Download - Open Knowledge Repository - World Bank

Public Disclosure Authorized 

The Zambezi River Basin 

A Multi-Sector Investment Opportunities Analysis 

V o l u m e 4 

Modeling, Analysis 

and Input Data 




THE WORLD BANK

The Zambezi River Basin 

A Multi-Sector Investment Opportunities Analysis 

Volume 4 

Modeling, Analysis and Input Data 

June 2010 

THE WORLD BANK 

Water Resources Management 

Africa Region

© 2010 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank 

1818 H Street NW 

Washington DC 20433 

Telephone: 202-473-1000 

Internet: www.worldbank.org 

E-mail: feedback@worldbank.org 

All rights reserved 

The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of the International Bank for Reconstruction and 

Development/The World Bank or the governments they represent. 

The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, 

colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgement 

on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or 

acceptance of such boundaries. 

Rights and Permissions 

The material in this publication is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions or all of this work 

without permission may be a violation of applicable law. The International Bank for Reconstruction and 

Development/The World Bank encourages dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission 

to reproduce portions of the work promptly. 

For permission to photocopy or reprint any part of this work, please send a request with complete information 

to the Copyright Clearance Center Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA; telephone: 

978-750-8400; fax: 978-750-4470; Internet: www.copyright.com. 

All other queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to the Office 

of the Publisher, The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2422; e-mail: 

pubrights@worldbank.org. 

Cover and interior design: The Word Express 

Cover photos: 

© Photographer Len Abrams/World Bank 

© Photographer Marcus Wishart/World Bank 

© Photographer Vahid Alavian/World Bank

Contents 

Acknowledgments......................................................................................................................................xi 

Abbreviations and Acronyms.................................................................................................................xiii 

1. The Zambezi River Basin: Background and Context....................................................................1 

1.1 Motivation for This Analysis.................................................................................................................. 1 

1.2 Summary of Findings ............................................................................................................................. 3 

1.3 Basic Characteristics of the Zambezi River Basin................................................................................ 3 

1.4 Population and Economy........................................................................................................................ 7 

1.5 Approach and Methodology.................................................................................................................. 7 

1.5.1 Analytical framework................................................................................................................... 8 

1.5.2 The River/Reservoir System Model.............................................................................................. 9 

1.5.3 The Economic Assessment Tool...................................................................................................11 

2. The River/Reservoir Operation Model..........................................................................................13 

2.1 System Characterization....................................................................................................................... 13 

2.2 Hydrology in the Model........................................................................................................................ 14 

2.2.1 Inflows........................................................................................................................................ 14 

2.2.2 Local flows at control points....................................................................................................... 14 

2.2.3 Evaporation................................................................................................................................ 14 

2.2.4 Hydrologic balance equation...................................................................................................... 15 

2.3 Operating Guidelines and Rule Curves.............................................................................................. 15 

2.3.1 Reservoirs................................................................................................................................... 15 

2.3.2 Flood management...................................................................................................................... 16 

2.3.3 The Zambezi Delta..................................................................................................................... 17 

2.3.4 Environmental flows (minimum flow and restoration of natural flooding).............................. 17 

2.3.5 Flows to support tourism........................................................................................................... 20 

2.3.6 Flows to support fisheries........................................................................................................... 20 

2.3.7 Other control point characteristics............................................................................................. 20 

2.4 Operation of the River/Reservoir System Model............................................................................. 21 

3. Modeling Hydropower.....................................................................................................................23 

4. Modeling Irrigation.........................................................................................................................27 

4.1 Irrigation Reservoirs.............................................................................................................................. 27 

4.1.1 Reservoirs for irrigation use in the river/reservoir system model.............................................. 27 

4.2 Modeling Irrigation Schemes............................................................................................................... 28 

iii

The Zambezi River Basin: A Multi-Sector Investment Opportunities Analysis 

5. Economic Assessment of Development Scenarios........................................................................31 

5.1 Costs and Benefits of the Development Scenarios............................................................................ 31 

5.1.1 Hydropower................................................................................................................................ 31 

5.1.2 Irrigation.................................................................................................................................... 33 

5.2 Economic Evaluation of Environmental Impacts.............................................................................. 33 

References...................................................................................................................................................35 

Annex 1. Modeling Irrigation Development Scenarios – riparian Country Policies, Data,. 

Estimates, and Assumptions.....................................................................................................................39 

A1.1 Angola................................................................................................................................................... 40 

A1.1.1 Agriculture and irrigation development policies.................................................................... 40 

A1.1.2 Area in the water allocation model.......................................................................................... 41 

A1.1.3 Irrigation sector – current situation........................................................................................ 41 

A1.1.4 Identified irrigation development projects............................................................................... 41 

A1.2 Botswana.............................................................................................................................................. 42 





A1.3 Malawi.................................................................................................................................................. 45 


A1.3.2 Overview of irrigation development........................................................................................ 52 




A1.4 Mozambique........................................................................................................................................ 66 





A1.5 Namibia................................................................................................................................................ 72 





A1.6 Tanzania................................................................................................................................................ 76 





A1.7 Zambia.................................................................................................................................................. 79 





A1.8 Zimbabwe............................................................................................................................................. 90 


iv

Contents 




Annex 2. Identified Irrigation Projects and High-Level Irrigation Projects..............................103 

A2.1 Identified Irrigation Projects (IPs) and Associated Abstractions............................................... 103 

A2.2 High-Level Irrigation Projects (HLI) and Associated Abstractions........................................... 103 

Annex 3. Estimating Crop-Related Water Requirements.................................................................113 

A3.1 Methodology.......................................................................................................................................113 

A3.2 Reference Crop Evapotranspirations and Crop Coefficient........................................................114 

A3.2.1 Identifying, and determining length for growth stages of crops............................................114 

A3.2.2 Selecting corresponding Kc coefficients for growth stages of crop.........................................114 

A3.3 Rainfall.................................................................................................................................................115 

A3.4 Efficiency of Irrigation Schemes.......................................................................................................115 

Annex 4. Modeling Partial Restoration of Natural Flooding in the Zambezi Delta................121 

A4.1 Five steps of assessing impact of partial restoration of natural floods..................................... 121 

A4.2 Comparing results............................................................................................................................. 125 

A4.3 Estimating the impact on other wetlands in the Zambezi River Basin..................................... 129 

Annex 5. Estimated Impact of Climate Change on the Zambezi River basin by 2030....................131 

A5.1 FAO methodology for determining evapotranspiration............................................................. 131 

A5.2 Calculations of ETo for a temperature increase of +1.5°C........................................................... 134 

A5.3 New evapotranspiration table......................................................................................................... 134 

Annex 6. Overview of Control Points in River/Reservoir Model..................................................137 

Tables 

Table 1.1. Precipitation data for the Zambezi River Basin............................................................................... 4 

Table 1.2. Population of the Zambezi River Basin (in thousands, 2005–06 data)......................................... 7 

Table 1.3. Macroeconomic data by country (2006)............................................................................................ 8 

Table 2.1. Main hypothesis used for assessment of impact on tourism....................................................... 20 

Table 2.2. Assumptions for fish productivity (kg/ha).................................................................................... 21 

Table 4.1. Main characteristics of the typical modeled irrigation schemes................................................. 29 

Table 5.1. Hydropower projects in the Zambezi River Basin (included in MSIOA).................................. 32 

Table 5.2. Costs and benefits of hydropower development options............................................................ 33 

Table A1.1. Irrigation abstraction points in Angola........................................................................................... 41 

Table A1.2. Current irrigation areas in Angolan part of ZRB........................................................................... 42 

Table A1.3. Identified projects in Angola: Irrigation areas............................................................................... 42 

Table A1.4. The irrigation abstraction point in Botswana................................................................................. 44 

Table A1.5. Zambezi Integrated Agro-Commercial Development Project: Monthly and daily water 

demand data....................................................................................................................................... 46 

Table A1.6. Zambezi Integrated Agro-Commercial Development Project: water demand summary....... 52 

Table A1.7. Summary of annual water consumption at full production (1,000 m 3 )...................................... 53 

Table A1.8. Identified projects in Botswana (ha)................................................................................................ 54 

Table A1.9. Irrigation abstraction points in Malawi.......................................................................................... 54 

Table A1.10. Current irrigation areas in Malawi: subbasin I.03.01 (ha)............................................................ 57 

v


Table A1.11. Irrigated areas in Malawi: subbasin I.03.09 (ha)............................................................................ 59 

Table A1.12. Overview of irrigated areas in Malawi (ha)................................................................................... 60 

Table A1.13. Identified projects in Malawi (ha).................................................................................................... 64 

Table A1.14. Irrigation abstraction points in Mozambique................................................................................ 67 

Table A1.15. Current irrigation areas in Mozambique (ha)................................................................................ 70 

Table A1.16. Identified irrigation projects in Mozambique (hectares).............................................................. 73 

Table A1.17. Irrigation abstraction points in Namibia........................................................................................ 74 

Table A1.18. Current irrigation areas in Namibia (ha)........................................................................................ 74 

Table A1.19. Identified projects in Namibia: Irrigation areas (ha)..................................................................... 76 

Table A1.20. Irrigation abstraction points in Tanzania........................................................................................ 78 

Table A1.21. Current irrigation areas in Tanzania (ha)........................................................................................ 78 

Table A1.22. Potential irrigation areas in the Tanzanian districts of the Zambezi River Basin (ha)............. 79 

Table A1.23. Identified projects in Tanzania: Irrigation areas (ha).................................................................... 79 

Table A1.24. Irrigation abstraction points in Zambia.......................................................................................... 81 

Table A1.25. Current irrigation areas in Zambia: Kabompo subbasin (ha)...................................................... 82 

Table A1.26. Current irrigation areas in Zambia: Barotse subbasin (ha).......................................................... 83 

Table A1.27. Current irrigation areas in Zambia: Kariba subbasin upstream of Victoria Falls (ha)............. 83 

Table A1.28. Current irrigation areas in Zambia: Kariba subbasin downstream of Victoria Falls (ha)........ 84 

Table A1.29. Current irrigation areas in Zambia: Kariba subbasin, Kariba Reservoir (ha)............................ 84 

Table A1.30. Kafue irrigation zones....................................................................................................................... 85 

Table A1.31. Current irrigation areas in Zambia: Kafue subbasin (ha)............................................................. 86 

Table A1.32. Current irrigation areas in Zambia: Mupata subbasin (ha)......................................................... 87 

Table A1.33. Current irrigation areas in Zambia: Luangwa subbasin (ha)....................................................... 87 

Table A1.34. Identified irrigation projects in Zambia.......................................................................................... 91 

Table A1.35. Irrigation abstraction points in Zimbabwe..................................................................................... 95 

Table A1.36. Current irrigation areas in Zimbabwe............................................................................................. 98 

Table A1.37. Identified irrigation projects in Zimbabwe................................................................................... 100 

Table A2.1. Additional areas of identified irrigation projects, by subbasin and country (ha)................... 104 

Table A2.2. Identified irrigation project, by subbasin and crop (additional ha).......................................... 105 

Table A2.3. Identified irrigation projects, by country and crop (additional ha).......................................... 106 

Table A2.4. Additional annual water abstraction requirements for identified irrigation projects 

(1,000 m 3 /year)................................................................................................................................. 107 

Table A2.5. Long-term high-level irrigation development in riparian countries........................................ 108 

Table A2.6. High-level irrigation: additional equipped irrigation areas (ha).............................................. 109 

Table A2.7. High-level irrigation areas in the Zambezi River Basin, by subbasin and country (ha)........ 109 

Table A2.8. High-level irrigation: crops by season and subbasin (ha)...........................................................110 

Table A2.9. High-level irrigation: crops by season and country (ha).............................................................111 

Table A2.10. Additional annual water abstraction requirements for high-level irrigation projects 

(1,000 m 3 /year)..................................................................................................................................112 

Table A3.1. Monthly ETos per subbasin (mm)...................................................................................................114 

Table A3.2. Crop calendar for winter wheat......................................................................................................114 

Table A3.3. Kc for each crop considered in this study, by decades................................................................116 

Table A3.4. Mean monthly effective rainfall per subbasin (mm)....................................................................117 

Table A3.5. Mean monthly effective rainfall per subbasin (mm)....................................................................118 

Table A3.6. Efficiency of irrigation schemes in the Zambezi River Basin......................................................118 

Table A3.7. Abstraction requirement for one hectare of each crop using a gravity scheme in the 

Zambezi Delta subbasin (mm)........................................................................................................119 

Table A4.1. Economic and financial values of direct uses in the Zambezi Delta (current situation)........ 122 

vi

Contents 

Table A4.2. Key characteristics of scenarios incorporating partial restoration of natural flooding.......... 123 

Table A4.3. Target of restoring natural flooding in the Zambezi Delta......................................................... 124 

Table A4.4. Economic and financial values of direct uses in the Zambezi Delta for the 

target situation.................................................................................................................................. 126 

Table A4.5. Contribution to the target situation for each scenario................................................................ 127 

Table A4.6. Economic and financial net value of restoration of natural flooding....................................... 128 

Table A4.7. Flood periods and mean inflows................................................................................................... 129 

Table A4.8. Estimated reduction in value, per water use in wetlands.......................................................... 129 

Table A5.1. Estimated impact of climate change in the Zambezi River Basin by 2030............................... 132 

Table A5.2. Increase in water requirement at selected CLIMWAT stations with 1.5°C increase in 

temperature (%)................................................................................................................................ 133 

Table A5.3. Increased water requirement at select CLIMWAT stations when temperature 

increases by 1.5°C (Scenarios 8 and 9)........................................................................................... 134 

Table A6.1. Control Points and associated abstraction points and projects in 

River/Reservoir Model................................................................................................................... 137 

Figures 

Figure 1.1. The Zambezi River Basin and its 13 subbasins............................................................................... 5 

Figure 1.2. Schematic of the Zambezi River with deregulated mean annual discharge (m 3 /s) 

and runoff (mm).................................................................................................................................. 6 

Figure 1.3. Zambezi River Basin: scenario analysis matrix.............................................................................. 9 

Figure 1.4. Schematic of the river/reservoir system model for the Zambezi River Basin ........................ 10 

Figure 1.5. Schematic of the elements of the economic analysis tool............................................................ 12 

Figure 2.1. The Zambezi Delta............................................................................................................................ 18 

Figure 4.1. Irrigation storage reservoir model................................................................................................. 28 

Figure A1.1. Location of the Pandamatenga irrigation project......................................................................... 44 

Figure A1.2. Part of the Muona irrigation scheme grown to dry weather rice.............................................. 56 

Figure A1.3. Tainter gate for the intake for the Muona irrigation scheme...................................................... 56 

Figure A1.4. Muona main canal taking water from Thangazi River............................................................... 56 

Figure A1.5. Part of Nkhate scheme grown to dry season maize, cassava, and sweet potatoes................. 56 

Figure A1.6. Weir constructed on the Nkhate River........................................................................................... 56 

Figure A1.7. Nkhate main canal taking water from the Thangazi River to the scheme............................... 56 

Figure A1.8. Lujeri sugar estate............................................................................................................................. 57 

Figure A1.9. Shire Valley irrigation project location.......................................................................................... 62 

Figure A1.10. Pumping station in the Zambezi River, for the Mpadue irrigation scheme............................. 68 

Figure A1.11. Plot from the scheme União das Cooperativas Agro-Pecuárias do vale de Nhartanda......... 68 

Figure A1.12. Pumping station in the Zambezi River, for the CPFAT irrigation scheme............................... 68 

Figure A1.13. Abandoned infrastructure of the Lambane scheme.................................................................... 68 

Figure A1.14. Floating pumping station installed on a canal, taking water from the Zambezi River, 

Sena Sugar Estate.............................................................................................................................. 69 

Figure A1.15. Localization of the outlet of the main canal, probably not functioning well, Sena Sugar 

Estate................................................................................................................................................... 69 

Figure A1.16. Chitima 1 irrigation project............................................................................................................. 71 

Figure A1.17. Caprivi sugar project area................................................................................................................ 75 

Figure A1.18. Pivot irrigation – the Chiawa irrigation scheme.......................................................................... 85 

Figure A1.19. Kaleya outgrowers............................................................................................................................ 86 

vii


Figure A1.20. Area of middle Zambezi River Basin program on agricultural water management for 

food security...................................................................................................................................... 89 

Figure A1.21. Different phases of the Nega-Nega project................................................................................... 90 

Figure A1.22. River basins of Zimbabwe............................................................................................................... 95 

Figure A2.1. Additional monthly water abstraction requirements for identified irrigation projects 

(1,000 m 3 /month)............................................................................................................................. 108 

Figure A2.2. Additional monthly water abstraction requirement of high-level irrigation projects 

(1,000 m 3 /month).............................................................................................................................112 

Figure A3.1. Crop calendar in Zambia................................................................................................................115 

Figure A4.1. Comparison of historic and current flooding in the Zambezi Delta....................................... 123 

Boxes 

Box A.1. The Green Belt Initiative in Malawi..................................................................................................... 61 

viii

Currency Equivalents 

and Units 

Currency Equivalents 

Against U.S. dollar 

Angolan 

new kwanza 

Kz 

Botswana 

pula 

P 

Euro 

€ 

Malawi 

kwacha 

MK 

Mozambique 

metical 

Mt 

Namibia 

dollar 

N$ 

Tanzania 

schilling 

T Sh 

Zambia 

kwacha 

K 

Zimbabwe 

dollar 

Z$ 

2000 5.94 5.09 1.08 47.10 15.41 6.95 799.27 2,830.00 44.40 

2001 11.51 5.72 1.12 70.03 20.33 8.62 876.59 2,845.37 55.26 

2002 32.41 6.26 1.06 76.24 23.24 10.52 965.27 4,360.81 55.29 

2003 57.65 4.91 0.89 95.24 23.31 7.57 1,036.79 4,841.94 577.19 

2004 57.65 4.68 0.80 106.74 22.03 6.46 1,088.20 4,750.53 4,499.18 

2005 74.90 5.11 0.80 116.84 22.85 6.36 1,125.36 4,432.60 21,566.90 

2006 86.85 5.83 0.80 135.54 25.93 6.77 1,251.28 3,586.09 58,289.86 

2007 77.38 6.15 0.73 139.72 25.56 7.06 1,241.24 3,996.41 9,296.66 

2008 74.97 6.84 0.68 140.91 24.14 8.25 1,199.75 3,746.63 2,638,293,338 

2009 77.97 7.14 0.72 141.75 26.87 8.43 1,324.34 5,049.15 21,830,975.04 

Units 

1 km 3 = 1,000 hm 3 = 1 billion m 3 

1 m 3 /s = 31.54 hm 3 /year = 0.033 km 3 /year 

1 l/s/ha = 86.4 m 3 /day/ha = 8.6 mm/day 

1 gigawatt hour (GWh) = 1,000 MWh = 1,000,000 KWh = 1,000,000,000 Wh 

1 km 2 = 100 ha 

Unless otherwise specified, the symbol $ refers to U.S. dollars. 

ix

Acknowledgments 

This report provides a summary of the series of reports 

and documents prepared to assess the water resources 

development options and benefits of cooperation among 

the riparian countries in the Zambezi River Basin. The 

effort was led by a Bank Team consisting of Vahid Alavian 

(Team Leader), Marcus Wishart, Louise Croneborg, 

Rimma Dankova, K. Anna Kim, and Lucson Pierre- 

Charles. The initial Team Leader for this work was Len 

Abrams, now retired. The Multi-Sector Investment Opportunities 

Analysis is based on a series of reports and 

model simulations prepared by a consortium of BRLi and 

Niras. The consultants served as partners and members 

of the team during the course of this work. 

The Team gratefully acknowledges the contributions 

by representatives of the riparian countries of the Zambezi 

River Basin, the Southern Africa Development Community 

(SADC) Water Division, and other international 

development partners. Their participation and input 

at the regional meeting in Gaborone, Botswana in July 

2009, and at the eight national consultation workshops 

held between September and December 2009 is much 

appreciated. The financial contribution and support 

from the Swedish International Development Cooperation 

Agency (Sida) and the Government of Norway are 

acknowledged with appreciation. 

The World Bank peer reviewers for this work included 

Stephen Mink, Glenn Morgan, Daryl Fields, and 

Guy Alaerts. Francois Onimus also provided written 

comments. Their constructive inputs are very much 

appreciated. The team benefitted from the guidance of 

Rick Scobey, Acting Director for Regional Integration, 

Inger Andersen, Director for Sustainable Development, 

and Ashok K. Subramanian, Sector Manager for Water 

Resources Management, Africa Region. 

xi

Abbreviations and 

Acronyms 

AAP 

ACP 

AF 

AMD 

AMU 

ARA 

ASDP 

ASDS 

AU 

BIPP 

BOD 

BOS 

BPC 

CAADP 

CBA 

CEC 

CEMAC 

CEN-SAD 

CEPGL 

COMESA 

CPC 

CPFAT 

CRU 

CS 

CSCO 

CSNC 

CVRD 

DMC 

DMU 

DNA 

DNSA 

DPA 

DRC 

DSS 

DWA 

DWAF 

EAC 

ECCAS 

ECMWF 

ECOWAS 

ECP 

ECZ 

EdM 

EIA 

Africa Action Plan 

Agricultural Commercialization Program (Zambia) 

artificial flooding 

acid mine drainage 

Arab Maghreb Union 

Administração Regional de Águas (Regional Water Administrations, Mozambique) 

Agricultural Sector Development Program (Tanzania) 

Agricultural Sector Development Strategy (Tanzania) 

African Union 

bankable investment project profile 

biological oxygen demand 

Bureau of Standards 

Botswana Power Corporation 

Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program 

cost benefit analysis 

Copperbelt Energy Corporation PLC 

Central African Economic and Monetary Community 

Community of Sahel-Saharan States 

Economic Community of the Great Lakes Countries 

Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa 

Climate Prediction Center 

Centro Provincial de Formação Agrária de Tete (Mozambique) 

Climate Research Unit 

current situation 

current situation with coordinated operation 

current situation without coordinated operation 

Companhia Vale do Rio Doce (Brazil) 

Drought Monitoring Center 

Disaster Management Unit 

Direcção Nacional de Águas (National Directorate of Water, Mozambique) 

Direcção Nacional de Extensão Agrária (National Directorate of Agrarian Services, Mozambique) 

Provincial Directorate of Water 

Democratic Republic of Congo 

decision support system 

Department of Water Affairs 

Department of Water Affairs and Forestry 

East African Community 

Economic Community of Central African States 

European Center for Medium Range Weather Forecast 

Economic Community of West African States 

Estratégia de Combate à Pobreza (Poverty Reduction Strategy, Angola) 

Environmental Council of Zambia 

Electricidade de Moçambique (Electricity of Mozambique, Mozambique) 

Environmental Impact Assessment 

xiii


EIRR 

ENE 

ESCOM 

ESIA 

ETo 

ETP 

EU 

EUMETSAT 

EUS 

FAO 

FSL 

GDP 

GMA 

GPZ 

GWh 

ha 

HCB 

HEC 

HIPC 

HLI 

HLIC 

hm 3 

HPP 

HRWL 

HYCOS 

I&C 

IBRD 

ICM 

ICTs 

IDF 

IGAD 

IMF 

INAM 

IOC 

IP 

IPC 

IPCC 

IRR 

ITT 

IUCN 

IWRM 

JICA 

JOTC 

KAZA TFCA 

kg/ha 

KGL 

KGU 

km 3 

KWh 

l/s 

LEC 

LRRP 

LRWL 

LSL 

m 3 /s 

MACO 

MAP 

MAWF 

economic internal rate of return 

Empresa Nacional de Electricidad (National Electricity Company, Angola) 

Electricity Supply Corporation of Malawi 

Environmental and Social Impact Assessment 

reference evapotranspiration 

evapotranspiration 

European Union 

European Organization for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites 

epizootic ulcerative syndrome 

Food and Agriculture Organization 

full supply level 

gross domestic product 

Game Management Area 

Gabinete do Plano de Desenvolvimento da Região do Zambeze (Office of Development Planning 

for the Zambezi Region, Mozambique) 

gigawatt hour 

hectare 

HidroEléctrica de Cahora Bassa (Cahora Bassa Hydroelectrics, Mozambique) 

Hydrologic Engineering Center 

Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative 

high-level irrigation 

HLI with cooperation 

Cubic hectometer 

hydropower plant 

high reservoir water level 

hydrological cycle observation system 

information and communication 

International Bank for Reconstruction and Development 

Integrated Committee of Ministers 

information and communication technologies 

irrigation development fund 

Inter-Governmental Authority on Development 

International Monetary Fund 

Instituto Nacional de Meteorologia (National Institute of Meteorology, Mozambique) 

Indian Ocean Commission 

identified project (for irrigation) 

IP with cooperation 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

internal rate of return 

Itezhi Tezhi Dam 

International Union for Conservation of Nature 

integrated water resources management 

Japan International Cooperation Agency 

Joint Operation Technical Committee 

Kavango-Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area 

kilogram per hectare 

Kafue Gorge Lower Dam 

Kafue Gorge Upper Dam 

cubic kilometers 

kilowatt hour 

liters per second 

Lesotho Electricity Corporation 

Land Reform and Resettlement Program (Zimbabwe) 

low reservoir water level 

low supply level 

cubic meters per second 

Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives (Zambia) 

mean annual precipitation 

Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry 

xiv

Abbreviations and Acronyms 

MASL minimum active storage level 

MDG Millennium Development Goal 

MDRI Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative 

MEA Ministry of Energy and Water 

MERP Millennium Economic Recovery Program (Zimbabwe) 

