analyzed by SPSS version 30 using themes and codes, employing inferential statistical methods such as chi-square and t-tests to assess variables related to agrifood systems, crop selection, and market access. The study found that smallholders predominantly favor the production of grains, vegetables, and horticultural crops, with a statistically significant (p < 0.05) similarity between independent and public irrigators. Public irrigators dominate within irrigation schemes at 64% of the total, with X² of 22.7 with 0.001 p-value. Amongst the groups, the income distribution shows a statistically significant difference in earnings between independent and public irrigators (χ² = 25.83, p < 0.001). Informal and formal markets are accessible and available to 59% of independent irrigators, but 30% of public irrigators only access the informal market (p < 0.001). The major identified challenge across all smallholders is the lack of food value addition and commercial packaging. The study recommends the development of food value addition initiatives, adoption of climate-smart practices, maintenance of infrastructure, and improvement of market access to enhance productivity and sustainability.

1. Introduction

South Africa’s agricultural sector relies heavily on irrigation, particularly in its semi-arid and sub-semi-arid regions, to ensure food production and sustain livelihoods. Given the limited and erratic rainfall characteristic of these areas, irrigation is not merely supplementary but often a necessity for achieving viable agricultural productivity and improved yields. The climate and agro-ecological conditions in Vhembe have a semi-arid to sub-humid climate, characterized by hot summers and mild winters (Figure 1) [1,2]. The precipitation occurs in the summer months, starting from October to March, averaging 400–800 mm annually, with higher rainfall in the eastern escarpment reaching an annual average rainfall of 1000 mm. The summer temperatures can exceed 35 °C, with a highest recorded temperature of 45 °C, while winters are cooler, with minimum temperatures occasionally reaching below 10 °C [1,2,3,4]. These conditions make the area highly dependent on irrigation for crop production, especially during the dry winter months and prolonged dry spells. The topography varies from flat plains in the west to mountainous regions in the east. Soils range from sandy loams to clayey soils, often with moderate to poor fertility, necessitating soil fertility management for agricultural productivity [5]. The existence of agro-ecological zones and agro-biodiversity allows the region to grow a variety of annual and perennial crops.

Irrigation schemes, broadly categorized into large-scale and smallholder operations, critically contribute to the country’s gross crop production [6,7,8]. While the agricultural sector is a significant consumer of South Africa’s water resources, the benefits regarding food security and economic output are substantial. Various irrigation methods are employed across these schemes to optimize water use and secure crop yields. Smallholder irrigation schemes, despite their smaller footprint compared to large-scale operations, hold particular importance. They are vital for enhancing food security at the local level, fostering sustainable agrifood systems, and driving rural development [8,9,10]. However, these schemes are not without challenges. Issues such as underutilization due to resource constraints, low productivity, complexities surrounding water use rights and water security, and limited access to markets often hinder their full potential. Furthermore, the long-term sustainability of all irrigation schemes in semi-arid regions faces a significant threat from water scarcity [11,12,13,14]. This challenge is compounded by the effects of climate variability, including more frequent and prolonged dry spells within growing seasons, and the pressures of population growth, all of which intensify the demand for an already limited resource [6,8].

In South Africa, numerous scholars agree that smallholder agriculture provides about 70% of the employment in rural households as a main source of income [6]. Smallholders’ irrigation farming is identified as a key contributor to the rural food supply value chain and contributes to continuous streams of monetary flows to producers, yet diffusion into critical markets is gradual [6,7]. Smallholder irrigation schemes offer numerous benefits, primarily focusing on improving rural livelihoods, enhancing food security, providing job creation opportunities, and reducing poverty [7,8,9]. Furthermore, it assists in mitigating the impacts of droughts and erratic rainfall, making crop production resilient to the effects of climate change. When irrigation schemes are well-managed, they promote sustainable climate-smart agriculture practices, such as improved water use efficiency, water conservation, and efficient resource utilization. These schemes require smallholder farmers to optimize crop yields, improve crop diversification, generate multiple income streams, and achieve greater sustainable agro-ecosystems.

Globally, numerous researchers argue that smallholder irrigation schemes provide efficient benefits to the local economy and communal livelihoods [8,10]. An inverse relationship between farm size and crop productivity indicates that smallholder farms produce higher per-unit output than larger farms, due to intensive use of inputs at lower costs associated with their dependence on nature-based resources, utilization of local knowledge, and family-oriented labor, but larger farms benefit from decision-making guided by science-based knowledge, adoption of technology, and market-oriented farming [11,12]. The global importance of smallholder irrigation schemes relates to the policies in place to support farmers to significantly contribute to national food baskets, enabling climate-smart cropping systems, higher and better-quality yields, and creating benefits throughout the agrifood system value chain [13,14].