MFL 

minimum flow level 

mg/l 

milligrams per liter 

MKUKUTA Poverty Reduction Strategy for Mainland Tanzania (kiswahili acronym) 

mm/yr millimeters per year 

MMEWR Ministry of Minerals, Energy and Water Resources 

MOL minimum operating level 

MOPH Ministry of Public Works and Housing 

MoU 

memorandum of understanding 

MPRSP Malawi Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper 

MRU Mano River Union 

MSIOA Multi-Sector Investment Opportunities Analysis 

MW 

megawatt 

MWh megawatt hour 

NAMPAADD National Master Plan for Arable Agriculture and Dairy Development (Botswana) 

NAP 

national agriculture policy 

NDMO National Disaster Management Office 

NDP(s) national development plan(s) 

NDP2 National Development Plan 2 

NEPAD New Partnership for Africa’s Development 

NERP National Economic Revival Program (Zimbabwe) 

NIP 

national irrigation plan 

NMHS National Meteorological and Hydrological Services 

NMTIPs national medium-term investment programs 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NPV 

net present value 

NSC 

north-south carrier 

NSC 

National Steering Committee 

NSGRP National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty (Tanzania) 

NWSDS National Water Sector Development Strategy (Tanzania) 

ODA official development assistance 

OWE open water evaporation 

PAEI 

Política Agrária e Estratégias de Implementação (Agriculture Policy and Implementation Strategy, Mozambique) 

PAR 

population at risk 

PARPA Plano de Acção para a Redução da Pobreza Absoluta (Poverty Reduction Support Strategy, Mozambique) 

PARPA II Plano de Acção para a Redução da Pobreza Absoluta II (2nd Poverty Reduction Support Strategy, Mozambique) 

PASS II Poverty Assessment Study Survey II 

PFM 

public financial management 

PPEI 

Política Pesqueira e Estratégias de Implementação (Fishery Policy and Implementation Strategy, Mozambique) 

ppm 

parts per million 

PPP 

purchasing power parity 

ProAgri Promoção de Desenvolvimento Agrário (National Agricultural Development Program, Mozambique) 

PRSP poverty reduction strategy paper 

PSIP 

program and system information protocol 

RBO 

river basin organization 

RBZ 

Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe 

RCC 

roller-compacted concrete 

REC 

regional economic communities 

RIAS Regional Integration Assistance Strategy 

R-o-R run-of-the-river 

RSA 

Republic of South Africa 

RSAP Regional Strategic Action Plan 

SACU Southern African Customs Union 

SADC Southern African Development Community 

SADC-WD SADC Water Division 

xv


SAPP 

SARCOF 

SEA 

SEB 

SEDAC 

SIDA 

SIGFE 

SMEC 

SNEL 

SSIDS 

SWOT 

t/yr 

TANESCO 

TVA 

TWL 

UK 

UN/ISDR 

UNDP 

UNECA 

UNESCO 

US$ 

USAID 

USGS 

VSAM 

WAEMU 

WAP 

WASP 

WFP 

WHO 

WMO 

WRC 

WTO 

WTTC 

ZACBASE 

ZACPLAN 

ZACPRO 

ZAMCOM 

ZAMFUND 

ZAMSEC 

ZAMSTRAT 

ZAMTEC 

ZAMWIS 

ZAPF 

ZCCM 

ZESA 

ZESCO 

ZINWA 

ZRA 

ZRB 

ZVAC 

Southern African Power Pool 

Southern African Climate Outlook Forum 

strategic environmental assessment 

Swaziland Electricity Board 

Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center 

Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency 

Sistema Integrado de Gestão Financeira do Estado (Integrated Financial Management System, Angola) 

Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation 

Société Nationale d’Électricité (National Electricity Company, Democratic Republic of Congo) 

small-scale irrigation development study 

strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats 

tons/year 

Tanzania Electric Supply Company 

Tennessee Valley Authority (United States) 

tail water level 

United Kingdom 

United Nations Inter Agency International Strategy for Disaster Reduction 

United Nations Development Program 

United Nations Economic Commission for Africa 

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization 

United States dollar 

United States Agency for International Development 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Visão do Sector Agrário em Moçambique (Mozambique) 

West African Economic and Monetary Union 

Water Apportionment Board 

Web Analytics Solution Profiler 

World Food Program 

World Health Organization 

World Meteorological Organization 

Water Resources Commission 

World Trade Organization 

World Travel and Tourism Council 

Zambezi River database 

Action Plan for the Environmentally Sound Management of the Common 

Zambezi River System 

Zambezi Action Project 

Zambezi River Watercourse Commission 

Zambezi Trust Fund 

ZAMCOM Secretariat 

Integrated Water Resources Management Strategy and Implementation Plan for the Zambezi River Basin 

ZAMCOM Technical Committee 

Zambezi Water Information System 

Zimbabwe’s Agriculture Policy Framework 

Zambia Consolidated Copper Mines Ltd 

Zimbabwe Electricity Supply Authority 

Zambia Electricity Supply Corporation 

Zimbabwe National Water Authority 

Zambezi River Authority 

Zambezi River Basin 

Zambia Vulnerability Assessment Committee 

xvi

1 

The Zambezi River Basin: 

Background and Context 

The Zambezi River Basin (ZRB) is one of the most diverse and valuable 

natural resources in Africa. Its waters are critical to sustainable 

economic growth and poverty reduction in the region. In addition to 

meeting the basic needs of some 30 million people and sustaining a 

rich and diverse natural environment, the river plays a central role 

in the economies of the eight riparian countries—Angola, Botswana, 

Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. 

It provides important environmental goods and services to the region 

and is essential to regional food security and hydropower production. 

Because the Zambezi River Basin is characterized by extreme climatic 

variability, the River and its tributaries are subject to a cycle of floods 

and droughts that have devastating effects on the people and economies 

of the region, especially the poorest members of the population. 

1.1 Motivation for This Analysis 

Despite the regional importance of the ZRB, few improvements have 

been made in the management of its water resources over the past 

30 years. Differences in post-independence development strategies 

and in the political economy of the riparian countries, as well as the 

diverse physical characteristics of the Basin, have led to approaches to 

water resources development that have remained primarily unilateral. 

Better management and cooperative development of the Basin’s 

water resources could significantly increase agricultural yields, hydropower 

outputs, and economic opportunities. Collaboration has 

the potential to increase the efficiency of water use, strengthen environmental 

sustainability, improve regulation of the demands made 

on natural resources, and enable greater mitigation of the impact 

of droughts and floods. Seen in this light, cooperative river basin 

development and management not only provide a mechanism for 

increasing the productivity and sustainability of the river system, but 

also provide a potential platform for accelerated regional economic 

growth, cooperation, and stability within the wider Southern Africa 

Development Community (SADC). 

1


The World Bank, other international financial 

institutions and development partners have 

a diverse portfolio of investments and support 

programs in the countries that share the ZRB. Still 

lacking, however, is a sound analytical foundation 

for a coordinated strategy that can optimize the Basin’s 

investment potential and promote cooperative 

development in support of sustainable economic 

growth and poverty alleviation. 

The overall objective of the Zambezi River Multi- 

Sector Investment Opportunity Analysis (MSIOA) 

is to illustrate the benefits of cooperation among the 

riparian countries in the ZRB through a multi-sectoral 

economic evaluation of water resources development, 

management options and scenarios—from 

both national and basin-wide perspectives. The 

analytical framework was designed in consultation 

with the riparian countries, SADC Water Division 

(SADC-WD) and development partners in line with 

the Zambezi Action Plan Project 6, Phase II (ZACPRO 

6.2). It is hoped that the findings, together with the 

Integrated Water Resources Management Strategy 

and Implementation Plan for the Zambezi River Basin 

that was developed under ZACPRO 6.2 (2008), 

would contribute to development, environmental 

sustainability, and poverty alleviation in the region. 

In this analysis, the following development paths 

have been assessed through a series of scenarios. 

• Coordinated operation of existing hydropower facilities, 

either basin-wide or in clusters. By how much 

could hydropower generation increase if existing 

projects were coordinated? What is the potential 

impact of coordination on other water users? 

• Development of the hydropower sector as envisioned 

in plans for the Southern African Power Pool 

(SAPP). What is the development potential of 

the hydropower sector? How would its expansion 

affect the environment (wetlands in particular), 

irrigation, tourism, and other sectors? 

What gains could be expected from the coordinated 

operation of new hydropower facilities? 

• Development of the irrigation sector through unilateral 

or cooperative implementation of projects 

identified by the riparian countries. How might 

the development of irrigation affect the environment 

(wetlands), hydropower, tourism, and 

other sectors? What incremental gain could 

be expected from cooperative as opposed to 

unilateral development of irrigation schemes? 

• Flood management, particularly in the Lower Zambezi 

and the Zambezi Delta. What options exist to 

permit partial restoration of natural floods and 

to reduce flood risks downstream from Cahora 

Bassa Dam? How would those options affect the 

use of the existing and potential hydropower and 

irrigation infrastructure on the Zambezi River? 

• Effects of other projects using the waters of the 

Zambezi River (e.g., transfers out of the Basin 

for industrial uses). How might these projects 

affect the environment (wetlands), hydropower, 

irrigation, and tourism? 

Within the context of an integrated approach 

to the development and management of water 

resources, all water-related sectors are important. 

This analysis, however, focuses on hydropower and 

irrigation because of their special potential to stimulate 

growth in the economies of the region. Other 

demands for water—for potable water, environmental 

sustainability, tourism, fisheries, and navigation, 

for example—are assumed as givens. Limitations of 

assigning economic value to non-economic water 

users, such as ecosystems, are noted. To the degree 

allowed by the available, published information, they 

are incorporated into the analysis as non-negotiable. 

The initial findings and the various drafts of 

this analysis were discussed at a regional workshop 

and at individual country consultations with all 

riparian countries. Also involved in these consultations 

were SADC, the international development 

partners active in the Basin, and other interested 

parties. The final draft version was shared with 

the riparian countries as well for comments before 

finalization. The Swedish International Development 

Cooperation Agency and the Government of 

Norway provided financial support. 

This report consists of four volumes: 

Volume 1: Summary Report 

Volume 2: Basin Development Scenarios 

Volume 3: State of the Basin 

Volume 4: Modeling, Analysis, and Input Data 

This section (1.1–1.5) appears as an introduction 

to all four volumes. 

2

The Zambezi River Basin: Background and Context 

1.2 Summary of Findings 

The ZRB and its rich resources present ample 

opportunities for sustainable, cooperative investment 

in hydropower and irrigated agriculture. 

With cooperation and coordinated operation of the 

existing hydropower facilities found in the Basin, 

firm energy generation can potentially increase by 

seven percent, adding a value of $585 million over a 

30-year period with essentially no major infrastructure 

investment. 

Development of the hydropower sector according 

to the generation plan of the SAPP (NEXANT 

2007) would require an investment of $10.7 billion 

over an estimated 15 years. That degree of development 

would result in estimated firm energy production 

of approximately 35,300 GWh/year and average 

energy production of approximately 60,000 GWh/ 

year, thereby meeting all or most of the estimated 

48,000 GWh/year demand of the riparian countries. 

With the SAPP plan in place, coordinated operation 

of the system of hydropower facilities can provide an 

additional 23 percent generation over uncoordinated 

(unilateral) operation. The value of cooperative generation 

therefore appears to be significant. 

Implementation of all presently identified national 

irrigation projects would expand the equipped 

area by some 184 percent (including double cropping 

in some areas) for a total required investment 

of around $2.5 billion. However, this degree of 

development of the irrigation sector, without further 

development of hydropower, would reduce 

hydropower generation of firm energy by 21 percent 

and of average energy by nine percent. If identified 

irrigation projects were developed alongside current 

SAPP plans, the resulting reduction in generation 

would be about eight percent for firm energy and 

four percent for average energy. 

Cooperative irrigation development (such as 

moving approximately 30,000 hectares of planned 

large irrigation infrastructure downstream) could 

increase firm energy generation by two percent, 

with a net present value of $140 million. But complexities 

associated with food security and self-sufficiency 

warrant closer examination of this scenario. 

Other water-using projects (such as transfers 

out of the Basin and for other industrial uses within 

the Basin) would not have a significant effect on 

productive (economic) use of the water in the system 

at this time. But they might affect other sectors and 

topics, such as tourism and the environment, especially 

during periods of low flow. A more detailed 

study is warranted. 

For the Lower Zambezi, restoration of natural 

flooding, for beneficial uses in the Delta, including 

fisheries, agriculture, environmental uses and better 

flood protection, could be assured by modifying 

reservoir operating guidelines at Cahora Bassa 

Dam. Depending on the natural flooding scenario 

selected, these changes could cause significant reduction 

in hydropower production (between three 

percent and 33 percent for the Cahora Bassa Dam 

and between four percent and 34 percent for the 

planned Mphanda Nkuwa Dam). More detailed 

studies are warranted. 

Based on the findings for Scenario 8, which assumes 

full cooperation of the riparian countries, a 

reasonable balance between hydropower and irrigation 

investment could result in firm energy generation 

of some 30,000 GWh/year and 774,000 hectares 

of irrigated land. Those goals could be achieved 

while providing a level of flood protection and part 

restoration of natural floods in the Lower Zambezi. 

The riparian countries together with their development 

partners may wish to act on the analysis 

presented here by pursuing several steps, described 

in detail at the end of volume 1: 

• Explore and exploit the benefits of cooperative 

investments and coordinated operations; 

• Strengthen the knowledge base and the regional 

capacity for river basin modeling and planning; 

• Improve the hydrometeorological data system; 

• Conduct studies on selected topics, including 

those mentioned above; and, 

• Build institutional capacity for better management 

of water resources. 

1.3 Basic Characteristics of 

the Zambezi River Basin 

The Zambezi River lies within the fourth-largest 

basin in Africa after the Congo, Nile, and Niger 

3


river basins. Covering 1.37 million km 2 , the Zambezi 

River has its source in Zambia, 1,450 meters above 

sea level. The main stem then flows southwest 

into Angola, turns south, enters Zambia again, 

and passes through the Eastern Caprivi Strip in 

Namibia and northern Botswana. The Zambezi 

River then flows through Mosi-oa-Tunya (Victoria 

Falls), shared by Zambia and Zimbabwe, before 

entering Lake Kariba, which masses behind Kariba 

Dam, built in 1958. A short distance downstream 

from Kariba Dam, the Zambezi River is joined by 

the Kafue River, a major tributary, which rises in 

northern Zambia. The Kafue River flows through 

the Copperbelt of Zambia into the reservoir behind 

the Itezhi Tezhi Dam (ITT), built in 1976. From 

there, the Kafue River enters the Kafue Flats and 

then flows through a series of steep gorges, the site 

of the Kafue Gorge Upper (KGU) hydroelectric 

scheme, commissioned in 1979. Below the Kafue 

River confluence, the Zambezi River pools behind 

Cahora Bassa Dam in Mozambique, built in 1974. 

Some distance downstream, the Zambezi River is 

joined by the Shire River, which flows out of Lake 

Malawi/Niassa/Nyasa to the north. Lake Malawi/ 

Niassa/Nyasa, which covers an area of 28,000 km 2 , 

is the third-largest freshwater lake in Africa. From 

the confluence, the Zambezi River travels some 

150 km, part of which is the Zambezi Delta, before 

entering the Indian Ocean. 

The basin of the Zambezi River is generally described 

in terms of 13 subbasins representing major 

tributaries and segments (see map in figure 1.1). 

From a continental perspective, the ZRB contains 

four important areas of biodiversity: 

• Lake Malawi/Niassa/Nyasa, a region of importance 

to global conservation because of the 

evolutionary radiation of fish groups and other 

aquatic species. 

• The swamps, floodplains, and woodlands of the 

paleo-Upper Zambezi in Zambia and northern 

Botswana, including the areas of Barotseland, 

Busanga and Kafue, which along with the Bangweulu 

are thought to be areas of evolutionary 

radiation for groups as disparate as Reduncine 

antelope, suffrutices, and bulbous plants. 

• The Middle Zambezi Valley in northern Zimbabwe 

and the Luangwa Valley in eastern Zambia, two 

of the last remaining protected areas extensive 

enough to support large populations of large 

mammals. 

• The Gorongosa/Cheringoma/Zambezi Delta area of 

central Mozambique, which covers an area of 

enormous habitat diversity not found in such 

close proximity elsewhere on the continent. 

The hydrology of the ZRB is not uniform, 

with generally high rainfall in the north and lower 

rainfall in the south (table 1.1). In some areas in the 

Upper Zambezi and around Lake Malawi/Niassa/ 

Nyasa, rainfall can be as much as 1,400 mm/year, 

while in the southern part of Zimbabwe it can be 

as little as 500 mm/year. 

The mean annual discharge at the outlet of the 

Zambezi River is 4,134 m 3 /s or around 130 km 3 /year 

(figure 1.2). Due to the rainfall distribution, northern 

tributaries contribute much more water than 

southern ones. For example, the northern highlands 

catchment of the Upper Zambezi subbasin contributes 

25 percent, Kafue River nine percent, Luangwa 

River 13 percent, and Shire River 12 percent—for a 

total of 60 percent of the Zambezi River discharge. 

Table 1.1. Precipitation data for the 


Subbasin 

No. 

Mean annual 

precipitation (mm) 

Kabompo 13 1,211 

Upper Zambezi 12 1,225 

Lungúe Bungo 11 1,103 

Luanginga 10 958 

Barotse 9 810 

Cuando/Chobe 8 797 

Kafue 7 1,042 

Kariba 6 701 

Luangwa 5 1,021 

Mupata 4 813 

Shire River and Lake Malawi/ 

Niassa/Nyasa 

3 1,125 

Tete 2 887 

Zambezi Delta 1 1,060 

Zambezi River Basin, mean 956 

Source: Euroconsult Mott MacDonald 2007. 

4


Figure 1.1. The Zambezi River Basin and its 13 subbasins 

IBRD 37633R 

ZAMBEZI RIVER BASIN 

A N G O L A 

N A M I B I A 

Luena 

Rundu 

Saurimo 

Barotse 

Floodplain 

Mongu 

Luena 

Flats 

Maun 

B O T S W A N A 

D E M O C R A T I C R E P U B L I C 

O F C O N G O 

Katima 

Mulilo 

Caprivi-Chobe 

Kasane 

ITEZHI TEZHI 

VICTORIA FALLS 

CHOBE/ 

ZAMBEZI 

TRANSFER 

Solwezi 

Busanga 

Swamp 

Livingstone 

Choma 

MAAMBA 

COAL MINE 

Kafue Flats 

KAFUE GORGE UPPER 

BATOKA GORGE 

LUSAKA 

Lubumbashi 

Lukanga 

Swamp 

KARIBA NORTH 

Mansa 

Kabwe 

Ndola 

KAFUE GORGE LOWER 

KARIBA 

GOKWÉ 

COAL FIRED 

POWER PLANT 

Bulawayo 

KARIBA SOUTH 

Gweru 

Z A M B I A 

Kasama 

HARARE 

Z I M B A B W E 

Chipata 

HCB 

NORTH BANK 

MPHANDA 

NKUWA 

Mutare 

Mbeya 

SONGWE I, II & III 

LOWER FUFU 

CAHORA BASSA 

MOATIZE 

BENGA 

COAL MINE 

AND PLANT 

Tete 

Mzuzu 

MALAWI 

RUMAKALI 

TEDZANI 

KHOLOMBIDZO 

NKULA FALLS 

KAPICHIRA I KAPICHIRA II 

Chimoio 

LILONGWE 

Elephant 

Marsh 

Beira 

T A N Z A N I A 

Blantyre 

Caia 

Lichinga 

Songea 

Luangwa 

Zambezi 

Menongue 

MOZAMBIQUE 

Zambezi 

Quelimane 

Zambezi 

Tsumeb 

11 

10 

8 

12 

9 

13 

7 

6 

4 

2 

5 

3 

Kafue 

Msandire 

i 

Lushiwas h 

Kabompo 

Lungúe Bungo 

Lunga 

Luangwa 

Musondweji 

Lukusashi 

Lunsemfwa 

Kafue 

Luanginga 

Cuando 

Mwembeshi 

Shire 

EXISTING HYDROPOWER PLANTS 

CAHORA BASSA 

2,075 MW 

KARIBA 

1,470 MW 

KAFUE GORGE UPPER 990 MW 

NKULA FALLS 

124 MW 

VICTORIA FALLS 

108 MW 

TEDZANI 

90 MW 

KAPICHIRA I 

64 MW 

PROJECTED HYDROPOWER PLANTS 

MPHANDA NKUWA* 2,000 MW 

BATOKA GORGE 

1,600 MW 

KAFUE GORGE LOWER** 600 MW 

KHOLOMBIZO 

240 MW 

SONGWE I, II & III 

340 MW 

RUMAKALI 

256 MW 

LOWER FUFU 

100 MW 

HYDROPOWER PLANT EXTENSIONS 

HCB NORTH BANK 

850 MW 

KARIBA NORTH 

360 MW 

KARIBA SOUTH 

300 MW 

ITEZHI TEZHI 

120 MW 

KAPICHIRA II 

64 MW 

Lake 

Cahora Bassa 

Luiana 

Mazoe 

Lupata 

Gorge 

Hunyani 

Lake 

Kariba 

Lake 

Mweru 

Lake 

Bangweulu 

Lake 

Tanganyika 

Lake 

Malawi/ 

Niassa/ 

Nyasa 

Kwando 

Lower Shire 

Wetlands 

Linyati 

1 

Zambezi Delta 

Umniati 

Shangani 

0 

0 

ZAMBEZI SUB-BASIN BOUNDARIES 

MAIN PLANNED WATER WITHDRAWALS 

NATIONAL CAPITALS 

MAJOR CITIES 

INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES 

Hydropower capacity estimates are based on the Southern Africa Power Pool, 

Nexant (2007) Study and updated as of 2010. 

* The estimate for Mphanda Nkuwa has been increased to 2,000 MW 

** The estimates for Kafue Gorge Lower are 600 MW with the potential 

for an additional bay of 150 MW 

25 

50 

50 

100 

100 

200 Kilometers 

150 Miles 

Gwai 

INDIAN 

OCEAN 

ZAMBEZI RIVER 

BASIN 

This map was produced by the Map Design Unit of The 

World Bank. The boundaries, colors, denominations and 

any other information shown on this map do not imply, on 

the part of The World Bank Group, any judgment on the 

legal status of any territory, or any endorsement or 

acceptance of such boundaries. 

CURRENT SITUATION (CS) 

IDENTIFIED PROJECTS (IP) 

UPPER LIMIT POTENTIAL (HLI) 

CURRENT SITUATION (CS) 

IDENTIFIED PROJECTS (IP) 

UPPER LIMIT POTENTIAL (HLI) 

1 

ZAMBEZI DELTA 2 TETE 

3 

4 MUPATA 5 LUANGWA 6 KARIBA 

7 

IRRIGATED AREA 

(ha/year) 

7,664 

106,774 

231,774 

EQUIPPED AREA 

(ha) 

6,998 

84,053 

184,053 


(ha/year) 

52,572 

108,193 

508,193 

EQUIPPED AREA 

(ha) 

35,159 

65,495 

265,495 

SHIRE RIVER & 

LAKE MALAWI/NIASSA/NYASA 


(ha/year) 

60,960 

162,126 

766,755 

EQUIPPED AREA 

(ha) 

42,416 

101,927 

451,927 


(ha/year) 

21,790 

30,356 

30,356 

EQUIPPED AREA 

(ha) 

14,200 

20,060 

20,060 


(ha/year) 

17,794 

28,857 

73,814 

EQUIPPED AREA 

(ha) 

10,100 

16,230 

41,230 

8 CUANDO/CHOBE 9 BAROTSE 10 LUANGINGA 11 LUNGÚE BUNGO 12 UPPER ZAMBEZI 13 KABOMPO 


(ha/year) 

765 

1,215 

19,215 

EQUIPPED AREA 

(ha) 

620 

920 

15,920 


(ha/year) 

340 

12,753 

30,466 

EQUIPPED AREA 

(ha) 

200 

7,208 

17,208 


(ha/year) 

1,000 

6,000 

18,500 

EQUIPPED AREA 

(ha) 

750 

5,750 

15,750 


(ha/year) 

1,250 

1,875 

14,375 

EQUIPPED AREA 

(ha) 

1,000 

1,500 

11,500 


(ha/year) 

3,250 

8,250 

20,750 

EQUIPPED AREA 

(ha) 

2,500 

7,500 

17,500 


(ha/year) 

44,531 

228,919 

948,825 


(ha/year) 

595 

11,314 

28,328 

EQUIPPED AREA 

(ha) 

28,186 

147,778 

591,578 

EQUIPPED AREA 

(ha) 

350 

6,650 

16,650 

KAFUE 


(ha/year) 

46,528 

67,048 

104,448 

EQUIPPED AREA 

(ha) 

40,158 

53,768 

78,768 

NOVEMBER 2010 

5


Figure 1.2. Schematic of the Zambezi River with deregulated mean annual discharge (m 3 /s) and runoff (mm) 

Sub 

basin 

BV 

River 

bank 

Tributary 

Discharge 

(m 3 /s) 

Runoff 

(mm) 

Catchment 

area (km 2 ) 

Zambezi River 

mean annual river 

flow (m 3 /s) 

Upper Zambezi 

12 12-1 left/right Zambezi 742 256.2 91,317 1,015 

Subtotal 742 256.2 91,317 

Sub 

basin 

BV 

River 

bank 

Tributary 

Discharge 

(m 3 /s) 

Runoff 

(mm) 

Catchment 

area (km 2 ) 

Kabompo 

273 13 13-1 left/right Kabompo 273.0 109.4 78,683 

Subtotal 273.0 109.4 78,683 

Lungúe Bungo 

11 11-1 left/right Lungúe Bungo 114 80.8 44,368 1,129 

Subtotal 114 80.8 44,368 

Luanginga 

10 10-1 left/right Luanginga 69.4 61.0 35,893 1,198 

Subtotal 69.4 61.0 35,893 

Kwando/Chobe 

8 8-1 left Kwando 32.5 9.0 113,393 

8-2 left/right Chobe –32.5 –28.8 35,601 1,198 

Subtotal 0.0 0.0 148,994 

Barotse 

9 9-1 left/right Zambezi –17.6 –4.8 115,753 1,180 

Subtotal –17.6 –4.8 115,753 

Kariba 

6 6-1 right Gwayi 84 30.1 87,960 1,386 Kafue 

6-2 right Sanyati 104 44.0 74,534 7 7-1 left/right Itezhi Tezhi 336 98.1 108,134 

6-3 left/right Lake Kariba 18 55.6 10,033 1,758 7-2 left/right Kafue Flats 35.0 23.4 47,194 

Subtotal 206 37.6 172,527 7-3 left/right Kafue D/S 0.7 47.6 477 

Subtotal 372 75.3 155,805 

Mupata 

4 4-1 left/right Chongwe 4.1 71.6 1,813 

1,812 4-2 left/right Zambezi 49.9 72.6 21,670 

Subtotal 54.0 72.5 23,483 

Luangwa 

2,330 5 5-1 left/right Luangwa 518 102.3 159,615 

Subtotal 518 102.3 159,615 

Tete 

2 2-1 right Manyame 26.5 20.6 40,497 

2-2 right Luenya 180 99.4 57,004 Shire River and Lake Malawi/Niassa/Nyasa 

2-3 left/right Zambezi 987 301.1 103,393 3,523 3 3-1 right Rumakali 12.5 954.4 414 

Subtotal 1,193 187.3 200,894 3-2 left Songwe 35.2 273.4 4,060 

3-3 left S. Rukuru+ 47.0 118.7 12,483 

N. Rumphi 

4,021 3-4 left/right Tributaries 528 207.5 80,259 

3-5 left/right Lake Malawi/ –287 –314.4 28,760 

Niassa/Nyasa 

evaporation 

3-6 left/right Lake Malawi/ 336 84.1 125,976 

Zambezi Delta 

Niassa/Nyasa 

outlet 

1 1-1 left/right Zambezi 113 191.3 18,680 4,134 3-7 left/right Shire 162 220.4 23,183 

Subtotal 113 191.3 18,680 Subtotal 498 105.3 149,159 

INDIAN OCEAN 

Note: Excludes the operational influence at the Kariba, Cahora Bassa, and Itezhi Tezhi dams. 

6


1.4 Population and 

Economy 

The population of the ZRB is approximately 30 

million (table 1.2), more than 85 percent of whom 

live in Malawi, Zimbabwe, and Zambia within four 

subbasins: Kafue, Kariba, Tete, and the Shire River 

and Lake Malawi/Niassa/Nyasa. 

Of the total population, approximately 7.6 million 

(25 percent) live in 21 main urban centers (with 

50,000 or more inhabitants). The rest live in rural 

areas. The proportion of rural population varies 

from country to country, from over 50 percent in 

Zambia to around 85 percent in Malawi. 

The ZRB is rich in natural resources. The main 

economic activities are fisheries, mining, agriculture, 

tourism, and manufacturing. Industries depend on 

the electricity produced in the hydropower plants 

(HPPs) of the Basin, as well as on other sources of 

energy (primarily coal and oil). 

The eight riparian countries of the Basin represent 

a wide range of economic conditions. Annual 

gross domestic product per capita ranges from $122 

in Zimbabwe to more than $7,000 in Botswana. 

Angola, Botswana, and Namibia have healthy current 

account surpluses, chiefly due to their oil and 

diamond resources (table 1.3). 

1.5 Approach and 

Methodology 

Water resources development is not an end in itself. 

Rather, it is a means to an end: the sustainable use 

of water for productive purposes to enhance growth 

and reduce poverty. The analysis reported here was 

undertaken from an economic perspective so as to 

better integrate the implications of the development 

of investment in water management infrastructure 

into the broad economic development and growth 

Table 1.2. Population of the Zambezi River Basin 

(in thousands, 2005–06 data) 

Subbasin Angola Botswana Malawi Mozambique Namibia Tanzania Zambia Zimbabwe Total % 

Kabompo (13) 4 — — — — — 279 — 283 0.9 

Upper Zambezi (12) 200 — — — — — 71 — 271 0.9 

Lungúe Bungo (11) 99 — — — — — 43 — 142 0.5 

Luanginga (10) 66 — — — — — 56 — 122 0.4 

Barotse (9) 7 — — — 66 — 679 — 752 2.5 

Cuando/Chobe (8) 156 16 — — 46 — 70 — 288 1 

Kafue (7) — — — — — — 3,852 — 3,852 12.9 

Kariba (6) — — — — — — 406 4,481 4,887 16.3 

Luangwa (5) — — 40 12 — — 1,765 — 1,817 6.1 

Mupata (4) — — — — — — 113 111 224 0.7 

Shire River – Lake 

Malawi/Niassa/ — — 10,059 614 — 1,240 13 — 11,926 39.8 

Nyasa (3) 

Tete (2) — — 182 1,641 — — 221 3,011 5,055 16.9 

Zambezi Delta (1) — — — 349 — — — — 349 1.2 

Total 532 17 10,281 2,616 112 1,240 7,568 7,603 29,969 — 

% 1.8 0.1 34.3 8.7 0.4 4.1 25.3 25.4 — 100 

Source: Euroconsult Mott MacDonald 2007; SEDAC 2008. 

7


Table 1.3. Macroeconomic data by country (2006) 

Country 

Population 

(million) 

GDP 

(US$ million) 

GDP/cap 

(US$) 

Inflation 

rate (%) 

Angola 15.8 45.2 2,847 12.2 

Botswana 1.6 11.1 7,019 7.1 

Malawi 13.1 3.2 241 8.1 

Mozambique 20.0 6.8 338 7.9 

Namibia 2.0 6.9 3,389 6.7 

Tanzania 38.2 14.2 372 7.0 

Zambia 11.9 10.9 917 10.7 

Zimbabwe 11.7 1.4 122 >10,000 

Source: Euroconsult Mott MacDonald 2007; SEDAC 2008. 

objectives of the riparian countries and the Basin as a 

whole. An international river system such as the ZRB 

is extremely complex. That complexity is reflected 

in, but also compounded by, the large number of 

initiatives being undertaken within the Basin and 

by the large volume of data and information that 

already exists. To analyze such a complex system, 

simplifications and assumptions are unavoidable. 

Those assumptions and their potential implications 

are acknowledged throughout the report. 

1.5.1 Analytical framework 

Operating within the framework of integrated water 

resources management, this analysis considers the 

following water users as stakeholders: irrigated 

agriculture, hydropower, municipal development, 

rural development, navigation, tourism and wildlife 

conservation, and the environment. The analytical 

framework considered here is illustrated graphically 

in figure 1.3. The present context of the natural and 

developed resource base, as well as cross-cutting 

factors, of the ZRB (rows in the matrix) is assessed 

against the water-using stakeholders (columns 

in the matrix) for a set of development scenarios. 

Those development scenarios are focused on two 

key water-using stakeholders that require major 

investments in the region: hydropower and irrigated 

agriculture. 

While the need to consider the details of the interaction 

among all stakeholders is acknowledged, 

the focus of this analysis is on major water-related 

investments being considered by the riparian 

countries in their national development plans. 

Development scenarios for other stakeholders can 

be superimposed on this analysis at a later time. 

For the time being, however, water supply and 

sanitation, as well as environmental imperatives, 

are considered as givens in nearly all scenarios considered. 

In other words, hydropower and irrigation 

development are superimposed over the continued 

provision of water for basic human needs and environmental 

sustainability. This approach differs from 

the conventional one of assuming basic water needs 

and environmental sustainability as constraints on 

the optimized use of water. 

It should be noted that the scenarios for full 

basin-wide hydropower potential and full irrigation 

development are primarily of analytical interest, 

rather than for practical application. They are 

used here to help bracket the range and scope of 

the analysis and to provide reference points. The 

scenarios are based on identified projects in national 

and regional plans, and are dependent on enabling 

political and economic preconditions for their full 

implementation. The full potential for hydropower 

and irrigation in the Basin is not expected to be 

achieved in the time horizon of this analysis, which 

is based on the current national economic plans of 

the riparian countries. 

The scenario analysis is carried out for the 

primary objective of determining and maximizing 

economic benefits while meeting water supply and 

environmental sustainability requirements. Full cooperation 

among the riparian countries is assumed. 

The scenarios are tested using a coupled hydroeconomic 

modeling system described in volume 

4. The purpose of the modeling effort is to provide 

insight into the range of gains that may be expected 

from various infrastructure investments along the 

axes of full hydropower and irrigation development 

(while continuing to satisfy requirements for water 

supply and environmental sustainability). 

Additionally, the analysis examines the effects 

of conjunctive or coordinated operation of existing 

facilities, as well as potential gains from the strategic 

development of new facilities. The analysis also 

addresses the potential impact of the development 

scenarios on the environment (wetlands), tourism, 

8


Figure 1.3. Zambezi River Basin: scenario analysis matrix 

Regional Assessment 

Analytical framework applied to the development and analysis of scenarios. 

The regional assessment explores the eight riparian countries, 13 subbasins and three zones of the Basin to define scenarios 

based on optimized and collaborative water resource management 

Zambezi River Basin Management and Development 

Biophysical setting 


cross-cutting factors 

Macroeconomic setting 

Sociological setting 

Institutional setting 

Agriculture, Livestock and Forestry 

Environmental Sustainability 

Fisheries and Aquaculture 

Energy and Hydropower 

Potable Water and Sanitation 

Navigation 

Tourism 

Mining and Industry 

Beneficial uses 

of water resources 

flood control, guaranteed minimum river flows in 

the dry season, and other topics. 

Specific attention is also given to the operational 

and investment options for reducing flood 

risks downstream of Cahora Bassa Dam and to the 

possibility of partial restoration of natural floods to 

manage the impact on the Zambezi Delta of existing 

dams on the Zambezi River. In this analysis, the 

impact of climate change on the hydrology of the 

ZRB and on the investment options assessed are 

addressed through a rudimentary incremental variation 

of key driving factors. Climate change is deemed 

a risk factor to developments and more detailed 

analysis is warranted for an in-depth understanding 

of impact. The ongoing efforts by the riparian 

countries and the development partners on assessing 

the impact of climate change on the Zambezi River 

Basin will provide guidance in due course. 

Looming large in the analysis are the economics 

of different options, conceived in terms of the effect 

of potential investments on national and regional 

growth and on poverty reduction. With that in mind, 

the analysis considers the entire Basin as a single 

natural resource base while examining potential 

sectoral investments. This approach is appropriate 

for initial indicative purposes and provides a common 

point of reference for all riparian countries. 

The complexities inherent in national economics 

and transboundary political relationships are not 

directly addressed in this analysis. This is left to 

the riparian countries to address, informed by the 

results of this and other analyses. 

1.5.2 The River/Reservoir System Model 

The modeling package adopted for the analysis is 

HEC-3, a river and reservoir system model developed 

by the Hydrologic Engineering Center of the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The version of the 

model used in this study, illustrated in figure 1.4, 

was modified by the consultants to improve some 

of its features. The same software package was 

9

North Rumphi 

27 

23 


Figure 1.4. Schematic of the river/reservoir system model for the Zambezi River Basin 

Lungúe Bungo 

LEGEND 

I.07.01 

I.07.02 

Kafue Flats 

The following water abstraction points will be modeled with reservoirs in order to anticipate the regulation needs: 1.13, 1.12, 1.11, 1.10, 

1.08.1, 1.05.1, 1.05.2, 1.07.1, 1.06.7, 1.06.8, 1.02.2, 1.02.3. 

Future control points for irrigation are to a degree already used at present. 

W.07.01 

Lusaka 

water 

supply 

26 

Songwe I Songwe II 

37 37 38 38 

Shawanoya 

Luenya 

Luangwa 

Cuando 

Shire 

I.08.01 

I.11.01 

I.10.01 

7 

Pandamatenga Plains 

I.09.01 

I.07.01 

I.13.01 

I.07.02 

8 06 

9 

11 11 12 

I.06.09 

I.06.10 

I.07.04 

Kafue Gorge 

Lower 

I.05.01 

I.07.05 

Luangwa Valley 

I.05.02 

I.03.04 

Nkula Falls 

I.03.03 

48 Tedzani 

48 

49 I.03.02 

50 

Kapichira 

50 

27 Chikwawa 

I.03.01 

Kafue 

Gorge 

Upper 

Zambezi 

Kongola 

Cuando / Chobe 

Okavango 

Luanginga 

3 

2 

1 

Kabompo 

Control point for irrigation abstraction 

Name of the abstraction line in the abstraction database 

Final number to distinguish different abstraction lines 

Subbasin 

I: irrigation, W: drinkable water, M: mining & industry 

Kabompo 

River 

Flood plain 

Lake / reservoir / pondage 

Gwayi 

Sanyati 

Kafue 

Zambezi 

6 

4 

Chavuma 

Mission 

03 

Kalabo 

5 

10 

Control point for water supply abstraction 

17 

9 10 

Hydropower plant 

Control point for mining & industrial abstraction 34 Existing control point 

34 Future control point 

13 

15 

14 

20 

15 

15 

Lunsemfwa 

22 

I.02.01 

Songwe 

I.02.02 

I.03.08 (Tanzania) 

22 

I.03.09 (Malawi) 40 

Land discharge 

Lower Fufu 

23 

I.03.07 41 42 42 

Phwezi 26 

I.02.03 

30 31 31 

Kholombizo 

Kafue 

17 18 

Kamativi 

11 

19 

19 

15 

15 

20 

Net evaporation series over reservoir 

located at control point 26 

15 

21 

22 

24 

25 

12 

26 

13 

15 

28 

29 

29 

29 

36 

Rumakali 

34 Rumakali 

35 35 20 

Humage 

32 

44 

45 

46 

46 

47 

43 

51 

Elephant 

28 

Licuari 

power stations 

Marsh 

Nacuadala Campo 

I.01.01 

Zambezi 

Zambezi 

33 19 52 Delta 53 

I.02.04 Lupata 

I.01.02 

Chongwe 

05 

Selinda 

Spillway 

Okavango 

Swamps - 

Okavango 

Delta 

Chobe-Caprivi- 

Lake Liambezi 

Flood Plain 

I.08.02 

(Zambia) 

I.08.03 

(Namibia) 

Katima Mulilo 

02 

Barotse 

Flood Plain 

04 

I.12.01 

01 

Watopa 

Pontoon 

I.06.01 (Zambia) 

I.06.02 (Zimbabwe) 

I.06.03 (Namibia) 

I.06.04 (Botswana) 

W.06.01 

Gaborone 

water supply 

16 

Victoria 

Falls 

Itezhi Tezhi 

inflows 

M.07.01 

Copperbelt 

mines, water 

abstractions 

& dewatering 

17 

Itezhi 

Tezhi 

11 

07 

09 

08 

20 

I.07.03 

20 

15 

14 

Chivero 

Other rivers of Lake Malawi/Niassa/ 

Nyasa catchment 

16 

24 

Chiweta 

31 

18 

17 

Mazowe 

Songwe III 

39 39 21 

Mwandenga 

43 

25 

Victoria Falls 

Batoka Gorge 

Luangwa 

I.06.05 

(Zambia) 

I.06.06 

(Zimbabwe) 

I.06.07 

(Zambia) 

I.06.08 

(Zimbabwe) 

Kafue Flats 

inflows 

Lower 

Catchment 

reconstituted 

inflows 

19 

Kafue 

Flats 

I.06.11 

(Zambia) 

I.06.12 

(Zimbabwe) 

M.06.01 

Maamba Colliery & 

thermal station 

15 

Kariba 

Copper Queen M.06.02 

Gokwé 

thermal 

power 

station 

Great 

East 

Road 

bridge 

I.04.01 

(Zambia) 

I.04.02 

(Zimbabwe) 

I.05.03 

(Zambia) 

I.05.04 

(Mozambique) 

Great East 

Road bridge 

29 

Cahora Bassa 

Cahora Bassa 

reconstituted 

local inflows 

Cahora Bassa 

outflows 

Manyane 

Mphanda Nkuwa 

W.06.02 

Bulawayo 

water supply 

Streamflow gauging station, 

reservoir inflow,hydropower 

plant turbine flow + spill 

I.03.05 

(Tanzania) 

I.03.06 

(Malawi) 

South Rukuru 

I.03.12 

(Tanzania) 

Mutoko 

Road Brdge 

Tete - 

Matundo 

Cais 

M.02.01 

Moatize 

M.02.02 

Benga Coal 

mines & thermal 

I.02.05 

(Zimbabwe) 

I.02.06 

(Mozambique) 

Lake 

Malawi/ 

Niassa/Nyasa 

43 

Lake Malawi/Niassa/Nyasa 

Net Inflow 

I.03.10 

(Tanzania) 

I.03.11 

(Malawi) 

Naturalised discharges of Lake 

Malawi/Niassa/Nyasa at Liwonde 

10


adopted during the SADC 3.0.4 project that investigated 

joint operation of the Kariba, Kafue Gorge 

Upper, and Cahora Bassa dams. The model is still 

being used by the Zambezi River Authority (ZRA). 

The fact that water professionals in the ZRB were 

familiar with the earlier version of the model partly 

accounts for its selection. A detailed description of 

the model appears in volume 4 of this report. 

In the present analysis, the modeling time step 

adopted is one month. All inputs, inflows, evaporation, 

diversions or withdrawals, downstream 

flow demands, and reservoir rule curves are on a 

monthly basis. The outputs of the model—reservoir 

storage and outflows, turbine flow, spill, and power 

generation—are also on a monthly basis. The simulation 

period spans 40 years—from October 1962 to 

September 2002—long enough to obtain a realistic 

estimate of energy production. The main inflow 

series, from the Zambezi River at Victoria Falls, 

shows that the flow sequence from 1962 to 1981 

is above normal, while the sequence from 1982 to 

2002 is below normal. The flow data available to the 

study team were insufficient to consider extending 

the simulation period beyond 2002. Information on 

groundwater (e.g., status of aquifers and abstraction 

levels) was too insufficient to allow for sufficient 

conjunctive analysis. 

While the focus of this analysis is on hydropower 

and irrigation, the river/reservoir system 

model takes into account all sectors concerned 

with water management, notably tourism, fisheries, 

environment such as environmental flows (e-flows) 

and specific important wetlands, flood control, and 

industry. Details of the guidelines and rule curves 

used in the model for reservoir operations, flood 

management, delta and wetlands management, 

environmental flows, tourism flows, and fisheries 

flows are given in volume 4 of this series. 

Maintaining e-flows throughout the system was 

a major consideration in this analysis. Reaches of the 

Zambezi River upstream of the Kariba and Cahora 

Bassa dams are generally considered in near-pristine 

condition. The tributaries rising in Zimbabwe are 

highly developed, with river-regulation infrastructure 

for irrigation. The Kafue River is also regulated and 

sustains a large number of water-using sectors. The 

Zambezi River downstream from the Kariba and Cahora 

Bassa dams, like the Zambezi Delta, has been permanently 

altered by river-regulation infrastructure. 

To take into account e-flows in the various 

reaches of the Zambezi River, some assumptions 

had to be made related to the amount of water 

available at all times. The following e-flow criteria 

were used in the river/reservoir system model in 

almost all the scenarios: the flow should never fall 

below historical low-flow levels in dry years of the 

record, 1 where records are available. Moreover, the 

average annual flow cannot fall below 60 percent 

of the natural average annual flow downstream 

from Kariba Dam. The minimum flow in the 

Zambezi Delta in February was set at 7,000 m 3 /s 

for at least four out of five dry years. 

The development scenarios, the state of the 

basin, and the modeling, analysis, and input data 

are described in detail in volumes 2, 3, and 4, respectively. 

Together, they strengthen the analytical 

knowledge base available for making informed 

decisions about investment opportunities, financing, 

and benefit sharing. Moreover, the analysis can 

assist the Zambezi River Watercourse Commission 

awaiting ratification (ZAMCOM), SADC, and riparian 

countries by providing insight into options for 

joint or cooperative development as well as associated 

benefit sharing. 

1.5.3 The Economic Assessment Tool 

The economic assessment approach used here incorporates 

the inputs from the various projects for 

sector analysis to provide an overall analysis of the 

economic implications of development and investment 

scenarios. A schematic of the elements of the 

development scenario is given in figure 1.5. The 

development scenarios were compared to assess the 

relative viability of a given option. For hydropower 

and irrigation, the basic elements of the analysis are 

the projects identified by the riparian countries. This 

analysis is multi-sectoral by design; the major link 

among the sectors (and associated projects) is the 

allocation or use of water. 

The economic analysis uses input from the 

river/reservoir system model. 

1 

The statistical dry year considered here is the natural flow with a five-year return period. 

11


Figure 1.5. Schematic of the elements of the economic analysis tool 

Scenario 

Power sector 

Agriculture sector 

Other sectors 

Other major projects 

Hydropower plants 

Irrigation schemes 

– Tourism 

– Fisheries 

– Environment 

– Chobe/Zambezi transfer 

– Maamba coal mine 

– Gokwé coal mine 

– Moatize Benga coal mine 

– Lusaka water supply 

• Hydropower. The model uses the production 

figures from the hydropower installations 

(described in detail in the section on the hydropower 

in volume 3) and attributes these to the 

various hydropower projects. 

• Irrigation. Based on the allocated water and 

development scenarios, the appropriate models 

for the relevant irrigation projects are used at 

specific abstraction points in the river/reservoir 

system model, and the associated costs and 

benefits are calculated. 

• Other sectors. Data on flows at Victoria Falls is 

used to assess their impact on tourism. Financial 

and economic values of different flood management 

options and their impact on the Zambezi 

Delta are calculated. The value of wetlands used 

in the analysis tool is derived from the analysis 

of the environmental resources (details are provided 

in volume 3). 

• Other major projects. Water-transfer schemes associated 

with these major projects are included 

in the scenario analysis. 

The economic assessment is based on a number 

of assumptions regarding its parameters. It includes 

the following: 

• Scenario level – starting date, time horizon; 

• Sector – sector-specific parameters and prices, 

the specific irrigation models used in sector 

projects (e.g., crop budgets); and 

• Project – project time frames, project-specific 

costs and benefits. 

Details of the economic analysis assumptions 

can be found in volume 4. 

The economic assessment tool provides, as 

output, a summary table, which includes: 

• Hydropower generation and agriculture output, 

presented in the agricultural and irrigation 

calculations; 

• Cash flows based on project cash flows; 

• Economic internal rate of return and net present 

value (NPV) by development scenario, based on 

the appropriate time frame and project implementation 

schedule; 

• Employment impact (jobs) calculated as the ratio 

of jobs to gigawatt hours of installed capacity 

or jobs to hectares of a particular crop; and, 

• A sensitivity analysis that was carried out for 

variations in investment costs, prices, and production 

values. 

12

2 

The River/Reservoir 

Operation Model 

The Zambezi River Basin (ZRB) was modeled with a modified version 

of HEC-3, a software program for the analysis of reservoir systems 

developed by the Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC) of the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers. The version of the HEC-3 model used in 

this study is basically the software package used in the SADC 3.0.4 

project, which investigated the joint operation of the Kariba, Kafue, 

and Cahora Bassa dams (Shawinigan Engineering and Hidrotécnica 

Portuguesa 1990). This software is still used by the Zambezi River 

Authority (ZRA) to assess the Upper Zambezi River Basin’s system of 

hydropower plants (HPPs). Other studies have adopted HEC-5, which 

remains available as legacy software on the HEC website. The two 

software packages are compatible and apply the same optimization 

algorithms to simulations carried out within a given time frame, typically 

one month. Both HEC-3 and HEC-5 are MS-DOS applications. 

More recently, the HEC has developed the Microsoft Windows-based 

ResSim reservoir simulation package. Whereas HEC-3 is essentially 

a planning tool, and HEC-5 can be used as both a planning and an 

operation tool, ResSim is designed primarily as an operating tool. 

While HEC-3 was deemed adequate for this preliminary analysis, 

HEC-5 and ResSim should be considered in future analyses. 

2.1 System Characterization 

The schematic diagram of the Zambezi River Basin, as represented 

in the river/reservoir model, is illustrated in figure 1.4. The model 

contains a total of 53 computational nodes referred to as control points; 

three carryover reservoirs (Kariba, Cahora Bassa, and Itezhi Tezhi) 

that are operated between full supply level and minimum operating 

level during critical dry sequences; and two major natural water 

bodies (Lake Malawi/Niassa/Nyasa and the Kafue Flats). Smaller 

reservoirs and ponds are assumed to operate between full supply 

level and minimum operating level—daily, weekly, or monthly. The 

model also includes existing HPPs, expansion plans, and future HPPs, 

as described in recently completed regional power generation planning 

studies (Econ Pöyry 2008 and NEXANT 2007). Evaporation is 

estimated for all reservoirs and ponds. Other control points consist 

13


of diversions for consumption (such as water supply 

and sanitation demands, irrigation demands, 

and water transfer) or to meet environmental flow 

targets (e-flows). 

The modeling time step adopted in this analysis 

is one month. All inputs, inflows, evaporation, 

diversions or water withdrawals, downstream 

flow demands, and reservoir rule curves are 

monthly. Consequently, the output—including 

reservoir storage and outflows, turbine flow, spill, 

and power generation—is on a monthly basis. 