A myriad of scholars has conducted case studies on the dynamics of irrigation schemes. For example, in South Africa, the Vhembe District demonstrates a mix of approaches to smallholder agricultural irrigation, with both government-funded schemes and independent water sources making a significant contribution to agricultural sustainability [15,16]. During the 2015 drought, 28 irrigation schemes were unutilized, and 22 schemes were partially utilized, which raises concerns about uptake. As much as 69% of large-scale center pivots in the Limpopo province were not in operation [17]. The reasons for lack of utilization appeared to be the poor status of the irrigation infrastructure, broken farm fencing, and lack of agricultural mechanization [15,16,17,18].

Ethiopia, which is one of Africa’s largest smallholder footprints, has developed a strong community-based water use association through government support for irrigation and drainage strategies addressing environmental degradation, showing high variability in scheme performance and its sustainability [19,20,21]. Mozambique presents a unique scenario, with high potential for irrigation along the Zambezi and Limpopo rivers which remains underutilized. The challenges faced by these irrigators are damage from cyclones and flooding, unstructured farmers’ organizations, and limited extension services [22,23,24]. Botswana is one of the most water-stressed countries, with smallholder horticulture focused around the Bokaa and Gaborone dams. Farmers are challenged by the high cost of irrigation inputs and high groundwater salinity [25,26]. Namibia’s irrigation occurs predominately along the Kavango and Zambezi rivers, the constraints being limited technical know-how and dependency on external inputs and markets [25,27,28,29]. Cross-cutting challenges in Asian countries are the overuse of groundwater, monsoon unpredictability, lack of control over water rights and allocation, and low uptake of efficient irrigation technology [29,30,31,32].

A number of studies present the same findings: that smallholder irrigation plays a critical role in augmenting household income and ensuring sustainable agricultural development in African countries [33,34,35]. Other studies confirm that the degree of economic transformation from irrigation is determined by key factors: the type of crops grown, accessibility to markets, and institutional and policy support measures [36,37]. Markets are critical for the sustainability and profitability of smallholder farmers as a medium of exchange [7,17,26,37]. Market access in South Africa is an immensely challenging activity for smallholder farmers. Numerous smallholder farmers face constraints hindering them from engaging in and benefiting from agricultural markets. These challenges include a lack of refrigeration, poor packaging, logistics, transportation, and infrastructure [38]. In addition, limited knowledge and capacity to meet market requirements, lack of marketing skills, institutional support services, and limited access to arable land harm the likelihood of smallholder farmers participating in formal markets [39,40,41].

Due to lack of access to reliable market information and affordable credit, smallholder farmers are unable to invest in critical agricultural inputs such as improved seeds, fertilizers, irrigation technology, and mechanization. This severely limits their productivity, reduces their resilience to shocks, and hinders their ability to compete effectively in the market [40,42,43].

In South Africa, two distinct types of market platforms are available to smallholder farmers: the formal and informal markets. Informal markets often serve as a survival strategy for smallholder irrigation farmers who face significant barriers to entering the more competitive formal market environment. Consequently, the limited access to formal markets places rural livelihoods at risk, rendering informal markets critical for the sustenance of smallholder farmers [44]. Informal markets are decentralized trading spaces where smallholders directly sell their produce to buyers [6]. Despite the flexibility and accessibility of informal markets, they are often unable to absorb the bulk quantities produced by smallholder farmers. For instance, local village traders cannot frequently purchase or distribute all the available produce. As a result, farmers are often compelled to pursue formal markets, particularly at major hubs like the Johannesburg and Pretoria Fresh Produce Markets [40,45].

The reasons for the selection of Limpopo province were based on the existence of its vast irrigation schemes, and its exponentially growing population and food demand.

The typologies identified in Vhembe district were categorized based on the understanding of performance patterns, interventions and innovations adopted, the quality of infrastructure and of the agricultural stakeholder. The typology performance for sustainability was grounded in farm practices, management systems, quality of produce, adaptative capability, local market capacity and sustainable production.

Independent smallholder irrigation comprises informal and self-financed irrigation initiatives at the riverbank, privately drilled boreholes, and wetland/valley bottoms. Public smallholder irrigation consists of shared communal water supply infrastructure systems initiated by government, controlled and managed by the irrigation management committee and dependent on government support.