Smaller computation time steps—those that can 

be modeled with HEC-5 or ResSim—have not 

been considered owing to the fact that most daily 

inflow series are incomplete over the simulation 

period and could not be completed by rainfallrun-off 

modeling within the project time frame 

and budget. 

The simulation period considered is from October 

1962 to September 2002—adequate to obtain a 

reasonable estimate of energy production. The main 

inflow series, from Zambezi River at Victoria Falls, 

shows that the flow sequence from 1962 to 1981 was 

above normal, while the sequence from 1982 to 2002 

was below normal. Flow data were insufficient to 

permit extending the simulation period from 2002 

to the present time. 

2.2 Hydrology in the Model 

2.2.1 Inflows 

System inflows are the model’s primary hydrologic 

components. As shown in the schematic diagram, 

there are 28 inflow points, of which 24 are monthly 

flow series at hydrometric gauging stations during 

the period from October 1962 to September 2002. 

Stations 9 and 15 represent the reconstituted inflows 

into the Kariba and Cahora Bassa reservoirs and 

take into account potential evaporation as described 

below. Station 25 represents the reconstituted natural 

net inflows into Lake Malawi/Niassa/Nyasa 

computed from natural monthly outflows and storage 

variations and do not account for net evaporation. 

Station 10 represents Itezhi Tezhi flows, which 

are the inflows reconstituted from outflows and 

changes in reservoir levels. 

2.2.2 Local flows at control points 

Local flows at the 53 control points, where time 

series were not available, are calculated as a ratio 

of the flows of the nearest gauged station. Cumulative 

local flows are equal to the difference between 

the inflows at a given control point and the inflows 

from all reservoirs immediately above that control 

point, such that if the above-reservoir releases were 

added to the cumulative local flow, the resulting 

flow would be the regulated flow. 

2.2.3 Evaporation 

Reservoir evaporation is an important part of the 

system’s water balance computation. It becomes 

an input to the model through the specification 

of a net evaporation rate (the difference between 

evaporation and rainfall) for each reservoir. This 

rate may be made the same for all reservoirs and all 

years, varied by time period, or varied by reservoir. 

For the Batoka, Kariba, Itezhi Tezhi, Kafue Flats, 

Kafue Gorge, Cahora Bassa, and Mphanda Nkuwa 

reservoirs, monthly series of net evaporation were 

calculated with data from the global grid database 

developed from station data provided by the Climate 

Research Unit (CRU) at the Tyndall Centre 

for Climate Change Research, University of East 

Anglia, United Kingdom. The size of the grid considered 

is one-half of one degree of longitude and 

latitude. The monthly values represent the average 

value for the grid cell. In addition to precipitation, 

the database also contains grid estimates of maximum 

and minimum temperatures, cloud cover, 

and vapor pressure, all variables that are inputs 

for the calculation of open-water evaporation in 

reservoirs (or reference evapotranspiration [ETo] 

required as input to several precipitation run-off 

models) or for the determination of irrigation requirements. 

The database CRU TS 2.1 is open to the 

public at the CRU Web site (www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ 

cru/data/hrg.htm). The methodology is explained 

in Mitchell and Jones (2005). Precipitation estimates 

are generally in accordance with climatological 

station data. For smaller reservoirs, a system net 

evaporation developed during the SADC AAA.3.4 

study was adopted that varies from month to 

month but is constant throughout the simulation 

14

The River/Reservoir Operation Model 

period (Shawinigan Engineering and Hidrotécnica 

Portuguesa 1990). 

2.2.4 Hydrologic balance equation 

Computations in the model are based on the principle 

of continuity as expressed by the equation: 

S i = S i–1 + I i – Q i – E i 

S i 

= reservoir storage volume at the end of the 

current period i. 

S i–1 

= reservoir storage volume at the end of the 

previous period i–1. 

I i 

= inflow volume during period i. 

Q i 

= release volume during period i. 

E i 

= net evaporation volume during period i. 

This basic equation is appropriate for accounting 

storage where the period considered is long 

compared with the travel time through the reservoir. 

It should be noted that proper definition of inflow 

volume (I) implies here that all diversions into the 

reservoir and releases from upstream reservoirs 

must be added to the natural inflow to obtain the 

inflow volume. Release volume (Q) implies that all 

diversions out of the reservoir, leakages from the 

reservoir, and releases for different purposes are 

added together to obtain the total release volume. 

Net evaporation volume (E) reflects the gain or 

loss in reservoir storage volume that would occur 

because of net evaporation (evaporation minus 

precipitation) over the impoundment area during 

the period. 

2.3 Operating Guidelines 

and Rule Curves 

2.3.1 Reservoirs 

The reservoir characteristics describe important 

physical features of each reservoir and are necessary 

for modeling storage and release features. For 

a particular reservoir, each reservoir elevation is 

associated with a specific storage capacity, surface 

area, and outlet capacity. The outlet capacity may be 

the spillway capacity, but in the case where an HPP 

is present at the outlet of the reservoir, the outlet 

capacity includes turbine flow capacity. 

Operation of a reservoir can be described in 

terms of its rule curve, which provides a reservoir 

level or outflow that must be followed. A reservoir 

can be divided into operation zones or pools linked 

to the rule curve. Each pool is described by its top 

level, which may vary over the year. 

To simulate the operation of a reservoir system, 

the operating rules must be expressed in quantitative 

or mathematical terms. The primary mechanism 

for doing this is by dividing the reservoir into 

imaginary horizontal levels. Corresponding to each 

level is a reservoir elevation, storage, surface area, 

and outlet capacity. Differences among levels are 

zones of potential storage volume. The lowest level 

corresponds to the bottom of the conservation pool 

(top of inactive pool), the second-lowest level is the 

top of the buffer zone, the highest level is the full 

pool level (top of flood control), and the secondhighest 

level is the top of conservation (bottom of 

flood control). Additional levels can be established 

to facilitate individual reservoir operating criteria; 

however, this feature has not been used in the present 

analysis. In particular, these additional levels 

would be instrumental in a more balanced operation 

of Kariba, Itezhi Tezhi, and Cahora Bassa reservoirs 

when they are operated conjunctively. 

Each reservoir is operated to meet stream flow 

requirements or energy demand at specified locations 

in the system. Priority withdrawals from reservoirs 

include water supply and e-flows where available 

and appropriate, and can be established by specifying 

additional levels. Water is taken first from the highest 

storage zone, then from the second highest, and so 

on, down to the lowest, keeping all reservoirs in the 

system in balance to the extent possible. 

Other operating criteria specified in the model 

are the initial reservoir storage and spillway surcharge. 

An initial storage must be specified to begin 

the simulation. This may be an actual or assumed 

value. During flood operations, inflow causing a 

reservoir to rise above its flood control level must be 

either spilled or stored in surcharge storage. Water 

spilled may be released into the stream below the 

reservoir or into a diversion, if one exists. The other 

alternative is to specify that the excess will be stored 

in surcharge storage. 

15


In the Zambezi River Basin model, all reservoir 

characteristics were considered to the maximum extent 

possible based on available data from previous 

studies. In addition, a distinction was made between 

storage and pondage. A storage reservoir is one that 

can be operated annually (such as Itezhi Tezhi, and 

the projected three Songwe and Rumakali reservoirs) 

or as carryover reservoirs for several years (such 

as Lake Kariba and Lake Cahora Bassa). All other 

power reservoirs are considered pondage, as they 

can be operated only over relatively short periods 

and are considered dummies in the model. Their 

only function is to allow for evaporation. However, 

reservoirs declared in the model to satisfy irrigation 

needs are refilled during the wet season and drawn 

down during the irrigation season as required. 

The case of Kafue Flats is special and was 

modeled as a natural reservoir. Regulating the 

Itezhi Tezhi reservoir to meet the demand from the 

downstream existing Kafue Gorge Upper and projected 

Kafue Gorge Lower HPPs is less than perfect 

because, owing to a slight bed slope, releases from 

the reservoir are delayed about two months into 

the Kafue Gorge head pond. The delay observed 

between when any reservoir operation action is carried 

out at Itezhi Tezhi and the time this action is felt 

at the Kafue Gorge Upper and Kafue Gorge Lower 

HPPs can be simulated by modeling the Kafue Flats 

as a natural reservoir with specific storage and outlet 

characteristics. These characteristics are adjusted 

until the required time lag between outflows at 

Itezhi Tezhi and those experienced at Kafue Gorge 

is obtained. The results of the SADC AAA.3.4 study 

were adopted in the present analysis (Shawinigan 

Engineering and Hidrotécnica Portuguesa 1990). 

2.3.2 Flood management 

Between Cahora Bassa and Lupata Gorge in 

Mozambique, there are a number of significant 

tributaries. The most important of which are, on the 

left-bank: the Revubue River which joins the main 

stem of the Zambezi River downstream of the city 

of Tete, the Mavuzi River, and the Luia River near 

Lupata Gorge; and on the right-bank: the Mazowe/ 

Luenha River which originates in Zimbabwe. 

Flooding regularly occurs some 80 km downstream 

from the city of Tete and downstream from 

Lupata Gorge, where the channel geometry of the 

Zambezi River changes from a confined channel to 

a floodplain. Since Cahora Bassa’s existing spillway 

capacity is insufficient to pass large flood inflows 

during the wet season, the reservoir is drawn down 

prior to the flood season in order to provide a buffer. 

The result is that flood peaks are shaved, and 

peak outflow is less than peak inflow. As such, this 

mode of operation assists in reducing flood peaks 

downstream in the floodplain. However, tributaries, 

either together or individually, contribute to downstream 

flooding. It was assessed, for example, that 

flooding during the 2007 season originated from the 

Revubue River. At other times, flooding is caused 

by backwater from the gorge occurring when floods 

originate from the Luia. 

Flooding downstream from Lupata Gorge starts 

when flows are on the order of 10,000 to 12,000 m 3 

per second, and severe flooding occurs when they 

reach 14,000 to 15,000 m 3 per second. A typical 

flood may last up to two months. Peak flood figures 

are approximate, as ratings curves at hydrometric 

stations located downstream from Cahora Bassa, 

Tete, Tete-Matundo Cais, and Lupata are not well 

defined at high discharges and have not necessarily 

been validated in recent years. Settling in the lower 

floodplain of the Zambezi River is illegal, but people 

still encroach on this territory for their livelihood. 

Water management of Cahora Bassa Dam is governed 

by a safety rule curve that was developed and 

adopted by Hidroeléctrica de Cahora Bassa (HCB) 

and by Direcção Nacional de Águas (the National 

Directorate for Water, DNA) in Mozambique in 1998. 

This rule curve represents the maximum permissible 

month-end level that cannot be exceeded for safety 

reasons and provides the necessary storage volume 

for inflow routing during the rainy season at the end 

of the hydrologic year (September). This rule curve 

has worked well since it was introduced, although 

in an extremely wet year, with flows higher than the 

one in 500 year return period, the available storage 

volume must be increased by lowering the reservoir 

in advance proportionally to the forecasted inflow. 

In order not to adversely affect power production, 

the reservoir is lowered below the rule curve only 

when rainfall tendencies in the upstream basin and 

published forecasts point to excessive run-off in the 

months of January, February, or March. 

16


While the rule curve represents an upper reservoir 

limit, water levels are adjusted in accordance 

with inflow forecasts. In this respect, HCB has developed 

an annual forecasting procedure based on 

three to six month precipitation forecasts from the 

Southern African Regional Climate Outlook Forum, 

Climate Prediction Center, and the European Center 

for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts. Scenarios are 

considered from these forecasts; each consists of a 

combination of inflows with given return periods. 

A month-by-month annual forecast from October to 

the following September is prepared that includes 

inflows, turbine outflows based on the power demand 

forecast, and month-end reservoir levels. As 

the season progresses, the forecast of inflows into 

the Cahora Bassa reservoir is refined by analyzing 

monthly, two-week, and weekly precipitation forecasts 

as well as by carrying out a daily water-balance 

analysis. This method is of the predictor-corrector 

type and, owing to the large reservoir volume, 

leaves room for correction in the following week 

should the forecast overshoot or undershoot during 

the current week. 

Forecasts are discussed with the regional water 

administrations (ARAs) and national water 

agencies of Mozambique, and HCB provides early 

warning of any planned spill and attempts to spill 

as uniformly as possible. However, forecast would 

improve greatly if there was enhanced access to 

regular, sufficient and up to date information from 

upstream operators. To this end, a meeting of the 

Joint Operation Technical Committee—which 

comprises, among other members, HCB, the Zambia 

Electricity Supply Corporation (ZESCO), and 

the Zambezi River Authority (ZRA)—took place 

in January 2010 to start the process of signing a 

memorandum of understanding between the governments 

of Mozambique, Zambia, and Zimbabwe 

that stipulates the routine exchange of information 

between hydropower operators in the Zambezi 

River Basin and coordinated spill operations during 

the flood season. 

2.3.3 The Zambezi Delta 

Inundation of the entire Delta occurs when the 

Zambezi River overtops its banks and spreads laterally 

over the Delta. As the Zambezi River enters 

the Delta region, it divides into a complex network 

of distributaries, as shown in figure 2.1. 

Some 30 km from the coast, the Zambezi River 

divides in two, with the Chinde River to the north 

and the main stem of the Zambezi River to the 

south. The Chinde River meanders eastward to 

form a navigable channel that leads to a shallow 

harbor at the coastal port of Chinde. Near the 

coast, the Chinde River captures run-off from the 

Maria River, a small channel that breaks from the 

main stem of the Zambezi River just north of the 

Chinde River divide, and collects run-off from the 

northern floodplains. The main Zambezi River 

divides one last time about 15 km from the sea, 

where it opens up into two large coastal outlets, the 

Zambezi River mouth (Boca do Zambeze) and the 

smaller Catarina River. The Lower Zambezi River 

channels near the coast have gently sloping banks, 

and much of the region is therefore inundated as 

floodwaters rise. 

Flooding patterns near the Delta coast are also 

influenced by oceanic tides (Hidrotécnica Portuguesa 

1965). The Delta region has the highest tidal 

variation in Mozambique and one of the highest 

along the East African coast. At spring tide, the 

maximum tidal amplitude is 4.1 meters at Chinde 

and 4.7 meters at Quelimane. During the rainy season, 

high tides spread floodwaters over the coastal 

plains. During the dry season, tidal influence is 

evident for 80 km upstream. 

Over the past century, flooding patterns in the 

Zambezi Delta have been affected by the operation 

of the Kariba and especially the Cahora Bassa dams; 

the construction of embankments along the main 

stem of the Zambezi River, the upper Delta floodplains, 

and coastal plains; and the dispersal of the 

main Zambezi River into other distributaries. The 

flows of the Zambezi River now rarely exceed the 

minimum threshold of 4,500 m 3 per second for discharging 

into the upper Delta waterways. Overbank 

flooding is mostly limited to the brackish coastal 

region under tidal influence. 

2.3.4 Environmental flows (minimum flow 

and restoration of natural flooding) 

Ecological and environmental water requirements 

depend on many complex factors and go well 

17

Zambezi 


ZAMBEZI RIVER DELTA Vol 4 Figure 2.1 

Figure 2.1. The Zambezi Delta 

Quelimane 

IBRD 37981 

August 2010 

Mopeia 

Zambezi 

R. 

Marromeu 

Luabo 

R. 

Chinde 

M o z a m b i q u e 

C h a n n e l 

FLOOD PROTECTION 

MAIN ROADS 

MAIN RAILROADS 

RIVERS AND CREEKS 

ELEVATIONS: 

MORE THAN 60m. 

40 – 60m. 

19 – 40m. 

13 – 19m. 

7 – 13m. 

0 – 7m. 

ZAMBEZI RIVER 

BASIN 

Area of map 

0 10 20 30 40 

50 

KILOMETERS 

Source: Beilfuss and Brown 2006. 


18


beyond “minimum flow” requirements. One of 

the key drivers of the health and operation of an 

aquatic system is the frequency and duration of 

floodplain inundation. Quantifying these processes 

requires detailed surveys at representative river 

cross-sections as well as reliable models of daily 

flow in the system, of which neither is available 

for the Zambezi River Basin. Estimating e-flow 

requirements is also not a task that can be done in 

isolation of other water using sectors. For a riverine 

ecology to continue to function in a pristine or other 

agreed state, a set of operating guidelines and rules 

must be developed so that e-flows are taken into 

account when determining water allocation and 

the sustainability of the system. The key challenge 

is to quantify trade-offs so as to balance development 

and poverty reduction, as well as sustainable 

ecosystems. 

Under ideal conditions, given sufficient time 

and money, studies would be conducted to assess 

the ecological and environmental impact of 

increasing levels of water-resources development. 

It would then be up to the stakeholders to decide 

on the desired ecological state of the river and how 

to achieve that state given the need for economic 

growth and development. Since comprehensive 

studies at basin-level were not possible to complete 

within the MSIOA project, available research by 

river ecologists was used as a starting point. The 

analysis should be refined as detailed studies are 

conducted and more information becomes available. 

The Zambezi River upstream of the Kariba and 

Cahora Bassa dams is in near-pristine condition. Exceptions 

include the tributaries within Zimbabwe, 

which are overdeveloped for irrigation, and the 

Kafue River, which is comparatively regulated and 

there are concerns regarding pollution from mining 

and industrial activities. 

Downstream from the Kariba and Cahora Bassa 

dams, and in the Delta, the river is permanently 

altered. To maintain the Upper ZRB in its present 

environmental state, the flow should never drop 

below the current low-flow levels in dry years, as 

estimated from statistical analysis, and the average 

annual flow should not drop below 60 percent of 

the natural average annual flow. This condition is, 

in fact, a minimum flood constraint, as most of the 

annual run-off is produced during floods. 

These two conditions were expressed as follows 

in the river/reservoir system model. 

• When the flow drops below the 10-year low 

flow (month Q10 low-flow discharge), abstractions 

are reduced to maintain the flow requirement. 

If the 10-year low flow is not maintained 

even without abstractions, then its value in the 

model is null (this may occur on the Zimbabwean 

tributaries, in particular). If this happens, 

the five-year low flow is selected (month 

Q5 low-flow discharge). If in turn, this flow is 

also null (in rare instances), no minimum flow 

is considered. 

• The maximum regulation volume upstream 

of any abstraction point cannot be higher 

than 40 percent of the mean annual run-off 

of the five-year dry year (year Q5 low-flow 

discharge). Consequently, at least 60 percent 

of the flood should be preserved during four 

years out of five. 

For each abstraction point not regulated by the 

Kariba or Cahora Bassa dams, the monthly flows 

entered in the model for Scenario 0 (monthly flows 

observed from 1962 to 2002) are the flows to be 

considered for calculations of the following values: 

• The base low flows of the 10-year return dry 

year; 

• The base low flows of the 5-year return dry year; 

• The base mean annual run-off of the 5-year 

return dry year. These flows have already been 

modified by existing developments, but they 

are the closest to natural conditions. 

For each abstraction point downstream from 

the Kariba Dam, the flows to be considered are the 

unregulated flows. The monthly unregulated flows 

were obtained by deregulating the reservoirs and 

accounting for reservoir evaporation as described 

in section 2.2.3. 

There are two exceptions to the above-defined 

methodology on environmental flows. 

• For the stretch of the Kafue River downstream 

from the Itezhi Tezhi Dam (the Kafue Flats), the 

water right held by ZESCO for the abstraction of 

19


water from the Itezhi Tezhi reservoir is subject 

to the following specified release conditions: 

• The holder shall store and release a minimum 

of 300 m 3 per second over a period of 

four weeks in each year from the Itezhi Tezhi 

reservoir to preserve the ecological balance 

of the Kafue Flats. 

• The holder shall store and release sufficient 

water to ensure that a minimum of 15 m 3 per 

second is available for other users between 

the Itezhi Tezhi Dam and Kafue Gorge Dam 

at all times. 

• The holder shall ensure that a minimum 

flow of 25 m 3 per second in the river between 

the Itezhi Tezhi Dam and Kafue 

Gorge Dam is maintained at all times. 

• Downstream from the Cahora Bassa Dam, the 

model prescribes restoration of natural flooding 

(also referred to as artificial flooding) of 7,000 

m 3 per second in the Lower Delta in February 

of each year. 

2.3.5 Flows to support tourism 

As described in the matrix analysis (volume 3), a 

flow of at least 250 m 3 per second is needed upstream 

of Victoria Falls to sustain tourism associated 

with water-related attractions. From August to September, 

less than five percent of historical monthly 

flows are lower than 250 m 3 per second at Victoria 

Falls. In each scenario developed in the MSIOA 

(volume 2), the percentage of years when flows 

were less than 250 m 3 per second was recorded. It 

is also assumed that income from tourism will fall 

accordingly as per table 2.1. 

2.3.6 Flows to support fisheries 

The assessment of the correlation between reservoirs/ponds 

and fisheries is calculated using the 

assumption that fish productivity is proportional 

to the area of the reservoir/pond. Minimum and 

maximum levels of productivity were considered 

for each of the main reservoirs/ponds, and the 

calculated average productivity was applied. From 

the river/reservoir system model, the calculation is 

done for each year of the historical series (table 2.2.). 

2.3.7 Other control point characteristics 

Control points regulate system operation by establishing 

constraints and targets on stream flow. Both 

reservoirs and selected locations along the stream 

network are assigned control point numbers. Three 

types of control measure may be specified for any 

stream control point: maximum permissible flow, 

minimum desired flow, and minimum required 

flow. Maximum permissible flow places an upper 

Table 2.1. Main hypothesis used for assessment of impact on tourism 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Total 

Turnover from tourism (%) 7.8 7.8 8.5 8 7.8 7.8 8.5 8 9.5 9.5 9 7.8 

Turnover from tourism (US$ million) 2.96 2.96 3.23 3.04 2.96 2.96 3.23 3.04 3.61 3.61 3.42 2.96 38 

Reduction in turnover if flow is more 

than 250 m 3 /s (%) 

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 20 20 20 5 

Reduction in turnover if flow is 

between 150–200 m 3 /s (%) 

25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 40 40 40 25 


between 100–150 m 3 /s (%) 

45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 60 60 60 45 


between 50–100 m 3 /s (%) 

65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 80 80 80 65 


between 0–50 m 3 /s (%) 

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 

Note: Shaded months indicate high season for tourism. 

20


Table 2.2. Assumptions for fish productivity (kg/ha) 

Subbasin Country Reservoir 

Minimum productivity 

(kg/ha) 

Maximum 

productivity (kg/ha) 

Average productivity 

(kg/ha) 

Kariba (6) Zambia Kariba (existing) 75 100 87.5 

Kariba (6) Zimbabwe Kariba (existing) 75 100 87.5 

Kariba (6) Zambia Batoka (planned) 50 75 62.5 

Kariba (6) Zimbabwe Batoka (planned) 50 75 62.5 

Kafue (7) Zambia Itezhi Tezhi (existing) 75 100 87.5 

Tete (2) Mozambique Mphanda Nkuwa (planned) 75 100 87.5 

Tete (2) Mozambique Cahora Bassa (existing) 50 75 62.5 

limit on the desired magnitude of the stream flow at 

the selected control point. This limit is maintained 

until upstream flood-control storage is exceeded, at 

which point excess water must be spilled. Minimum 

desired flow is a target flow, which is sought while 

reservoirs are operating in the conservation pool 

above the top of the buffer zone. When the reservoir 

levels go into the buffer zone, the minimum 

required flow becomes the target. Each flow requirement 

may be constant or may vary for each period. 

These control measures are specified to ensure 

flood protection in the Zambezi River floodplain 

downstream of Lupata Gorge, to partially restore 

natural flooding in the Lower Delta, and to specify 

e-flow requirements at various control points in the 

river/reservoir system model. Each control point 

is assigned a number. The reservoirs in the system 

that will meet the target flows of that control point 

are identified. 

2.4 Operation of the River/ 

Reservoir System Model 

In the first step, the river/reservoir system model 

operates by considering the water and power 

requirements in sequence at each relevant control 

point in the system, beginning at an upstream 

point and moving downstream through each river 

basin. The release required to meet requirements 

at each control point is determined by evaluating 

operational requirements and all physical and 

operational constraints at each site. In addition, an 

index of the relative state of each reservoir (usually 

a function of reservoir storage) is determined 

according to the specified operation rules. Once 

requirements have been met at all control points 

(or shortages established if upstream water is not 

available), system requirements are examined to 

determine whether additional water releases or 

power generation will be needed to meet the system’s 

power demands. If so, the additional needs 

are proportioned among available projects in accordance 

with the relative state of the projects as 

evidenced by the indices previously computed. The 

additional releases are subsequently added to the 

releases previously computed for the purpose of 

meeting site-specific requirements, and the system 

and site-specific requirements are thus met (or, if 

water is not available, system and on-site shortages 

are declared). This process is repeated for each period 

(month) of the study. The ending state of the 

system for the current period becomes the initial 

condition for the next period. 

Results from the successive applications of 

these calculations on a period-by-period basis are 

recorded for all points in the system (including 

non-reservoir points) by an accounting procedure 

that measures the movement of the water through 

the system by using the specified relative location 

of the reservoirs and downstream control points. 

By adding releases to local stream flow to obtain 

the total stream flow and by adding inflows to and 

subtracting releases from storage volumes, the state 

of any component and the flow at any point in the 

system can be calculated. 

21


Where many HPPs are included in one system, 

it is often desirable to specify requirements 

for the system as whole rather than specific requirements 

for each plant in conjunctive operation. 

During the first run (search) of the system, 

the minimum power requirement at each plant 

is established, if one has been requested, and the 

total generation during the period at each plant 

is computed. This total can exceed the minimum 

required generation if other services call for additional 

releases from the particular reservoir. At 

the end of the first run, a summary is prepared of 

the total power generated, required, and usable to 

satisfy system requirements. If the system require- 

ment is not met, water levels at those reservoirs 

where additional generation is possible are then 

drawn toward a common storage-balancing level. 

The allocated system requirements are then used 

in making a second run of the entire system for 

all purposes. Since satisfying these additional requirements 

will usually change releases at many 

reservoirs, the average head during the second 

run will be different from the average obtained 

from the first run and used in the second run. Accordingly, 

accurate system power (and evaporation) 

computations require a third complete run, 

or search, of the entire water resource system for 

each operation period. 

22

3 

Modeling Hydropower 

The river/reservoir system model is capable of simulating hydropower 

generation in association with a reservoir or pond. For run-ofthe-river 

HPPs in the Zambezi River Basin, the reservoir designation 

will be null, and inflow is directly routed through the plant. One of 

the limitations of this model is that it can accept only one HPP at the 

outlet of a reservoir. Consequently, generation from HPPs shared by 

countries (i.e., existing Kariba North and South, and projected Songwe 

I, II and III, and Batoka North and South) cannot be disaggregated 

by unit or by country. In the economic analysis, energy output computed 

by the model is considered shared equally between the owner 

countries at the outlet of their common reservoir. Future and more 

detailed modeling analyses should be able to simulate generation by 

plant unit to overcome this limitation. 

Hydropower plant characteristics that are used in the river/ 

reservoir system model to simulate power operations include: 

• Installed nameplate capacity (MW); 

• Maximum plant factor for generation, generally 1.0; 

• HPP efficiency; 

• Tailwater elevation plus hydraulic losses; 

• Overload ratio for the power installation; and 

• Power load requirements for each plant for each time period 

(firm energy). 

In addition, several functional relationships are sometimes necessary 

for reservoir operation and power production, including: 

• Power releases versus power tailwater elevation; and 

• Maximum peaking capability versus reservoir storage for the 

Kariba and Cahora Bassa HPPs. 

Energy calculations in the model are based on the equation: 

Ei = K x Q i x h i x e i x t 

E i 

= energy in kilowatt hours generated during period i. 

K = 9.817 m/s 2 (for metric units). 

Q i 

= average flow (m 3 per second) through the generating 

units during period i. 

23


h i 

= average effective head (meters) on 

the turbine during period i. 

e i 

= efficiency of the generating units 

during period i. 

t = duration of period i in hours. 

Energy capability of an HPP is based on firm energy 

and average energy. As the inflow into an HPP 

complex varies in time, so does energy production. 

Firm energy is considered energy that is available 

at all times with a predefined level of confidence. If 

the HPP is a run-of-the river plant, then the lowest 

inflow corresponding to that level of confidence 

will determine the value of firm energy. If the HPP 

includes a carryover reservoir (a reservoir with 

sufficient volume to be operated yearly, such as 

Itezhi Tezhi, or inter-annually, such as Kariba and 

Cahora Bassa), then firm energy can be maximized 

and represents the uniform energy that can be generated 

during the critical dry period, operating the 

reservoir from full supply level at the beginning of 

the period to minimum operating level at the end 

of the period. 

Firm energy then represents the energy equivalent 

of reservoir yield. In the present study, a confidence 

level of 99 percent firm energy availability 

was adopted, implying failure of three to four days 

per year in the long-term. But it should be noted 

that failures do not occur at random in the case of 

an HPP associated with a carryover reservoir; they 

are lumped together at the end of the dry inflow 

sequence and can last several months, as was the 

case during the 1990s with Lake Kariba. A confidence 

level of 95 percent has also been considered 

in the present analysis, but the period over which 

failures occur in the two inter-annual carryover 

reservoirs at the end of the dry sequence is too large 

to be contemplated for generation planning studies. 

Firm energy is generally the value that is considered 

during the scheduling phase of generation planning 

studies, when units are added to meet growing load 

demand, as it represents dependable energy. 

For medium to large hydropower plants and 

for power systems, energy is usually expressed 

in gigawatt hours (GWh), but since firm energy 

is continuously available it is often presented in 

megawatts (MW) in reservoir operation studies for 

hydropower. With this unit of measurement, the ra- 

tio of firm energy to plant capacity is the plant factor. 

Unless an HPP is under-designed with respect to 

available inflow, an unlikely outcome, the plant factor 

is less than one. The fact that firm energy can be 

generated continuously does not imply that it must 

be generated at this uniform level. In fact, an HPP 

can respond to various zones or bands of electrical 

load or power demand. The load varies daily and 

seasonally, and it displays an upward trend in time. 

The load consists basically of three zones, the base of 

which requires power at all times, an intermediate 

zone known as the mid-merit zone, and finally the 

peak, which typically occurs two to three hours a 

day. If an HPP consists of several generating units, 

some can be allocated to the base, others to the midzone, 

and the balance to the peak. Resulting energy 

production will be equivalent to firm energy, but 

the energy can be modulated within a day, week, 

or month as required by the system. 

Average energy is the energy produced over 

the duration of the inflow sequence, which in 

addition to the critical dry period includes other 

periods during which an HPP can generate above 

the firm energy requirement (up to plant capacity) 

under flood conditions, when the reservoir has 

reached or exceeded its full supply level within the 

flood-control pool. The difference between average 

energy and firm energy is secondary energy, which 

is valuable if the power system consists of a mix of 

hydropower and thermal generation, or if the excess 

can be exported to neighboring utilities through 

interties, as this energy will displace thermal with 

a corresponding savings in fuel cost. Unless the 

system is an isolated, pure hydropower system, 

average energy is the one considered during the 

costing phase of generation planning studies, since 

the excess over firm energy may displace fuel. In an 

isolated hydropower system, secondary, or “dump,” 

energy represents that amount of energy that can be 

produced by hydropower under high flows but that 

exceeds the load or energy demand. It is therefore 

not generated; instead, water is spilled—unless a 

power utility is willing to purchase this excess, as 

its price is low. 

The Zambezi River Basin’s system of hydropower 

is a multi-HPP, multi-reservoir system. In 

such a system, by proper operation that takes into 

account compensating inflows in the various parts 

24

Modeling Hydropower 

of the Basin as well as reservoir storage, it is possible 

to optimize the firm energy that will result from the 

stand-alone operation of all the system’s components. 

In this respect, it should be noted that under 

stand-alone operation of the HPPs (or independent 

operation of subsystems), system firm energy is not 

necessarily the aggregate or sum of individual HPP 

firm energies but can be more or less as critical low 

flows for run-of-the-river HPPs or flow sequences for 

reservoirs may not occur concurrently throughout 

the Basin. Conversely, the system’s average energy 

is the aggregate of individual HPP average energy. 

25

4 

Modeling Irrigation 

Irrigation presently uses about 2.5 percent of the mean annual natural 

run-off of the Zambezi River Basin. However, the Zambezi riparian 

countries have major plans to continue to develop their respective 

irrigation sectors. In the short-term, the development of identified 

irrigation projects (IPs) could raise the use of run-off to seven percent. 

In the long-term, given existing development plans for a high-level 

of irrigation (HLI), abstractions could increase to 25 percent of the 

mean annual natural run-off in the Basin. 

4.1 Irrigation Reservoirs 

Any future irrigation scheme may include a regulation reservoir 

if required. For instance, the Mwomboshi irrigation scheme in the 

Luangwa subbasin is considering building a 55 million m 3 reservoir. 

The water requirements for the future Mwomboshi irrigation scheme 

will be regulated by this future reservoir, so that abstractions from 

the Mwomboshi River will be more regularly spread throughout the 

year. Indeed, the 55 million m 3 of the reservoir could largely irrigate 

the 3,000 hectares irrigated each year in the Mwomboshi irrigation 

scheme. 

4.1.1 Reservoirs for irrigation use in the river/reservoir 

system model 

For a given abstraction point in the model, and for each irrigation 

development plan that requires regulation, a theoretical reservoir 

with a maximum volume equal to the annual regulation requirement 

is estimated at the abstraction point. The surface of the reservoir 

(needed for the computation of evaporation losses) is calculated as 

follows: 

S = (Vr/Vm) x f (V/Vr) with 

S = reservoir surface area 

V = reservoir volume 

Vr = total regulation need 

Vm = maximum volume of a typical small reservoir 

27


f = function linking the surface of the typical 

small reservoir to its volume: S = f (V/Vm). 

This formula was designed to take into account 

the fact that the theoretical large reservoir represents 

numerous small reservoirs and behaves the same 

as a typical small one. The function f calculates the 

surface area of the reservoir from the volume. The 

reservoir has a semi-pyramidal shape with the semiangle 

at the center equal to the slope of the river of 

0.01 (rad), as illustrated in figure 4.1. 

The angle between the two sides of the valley 

is assumed to be approximately A=2.98 radians 

which is very large, so that tan(A/2)=12 and h varies 

between null meters (when the reservoir is empty) 

and 50 meters. A reservoir of 50 million m 3 would 

then cover an area of about three km². 

S = 1,200 x h (where S is in m² and h in meters). 

V = ∫S(h)dh = 400 x h3. 

The function f can also be written f (V) = S = 3 

(V/Vm) 2/3 with S in km² and Vm = 50 million m 3 . 

Therefore, the functions that are used in this study 

for modeling the reservoirs with a regulation need 

(Vr) for the development of new irrigation schemes 

will be approximately (S in km² and V in million m 3 ): 

S = (Vr/50) x 3 x (V/Vr) 2/3 

Using the same principle as above, the height 

of the reservoir can also be calculated, and is equal 

to (with V in m 3 and h in meters): 

h = [V/(8 x Vr)] 1/3 

According to the above, it is therefore possible 

to enter a reservoir elevation-area-volume (h-S-V) 

relationship into the river/reservoir system model 

for each regulation need. 

The regulation volume of the reservoir selected 

for an abstraction point corresponds to the flow 

needed to satisfy irrigation abstraction needs in at 

least four years out of five. Moreover, some identified 

projects have been designed with regulation 

means (such as the Mwomboshi irrigation scheme, 

for instance). In these cases, the designed regulation 

volume is considered, even if it is not required 

to satisfy the four-years-out-of-five condition. The 

regulated volume is limited by e-flow requirements, 

which take precedence. 

4.2 Modeling Irrigation 

Schemes 

Eleven typical irrigation schemes were identified 

and modeled to characterize irrigation development 

options in the Zambezi River Basin (table 4.1). 

Figure 4.1. Irrigation storage reservoir model 

S 

)) 0.01 rd 

A 

h 

^ 

28

Modeling Irrigation 

Table 4.1. Main characteristics of the typical modeled irrigation schemes 

Name Model Location Characteristics 

Zambezi Integrated 

Botswana 

Agro-Commercial 

Development 

Commercial farming and 

Smallholders—mixed 

cropping 

Commercial farming— 

cereal 

Smallholders—sugar, 

pivot irrigation 

Smallholders—mixed 

cropping 

Smallholders— 

rehabilitation 

Estate farming, 

Commercial farming, 

Smallholders—sugar 

Smallholders 

Zambezi 

Integrated 


Development 

Commercial 

Development 

Agriculture 

Project 

Zambia 

Smallholders with winter 

wheat, summer sorghum, and 

vegetables 

Commercial farmers and 

smallholders with mixed 

winter and summer cropping 

(with dam) 

CDAP modified Zambia Commercial farmers with 

mixed summer cropping 

Nega-Nega 

modified 

Equipped 

area (ha) 

Type of 

irrigation 

Zambia Smallholders (Manyono) 1,050 Center pivot/ 

flood 

Intensity 

(%) 

Total 

annual 

irrigated 

(ha) 

15,000 Gravity 140 21,000 

3,340 Center pivot for 

large-scale and 

mixed system 

for small-scale 

142 4,740 

3,340 Center pivot 146 4,890 

100 1,050 

Principe Zimbabwe Smallholders: 1 ha/farmer 

(FAO Study) 

60 Sprinkler/flood 150 90 

BIPP Zimbabwe Rehabilitation of smallholders 61 Sprinkler/flood 148 90 

irrigation scheme 

Caprivi 

Namibia Sugar production 10,000 Center pivot 100 10,000 

and other 

countries 

Gibbs –Northern 

– Ibuluma 

Malawi – 

Northern and 

Central 

Smallholders Shire Valley Malawi – 

Shire Valley 

Approximately 1 ha/beneficiary, 

new gravity-fed 

irrigation system 

Approximately 1 ha/beneficiary, 



194 Gravity 136 264 

7,940 Gravity 160 12,695 

Smallholders 

The same as Tanzania Rice 4,800 Gravity 100 4,800 

Chinde 

Smallholders Chinde Mozambique Approximately 1 ha/beneficiary, 

5,000 Gravity 200 10,000 



Sources: The typical irrigation schemes were gathered from the main following sources: Gibbs 2003a; Coda 2006; World Project 2005; Afridev Associates 2004b; FAO 2000a; FAO 

Investment Centre Division 2004a, 2004b, 2004c; World Bank 2008b. 

29

5 

Economic Assessment of 

Development Scenarios 

5.1 Costs and Benefits of the 

Development Scenarios 

5.1.1 Hydropower 

The hydropower projects included in the Basin development scenarios 

and the economic analysis were selected from the Southern Africa 

Power Pool Generation and Transmission Expansion Study, SAPP 

(NEXANT 2007). Only hydropower projects that result in additional 

average power production were included in the scenarios developed 

as part of the MSIOA study. Benefits of additional firm and secondary 

energy production were quantified in physical terms and were 

included in the economic evaluation of the development options. 2 

A list of hydropower projects included in the economic analysis is 

presented in table 5.1. 

The analysis establishes a set of estimated costs and benefits associated 

with hydropower development options, of which the main ones 

are listed in table 5.2. The cost estimates for the hydropower investments 

are based on technical feasibility studies (where available) and 

information obtained during the regional and national consultations 

carried out between July and December 2009. The direct economic 

benefit of the investment in hydropower is the value of the power 

produced. The basis for the economic price of the average energy assumed 

in this analysis is the replacement value, calculated in terms 

of the cheapest alternative way to obtain that power. Replacement 

value establishes the cost of harnessing the power in a different way 

in the same system, either by importing power or buying the fuel and 

machinery necessary to generate it. 

Firm energy is the reliable and predictable production and thus 

carries a higher price than secondary energy, whose production cannot 

be foreseen and therefore must be sold at whatever price prevails 

at the moment it is generated. For firm energy, the value is assumed 

to be the estimated cost of power production from coal-fired power 

2 

The balance of energy production is average energy is the sum of firm and secondary 

energy. Firm and secondary energy are priced differently, as firm energy yields a 

price premium. 

31


Table 5.1. Hydropower projects in the Zambezi River Basin (included in MSIOA) 

Hydropower plant Status Country Utility Estimated completion date Capacity (MW) 

Kapichira I existing Malawi ESCOM 2008 64 

Nkula Falls existing Malawi ESCOM 2008 124 

Tedzani existing Malawi ESCOM 2008 90 

Cahora Bassa existing Mozambique HCB 2008 2,075 

Kafue Gorge Upper existing Zambia ZESCO 2008 990 

Kariba North existing Zambia ZESCO n/a 720 

Victoria Falls existing Zambia ZESCO n/a 108 

Kariba South existing Zimbabwe ZESA n/a 750 

Kapichira II extension Malawi ESCOM 2010 64 

HCB North Bank extension Mozambique EdM 2012 850 

Itezhi Tezhi extension Zambia ZESCO 2013 120 

Kariba North extension Zambia ZESCO 2012 360 

Kariba South extension Zimbabwe ZESA n/a 300 

Kholombizo projected Malawi ESCOM 2025 240 

Lower Fufu projected Malawi ESCOM 2024 100 

Songwe I, II & III projected Malawi ESCOM 2024 170 

Mphanda Nkuwa projected Mozambique EdM 2024 2,000 

Rumakali projected Tanzania TANESCO 2022 256 

Songwe I, II & III projected Tanzania TANESCO 2024 170 

Batoka Gorge North projected Zambia ZESCO 2024 800 

Kafue Gorge Lower projected Zambia ZESCO 2022 750 

Batoka Gorge South projected Zimbabwe ZESA 2024 800 

Tedzani 1 & 2 refurbishment Malawi ESCOM 2008 40 

Kafue Gorge Upper refurbishment Zambia ZESCO 2009 150 

Kariba North refurbishment Zambia ZESCO 2008 120 

Source: NEXANT 2007. 

Note: Capacity of certain individual HPP projects has been updated with more accurate estimates. 

plants in southern Africa, set at $0.058 per KWh. 3 

That indicates the price one would otherwise have 

to pay for energy if the firm energy were not available 

from hydropower production. 

At present, power is traded in the Southern 

African Power Pool, but often in an undifferentiated 

manner (timing of delivery does not influence the 

price). It is therefore reasonable to assume the value 

of the secondary energy being equal to the value of 

energy available at unpredictable times. During the 

preparation of this study, power was traded at $0.02 

to $0.05 per KWh. The value of $0.021 per KWh is 

used as an approximation of the economic value of 

secondary energy in the analysis. 4 

3 

In the recent Mozambique Power Generation Master Plan, the avoided costs of power production from new facilities in South Africa 

are cited at between $0.035 and $0.056/KWh (Ministry of Energy 2009: 4–19). With South Africa representing the biggest market and 

ESKOM managing more than 80 percent of capacity and output, it is reasonable to use $0.056/KWh as price indicator. The upper value 

of $0.056/KWh was chosen as the base price for firm energy and is a 2008 price (first mentioned in Ministry of Energy 2008: 17). As the 

analysis takes 2010 as the base year, a two percent yearly U.S. dollar inflation rate is assumed, and the price of $0.058/KWh is used. 

4 

Establishing the actual traded prices can be difficult as they constitute privileged commercial information. Therefore, confirming 

the validity of the assumptions is sometimes difficult. In some cases, hearsay gives some indications. An example is the prices from 

32

Economic Assessment of Development Scenarios 

Table 5.2. Costs and benefits of hydropower development options 

COSTS 

• Feasibility studies, surveys and investigations 

• Civil works 

• Equipment 

• Transmission lines 

• Operation and maintenance 

• Environmental mitigation measures (e.g., resettlement if required, compensation, negative impact on crop production, etc.) 

• Decrease in power output of other facilities (quantified through the hydrological modeling) 

• Impacts on downstream wetlands (e.g., loss in biodiversity, fisheries impacts, etc.) 

• Impacts on fisheries in the Basin 

• Tourism, loss in attraction value (e.g., livestock, floodplain agriculture, fisheries, etc.) 

BENEFITS 

• Increase in hydropower production with new investments 

• Increase in power output of existing facilities (quantified through hydrological modeling) 

• Increased water availability for crop production (quantified through hydrological modeling) 

• Positive impacts on fisheries (including fish farming) 

• Positive impacts on economic activities in wetlands (e.g., livestock, floodplain agriculture, and fisheries and so forth) 

5.1.2 Irrigation 

The river/reservoir system model generates information 

on water available for irrigation. That information 

is used in models used to plan investments 

in irrigation schemes. The river/reservoir system 

model estimates areas that can be developed for 

irrigation under the cropping patterns described in 

the projects. Estimates of areas suitable for future irrigation 

development are then used to assess the irrigation 

benefits of various development scenarios. 

The costs of irrigation development options 

were estimated based on existing feasibility studies. 

The costs include the direct investment costs of conveying 

water to fields, power lines, additional dams, 

infield works, feasibility studies, and relocation. 

Operation and maintenance costs are also included. 

The benefits of irrigation development options 

are estimated based on the modeling of representative 

irrigation farm systems. The benefits include 

incomes from activities under irrigation (gross 

margin of cropping activities and employment benefits). 

Indirect benefits, however, such as gains from 

extension, improved nutrition, and changed income 

distribution are not considered. The crop budgets 

used in the irrigation scheme models have varying 

degrees of detail depending on the availability of 

data. A number of farm budgets were drawn from 

data obtained from the Zambia National Farmers 

Union and then transformed into an annualized 

farm budget that could be used in irrigation investment 

analyses. Likewise, employment effects 

were estimated based on recent World Bank studies 

(2008a, 2008b) of the irrigation sector in the Zambezi 

River Basin. 

5.2 Economic Evaluation of 

Environmental Impacts 

The environmental costs and benefits from hydropower 

development options include impacts on 

Cahora Bassa HPP. Hearsay has it that management is satisfied to get $0.02/KWh, as the price has been below $0.01/KWh. In September 

2009, a deal was struck between Namibia and Zambia with a price indication of $0.049/KWh (which includes wheeling charges 

and transmission losses). Also, in the Mozambique Generation Master Plan, a cost price of $0.018/KWh from existing installations in 

South Africa is mentioned (Ministry of Energy 2009: 4–17). On pages 5–16 of the same report, the variable cost for coal-fired plants is 

set at $0.01/KWh. The lower limit, at $0.02/KWh (2008), is chosen, and the price updated to 2010 figures by applying a two percent 

yearly inflation rate, thus becoming $0.021/KWh. 

33


sectors and resources such as fisheries, wetlands, 

and tourism. The approach to economic evaluation 

of the environmental impacts was establishing the 

change in net economic value of the main resources 

of wetlands (land, fisheries, wildlife, and livestock) 

resulting from changes in inflows. The economic assessment 

of impact on the wetlands in the Zambezi 

Delta were done in greater detail than for other 

wetlands, where impact was assessed in a much 

broader terms (these wetlands included the Barotse 

Floodplains, Kafue wetlands, Luangwa swamps, 

and Lower Shire wetlands). 

For the Zambezi Delta, a five-step method was 

applied: 5 

1. Establishing the present economic value of 

various assets. 6 

2. Establishing parameters for flooding scenarios 

(various scenarios of magnitude, duration, and 

timing were established). 

3. Establishing the benefits of a target scenario (the 

net economic value of the sustainable exploitation 

of the Delta was defined as a desired set of 

agriculture, livestock, and wildlife benefits, and 

the value was then calculated as a ratio to the 

current situation). 

4. Assessing the relationship between scenarios 

and the target situation (for each calculated 

scenario, the percentage of fulfillment of the 

target situation was calculated). 

5. Assessing the additional economic value of 

each scenario (based on the calculated ratios 

and the changes in relation to the current situation, 

the economic net value of each scenario 

was established). 

The effects of increased irrigation on wetlands 

are assumed to be directly related to the rate of 

implementation of new irrigation schemes in the 

Basin. The effect of irrigation is measured as the 

resulting change in inflows to the wetlands. The 

calculation of these effects is made on a before-andafter 

basis: the current situation is compared with 

a future situation in which all irrigation has been 

implemented. When applying this to the timeline 

of the economic analysis, the effect on wetlands is 

calculated according to the rate of implementation 

of irrigation (i.e., the effect is gradually introduced). 

The effects on fisheries are linked to the development 

of new HPPs and to changes in reservoir 

operational rules, where revenue from fisheries 

is assumed to be related to the reservoir area: the 

greater the reservoir, the greater the revenue. The 

impacts on fishery activity in the Zambezi Delta 

and the other wetlands were integrated into the 

evaluation of the value of wetlands as described 

above. 

Hydropower and irrigation developments 

increase water abstractions and require additional 

storage upstream of Victoria Falls. Data on flows 

at Victoria Falls are used to assess the impact of 

these developments on tourism and on the economic 

values of different flooding regimes in the 

Zambezi Delta. 

5 

For the remaining wetlands, the changes in inflows in each scenario were applied as a ratio to the value of the wetlands. 

6 

Estimated economic values of wetlands were based on the work of Turpie and others (1999) and updated. 

34

References 

Afridev Associates. 2004a. Environmental Assessment of the Caprivi 

Agriculture Project and Lake Liambezi Rehabilitation. South 

Africa. 

———. 2004b. Caprivi, Sugar Sector Project Environmental Assessment. 

Task 2, Appendix 9. South Africa. 

AGRITEX. 1998. Mwenje Nyarumwe Irrigation Scheme. Feasibility 

Report. Harare, Zimbabwe. 

Anderson, J, P. Dutton, P. Goodman, and B. Souto. 1990. Evaluation 

of the wildlife resource in the Marromeu complex with recommendations 

for its future use.LOMACO, Maputo, Mozambique 

Beilfuss, R., and C. Brown. May 2006. “Assessing Environmental Flow 

Requirements for the Marromeu Complex of the Zambezi Delta, 

Mozambique—Application of the Drift Model,” 159. Museum 

of Natural History/University Eduardo Mondlane. Maputo, 

Mozambique. 

Chande, B. and Dutton, P. October 1997. Impact of Hydrological 

changes on the Marremen Complex of the Zambezia Delta with 

Special Attention to the Mammal Fauna. Paper presented at the 

Workshop on the Sustainable use of Cahorra Bassa dam and the 

Zambezi Valley. Songo, Mozambique. 

Coche, A. G., FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 1998. Supporting 

Aquaculture Development in Africa: Research Network 

on Integration of Aquaculture and Irrigation. Rome, Italy. 

CODA. 2006. Lower Shire Valley Irrigation Project. South Africa. 

CODA and Ninham Shand Ltd. 2008. Shire Valley Irrigation Project 

Report. South Africa. 

Denconsult. 1998. Sector Studies under ZACPLAN. Sector Study No. 

2, Zambezi River Authority, Lusaka, Zambia. 

DFID (Department For International Development). 2003. Handbook 

for the Assessment of Catchment Water Demand and Use. Cardiff, 

UK. 