The identified theoretical gaps in the Vhembe irrigation schemes were inconsistent productivity and performance. The key aspects of these gaps are underutilization of natural resources, socioeconomic status and institutional factors. Despite the significant opportunities and benefits that smallholder irrigation farmers theoretically bring, however, the experience on the ground shows a mixed picture. Some public smallholders have shown a significant positive result, while others perform poorly and have not achieved higher crop productivity and livelihood goals, depending on continuous support for sustainability. Meanwhile, some independent smallholder irrigation demonstrates stronger performance in terms of adaptability, crop yields, and income generation. Amongst the key existing problems and difficulties in the sustainability and productivity of smallholder irrigation systems are poor performance in agricultural productivity, lack of maintenance of existing infrastructure, insufficient funding hindering expansion, inequalities in societal economic status and limited access to markets.

By addressing these challenges, these irrigation schemes have the potential to contribute to the national development goals to boost broad-based economic growth, create employment, enhance food security, and alleviate poverty. The overall objective of this study was to assess the factors hindering the agricultural performance of irrigation schemes and their typologies. The results will inform policymakers regarding important aspects that improve the sustainability of smallholder irrigation farming by identifying areas for research and development, adopting climate-smart agriculture, promoting crop diversification to enhance irrigation agricultural productivity, and facilitating market access.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Description of the Study Area

The study site was in the Limpopo province, Vhembe District, South Africa. The geographic location and extent of the Vhembe District is the northernmost part of Limpopo Province, South Africa, bordering Zimbabwe to the north, Mozambique to the east, and Botswana to the northwest. Internally, it shares borders with the Capricorn District and the Mopani District Municipality. The district lies between 22°00′ and 23°30′ S latitude, and 29°30′ and 31°30′ E longitude. The administrative and demographic profile of Vhembe is one of five district municipalities in Limpopo and consists of four local municipalities: Thulamela, Makhado, Musina, and Collins Chabane (Figure 1).

Agriculture is the mainstay of rural livelihoods in Vhembe, with both rain-fed and irrigated farming systems. The district hosts a mix of public irrigation schemes, such as Tshiombo and Muledane, and independent smallholder irrigation systems along rivers like the Levuvhu and Mutale. The main crops produced include maize, tomatoes, onions, cabbage, and spinach in irrigated systems. Commercial and semi-commercial farming includes citrus, bananas, and avocados. The key water sources include the Levuvhu River, its tributaries, and the Nandoni Dam, which supplies domestic and agricultural water. Water availability is uneven, and infrastructure challenges, water rights, and maintenance issues affect irrigation efficiency and access [46]. Despite Vhembe’s agricultural potential, the region faces challenges such as poor maintenance of irrigation infrastructure, limited access to formal markets, land tenure issues such as communal land under traditional authorities, and a high rate of youth unemployment and rural poverty.

2.2. Research Design

This study employed a cross-sectional research methodology to gain a comprehensive understanding of the complex research problems. Specifically, the cross-sectional approach facilitated confirmation and deeper insight through the integration of multiple methods and data triangulation. Both qualitative and quantitative methods were used for data collection and analysis. The study further integrated the sustainable livelihood framework for the assessment of the performance of schemes in agricultural income generation, productivity and livelihood. The study design also considered the aspects of irrigation system resilience with regards to economic transformation and technological innovations. The implementation criteria of the mixed sampling strategy included the selection of functional irrigation schemes, evidence of productivity, and less-researched irrigation schemes. Independent irrigation smallholder farmers were selected using snowball sampling, with 95 participants interviewed through face-to-face interactions. The sampling process began with initial participants identified through referrals and continued until saturation was reached. Snowball sampling was a useful non-probability sampling method to recruit independent irrigation smallholder farmers with a specific trait or who were hard-to-reach or underrepresented to form part of the sample.

A total of 165 public scheme-based farmers were randomly sampled and interviewed through participatory tools. For public irrigation schemes, purposive sampling was employed in collaboration with the Limpopo Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. The participants were selected from four public irrigation schemes, namely, Kumbe, Rambuda, Mphaila, and Folovhodwe (Figure 2), with a total of 165 interviewees.

The Kumbe Irrigation scheme is in Thulamela Municipality, south of Thohoyandou, and the scheme was established in 1952. The scheme is 145 ha in extent, and each farmer owns an average of 1.28 ha. The main source of water is from the Dzondo River, depositing water into the main concrete canal, which delivers water to four balancing dams of the irrigation scheme. The distribution of water throughout the scheme occurs through secondary canals, while direct irrigation of plants is through short earth furrows, managed through the irrigation program’s setting of irrigation times.

The Rambuda Irrigation Scheme is situated north of Thohoyandou in the Thulamela Local Municipality. The scheme was established in 1952, and the total area of the scheme is 103 ha, demarcated into 104 plots with 104 farmers having plot sizes ranging from 0.6 to 1.28 ha each. The main source of water is the Tshala River. Water is supplied from a weir into the main concrete canal that transfers water by gravity into the four balancing dams of the irrigation scheme. Water is then distributed to specific plots by secondary canals. The furrow irrigation method is used in this irrigation scheme, in which short earth furrows are used to irrigate crops planted on ridges. The primary crops grown are sweet potatoes, maize, cabbage, green beans and groundnut.

The Mphaila Irrigation Scheme is in Makhado Municipality in ha-Mphaila, Nzhelele. It was established under the former homeland government in 1988 by beneficiaries from the Mphaila area with the sole aim of improving farming. The water source is the perennial Mutshedzi river. The scheme operates as a Chime Agricultural cooperative. The total extent of the scheme is 71 ha and the farmers in the scheme total 62 households owning an average of 1 ha each. The famers own a piece of land through the Permission to Occupy (P.T.O), which is allocated to them by the Local Traditional Authority through a tenure system. The scheme is demarcated into blocks averaging a hectare each for the 62 individual household farmers, who make their own decisions on crop selection, irrigation scheduling and marketing.

The Folovhodwe Irrigation Scheme was established by the former homeland government in 1968. The scheme is in the village of Folovhodwe in Musina Municipality. Its water source is the Nwanedi River by means of a weir. The water is directed by means of a weir which diverts river water into a parabolic concrete main canal with branches that consist of secondary concrete canals/furrows, which convey water to the plots. There are two night storage dams in the Folovhodwe irrigation scheme, one of which is no longer functional. The total extent of the irrigation area in the scheme is 55 ha demarcated into 112 plots.

Independent smallholder irrigation schemes are informal and self-financed irrigation initiatives covering an area three to four times as large as that covered by the public irrigation schemes. They source water through pumps from the rivers, dams, boreholes, and directly from wetlands, using various irrigation methods.

The participant selection criteria included the following: participation in the government-initiated scheme, fully operational, and utilizing irrigation systems. The sample size for scheme-based farmers was calculated using Slovin’s formula:

$$S={\displaystyle \frac{N}{1+N\left(e^2\right)}}$$

(1)

• S is the sample size;
• N is the population size;
• e is the margin of error (degree of precision).

A margin of error of 10% (e = 0.10) was used, which is acceptable in social science research when resources are constrained. The target population size was 273 public irrigators, with 158 matching degrees of the sampling frame, and 165 samples were interviewed from the overall target population. Additional samples were added to increase precision level, given specified combinations of population size and confidence level.

2.3. Data Collection Methods and Analysis

Data were collected through a combination of structured questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions, and key informant interviews. A mixed sampling strategy was employed, combining strategic sampling, purposive sampling, and snowball sampling. Purposive sampling targeted participants with direct experience in irrigation farming. Strategic sampling ensured that smallholder farmers were selected across diverse irrigation typologies for balanced representation. Snowball sampling was used to identify additional participants through referrals from initial respondents, particularly for hard-to-reach or underrepresented groups. Different sampling strategies were used to allow efficiency and cost-effectiveness, feasibility and accessibility, accuracy and reliability, flexibility and adaptability and enhance data collection. Semi-structured interview guides were used to obtain information from both public and independent smallholder irrigation farmers. The structured questionnaire, containing both open and closed questions, gathered data on farmer demographics, resource availability, cropping systems, market accessibility, agricultural commodity profitability, and challenges faced by smallholder irrigators. The questionnaire was pretested to ascertain the relevance and sequence of the questions, then adjusted for clarity and time efficiency. The pretesting process yielded high-quality and reliable data.

Additionally, key informant interviews were held with officials from the National and Provincial Departments of Agriculture, the Department of Water and Sanitation, Traditional Authorities, Water Users Associations, and farmer organizations, using unstructured interview guides.

Quantitative data from the questionnaires were entered, cleaned and analyzed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 30. Data were cleaned through identifying and handling missing values, identifying and removing duplicates, correcting data errors and outliers, removing irrelevant data, ensuring data consistency and data validation. The SPSS techniques employed were the following: descriptive statistics (frequencies, means, standard deviations) to summarize socio-economic variables and irrigation practices, cross-tabulations with Chi-square tests to examine associations between categorical variables such as market access and type of irrigation, and independent samples t-tests to compare means across different farmer groups (e.g., public vs. independent irrigators).

Qualitative data from interviews and focus group discussions were analyzed thematically. Emerging themes were coded manually and reorganized into digestible themes, patterns, trends, and correlations for analysis by creating topic tree diagrams and comparing themes. Furthermore, inclusion and exclusion criteria were employed; for example, the identification of the irrigation system used by farmers and farming without irrigation details, respectively. The theme extraction process for qualitative data was informed by land use, water availability and use, crop productivity, availability of irrigation systems and irrigation typologies. The themes were used to complement the quantitative findings, providing contextual depth and insight into farmers’ experiences and challenges.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Description of Typologies Within Public and Independent Irrigators

The Limpopo province irrigation schemes are characterized into three typologies, namely, revitalized formal schemes, underperforming schemes, and public–private partnerships (

Table 1. Topologies and characteristics of irrigators in the Vhembe district.