Direcção Nacional de Hidráulica Agrícola. 2003. Levantamento dos 

Regadios na Zona Centro do País (Zambézia, Sofala, Manica e 

Tete). Descrição dos Regadios Existentes no País. FDHA/GT/ 

PAI/003, Cooperação Italiana. Mozambique. 

Econ Pöyry. 2008. Powering Up: Costing Power Infrastructure Investment 

Needs in Southern and Eastern Africa. Background Paper 5, 

35


Africa Infrastructure Sector Diagnostic. World 

Bank. Washington D.C. 

Euroconsult Mott MacDonald. December 2007. Integrated 

Water Resources Management Strategy 

and Implementation Plan for the Zambezi River 

Basin. Final Report, Rapid Assessment, South African 

Development Community Water Division/ 

Zambezi River Authority (SADC-WD/ZRA). 

Gaborone, Botswana and Lusaka, Zambia 

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 1992. 

AQUASTAT. http://www.fao.org/nr/water/ 

aquastat/main/index.stm 

———.1997. FAO Land and Water Bulletin 4. Irrigation 

Potential in Africa: A Basin Approach. 

Rome, Italy. 

———. 1998. Crop Evapotranspiration—Guidelines 

for Computing Crop Water Requirements. FAO 

Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56. Rome, Italy. 

———. 1999. AQUASTAT. Global Map of Irrigation 

Areas, Zimbabwe. Rome, Italy. http://www.fao.org/ 

nr/water/aquastat/quickWMS/aquastatsum5.htm 

———. 2000a. Socio-Economic Impact of Smallholder 

Irrigation Development in Zimbabwe, 

Case Studies of Ten Irrigation Schemes (Principle 

Model). Harare, Zimbabwe. 

———. 2000b. National Irrigation Policy and Strategy. 

TCP/BOT/0065. Rome Italy 

———. 2001. Botswana. Forestry Outlook Study for 

Africa. Gaborone, Botswana. 

———. 2003a. Botswana. National Irrigation Policy 

and Strategy—Irrigation Situation Analysis. Report 

November 2003 (second draft) by Stephens 

T.F. TCP/BOT/0065 (A) Rome, Italy. 

———. 2003b. Botswana—Strategy Brief for National 

Food Security and Agricultural Development. 

Horizon 2015. Rome, Italy. 

FAO Investment Centre Division. 2004a. “Bankable 

Investment Project Profile (BIPP), Nega- 

Nega Irrigation Scheme Development.” TCP/ 

ZAM/2905 (I), New Partnership for Africa’s 

Development (NEPAD), Zambia. 

———. 2004b. “Bankable Investment Project Profile 

(BIPP), Rehabilitation of Smallholder Irrigation 

Development.” TCP/ZIM/2905 (I), NEPAD, 

Zimbabwe. 

———. 2004c. “National Medium Term Investment 

Programme (NMTIP).” TCP/ZAM/2906 (I), 

NEPAD, Zambia. 

FAO and Sub Region for East and Southern Africa 

2000. Socio-Economic Impact of Smallholder 

Irrigation Development in Zimbabwe. Harare, 

Zimbabwe. 

FAO and World Bank. 2008. Zambia, Commercial 

Agriculture Development Project (CADP). 

Identification Mission. Washington DC. 

Gabinete do Plano de Desenvolvimento da Região 

do Zambeze. 2007. Mozambique. 

Gammelsrød T, 1996, ‘Effect of Zambezi Management 

on the Prawn Fishery of the Sofala Bank’, 

in Acreman MC, Hollis GE, (eds), Water Management 

and Wetlands in Sub-Saharan Africa. 

IUCN. Gland, Switzerland. 

Gibbs. 2003a. Small-Scale Irrigation Development 

Study (SSIDS). Project 1, Volume 1. 

———. 2003b. Small-Scale Irrigation Development 

Study (SSIDS). Project 1. New Gravity- 

Fed Surface Irrigation Schemes in Northern 

Malawi. 

———. 2003c. Small-Scale Irrigation Development 

Study (SSIDS). Project 2. New Gravity-Fed 

Surface Irrigation Schemes in Central Malawi. 

———. 2003d. Small-Scale Irrigation Development 

Study (SSIDS). Project 4. Rehabilitation/ 

Improvement of Existing Small Irrigation 

Schemes in Central and Southern Malawi. 

Goodman, P. 1992. The Zambezi Delta—an opportunity 

for sustainable utilization of wildlife. 

IWRB News 8: 12. 

GWP (Global Water Partnership) and CIDA (Canadian 

International Development Agency). 2008. 

Zambian Integrated Water Resources Management 

and Water Efficiency Implementation 

Plan. Lusaka, Zambia. 

Hazell, P., and C. Poulton. 2007. All-Africa Review 

of Experiences with Commercial Agriculture. 

Case Study on Food Staples, Second Draft. 

Hidrotécnica Portuguesa (HP). 1965a. Anexos ao 

Plano General de Fomento e Ocupacao do Vale 

do Zambeze. Elementos de estudo. Ocupacão 

de terras cadastro. Maputo: Missão de Fomento 

e Povoamento do Zambeze. 

Hoguane, A. October 1997. Shrimp abundance and 

river runoff in Sofala Bank—the role of the 

Zambezi. Paper presented at the workshop on 

the sustainable use of Cahora Bassa Dam and 

the Zambezi Valley. Songo, Mozambique. 

36

References 

Imagen Consulting Ltd. 2008. Rapid Resource Assessment 

of Irrigation and Land Cover for the 

Kafue River Basin. Country Water Resources 

Assistance Strategy, World Bank, Zambia. 

Manzungu, E. 2002. Towards Sustainable Water 

Resources and Irrigation Development in the 

Post Fast Track Land Reform Era in Zimbabwe. 

Study for Presidential Review Committee led by 

Dr Charles Utete. Harare, Zimbabwe. 

Maidment, 1993. Handbook of Hydrology. USA. 

MASDAR Ltd. 2004. Inventory Survey of Irrigation 

Schemes and Potential Areas in the Eastern and 

Southern Provinces of Zambia. JICA. Lusaka, 

Zambia. 

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development 

of Zimbabwe. 2004. Paper on Strategies for 

Increased Agricultural Production. Harare, 

Zimbabwe. 

———. 2008. Agriculture Policy for Zimbabwe, 

Third Draft. Harare, Zimbabwe. 

———. 2009a. Zambezi Feasibility Report. Chirundu 

Muzarabani Report. Harare Zimbabwe. 

———. 2009b. Irrigation Pre-Feasibility Study for 

Upstream of Lake Kariba and Shoreline in the 

Republic of Zimbabwe. Draft Report. Harare, 

Zimbabwe. 

Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation, Rural Livelihoods 

and Agricultural Development Project 

from Malawi, Grenard Mkwende. No date. A 

Study of the Irrigation Potential in the Eleven 

Programme Districts. Final Report. Lilongwe, 

Malawi. 

Ministry of Environment and Tourism of Namibia. 

2000. Environmental Impact Assessment 

(EIA)—Guidelines for Irrigated Agriculture. 

Windhoek, Namibia. 

Ministry of Irrigation and Water Development 

from Malawi. 2001. Feasibility Study for Shire 

River Flow Augmentation Project. Lilongwe, 

Malawi. 

———. November 2004. Draft, Annex to the Environmental 

and Social Impact Assessment 

of Selected Established Irrigation Schemes, 

Volume 3. 

———. 2008. Annual Report. July 2007 to June 2008. 

———. July 2009a. Irrigation Development in 

Malawi in the Next Five Years (2008–2014). 

Lilongwe, Malawi. 

———. August 2009b. Implementation of the Irrigation 

Greenbelt Initiative. Lilongwe, Malawi. 

———. 2009c. Annual Report. July 2008 to June 

2009. Lilongwe, Malawi. 

Mitchell, T. D., and P. D. Jones. 2005. “An Improved 

Method of Constructing a Database of Monthly 

Climate Observations and Associated High- 

Resolution Grids.” International Journal of 

Climatology 25: 693–712. http://www.interscience.wiley.com. 

NEPAD and FAO. 2004a. Government of the Republic 

of Zambia. Support to NEPAD-CAADP 

Implementation. Nega-Nega Irrigation Scheme 

Development. Johannesburg South Africa 

———. 2004b. Government of Republic of Zimbabwe. 

Support to NEPAD-CAADP Implementation. 

Rehabilitation of Smallholder Irrigation 

Schemes. Johannesburg South Africa. 

NEXANT. 2007. SAPP Regional Generation and 

Transmission Expansion Plan Study. Draft Final 

Report, Main Report, Volume 2, submitted to 

the Southern Africa Power Pool (SAPP) Coordination 

Center. Harare, Zimbabwe. 

NORPLAN, COWI, DHI, and W&PES. 2002. 

Preliminary Study for the Stabilisation of the 

Course of the Songwe River. Final Preliminary 

Study Report. 

Odada, E., and D. Olago, Pan-African START Secretariat. 

2003. GIWA Sub-Region No. 47: East 

African Rift Valley Lakes. 

Orr, B., B. Eiswerth, T. Finan, L. Malembo, University 

of Arizona, Forestry Research Institute of 

Malawi, and USAID (United States Agency 

for International Development). 1998. Malawi 

Public Lands Utilization Study. Final Report. 

USAID Lilongwe, Malawi. 

Piésold, Scott Wilson. 2003. Integrated Kafue River 

Basin Environmental Impact Assessment Study. 

State of Environment Report. Ashford Kent, UK. 

Malawi Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP). 

April 2002. http://www.imf.org/External/ 

NP/prsp/2002/mwi/01/ 

AfDB, SADC and FAO. 2006. Program Preparation 

Report of the Mid-Zambezi Agricultural Water 

Management for Food Security Programme. 

Gaborone, Botswana. 

SEDAC (Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center). 

2008. “Griddled Population of the World, 

37


version 3 (GPWv3) and Global Rural-Urban Mapping 

Project (GRUMP), alpha version.” Socioeconomic 

Data and Application Center. http:// 

sedac.ciesin.org/gpw/documentation.jsp. 

Shawinigan Engineering and Hidrotécnica Portuguesa. 

September 1990. Simulation of the Joint 

Operation of Major Power Plants in the Zambezi 

River Basin. Final Report. 

Stephens, T. 2008. Specialist Thematic Report Irrigation 

in the Kafue Basin. 

SWECO Groner AS. 2005. Rapid Water Resources 

and Water Use Assessment of Angola. Final 

Report. Natural Water Sector Management 

Project Activity C. Ministry of Energy and Water 

Affairs. Angola. 

Tahal Group. 2008. Zambezi Agro-Commercial 

Integrated Development Project. Proposal for 

Field Investigations, Revised Business Plan, 

and Engineering Design Services, Volume 1: 

Technical Proposal. 

Thá, D., and D. Seager. 2008. Linking the Future 

of Environmental Flows in the Zambezi Delta, 

Mozambique. Second Draft. 

Turpie, J., B. Smith, L. Emerton, and J. Barnes. 1999. 

Economic Value of the Zambezi Basin Wetlands. 

Cape Town: University of Cape Town Press. 

World Bank. 2005a. Towards a Strategy for Agricultural 

Development in Angola—Issues and 

Options. World Bank, Washington DC. 

———. 2005b. Project Appraisal Document on a 

proposed IDA Grant in the Amount of SDR 

27.6 Million (US$40 Million Equivalent) to the 

Republic of Malawi for an Irrigation, Rural 

Livelihoods and Agricultural Development 

Project. World Bank, Washington DC. 

———. May 2008a. Commercial Agriculture Development 

Project, Identification Mission. Annex 3, 

Market Opportunities and Constraints. World 

Bank, Washington DC. 

———. May 2008b, Commercial Agriculture Development 

Project, Identification Mission. Annex 

5, Mwomboshi Dam. World Bank, Washington 

DC. 

World Project. 2005. Irrigation, Rural Livelihoods 

and Agricultural Development. PAD Project 

339578. 

WRC (Water Resources Commission). 2008. 

———. 2009. Detailed Environmental Impact Assessment 

Study for a Pre-Feasibility/Feasibility 

on Utilization of the Water Resources of the 

Chobe Zambezi River, Final Environmental 

Impact Assessment Report. 

Yachiyo Engineering Co. 1995. The Study on the 

National Water Resources Master Plan in the 

Republic of Zambia. Yachiyo Engineering Lusaka, 

Zambia. 

Zimbabwe National Water Authority. 2006. Assessment 

of Surface Water Resources of Zimbabwe 

and Guidelines for Planning. Harare, 

Zimbabwe. 

38

Annex 1. 

Modeling Irrigation Development 

Scenarios – riparian Country 

Policies, Data, Estimates, and 

Assumptions 

Assumptions for irrigation modeling were discussed and agreed upon 

with the national stakeholders at the national technical workshops 

carried out in each riparian country. The three situations distinguished 

in the modeling of irrigation development are: 

• The current situation of irrigation development (Scenarios 0, 1, 

2, 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, and Scenarios 10 and 11 with sub-scenarios); 

• Implementation of ongoing and identified irrigation projects (IPs) 

representing short-term irrigation development (Scenarios 3, 5, 

5A, 7, 8, and 9); and 

• National long-term and ambitious high-level irrigation plans 

(HLI) representing long-term irrigation development (Scenarios 

4, 6, and 6A). 

The following section details the current situation of irrigation and 

the identified irrigation projects by each riparian country. Analysis is 

done based on the following characteristics and assumptions: 

• The size of equipped area (also referred to as the irrigable, command 

area). 

• Equipped area is assumed to have the potential to be used twice 

a year (intensity of 200 percent). For example, a hectare can be 

used and irrigated for wheat during the dry season and the same 

hectare used for maize growing with complementary irrigation 

during the wet season. 

• Recession/wetland/dambo irrigation is not taken into account. 

• The distinction between equipped and irrigated areas is reinforced 

by itemizing dry season crops, wet season crops, and perennial 

crops. 

• The various control points and irrigation abstraction points referred 

to in the country descriptions are identified in figure 1.4. 

39


A1.1 Angola 

A1.1.1 Agriculture and irrigation 

development policies 

The government of Angola’s strategic framework 

for the period 2003 to 2010 is outlined in the Estratégia 

de Combate à Pobreza (ECP) for 2003 to 2005, 

revised at the end of 2005 for the period 2006–2008, 

and for the Poverty Reduction Strategy for 2006– 

2010. The ECP objective is consolidating peace 

and national unity by implementing sustainable 

improvements to living conditions for the most vulnerable 

people and creating conditions to allow for 

their active participation in the country’s economic 

and social development. The ECP includes ten priority 

areas of intervention that are all supported by 

relevant national programs: social reintegration, 

demining, food security and rural development, 

HIV/AIDS, education, health, basic infrastructure, 

employment and vocational training, governance, 

and macroeconomic management. 

The overall strategic framework is complemented 

by the following nationwide programs, which 

reflect the country’s priorities during the transition 

from emergency to rehabilitation and reconstruction: 

(i) Agriculture Recovery and Development Options 

Review, (ii) Food Security National Program, 

(iii) Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Program— 

Priority Phase: 2003–2005, and (iv) Rehabilitation 

and Reconstruction Program—Stabilization and 

Recovery Phase: 2006–2010. 

The review of the Agricultural Sector and Food 

Security Strategy and Investment Priority Setting 

(July 2004) defines the strategy for agricultural development: 

“There is an urgent need to increase agricultural 

production aimed at (a) meeting domestic 

requirements, which are still heavily dependent on 

food aid and imports, and (b) recovering the rural 

economy, destroyed during long years of war and 

affected by inadequate economic policies.” 

This document also emphasizes agricultural and 

rural sector goals, which are to (a) increase agricultural 

production in a sustainable way, for domestic 

and foreign markets, on the basis of comparative and 

competitive advantages; (b) promote rural trade and 

agroprocessing; (c) raise the levels of prosperity of 

rural families and minimize rural poverty and food 

insecurity; (d) ensure the sustainable management 

of Angola’s natural resources, principally its rich 

biodiversity; and (e) minimize the risk of conflict 

over land tenure and other natural resources. 

The World Bank (2005a) document “Towards a 

Strategy for Agricultural Development in Angola— 

Issues and Options” is intended as a basis for formulating 

the bank’s strategy for assistance to Angola in 

the agricultural sector as it begins to transition out 

of the humanitarian/emergency assistance phase 

via the current Transition Support Strategy. This 

strategy has three overall goals: (a) food security 

in the local sense of helping farm populations to 

become secure at household level, (b) food security 

in the national sense of generating marketed surpluses 

to replace expensive imports and to improve 

the balance of payments, and (c) the promotion of 

self-sustaining growth in rural areas, particularly 

in agriculture. 

Concerning the irrigation subsector, this document 

proposes an action plan that includes support 

for the definition of a national irrigation policy that 

encompasses reform of the Direcção Nacional de 

Hidráulica Agrícola e Engenharia Rural (National 

Directorate of Rural Hydrological Engineering) and 

reorientation of the primary thrust of government 

efforts from promoting and managing irrigation 

systems toward research in appropriate technologies 

for the smallholder sector. Water control in 

this context is best done not as an independent 

project; rather, it should be part of the overall effort 

to raise production so that costs and benefits can 

be compared with all other potential interventions 

and investments. Existing large irrigation schemes 

constitute a sunk cost, so the best course for the 

government is to evaluate them with a view toward 

making them self-sustaining, cooperative, or 

private-sector ventures. 

The World Bank’s strategy for the period 

2007 to 2009 for Angola is organized around three 

pillars: (a) strengthening public-sector management 

and government institutional capacity, 

(b) supporting the rebuilding of critical infrastructure 

and the improvement of service delivery for 

poverty reduction, and (c) promoting growth of 

non-mineral sectors, including support to Smallholders 

Agricultural Development and Water Sector 

Institutional Development projects. 

40

Annex 1. Modeling Irrigation Development Scenarios – Riparian Country Policies, Data, Estimates, and Assumptions 

The Plano Director Nacional de Irrigação (Plano 

Irriga) was still under preparation in December 

2009 and was expected to be presented in the first 

half of 2010. The preliminary conclusions were not 

available for review in connection with the Angolan 

section of this analysis on the Zambezi River 

Basin. This report is based only on the available 

information found in various reports and given by 

the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development 

and the National Directorate of Water Resources 

(notably after the national consultation workshop 

held in Luanda on December 2, 2009). During this 

workshop it was acknowledged that a good deal 

of informal irrigation occurred in the Angolan 

subbasins, the presence of which complicates the 

estimation of the current state of irrigation (formal 

or informal) in the country. Current formal irrigation 

in Angola does not exceed 5,000 hectares. The 

current farmers are smallholders growing mixed 

crops (rice, vegetables, and fruits). 

There is an urgent need to increase agricultural 

production, according to the Review of Agricultural 

Sector and Food Security Strategy and Investment 

Priority Setting (July 2004). Moreover, according to 

the World Bank (2005a), the Planalto Central region, 

which includes the Moxico province and its portion 

of the Zambezi River Basin, is the key to agricultural 

development in Angola. However, it seems that the 

Zambezi River Basin has not been a priority irrigation 

development zone yet. The consultant has not 

found any feasibility study for a future irrigation 

scheme, even if the Ministry of Agriculture and 

Rural Development plans to triple the irrigation 

areas in the near future. 

A1.1.2 Area in the water allocation model 

The Angolan area of the Zambezi River Basin encompasses 

four subbasins: 

• Cuando/Chobe subbasin (8); 

• Luanginga subbasin (10); 

• Lungúe Bungo subbasin (11); and 

• Upper Zambezi subbasin (12). 

Irrigation abstractions in Angola are modeled 

through four abstraction points, as shown in table 

A1.1. 

Table A1.1. Irrigation abstraction points in Angola 

Control 

point 

Irrigation abstraction 

point 

Name 

2 Chavuma I.12.01 

3 Lungúe Bungo I.11.01 

4 Luanginga I.10.01 

6 Cuando I.08.01 

A1.1.3 Irrigation sector – current situation 

According to FAO (1997), the irrigation area in the 

Angolan part of the Zambezi River Basin is only 

2,000 hectares. Moreover, according to SWECO 

(2005), only 500 hectares are under irrigation in the 

Moxico province, inside the Zambezi River Basin, 

and around 4,000 hectares are under irrigation in 

the Cuando Cubango province, outside the Basin. 

The 500 hectares irrigated perimeter is located in 

the Perimetro de Luena, which irrigates rice, fruits, 

and vegetables. No other formal irrigation scheme 

is listed in this study. 

These low estimates were slightly revised 

upward by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural 

Development after the national consultation, especially 

in the Chavuma subbasin, where the city of 

Luena alone uses around 1,000 hectares of irrigation. 

Table A1.2. lists the irrigation areas considered in 

the model. 

A1.1.4 Identified irrigation development 

projects 

According to SWECO (2005), there are only 1,500 

hectares of new irrigation areas planned in the 

Angolan area of the Zambezi River Basin: the shortterm 

500 hectares and long-term 1,000 hectares 

extensions of the Perimetro de Luena. According to 

Euroconsult Mott MacDonald (2007), there is possibility 

for a new large-scale irrigated perimeter in 

the Angolan part of the Basin (developed under the 

same model as the large-scale sugar estates in the 

lower parts of the Basin). Such a project could be 

situated close the city of Luena for transportation 

and exportation facilities. 

41


Table A1.2. Current irrigation areas in Angolan part of ZRB 

Crop (ha) 

Control point Name Irrigation abstraction point 

Rice Vegetables Citrus Total 

2 Chavuma I.12.01 1,000 750 750 2,500 

3 Lungúe Bungo I.11.01 500 250 250 1,000 

4 Luanginga I.10.01 250 250 250 750 

6 Cuando I.08.01 250 125 125 500 

Total 2,000 1,375 1,375 4,750 

Note: It was assumed that there is no supplementary irrigation during the wet season. 

Table A1.3. Identified projects in Angola: Irrigation areas 

Irrigation 

Crop (ha) 

Control 

point Name 

abstraction 

point Project 

Sugar Rice Vegetables Citrus Total 

2 Chavuma I.12.01 Sugarcane irrigation project 5,000 — — — 5,000 

I.11.01 

— 250 125 125 500 

3 Lungúe 

Bungo 

Small irrigation development with the Perimetro 

de Luena model 

4 Luanginga I.10.01 Cazombo/Lumbalo Nginbo rice irrigation project — 5,000 — — 5,000 

6 Cuando I.08.01 n/a — — — — 0 

Total 5,000 5,250 125 125 10,500 

This sugarcane irrigation scheme possibility 

was confirmed by the Ministry of Agriculture and 

Rural Development with a plan of 5,000 hectares of 

irrigation development in the Chavuma subbasin. 

Moreover, there civil works are ongoing for the development 

of the Cazombo/Lumbalo Nginbo 5,000 

hectares rice irrigation project in the Luanginga 

subbasin. Table A1.3 lists the identified projects that 

were considered in the model. 

A1.2 Botswana 



Both the prospective plan (Vision 2016) and the 

medium-term plan recognize the importance of the 

agricultural sector in enhancing national economic 

growth, creating employment, improving food security, 

and alleviating poverty—particularly rural 

poverty. As stated in the Ninth National Development 

Plan, Botswana’s agriculture development 

objectives are to: 

• Improve food security at the household and 

national levels; 

• Diversify the agricultural production base; 

• Increase agricultural output and productivity; 

and 

• Increase employment opportunities. 

To realize these objectives and to enhance the 

sector’s contribution to the national economy, the 

government has devised the following plans and 

strategies: 

• The National Master Plan for Arable Agriculture 

and Dairy Development (NAMPAADD) of 2002; 

• The Revised National Policy for Rural Development 

of 2002; and 

42


• The National Strategy for Poverty Reduction 

of 2002. 

The NAMPAADD aimed to devise policies and 

programs that would enhance the performance and 

sustained development of agriculture. Three areas 

of interventions are particularly addressed in the 

plan and elaborated below: 

• Rain-fed agriculture. Focusing primarily on small, 

traditional farms, the main thrust of the plan is 

to transform small farms into viable commercial 

farms. To this end, the plan calls for the introduction 

of mechanization service centers and the improvement 

of farm inputs and farm management 

practices. The plan also envisions the possibility 

of encouraging the flow of private investment 

into the development of agribusiness. 

• Irrigated agriculture. The prevalence of drought 

and the inadequacy and unreliability of rainfall 

in Botswana make irrigation, to the extent the 

potential exists, an important method to ensure 

the sustained growth of agriculture. In irrigation 

development, the emphasis is on horticultural 

development, an area in which Botswana 

seems to have a better comparative advantage. 

To exploit this potential, the plan recommends 

the development of irrigation schemes using 

both freshwater and treated urban wastewater. 

While the emphasis is on horticulture, the plan 

also includes field crops such as wheat, maize, 

and fodder. During the current plan period, the 

target is to bring 5,200 to 5,400 hectares of farm 

land under irrigation, of which 1,600 to 1,800 

hectares of land is planned for irrigation with 

freshwater and 3,600 hectares with reclaimed 

urban wastewater. 

• Dairy development. The emphasis is to remove 

the constraints that have previously hampered 

the growth of productivity in the subsector. 

The following FAO reports and documents 

provide additional insight into agriculture: 

• National Irrigation Policy and Strategy (FAO 

2000b). 

• Botswana: Forestry Outlook Study for Africa 

(FAO 2001). 

• Botswana: National Irrigation Policy and Strategy—Irrigation 

Situation Analysis (FAO 2003a). 

• Botswana: Strategy Brief for National Food Security 

and Agricultural Development—Horizon 

2015 (FAO 2003b). 

The Botswana area of the Basin represents 

only a very small portion, approximately one 

percent of the entire Zambezi River Basin area. 

Therefore, it is not surprising that the irrigation 

areas are not significant in this part of the Basin. 