Revitalized Formal Schemes	Underperforming Schemes	Public-Private Partnership
Located in Tshakhuma, Veeplaats, and Nwanedzi. Benefit from infrastructure upgrades (canals, pipes, pumps). Managed collectively through Water User Associations Receive technical support from government departments	Infrastructure is present but non-functional due to poor maintenance. Limited water control: cropping is seasonal and inconsistent. Farmers lack technical assistance, & irrigation practices revert to manual or flood methods.	Operation, management and maintenance of infrastructure is undertaken by farmers. Private partner assist farmers acquire production skills and irrigation equipment funding support. Private partner provide technical advice, training, mentorship and secure market for selected crops.

). These typologies are categorized based on water accessibility, agricultural operations and practices, and agro-ecological zones. The Vhembe district encapsulates a variety of smallholder irrigation systems categorized broadly into public (which are formal government schemes) and independent irrigators, which are privately established systems (

Table 2. Independent irrigators’ typologies for Vhembe District, Limpopo Province.

Informal Riverbank Irrigators	Privately Drilled Borehole Irrigators	Wetland/Valley Bottom
Common activities along Levuvhu, Nzhelele, and Letaba rivers Water is diverted using gravity, basic canals, and buckets Adaptable to market signals, extensive high value, short season vegetable production	Farmers invest in boreholes and solar/diesel water pumps Located in peri-urban areas of Makhado, Thohoyandou, where water table is higher Semi-commercial farming is practices, drip irrigation used for efficiency Water reliability and all-year-round crop production	Utilize residual moisture in low-lying or wetland areas Subsistence farmers, employing manual the use of hand-hoes, watering cans Crop production mostly occurs during the dry season, when upland soils are less productive Often marginalized and vulnerable to land-use policy changes.

and

Table 3. The key differences between public and independent irrigators in the Vhembe irrigation schemes.

Feature	Public Irrigators (Schemes)	Independent Irrigators
Land Tenure	Communal/tribal with state support	Informal or private
Water Source	Canals, reservoirs, pumps (centralized)	Rivers, springs, and boreholes (decentralized)
Support	Government, Water Use Agencies	Self-reliant; limited external support
Market Access	Moderate to high	Often, local/informal markets
Technology	Pumps, canals, flood/furrow irrigation	Buckets, hoses, gravity-fed, or boreholes
Flexibility	Moderate—scheme rules apply	High: individual control
Common Areas	Nwanedzi, Rabali, Middle Letaba, Veeplaats	Levubu Valley, Elim, Mutale River zone

). These typologies reflect differences in foundation, organizations, administration structures, resource access and availability, and objectives.

The independent irrigators’ typologies are not part of formal government schemes. They have an independent irrigation system near the rivers or dams and typically without formalized institutional support. It consists of informal riverbank irrigators, privately drilled borehole irrigators, and wetland/valley bottom farmers (Table 2).

Scheme irrigators relied on shared communal water supply infrastructure and took turns to receive water through a weekly schedule controlled and managed by the irrigation management committee. The communal water infrastructures were mostly dilapidated and leaky due to aging and a lack of funding for proper maintenance. Cropping system practices differed, and independent irrigators were observed to be practicing intensive monocropping with a wide variety of crops, such as legumes, leafy vegetables, cucurbits, shade, grains, and fruits. In comparison to the public irrigators, agricultural commodities, including leafy vegetables, horticultural crops, and indigenous crops, are often grown in an agroforestry type system with tropical fruit trees [1,2,5,6].

3.2. Impacts of Socioeconomics on Crop Variety and Market Accessibility

3.2.1. Age and Education Factors

The age group distribution shows that both independent and public smallholder irrigators are predominantly between 36 and 75 years old (Figure 3). The findings suggest that young people in the area do not see agriculture as a sector that can provide them with jobs or income. Middle-aged smallholder farmers dominate the farming activities in the area. These results are consistent with [47] results from East Africa, where the majority of smallholder irriga ted farming was practiced by active and middle-aged farmers engaging in agribusiness to improve their welfare.

Figure 3 indicates that approximately 41% of independent smallholder irrigators had attained tertiary education, whereas 22% of public irrigators had tertiary education. A solid knowledge of agricultural production enhances on-farm decision-making and natural resource management, and market accessibility. Therefore, promoting agricultural education and financial management among smallholder irrigators can lead to more efficient and competitive farming practices.

3.2.2. Income Factor

The analysis reveals notable differences in livelihood strategies between independent and public smallholder irrigators. Both groups rely heavily on farming, though 85% of public irrigators do so compared to 72% of independents. Public irrigators display a higher reliance on social grants, with 66% compared to 38% of independent irrigators accessing grants. Full-time employment is scarce for both groups, with over 90% never engaged, highlighting a dependence on informal livelihoods. Casual employment is similarly limited, though independent irrigators participate slightly more, with 18% engaged in casual employment compared to 9% of public irrigators. Overall, public irrigators appear more dependent on government assistance, while independent irrigators demonstrate a broader mix of income sources and greater farming commitment (Figure 4).

3.3. Impacts of Resource Availability on Cropping Systems and Market Accessibility

In terms of the landholding size of smallholder irrigators, responses were divided into land extent categories. The data reveal notable differences in land size, resource adequacy, and asset ownership between public and independent smallholder irrigators. About 65% of public irrigators operate on plots of land smaller than 1 hectare, whereas independent irrigators are more evenly spread across larger land categories, with around 35% in the 1–3 ha range and 25% in the 3–5 ha range. As a result, about 70% of public irrigators perceive land extent as way too small, while a more balanced view is observed among independent irrigators, with nearly 30% considering land extent somewhat small and 25% stating it is exactly right (Figure 5). In terms of water supply, about 69% of public irrigators reported insufficient water, compared to 41% of independent irrigators with insufficient water supply.

Both groups exhibit high ownership of basic tools, with 95–100% owning garden tools and approximately 80% owning knapsack sprayers. However, disparities appear with larger equipment: 65% of public irrigators hire tractors, and only 25% have ownership, while independent irrigators show slightly higher tractor ownership at around 30%. Ownership of pickup trucks is also higher among independent irrigators at 40% compared to public irrigators at 25%, and although 50% of both groups commonly hire trucks, independent irrigators show slightly greater ownership at 25% than public irrigators at 20%. These figures suggest that independent irrigators are generally better resourced, with more access to land, water, and productive assets, and are well-positioned for sustainable, profitable agro-ecosystems and market-oriented farming [48,49].

These numbers show the vastly different conditions under which the two groups of irrigators work. The independent irrigators are well-resourced with tractors and pickup trucks and can thus be more in control of agricultural activities both on the farm and when obtaining inputs or delivering output products. In comparison to the public irrigators, they are well supplied with farm implements and resources to conduct a good commercial farming operation. In contrast, less than 10% of the public irrigators have tractors or pickup trucks for such operations. Therefore, their overheads for renting such equipment will be higher, reducing their profits and resulting in their inability to supply the formal markets near the cities.

3.4. The Potential of Land and Water from the Overall Catchment

The total extent of the four smallholder irrigation schemes is 401 hectares, with secured registered water rights. Water is sourced from the perennial Dzondo, Mutshedzi, Nwanedi, and Tshala Rivers through a weir located at a considerable distance from the schemes. The water is conveyed through concrete canals and stored in overnight storage dams. However, much of the canal infrastructure has deteriorated, become dilapidated and the storage dams are leaking, which is exacerbated by poor infrastructure maintenance. Nevertheless, water is distributed to irrigation plots through earth furrows, based on scheduled irrigation times. A few smallholder irrigators use diesel pumps to extract water from the canals and distribute it via drip irrigation systems. In one of the schemes, an electric pump draws water directly from the river into a storage dam, from which it is conveyed through pipelines and distributed using sprinkler and drip systems.

Independent irrigators, on the other hand, typically source water from nearby rivers or boreholes and apply it using drip and sprinkler irrigation methods. Groundwater remains largely underutilized, and most independent irrigators do not possess formal water use authorizations. Land ownership is governed by the Permission to Occupy system, allocated by the local Traditional Authority. The schemes are situated on irrigable soils capable of supporting a wide variety of vegetables, grains, and fruit trees.

Generally, both public and independent irrigations are under the traditional authority land tenure system and farming in good soils. However, public smallholder irrigators source water from the rivers, by gravity or pump through the canals or pipeline system, and irrigate through earth furrows or drip systems, whereas independent smallholder irrigators source water from diverse sources through pumps and irrigate through various methods.