However, the government of Botswana and its 

Department of Water Affairs are very advanced 

in the process of transferring water from the Zambezi 

River to water needing sectors outside the 

Zambezi River Basin (e.g., the Chobe/Zambezi 

Transfer Scheme). 


The Botswana area of the Zambezi River Basin mainly 

encompasses one subbasin, subbasin Cuando/ 

Chobe (8). However, the possible future transfer 

intakes could be situated either in the Cuando/ 

Lake Linyati/Chobe system or directly in the Zambezi 

River, between Kasana and Victoria Falls. The 

downstream option is the one considered in the 

modeled control point. 

In the model, at control point 8 all the water 

abstractions of the Cuando/Chobe subbasin (8) 

and of the small, lateral Zambezi River subbasin 

between Kasana and Victoria Falls are estimated. It 

was not possible to model the detailed functioning 

of the Cuando/Chobe River as well as the functioning 

of the Lake Liambezi system due to the lack of 

hydrological information on its complex inflows 

and outflows (for instance, there may be some 

waters going upstream from the Zambezi River 

to Lake Liambezi as well as some water transfers 

between the Cuando River and the Okavango 

Delta). Therefore, the Cuando/Chobe subbasin is a 

dormant branch of the model, and its contribution 

to the basin system water balance is taken into account 

through lateral inflows between the Barotse 

Floodplain (control point 5) and Victoria Falls. 

Irrigation abstractions in Botswana are therefore 

modeled through one control point as shown in 

table A1.4. 

43


Table A1.4. The irrigation abstraction point in 

Botswana 

Control point Name 

8 Livingstone, before 


Irrigation abstraction 

point 

I.06.04 


The various documents listed in section A 1.2.4. 

reflect that there is currently almost no irrigation 

scheme in Botswana using the waters of the Zambezi 

River Basin. This information was confirmed 

during the national consultation workshop in Gaborone 

on October 29, 2009. 


projects 

According to FAO (1997), major water development 

is required to irrigate 10,000 hectares located 

in the Pandamatenga plains outside the Zambezi 

River Basin in northeastern Botswana, where water 

from the Zambezi River is to be transferred. This 

program notably proposes significant investments 

in drainage and related roads over an area of 9,250 

hectares in the southern plains area of Pandamatenga 

(figure A1.1.). 

This project is detailed in the following documents: 

• Tahal Group (2008), stating that with the “development 

of 18,700 hectares of new agricultural 

areas on new commercial farms. These areas 

will grow crops under irrigation; in areas not 

Figure A1.1. Location of the Pandamatenga irrigation project 

A N G O L A 

Ngamaseri 

Okavango 

Linyanti 

Z A M B I A 

Kasane 

For detail, see 

map at right 

N A M I B I A 

Kasane 

KASANE 

FOR 

EXTENSION 

Z A M B I A 

Zambezi 

River 


N A M I B I A 

Xaudu m 

Okavango 

Nokeneng Swamps 

Maun 

Tsau 

Sehithwa 

Lake 

Ngami 

Eiseb 

Rakops 

Boteti 

Lake 

Xau 

Orapa 

Letlhakane 

Nata 

Makgadikgadi 

Salt Pans 


Francistown 

Shashe 

0 10 

KILOMETERS 

20 

CHOBE 

CHOBE 

NATIONAL 

PARK 

MAIKAELO 

KAZUMA 

SIBUYU 

Mamuno 

Ghanzi 

Okwa 

Seruli 

Selebi-Phikwe 

Sefophe 

Serowe Palapye 

Lotsane 

Mahalapye 

Motlo u 

tse 

Limpo po 

PROJECT AREA 

SALT PAN 

OKAVANGO DELTA 

CHOBE NATIONAL PARK 

STATE LAND 

Kang 

S O U T H A F R I C A 

TRIBAL LAND 

OTHER ROAD 

Nossob 

Bokspits 

Tshane 

Tshabong 

Molopo 

Khakhea 

Werda 

Molepolole 

Jwaneng 

Kanye 

Lobatse 

Moselebe 

M olopo 

Mochudi 

GABORONE 

0 50 100 

KILOMETERS 

150 

SECONDARY ROAD 

MAJOR ROAD 

OTHER CITIES 

DISTRICT CAPITALS* 

NATIONAL CAPITAL 

RIVERS 

DISTRICT BOUNDARIES 


* The town councils of Francistown, 

Gaborone, Lobatse, and Selebi-Pikwe 

have status equal to Districts. 

IBRD 37956 

July 2010 

Source: WRC 2008. 

Note: The map also indicates other areas that could be supplied with water by the project. 

44


reached by the irrigation system, rain-fed crops 

are grown. The agricultural areas are planned 

for field crops, vegetables, and orchards”; and 

• The infrastructure section in the recent document 

from the Water Resources Commission 

(2009). 

The project was detailed during the national 

consultation workshop in Gaborone on October 

29, 2009, and the consultant gathered updated 

information from the Department of Water Affairs, 

which presented the Zambezi Integrated Agro- 

Commercial Development Project in a workshop in 

Gaborone on October 28, 2009. Table A1.5 lists the 

water amounts to be delivered for various water 

uses through water transfers under the Zambezi 

Integrated Agro-Commercial Development Project. 

The information presented in the table is also summarized 

in table A1.6. 

According to the Department of Water Affairs, 

Stage 2 is long-term, so the consultant will consider 

the irrigation development only of Stage 1 for the 

identified project scenarios and the irrigation development 

of Stage 2 for the high-level irrigation 

scenarios. The water abstraction data was provided 

by the Department of Water Affairs. In the modeling 

process, however, it was very difficult to stick to the 

monthly breakdown of abstractions with the given 

crop budget, which was adapted to conform to the 

annual abstractions (table A1.7.). A special irrigation 

model has thus been created for the Zambezi 

Integrated Agro-Commercial Development Project, 

so that the consultant did not calculate the water 

requirements, but rather used the given water 

abstractions. For instance, with the consultant’s 

calculations, it would have been difficult to irrigate 

1,500 hectares of vegetables with only 812,000 m 3 

per year. 

According to the Department of Water Affairs, 

the equipped area is designed for winter grains, 

vegetables, and orchards. However, the monthly 

water consumption clearly shows dry season irrigation, 

and this is why an additional 5,000 hectares of 

dry season maize is included in the model. 

A1.3 Malawi 



Malawi’s commitment to poverty reduction was 

first formulated in the Poverty Alleviation Programme 

in 1994 and culminated in the Vision 2020 

document of 1998. Building on these initiatives, 

the government launched the Malawi Poverty 

Reduction Strategy Paper (MPRSP) in 2002. The 

overall goal of the MPRSP is to achieve sustainable 

poverty reduction by empowering the poor. 

Although economic diversification is a key objective, 

the MPRSP acknowledges that for its threeyear 

duration, the agricultural sector will remain 

the principal determinant of growth and therefore 

needs to be the focus of pro-poor policies. The 

strategy focuses on four pillars and crosscutting 

themes: (i) sustainable pro-poor economic growth; 

(ii) human capital development; (iii) improving 

the quality of life for the most vulnerable; and 

(iv) good governance. 

Malawi’s agricultural development strategy 

and objectives are outlined in the 1995 Agricultural 

and Livestock Development Strategy and Action 

Plan. Its four major thrusts were (i) to increase 

the productivity and diversity of food crops in 

the smallholder subsector to meet the objective of 

continued food security and improved nutrition 

status at the individual, household, and national 

levels; (ii) to promote tobacco production in the 

smallholder subsector so as to boost incomes and 

contribute to poverty alleviation; (iii) to promote 

crop diversification away from tobacco in the estate 

subsector so as to broaden the base and increase the 

output of high value-added crops for export and 

domestic markets; and (iv) to promote the expansion 

of the livestock sector and its integration with 

mixed-crop farming systems. 

In June 2000, the Ministry of Agriculture and 

Food Security formulated a new National Irrigation 

Policy and Development Strategy. Key statements 

include that the Department of Irrigation would 

45


Table A1.5. Zambezi Integrated Agro-Commercial Development Project: Monthly and daily water demand data 

Number 

Water 

demand 

calculation* Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Annual 

New Project Area – Stage 1 

Fish farm – monthly water balance 

1 Total required water 

into fish farm 

(m 3 /month) 

2 Total expected 

from rainfall 

(m 3 /month) 

3 Total required 

water supply 

for conveyance 

system 

(m 3 /month) 

4 Water losses and 

usage in fish farm 

and factory 

(m 3 /month) 

5 Water through 

fish farm to irrigation 

of field crops 

(m 3 /month) 

1–2 

1–4 

Fish farm – daily water balance 

6 Total required water 

into fish farm 

(m 3 /day) 

7 Total expected 

from rainfall 

(m 3 /day) 

5,917,606 5,944,073 5,919,301 5,766,358 5,835,781 5,552,118 5,794,741 6,076,981 6,264,198 6,599,461 6,096,498 6,067,621 71,146,680 

921,600 826,000 482,400 172,800 14,400 7,200 0 0 7,200 129,500 466,000 849,600 3,880,800 

4,996,006 4,516,073 5,496,901 5,571,558 581,381 5,544,918 5,794,741 6,076,981 6,256,998 6,403,861 5,628,438 5,216,021 67,265,880 

1,861,907 1,680,319 1,669,002 1,818,907 1,779,482 1,626,667 1,798,442 2,020,682 2,338,747 2,477,162 2,170,987 2,011,322 23,367,025 

4,056,299 3,663,754 4,056,299 9,925,451 4,056,299 3,925,451 4,056,299 4,056,299 3,925,452 4,056,299 3,925,451 4,056,299 47,759,656 

190,891 190,860 190,945 191,479 188,251 165,071 188,927 196,032 208,807 210,757 209,215 195,730 

29,729 29,571 15,561 560 466 240 0 0 240 4,181 15,600 27,406 

Continued on next page 

46



(continued) 

Number 

Water 

demand 


8 Total required 

water supply 

for conveyance 

system (m 3 /day) 

9 Water losses and 

usage in fish farm 

and factory 

(m 3 /day) 

10 Water through 

fish farm to irrigation 

of field crops 

(m 3 /day) 

6–7 

6–9 

Irrigation – monthly water balance 

11 Field crops, 

vegetables and 

orchards per hectare 

(m 3 /month) 

12 Total field crops, 


orchards 

(m 3 /month) 

13 Total water supply 

from fish farm 

to field crops, 


orchards 

(m 3 /month) 

161,161 161,288 175,364 186,719 187,766 184,891 186,927 196,032 208,567 206,576 187,615 168,329 

60,042 60,011 60,097 60,690 57,409 54,222 56,079 65,189 77,968 79,908 72,966 64,881 

130,848 190,848 130,848 190,848 190,646 130,848 190,846 130,848 130,848 190,848 190,848 190,848 

948 1,176 1,995 510 682 510 837 1,410 990 992 990 713 11,094 

–11 x 

19,800 ha 19,090,680 16,228,800 19,251,000 7,036,000 9,411,600 7,036,000 11,550,600 19,464,900 12,834,000 13,669,500 13,662,000 9,899,400 159,096,580 

–5 

4,056,299 9,663,754 4,056,299 9,925,451 4,056,299 3,925,451 4,056,299 4,056,299 9,925,451 4,056,299 3,925,451 4,056,299 47,759,656 


47



(continued) 

Number 

Water 

demand 


14 Total water 

supply from R2 



orchards 

(m 3 /month) 

12–19 

Irrigation – daily water balance 

15 Field crops, 


orchards per 

hectare (m 3 /day) 

16 Total field crops, 


orchards (m 3 /day) 

17 Total water supply 

from fish farm 



orchards (m 3 /day) 

18 Total water 

supply from R2 



orchards 

(m 3 /day) 

–15 x 

19,800 ha 

–10 

16–17 

9,094,981 12,565,046 15,194,701 9,112,549 5,955,901 3,112,549 7,494,301 15,406,601 8,906,549 9,633,301 9,736,549 5,789,101 105,398,925 

31 42 45 17 22 17 27 45 91 32 33 29 

422,280 579,600 621,000 234,600 309,600 234,600 972,600 627,900 427,800 441,600 455,400 317,400 

190,848 130,848 100,848 190,848 190,848 190,648 130,848 130,848 130,648 130,848 130,848 190,848 

291,492 246,752 490,152 109,752 172,752 109,752 241,752 497,052 296,952 310,852 324,552 166,552 


48



(continued) 

Number 

Water 

demand 


Industry and settlement – monthly water balance 

19 Total water demand 

for industry 

and settlement 

(m 3 /month) 

Industry and settlement – daily water balance 

20 Total water demand 

for industry 

and settlement 

(m 3 /day) 

Total monthly water demand for new project area 

21 Total monthly 

water demand for 

new project area 

(m 3 /month) 

–9 + 14 

+ 19 

Total daily water demand for new project area 

22 Total daily water 

demand for new 

project area 

(m 3 /day) 


demand for stage 

1 project area 

design (m 3 /day) 

–8 + 18 

+ 20 

–22 x 1.05 

209,733 202,533 209,793 207,993 209,733 207,333 209,799 209,733 207,339 209,799 207,333 209,733 2,500,000 

6,766 7,233 6,766 6,911 6,766 6,911 6,766 6,766 6,911 6,766 6,911 6,766 

14,240,120 17,282,652 20,841,225 8,891,441 11,966,415 8,864,601 19,498,775 21,695,915 15,372,881 16,246,895 15,572,321 11,210,855 175,104,805 

459,959 617,279 672,901 296,981 967,904 295,493 495,444 699,849 512,429 524,093 519,077 961,640 

735,000 


49



(continued) 

Number 

Water 

demand 


Water supply to North-South Carrier (NSC) 

Monthly water demand for NSC 


water supply to 

NSC (m 3 /month) 

Daily water demand for NSC 


supply for NSC 

(m 3 /day) 

8,493,151 7,671,233 6,493,151 8,219,178 8,493,151 8,219,178 6,499,151 8,493,151 8,219,178 8,493,151 8,219,178 8,499,151 100,000,000 

27,397 279,979 273,973 273,973 273,973 279,973 279,979 273,973 279,973 273,979 273,979 279,973 

Total water demand for stage 1 

Monthly water demand for stage 1 

26 Total monthly water demand 

for stage 1 

(m 3 /month) 

–21 + 24 

Daily water demand for stage 1 



1 (m 3 /day) 

22,793,271 24,964,886 29,934,486 17,110,619 19,879,566 17,083,979 21,991,926 30,168,466 29,592,059 24,740,046 23,791,499 19,704,005 275,104,805 

–22(23) 

+ 25 799,331 891,246 946,274 570,954 641,276 569,466 709,419 1,008,973 786,402 798,066 793,050 635,613 

Pandamantenga Farms – stage 2 




Pantamantenga 

Farm at stage 2 

(m 3 /month) 

25,465,260 24,360,000 21,685,175 9,972,690 9,614,724 9,505,260 19,196,855 16,954,737 9,041,040 17,266,319 11,472,630 18,546,906 186,701,032 


50



(continued) 

Number 

Water 

demand 



29 Total daily 


Pantamantenga 

Farm at stage 2 

(m 3 /day) 

821,460 870,000 699,525 912,421 916,604 316,642 425,705 546,927 301,356 557,629 362,451 598,266 

Total water demand for stage 2 


30 Total monthly water demand 

for stage 2 

(m 3 /month) 

–26 + 28 


31 Total daily water –27 + 29 


2 (m 3 /day) 

Source: Botswana Department of Water Affairs 2009. 

Note: numbers equate to associated water demand in each line of the table. 

48,196,531 49,316,885 51,019,761 26,483,249 29,694,290 26,589,299 95,188,781 47,143,203 32,633,099 42,026,359 35,264,129 36,250,914 461,805,897 

1,554,791 1,761,246 1,645,799 882,775 957,880 886,906 195,122 1,555,900 1,087,770 1,355,689 1,175,471 1,233,881 

51


Table A1.6. Zambezi Integrated Agro-Commercial 

Development Project: water demand summary 

Design stage Purpose 

Annual water 

requirement 

(million m 3 ) 

Stage 1 Farming (Stage 1) 175 

Supply to North-South Carrier 100 

Total (stage 1) 275 

Stage 2 Farming (Stage 1) 175 

Farming (Stage 2) 187 

Supply to North-South Carrier 100 

Total (stage 2) 462 

facilitate the development process in order to create 

an environment in which the private sector, 

smallholders, estates, and commercial farms invest 

in irrigation development; irrigation would be promoted 

to increase incomes and commercialization of 

the sector; development of irrigation schemes would 

ensure the full participation of farmer beneficiaries 

at every phase, from identification to planning, 

design, and implementation; an environmental 

impact assessment would be undertaken for all 

medium- and large-scale irrigation development; 

financing will ensure minimal government subsidy, 

and the principles of cost sharing and cost recovery 

would be applied. 

In July 2006, the Ministry of Irrigation and Water 

Development prepared a strategic plan to be in 

effect from July 2006 to July 2010. It stipulates the 

following objectives: 

• Increase water availability through construction 

of multi-purpose dams and water harvesting 

technologies by 2011; 

• Achieve sustainable and integrated water resources 

management; 

• Improve efficiency and effectiveness of monitoring 

and data management systems to 80 percent 

by 2011; 

• Contribute effectively toward meeting the country’s 

regional and international obligations with 

regard to the exploitation and management of 

water resources to ensure they are effectively 

implemented and managed; 

• Bring 80 percent of Malawi’s water resources to 

national standards on water by 2011; 

• Provide support to mitigate the effects of waterrelated 

disasters by 2011; and 

• Bring 120,000 hectares under manageable and 

effective irrigation schemes by 2011. 

Finally, in August 2009, the Ministry of Irrigation 

and Water Development elaborated the strategic 

document “Implementation of the Irrigation 

Green Belt Initiative.” This initiative aims to exploit 

the high irrigation potential by expanding coverage 

and providing complementary infrastructure 

services with the ultimate objective of increasing 

productivity for income generation for the farmers 

in the country, consequently contributing to 

economic growth and ensuring food security. By 

the nature of the program, it will have a broad 

spectrum of beneficiaries, primarily smallholder 

and large-scale farmers, agricultural produce 

processors, manufacturers, and small-scale business 

entrepreneurs. This initiative was used by 

the consultant as an estimation of the long-term 

development plans. 

The specific objectives of the Green Belt Initiative 

are to: 

• Increase agricultural productivity and production; 

• Offer agricultural production diversification; 

• Increase income generation opportunities; 

• Increase availability of raw materials for the 

manufacturing industry; and 

• Increase export opportunities. 

A1.3.2 Overview of irrigation development 

According to CODA and NINHAM SHAND Ltd 

(2008), Malawi’s irrigation development can be 

divided into four categories. The first and largest 

category is private-sector estates developed on public 

land largely with private capital and expertise, 

such as growing sugar. The second is private estates 

on freehold or leasehold land, producing mainly 

tea, coffee, macadamia, and tobacco. The third is 

government-owned settlement schemes on public 

52


Table A1.7. Summary of annual water consumption at full production (1,000 m 3 ) 

Activity Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total 

Aquaculture 1,709 1,457 1,835 1,982 1,984 2,078 2,084 2,015 1,837 1,729 1,773 1,937 22,420 

Grains and oilseeds (9,500 ha) 10,959 11,325 8,198 3,645 3,571 9,713 12,006 11,315 7,516 2,926 1,110 5,700 87,984 

Orchards (3,000 ha) 2,133 1,735 2,299 2,492 2,126 1,470 1,425 1,343 1,163 866 1,379 1,866 20,297 

Vegetables (1,500 ha) 43 38 44 57 74 89 91 86 77 67 71 72 812 

Essential oil 95 76 109 129 126 140 138 130 113 97 105 121 1,379 

Other (compost, industry, 

landfill, etc.) 

Water losses and reserve for 

expansion of activities (10%) 

500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 6,000 

1,544 1,513 1,299 881 838 1,399 1,624 1,539 1,121 619 494 1,020 13,889 

Total 16,982 16,645 14,284 9,687 9,220 15,390 17,869 16,927 12,328 6,804 5,431 11,215 152,782 

Source: Botswana Department of Water Affairs 2009. 

Note: the difference between the 152 million m 3 and the 175 million m 3 in table A1.6/7. mainly consists in the version of the design study to be used. In this study, the consultant will keep the figure at 175 million m 3 of abstractions for farming at Stage 1. 

53


Table A1.8. Identified projects in Botswana (ha) 

Control 

point 

Name 

8 Livingston, 

before Victoria 

Falls 

Irrigation 

abstraction 

point 

I.06.04 

Project 

Zambezi Integrated 


Development Project 

Maize 

Crop (ha) 

Winter 

Maize Vegetables Soybeans Citrus Sorghum Total 

5,000 5,000 1,500 2,000 3,000 2,300 18,800 

Table A1.9. Irrigation abstraction points in Malawi 

Control 

point Name 

43 Shire River and Lake Malawi/Niassa/ 

Nyasa subbasin 

40 Shire River and Lake Malawi/Niassa/ 


Irrigation 

abstraction 

point 

I.03.11 

I.03.09 

41 South Rukuru I.03.07 

36 Songwe I.03.06 

45 Liwonde I.03.04 

47 Between Nkula Falls and Tedzani Falls I.03.03 

49 Between Tedzani Falls and Kapichira 

I.03.02 

Falls 

51 Lower Shire I.03.01 

land in which rice is the principal crop grown, 

and the fourth category is “self-help” schemes 

on customary land, generally producing rice and 

vegetables. In the model, recession irrigation type, 

widespread in Malawi, called dambo irrigation is 

not included. 

In Malawi, the irrigated dry season crops are different 

from those in other countries because during 

the dry season it is possible to cultivate rice, maize, 

soybeans, cotton, tobacco, and sorghum. Different 

sources describe the total irrigation area in Malawi: 

• 36,000 hectares in 2002 (excluding Dambos) 

according to NORPLAN, COWI, DHI, and 

W&PES (2002); 

• 25,000 hectares according to FAO (1992); 

• 36,500 hectares according to DENCONSULT 

(1998); 

• Overall, a total of 26,245 hectares were irrigated 

during the financial year 2007/2008, compared 

with 25,222 hectares the previous year, according 

to the Ministry of Irrigation and Water 

Development (2008); and 

• Overall, a total of 24,976 hectares were irrigated 

during the financial year 2008/2009, according 

to the Ministry of Irrigation and Water Development 

(2009c). 

In this study (see table A1.11), approximately 

30,000 hectares of irrigated schemes were inventoried, 

which is in line with the above numbers. 

A national consultation was held in Lilongwe on 

September 20, 2009, and numerous documents were 

provided to the consultant. These documents are 

among those listed in this Malawi section. 


Irrigation abstractions in Malawi are all within the 

Shire River and Lake Malawi/Niassa/Nyasa subbasin 

(3) and are modeled through eight control 

points that represent the irrigation abstractions in 

the subbasins draining into Lake Malawi/Niassa/ 

Nyasa and the Shire River lateral subbasins between 

the existing or projected hydropower stations: 7 

• The Songwe River subbasin (which flows into 

Lake Malawi/Niassa/Nyasa); 

• The South Rukuru River subbasin (which flows 

into Lake Malawi/Niassa/Nyasa); 

7 

Some of these abstraction points are shared with Tanzania. 

54


• Directly from Lake Malawi/Niassa/Nyasa; 

• The rest of the Lake Malawi/Niassa/Nyasa 

subbasin; 

• The Shire River subbasin situated between the 

Lake Malawi/Niassa/Nyasa outlet and the 

Nkula Falls, with the city of Liwonde; 


Nkula Falls and the Tedzani Falls; 


Tedzani Falls and the Kapichira Falls; and 


Kapichira Falls and the confluence with the 

Zambezi River. 


Abstraction point I.03.01 

According to CODA and NINHAM SHAND Ltd 

(2008), “the irrigation development in the Shire 

Valley includes five smallholder irrigation schemes 

growing mainly rice and maize at Mlomba [I.03.04], 

Nkhate [I.03.01], Muona [I.03.01], Chidzimbi [not 

identified], Masenjere [I.03.01]; Kasinthula sugar 

cane scheme, which previously grew rice [I.03.01]; 

and Nchalo sugar cane estate developed by ILLOVO 

[I.03.01]”. The surface areas considered include 

(figure A1.2.–A1.7.): 

• Currently, Nchalo SUCOMA sugar estate has 

12,000 hectares of irrigated sugarcane, as confirmed 

at meeting with the general manager 

Illovo Sugar in June 2008. 

• According to the Ministry of Irrigation and 

Water Development (2001), there is also the 

Alumenda SUCOMA sugar estate, producing 

1,000 hectares of irrigated sugarcane. 

• The Kasinthula scheme irrigates 750 hectares of 

sugarcane, according to CODA and NINHAM 

SHAND Ltd (2008). 

• The Nkhate scheme is designed to include 50 

percent rice and 50 percent maize and irrigates 

233 hectares, according to CODA (2006); 

246 hectares, according to Orr and others 

(1998); 283 hectares, according to the World 

Bank (2005b); and 243 hectares according to 

the Ministry of Irrigation and Water Development 

(2004). 

• The Mlomba scheme irrigates 308 hectares according 

to the Malawi Public Lands Utilization 

Study. 

• The Muona scheme is designed to include 50 

percent rice and 50 percent maize and irrigates 

527 hectares, according to the Malawi Public 

Lands Utilization Study, and 446 hectares, according 

to the Ministry of Irrigation and Water 

Development (2004). 

• The Masenjere and the Chidzimbi irrigation 

schemes irrigate 25 hectares and 80 hectares in 

the Nsanje District to cultivate maize according 

to the Malawi Public Lands Utilization Study 

and to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food 

Security. 