3.5. The Impact of Cropping System on the Overall Catchment

The narrative interpretation based on the t-test results in comparison of the dependent and public smallholder irrigators reveals significant differences in crop selection. Public irrigators predominantly grow maize (80%) and sweet potato (68.5%), significantly more than independent irrigators, who cultivate these crops at a frequency of 55.8% and 26.3%, respectively (p < 0.001). This suggests that public irrigators focus more on staple and subsistence crops to ensure household food security. In contrast, independent irrigators are more diversified and market-oriented, cultivating higher proportions of tomato (57.9%), cabbage (56.8%), okra (37.9%), green pepper (32.6%), onion (36.8%), watermelon (23.2%), and fruit trees (24.2%) which are at statistically significantly higher levels than public irrigators (p < 0.05). These crops have higher market value, indicating a focus on commercial production. Additionally, while spinach and pumpkin are grown by both groups, independent irrigators still lead significantly in these crops. Crops like potato, sugar beans, chilies, green beans, and Chinese spinach show no statistically significant differences, suggesting they are grown at similar levels by both groups. However, groundnuts, a legume with multiple uses, are cultivated significantly more by public irrigators (p < 0.001), while black nightshade, a traditional leafy vegetable, shows no significant difference between the two groups. Overall, the crop production pattern indicates that public irrigators tend to focus on staple and traditional crops, while independent irrigators are more inclined toward high-value, market-oriented horticultural crops and are commercially focused. The smallholder irrigators operate under frost-free agro-ecology, which is advantageous to crop production throughout the year. The inclusion of irrigation practices and climate-smart agricultural practices provides sustainable crop production and improves water use. The irrigators adopted a variety of techniques for monitoring soil water content and crop growth. This differentiation may reflect differences in resource access, market orientation, and production objectives between the two groups.

3.6. The Impact of Market Accessibility and Availability

The Chi-square test was used to compare the market accessibility for independent and public smallholder irrigators (

Table 4. Market availability and accessibility to independent versus public irrigators in the Vhembe district.

	Categories (Markets)	Independent Irrigators (n = 95)		Public Irrigators (n = 165)		Chi-Square Results
		N	%	N	%	χ2 Value	p-Value
Market availability	Formal	6	6%	11	7%	22.27	<0.001
	Informal	33	35%	105	64%
	Formal and informal	56	59%	49	30%
Distance to market	Less than 5 km	21	22%	52	32%	25.46	<0.001
	5–20 km	17	18%	65	39%
	20–50 km	15	16%	10	6%
	More than 50 km	42	44%	38	23%

). The data reveals a statistically significant difference in both market accessibility and availability and proximity between independent and public smallholder irrigators (p < 0.001). In terms of market access, 59% of independent irrigators access both formal and informal markets, compared to only 30% of public irrigators, suggesting greater market integration among independent farmers. In contrast, a majority of 64% of public irrigators rely solely on informal markets, while only 35% of independents depend on informal markets. Accessibility to formal markets alone is limited for both groups—6% and 7%, respectively—indicating challenges in penetrating structured market channels [50,51]. Market distance varies significantly between the two groups. A notable 44% of independent irrigators operate more than 50 km from the market, compared to 23% of public irrigators, possibly due to isolated smallholder plots and road conditions. Conversely, 71% of public irrigators are more likely to be within 5 to 20 km of markets, compared to only 40% of independent irrigators [52]. These findings suggest that while independent irrigators may be more market-oriented and diversified, they often face greater logistical challenges due to distance, while public irrigators, despite being closer to markets, rely only on informal channels with less diversified market access.

The income distribution data show a statistically significant difference in earnings between independent and public irrigators (χ² = 25.83, p < 0.001). A substantial proportion—45% of independent irrigators—earn more than ZAR 10,000 per month, compared to only 18% of public irrigators, indicating that independent irrigators are more commercially successful. On the contrary, 26% of public irrigators earn less than ZAR-1999 per month, compared to just 11% of independents. These results suggest that independent irrigators are generally more profitable, possibly due to better market access, crop diversification, and resource use, while public irrigators remain more vulnerable with limited income from irrigation activities.

3.7. The Status of Job Creation Through Smallholder Irrigation Farming

The employment statistics reveal a substantial difference in labor use between independent and public smallholder irrigators (

Table 5. Comparison of the number of workers by independent versus public irrigators.

	Independent Irrigators (n = 95)			Public Irrigators (n = 165)
	Permanent Employees	Casual Employees	Total Employed	Permanent Employees	Casual Employees	Total Employed
Mean	2.20	11.49	13.69	0.39	2.75	3.13
Median	1.00	4.00	5.00	0.00	2.00	2.00
Mode	0	2	2	0	2	2
Std. Deviation	4.658	21.787	25.635	0.915	3.739	4.167
Range	40	150	190	6	30	36
Minimum	0	0	0	0	0	0
Maximum	40	150	190	6	30	36

). The average total number of employees is 13.69, comprising 2.20 permanent and 11.49 casual workers for the independent group. For public irrigators, the average total employment is significantly lower at 3.13, made up of only 0.39 permanent employees and 2.75 casual employees. This indicates that although both groups rely heavily on casual labor, independent irrigators employ over four times more people in total than public irrigators. The median total number of employees is five for independents and two for public irrigators, while the mode for both is two employees. However, the range of total employees is far wider for independents at 0 to 190 compared to public irrigators, from 0 to 36, and the standard deviation of total employment among independents of 25.64 greatly exceeds that of public irrigators, which was 4.17, indicating more variability and a few larger-scale operations among the former. The statistical findings demonstrate that independent irrigators not only employ more people but also create more significant rural employment opportunities, particularly through seasonal or casual labor, than public irrigators.

The potential for smallholder irrigation development in the Vhembe District is considerable, given the availability of arable land and existing water infrastructure. Currently, more than 401 hectares of arable land with registered water rights are available to smallholder irrigation farmers. Despite this, production remains limited and only 337 hectares are under cultivation, a figure significantly below the district’s potential. Smallholder irrigation farming in the region is constrained by several challenges, including unsustainable land reform settlements, poor institutional arrangements, dilapidated infrastructure, limited access to capital, insufficient post-settlement support, weak technical and management skills, and poor access to markets.

Nevertheless, with targeted investment in water infrastructure and improved farmer support services, the sector has the potential to drive substantial employment growth in both primary agricultural production and secondary agro-processing industries. Key areas for intervention include promoting the cultivation of high-value and export-oriented commodities, improving production efficiency through tailored support services, and utilizing underdeveloped communal and land reform areas. Additionally, strengthening agro-processing capacity, expanding market access, and fostering rural enterprise development through investment and trade support will be critical to unlocking the full potential of smallholder irrigation and ensuring sustainable job creation in the region.

The impact of agricultural policy changes in south Africa in 2020 on smallholder irrigation include the Agriculture Agro-processing Master Plan, the Preservation and Development of Agricultural Land Bill, and the National Policy on Comprehensive Producer Development Support. These policies brought a change in access to funding, agricultural land use, food production, inclusion in value chain segments, and accessibility to markets, thus contributing to sustainable crop production, socio-economic transformation, poverty alleviation and food security. Similar schemes exist in neighboring countries; for example, in Zimbabwe the Smallholder Irrigation Revitalization Programme resulted in minimization of poverty and improvement of livelihoods through water use efficiency, crop productivity, and enhanced profitability. Lessons were learnt from Mozambique where the integration of pest management plans and the rehabilitation of irrigation schemes contributed to the improvement of cropping practices and diversification, productivity, competitiveness and market access of smallholder farmers [53].

4. Conclusions and Recommendations

Smallholder irrigation schemes in the Vhembe district, Limpopo province play a fundamental role in the development of rural livelihoods, food security, job creation and poverty alleviation. The performance of schemes differed significantly with regard to the identified irrigation typologies, which are public and independent. The public irrigators comprised revitalized formal and underperforming schemes, and public–private partnerships. Independent irrigators included informal riverbank, privately drilled borehole and wetland or valley-bottom irrigators. The study revealed that utilization of irrigation schemes was inconsistent, with some underutilized because of poor maintenance and aging infrastructure.

The demographic distribution indicated that gender, education, access to natural resources, market availability and transport are essential factors in determining the high-performing typology based on crop type and the functionality of the scheme. Independent irrigation systems proved to outperform public schemes, offering continuous market supply and better food security outcomes. The assessment of actual applications for irrigators is based on understanding soil type, crop suitability, proper planting date selection, adoption of cropping system, understanding cropping factors, market supply–demand requirements, and the quality of produce.

Independent irrigators produce a wider variety of higher-value vegetables and orchards and show greater integration into informal and formal markets, despite challenges such as distance to markets. The study concludes that improving crop selection and market access among smallholder irrigation farmers in the Vhembe District requires a multi-dimensional approach. To improve the impact of smallholder irrigation, intervention must address infrastructure issues and adopt holistic approaches for strengthening institutional support, enhancing farmer capabilities, and redressing systemic irrigation discrepancies across the schemes toward sustainable agricultural productivity.

The study was limited to Vhembe district. Expanding the research to other districts across the province could draw further conclusions and establish a comprehensive picture of the distribution and characteristics of smallholder irrigators in Limpopo Province. The policy intervention must address scientific and communication gaps, encourage climate-smart water agricultural practices and explore localized agricultural practices and agro-processing. A multi-dimensional approach combined with agro-processing initiatives and improvement of infrastructure, subsidies, and farmer training in food processing is crucial to enhance the productivity and sustainability of smallholder irrigation.