Tea, tobacco, and coffee are also irrigated in 

Malawi. The Lujeri tea estate grows and processes 

tea under the Mount Mulanje, the highest elevation 

point in Malawi (1,115 hectares according to the 

Lujeri Tea Estate www.lujeritea.com). Tea is also produced 

at the Ruo tea estate, the Sayama tea estate, 

the Makandi tea and coffee estate, and at the Namingomba 

tea estate in the Thyolo District (which 

covers 210 hectares if one considers the Mwalantunzi, 

the Namingomba, and the Mikundi estates, 

according to the Birdlife IBA Factsheet, MW019 

Thyolo Tea Estates, www.birdlife.org). Because no 

information was available about the irrigated areas 

of coffee or tobacco, they are all considered as irrigated 

tea areas in Malawi. 


The Mkurumadzi River and the Lisungwe River 

basins are situated on the right side of the Shire 

River and represent the main part of this I.03.02 

subbasin. These two river basins are not as developed 

for irrigation as the Lower Shire Valley, so it 

was assumed that only 200 hectares are irrigated in 

the dry season, including 75 hectares of maize, 75 

of rice, and 50 of vegetables. 


The subbasin between the Tedzani Falls and the 

Nkula Falls is very small and for that reason it is 

assumed to contain any significant irrigation. 

55


Figure A1.2. Part of the Muona irrigation scheme 

grown to dry weather rice 

Figure A1.3. Tainter gate for the intake for the Muona 


Figure A1.4. Muona main canal taking water from 

Thangazi River 

Figure A1.5. Part of Nkhate scheme grown to dry 

season maize, cassava, and sweet potatoes 

Figure A1.6. Weir constructed on the Nkhate River 

Figure A1.7. Nkhate main canal taking water from the 

Thangazi River to the scheme 

Source: Ministry of Irrigation and Water Development 2004. 


The Shire River subbasin, situated between the outlet 

of Lake Malawi/Niassa/Nyasa and the Nkula 

Falls, includes approximately the Chiradzulu, 

Blantyre, Balaka, Machinga, and part of Zomba and 

Mangochi districts. 

Once again, this subbasin is not as developed 

for irrigation as the Lower Shire, but one can find 

some pieces of information in the bibliography. For 

instance, concerning the Machinga and the Zomba 

districts, there is some information in the Ministry 

of Agriculture’s Irrigation, Rural Livelihoods and 

Agricultural Development Project: 

56


Figure A1.8. Lujeri sugar estate 

• In the Machinga District, the Domasi estate irrigates 

460 hectares; 

• In the Zomba District, the Kamwasa irrigation 

scheme irrigates 187 hectares; 

• In the Machiga District, the Zumulu, Chibwana, 

and Naming’azi irrigation schemes irrigate 110, 

85, and 75 hectares, respectively. 

It is estimated that the current irrigation area 

for abstraction point I.03.04 is 2,000 hectares, including 

750 hectares of maize, 750 of rice, and 500 

of vegetables. 

Source: www.lujeritea.com. 

• In the Zomba District, the Njala and Segula 

estates irrigate 68 hectares, the Likangala and 

Chiriko estates irrigate 422 hectares, and the 

Khanda estate irrigates 75 hectares; 


The part of the Songwe River catchment area that 

is within Malawi, is situated in the Karonga and 

Chitipa districts. There has been little irrigation 

development in the Malawian part compared with 

the Tanzanian part of the subbasin (NORPLAN, 

COWI, DHI, and W&PES 2002). Indeed, according 

to the information gathered for the MSIOA study, 

Table A1.10. Current irrigation areas in Malawi: subbasin I.03.01 (ha) 

Irrigation 

Scheme 

Nchalo SUCOMA 

sugar estate 

Alumenda 

SUCOMA sugar 

estate 

Kasinthula 

scheme 

Dry season crops Perennial crops Wet season crops Total 

Winter 

rice 

Winter 

maize Tea Sugarcane Maize Cotton Soybeans Sorghum Rice 

irrigated 

area 

Total 

equipped 

area 

— — — 12,000 — — — — — 12,000 12,000 

— — — 1,000 — — — — — 1,000 1,000 

— — — 750 — — — — — 750 750 

Nkhate scheme 125 125 — — 63 30 23 10 125 500 250 

Mlomba — 300 — — 150 72 54 24 600 300 

Muona rice 

scheme 

250 250 — — 125 60 45 20 250 1,000 500 

Masenjere 

scheme 

— 25 — — 13 6 5 2 — 50 25 

Chidzimbi scheme — 80 — — 40 19 14 6 — 160 80 

Tea estates — — 2,000 — — — — — — 2,000 2,000 

Total 375 700 2,000 13,750 390 187 140 62 375 18,060 16,905 

Note: During the wet season, the areas cultivated with winter maize can be cultivated with supplementary irrigation with maize (50 percent), cotton (24 percent), soybeans or 

equivalent (18 percent), and sorghum (eight percent). The areas cultivated with winter rice can be cultivated with supplementary irrigation with rice. 

57


irrigation development in the Malawian part of the 

Songwe River Basin represents only 10 hectares near 

the tributaries, the Ibanda stream, of the Kaseye 

River near Chitipa. 


The South Rukuru River is the main tributary of 

Lake Malawi/Niassa/Nyasa. Its basin covers the 

Rumphi District in the north and almost the entire 

Mzimba District in the south. According to the 

Rumphi District Profile (2008), the irrigated area in 

the Rumphi District is 443 hectares, with very small 

schemes not exceeding 30 hectares, like the Vuvu 

and Mwakalombo irrigation schemes (30 hectares 

and five hectares, respectively, in the Hewe Valley). 

Finally, the initial estimated irrigated area is 1,000 

hectares of equipped area for the abstraction point 

I.03.07 (400 hectares of maize, 400 of rice and 200 

of vegetables). 


This abstraction point represents the irrigation 

water abstractions from the Malawian part of Lake 

Malawi/Niassa/Nyasa subbasin, excluding the 

abstractions from the Songwe River and the South 

Rukuru River subbasins and those directly from 

Lake Malawi/Niassa/Nyasa. Therefore, it notably 

concerns the abstractions in the North Rukuru River, 

in the Danger River, and in the larger Bua River Basin. 

According to numerous sources (including the 

DFID Handbook for the Assessment of Catchment 

Water Demand and Use, 2003), the second-largest 

irrigated estate in Malawi, the Dwanga Sugar Estate, 

covers 6,000 hectares at Dwanga on the central 

lakeshore plain. The water is abstracted from the 

small Dwanga River, which is completely closed 

off during the dry season because of this diversion 

to sugarcane fields (Odada and Olago 2003), and it 

is assumed that a complementary amount of water 

is abstracted from Lake Malawi/Niassa/Nyasa, so 

abstractions for this scheme are part of the I.03.11 

abstraction from Lake Malawi/Niassa/Nyasa. 

Some large government rice schemes are located 

in this part of Malawi (NORPLAN, COWI, DHI, 

W&PES 2002; Orr and others 1998). They include: 

• The Wovwe irrigation scheme at Chilumba 

(4,400 hectares); 

• The Lufira irrigation scheme (2,100 hectares); 

• The Hara irrigation scheme (3,800 hectares); 

• The Bua scheme (220 hectares); and 

• The Bwanje Valley scheme (800 hectares). 

These areas are probably overestimated. According 

to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food 

Security’s Irrigation, Rural Livelihoods and Agricultural 

Development Project, the lakeshore districts 

hosts the following irrigation schemes: 

• In the Karonga District, the Wovwe, Lufira, and 

Hara government managed irrigation schemes 

(365, 216, and 336 hectares, respectively) and 

the Choranga irrigation scheme (250 hectares); 

• In the Nkata Bay District, the Limphasa government 

managed irrigation scheme (253 hectares) 8 

and the Chipakazi irrigation scheme (30 hectares); 

• In the Nkhotakota District, the Bua and 

Mpamantha government managed irrigation 

schemes (196 and 55 hectares, respectively) and 

the Kasitu, Mtandamula, Lifuliza, and Likoa irrigation 

schemes (50, 230, 50, and 100 hectares, 

respectively); and 

• In the Salima District, the Lifuwu government 

managed irrigation scheme (30 hectares) and the 

Mwalawoyera irrigation scheme (120 hectares). 

Finally, it is assumed that the following tea 

and coffee irrigation schemes depend on rainfall 

for irrigation: 

• The Sable Farming Estate; 

• The Kavuzi Tea Estate (810 hectares, according 

to Hazell and Poulton 2007); 

• The Kawalazi Estate (670 hectares, according to 

Hazell and Poulton 2007); 

• The Ngapani Estate in the eastern banks of Lake 

Malawi/Niassa/Nyasa (1,600 hectares, according 

to Hazell and Poulton 2007). 

8 

The Limphasa irrigation scheme, built in the 1940s in the Nkata Bay District, was the first irrigation scheme built in Malawi according 

to FAO Aquastat. 

58


Table A1.11. Irrigated areas in Malawi: subbasin I.03.09 (ha) 

Irrigation Scheme 

Winter 

rice 

Dry season crops 

Winter 

Perennial crops Wet season crops Total 

irrigated 

maize Vegetables Tea Sugarcane Maize Cotton Soybeans Sorghum Rice area 

Total 

equipped 

area 

Dwanga Sugar Estate — — — — 6,000 — — — — — 6,000 6,000 

Bwanje Valley scheme — 500 300 — — 250 120 90 40 — 1,300 800 

Wovwe irrigation scheme 

(Karonga District) 

365 — — — — — — — — 365 730 365 

Lufira irrigation scheme 


216 — — — — — — — — 216 432 216 

Hara irrigation scheme 


336 — — — — — — — — 336 672 336 

Choranga irrigation 

scheme (Karonga 

250 — — — — — — — — 250 500 250 

District) 

Limphasa irrigation 

scheme (Nkata Bay 253 — — — — — — — — 253 506 253 

District) 

Chipakazi irrigation 

scheme (Nkata Bay 

30 — — — — — — — — 30 60 30 

District) 

Bua irrigation scheme 

(Nkhotakota District) 

196 — — — — — — — — 196 392 196 

Mpamantha irrigation 

scheme (Nkhotakota 55 — — — — — — — — 55 110 55 

District) 

Kasitu irrigation scheme 


50 — — — — — — — — 50 100 50 

Mtandamula irrigation 

scheme (Nkhotakota 230 — — — — — — — — 230 460 230 

District) 

Lifuliza irrigation scheme 


50 — — — — — — — — 50 100 50 

Likoa irrigation scheme 


100 — — — — — — — — 100 200 100 

Lifuwu irrigation 

scheme (Salima 

30 — — — — — — — — 30 60 30 

District) 

Mwalawoyera irrigation 

scheme (Salima District) 

120 — — — — — — — — 120 240 120 

Kavuzi Tea Estate — — — 810 — — — — — — 810 810 

Kawalazi Estate — — — 670 — — — — — — 670 670 

Others — — — 520 — — — — — — 520 520 

Total 2,281 500 300 2,000 6,000 250 120 90 40 1,945 13,526 11,081 



59


Table A1.12. Overview of irrigated areas in Malawi (ha) 

Control 

point Name 

43 Lake Malawi/ 

Nyasa 



Abstraction 

point 

Winter 

rice 

Dry season crops Perennial crops Wet season crops 

Winter 

maize Vegetables Tea Sugarcane Maize Cotton Soybeans Sorghum Rice 

Total 

irrigated 

area 

Total 

equipped 

area 

I.03.11 — — — — — — — — — — — — 

I.03.09 2,281 500 2,000 6,000 250 120 90 40 2,281 13,562 10,781 

41 South Rukuru I.03.07 400 400 200 — — 200 96 72 32 400 1,800 1,000 

36 Songwe I.03.06 10 — — — — — — — — 10 20 10 

45 Liwonde I.03.04 750 750 500 — — 375 180 135 60 750 3,500 2,000 

47 Between Nkula 

Falls and Tedzani I.03.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — 

Falls 

49 Between Tedzani 

Falls and Kapichira 

I.03.02 75 75 50 — — 38 18 14 6 75 350 200 

Falls 

51 Lower Shire I.03.01 375 700 — 2,000 13,750 350 168 126 56 375 17,900 16,825 

Total 3,891 2,425 750 4,000 19,750 1,213 582 437 194 3,891 37,132 30,816 


It is assumed that no water is directly abstracted 

from Lake Malawi/Niassa/Nyasa for irrigation, 

except for the 6,000 hectares of the Dwanga Sugar 

Estate (see abstraction point I.03.09 above). 


projects 

According to the Ministry of Irrigation and Water 

Development (2009a), in line with the vision of the 

president of the Green Belt Initiative (box A1.1), the 

Ministry of Irrigation and Water Development plans 

to develop 56,000 hectares of irrigated agriculture 

in the next five years using various technologies. In 

addition, existing irrigation schemes will be used 

to rehabilitate 12,000 hectares. The commercialization 

of the irrigation schemes will be enhanced by 

the construction of agro-processing and marketing 

facilities. 

To support the Green Belt Initiative, some 

projects have already been designed or appraised 

in preparation for implementation. The notable 

ones include: 

• The Shire Valley irrigation project, which has 

already been designed and covers a total area 

of 42,000 hectares in the Chikwawa and Nsanje 

districts. It is proposed that a private-public 

partnership approach be used in the implementation 

of the project. 

• The medium-scale irrigation development project, 

which was identified following a Japan International 

Cooperation Agency (JICA) funded 

study, includes 4,740 hectares earmarked for 

development and 1,435 hectares for rehabilitation. 

JICA has expressed interest in supporting 

the government in the implementation of the 

project. 

• The agricultural infrastructure support project, 

which has already been appraised by the 

African Development Bank and scheduled for 

implementation in January 2010. The total area 

planned for development under the project is 

2,320 hectares. 

• The agricultural productivity improvement 

project, which is expected to develop 3,200 

hectares; government part two resources 

have already been provided for in the current 

budget. 

60


Box A.1. The Green Belt Initiative in Malawi 

The low economic growth in the country is generally explained by low agricultural productivity as a result of overwhelming dependence on 

rain-fed agriculture, which is characterized by unreliable rainfall combined with periods of dry spells. The agricultural production system is also 

vulnerable to periodic floods and droughts, which calls for improved water management. This calls for full and supplementary irrigation, thus 

investments in harvesting and the management of water during periods of plenty for irrigation use during periods of scarcity. This is critical 

to meeting the food and fiber requirements for a growing population and the supply of raw materials for a developing industry. Agricultural 

production intensification through irrigation has the potential to double yields and provide two to three harvests per hectare to the smallholder 

and commercial farmers in a given year. The Irrigation Green Belt Initiative is an intervention that will lead Malawi to the realization of national 

objectives, considering that water resources are abundant in lakes, perennial rivers, and groundwater. At present, there is very little exploitation 

of these water resources for irrigation, and therefore the Green Belt Initiative will offer an opportunity exploit the resource to the benefit of 

development and poverty reduction. 

Source: Ministry of Irrigation and Water Development 2009b. 


During a meeting with the Malawian Department 

of Irrigation in June 2008, it was stated that the 

Nchalo Estate is currently (in the very short-term) 

developing an additional 1,200 hectares and also 

installing additional pumping capacity from the 

Shire for 800 hectares. This extension could be part 

of the Shire Valley irrigation project (CODA and 

NINHAM SHAND Ltd 2008). The high irrigation 

potential of the Lower Shire River valley provides a 

great opportunity to boost agriculture potential in 

particular and the economy in general. The project 

will source water from Shire River to irrigate vast 

areas in the districts of Chikwawa and Nsanje. 

Phase 1 of the project covers 17,320 hectares in the 

Chikwawa District. This includes 7,940 hectares of 

new development, 9,200 hectares under ILLOVO, 

and 180 hectares under the Kasinthula scheme. 

The project area is bounded in the south by the 

Mwanza River and in the north by the Manjalende 

stream, close to Majete Game Reserve. The western 

border is marked by the hills and ridges extending 

from Chapananga Road to Mwanza River west of 

Tomali. The Shire River forms the eastern boundary. 

Phase 2 of the project comprises the southern 

part of Lower Shire River valley, with a total area 

of 25,000 hectares, between the Mwanza River and 

Bangula. 

The net irrigable land in Phase 1 will thus be 

7,940 hectares, designated into areas suitable for cot- 

ton, maize, and rice production. Maize is estimated 

to occupy a net area of 4,037 hectares, while rice 

will occupy 1,594 hectares. Cotton is estimated to 

occupy a net area of 2,000 hectares, while sorghum 

is estimated to occupy 309 hectares, with 50 hectares 

allocated for demonstration sites. The same proportions 

are used to estimate the rest of the areas in 

Phase 2. However, the water intake for this project is 

situated at Hamilton Rapids, at what appears to be 

the most stable section of the river in this area and 

should not be affected by any riverbank movement 

or erosion. The Hamilton Rapids (see figure A.1.9) 

are located just upstream of the Kapichira Falls, 

so that this project will not be represented in the 

I.03.01 abstraction point but in the next abstraction 

point (I.03.02). 

Moreover, in the Chikwawa District, according 

to the Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation, Rural 

Livelihoods and Agricultural Development Project 

(Mkwende, no date), 685 hectares of specific small or 

medium irrigation potential sites were inventoried, 

which would use water directly from the Shire River, 

including 200 hectares for the Kalima irrigation 

scheme, or 100 hectares for each of the Mbenderana, 

Mtendere, and Mlenza irrigation schemes. 


As discussed above, the identified projects in the 

I.03.02 subbasin will principally consist of the Shire 

Valley irrigation project, which represents: 

61


Figure A1.9. Shire Valley irrigation project location 

PROJECT AREA 

NATIONAL CAPITAL 

MAIN ROADS 

RIVERS 


Mwanza 

Shire 

M A L A W I 

Lirangwe 

Lake 

Chilwa 

TANZANIA 

Hamilton Rapids 

Kapichira Falls 

Chikwawa 

Blantyre 

Phalombe 

ZAMBIA 

MALAWI 

Lake 

Malawi/Niassa/Nyasa 

Mwanza 

Tomali 

Nchalo 

N’gabu 

Thyolo 

LILONGWE 

MOZAMBIQUE 

Chiromo 

MOZAMBIQUE 

MOZAMBIQUE 

Zambezi 

Chikwawa 

Blantyre 

Area of 

map 

Nsanje 

Shire 

0 20 

40 

KILOMETERS 

60 

IBRD 37957 

July 2010 

Source: CODA 2006. 

• In Phase 1: 4,037 hectares of maize, 1,594 of rice, 

2,000 of cotton, and 309 of sorghum; and 

• In Phase 2 (longer term scale): 25,000 hectares, 

projected to be double that of Phase 1 plus 9,138 

hectares of sugarcane. 

This project will also irrigate 9,380 hectares 

of sugarcane currently taken into account in 

abstraction point I.03.01 above. However, in 

order to simplify, this water transfer will not be 

considered. 


There is no identified project in the small Shire River 

subbasin between Nkula Falls and Tedzani. 


The Shire River subbasin, situated between the outlet 

of Lake Malawi/Niassa/Nyasa and the Nkula 

Falls, includes approximately the Chiradzulu, 

Blantyre, Balaka, Machinga, and part of Zomba and 

Mangochi districts. 

According to the Ministry of Agriculture, 

Irrigation, Rural Livelihoods and Agricultural 

Development Project (Mkwende), approximately 

2,000 hectares of specific small or medium irrigation 

potential sites were inventoried in the two districts 

of Blantyre and Zomba, including 405 hectares for 

the Likangala irrigation scheme and 605 hectares 

of the Bimbi irrigation scheme (both in the Zomba 

District). Concerning the Likangala complex, a 

62


World Bank financed project (World Bank 2005b) 

will rehabilitate 602 hectares of the Likangala irrigation 

scheme. 


In the Malawian part of the Songwe River basin, 

the IFAD floodplain project plans to develop 250 

hectares of small-scale irrigation in Karonga ADD 

in the next few years (NORPLAN, COWI, DHI, 

and W&PES 2002). According to Gibbs (2003) the 

Nkhangwa irrigation scheme (36 hectares; 40 percent 

maize, 20 percent beans, 20 percent vegetables, 

and 20 percent others) is also planned for irrigation 

in the Malawian part of the Songwe River Basin. 


There is no project identified in the South Rukuru 

subbasin. 


According to Gibbs (2003b), the following irrigation 

schemes are projected in Northern Malawi (not part 

of the Songwe River Basin): 

• The Ibuluma irrigation scheme (194 hectares); 

• The Mabalani irrigation scheme (39 hectares); 

• The Sekwa irrigation scheme (31 hectares); 

• The Lilezi irrigation scheme (149 hectares); 

• The Divwa irrigation scheme (38 hectares); 

• The Lukyala irrigation scheme (22 hectares); and 

• The Luwewya irrigation scheme (32 hectares). 

According to Gibbs (2003), three dams are part 

of this project for Central Malawi: 

• The Malizani irrigation scheme (72 hectares); 

• The Mtengezu irrigation scheme (47 hectares); 

and 

• The Nkhafi irrigation scheme (22 hectares). 

According to Gibbs (2003c), this project will 

provide 63 hectares of rehabilitated irrigation in six 

schemes in the project area. The breakdown of dry 

season crops for these small-scale irrigation development 

study (SSIDS) schemes is estimated to be 

40 percent maize, 20 percent beans, 20 percent vegetables, 

and 20 percent other products. Moreover, 

a World Bank financed project (World Bank 2005b) 

will rehabilitate 466 hectares of the Limphansa 

irrigation scheme and develop 560 hectares of 

new small-scale schemes and 340 hectares of new 

mini-scale schemes, which are considered as part 

of this abstraction point. The breakdown of crops 

during the dry season is 60 percent rice, 30 percent 

vegetables, and 10 percent maize. Finally, according 

to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security’s 

Irrigation, Rural Livelihoods and Agricultural Development 

Project (Mkwende, no date): 

• Approximately 552 hectares of potential medium 

or small irrigation schemes were inventoried 

in the Chitipa District, for maize (mainly), 

beans, and vegetables; 

• Approximately 1,515 hectares of potential medium 


in the Salima District, for maize (mainly), beans, 

potatoes, and vegetables (the schemes using 

water abstracted directly from Lake Malawi/ 

Niassa/Nyasa are not included; 



in the Lilongwe District, for maize (mainly), 

sweet potatoes, and vegetables; and 



in the Dedza District, for maize (mainly), beans, 

and vegetables. 


There are some identified projects with direct abstractions 

from the Lake Malawi/Niassa/Nyasa 

area, but the only area numbers found concern 

the Salima District, with 1,560 hectares, according 

to the Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation, Rural 

Livelihoods and Agricultural Development Project 

(Mkwende, no date), including Lipimbi, Nakaleza, 

Chilumba, Chigolo, Mphere, Pemba, Kabumbu, and 

Chigolo II (200, 200, 200, 100, 100, 100, 300, and 200 

hectares, respectively). 

No other area numbers are provided in this 

document concerning the other districts’ potential 

schemes, but it is possible to foresee similar 

63


Table A1.13. Identified projects in Malawi (ha) 

Control 

point Name 

Abstraction 

point Project 

Winter 

rice 

Winter 

maize Beans 


Perennial 

crops Wet season crops Total 

Winter 

cotton Vegetables Other Sugarcane Maize Cotton Soybeans Sorghum Rice irrigated 

area 

51 Lower Shire I.03.01 Nchalo Estate extension — — — — — — 2,000 — — — — — 2,000 2,000 

49 Between Tedzani 

Falls and Kapichira 

Falls 

45 Between Nkula 

Falls and Tedzani 

Falls 

Kalima irrigation scheme 40 102 — 50 — 8 — 51 24 18 8 40 342 200 

Mbenderana irrigation 

scheme 

Mtendere irrigation 

scheme 

Total 

equipped 

area 

20 51 — 25 — 4 — 25 12 9 4 20 171 100 

20 51 — 25 — 4 — 25 12 9 4 20 171 100 

Mlenza irrigation scheme 20 51 — 25 — 4 — 25 12 9 4 20 171 100 

Others 37 94 — 47 — 7 — 47 23 17 8 37 316 185 

I.03.02 Shire Valley irrigation 

project Phase 1 1,594 4,037 — 2,000 — 309 — 2,543 — 1,251 242 1,594 13,571 7,940 

Shire Valley irrigation 

project Phase 2 

I.03.04 Bimbi irrigation schemes 

Rehabilitation of Likangala 


(WB financed) 

3,188 8,074 — 4,000 — 618 9,120 5,087 — 2,503 484 3,188 36,262 25,000 

121 308 — 152 — 24 — 154 74 55 25 121 1,034 605 

120 305 — 151 — 23 — 153 73 55 24 120 1,026 600 

Others 160 404 — 200 — 31 — 202 97 73 32 160 1,359 795 

36 Songwe I.03.06 IFAD floodplain project — 250 — — — — 125 60 45 20 — 500 250 


Niassa/Nyasa 

Nkhangwa irrigation 

scheme development 

I.03.09 SSIDS irrigation schemes 

— 14 7 — 7 7 — 11 5 4 2 — 58 36 

— 284 142 — 142 142 — 213 102 77 34 — 1,134 709 


64


Table A1.13. Identified projects in Malawi (ha) 

(continued) 

Control 

point Name 


Niassa/Nyasa 

Abstraction 

point Project 

Rehabilitation of Limphansa 


(WB financed) 

Development of new 

small-scale irrigation 

schemes (WB financed) 

Development of new miniscale 

irrigation schemes 

(WB financed) 

Other potential medium or 

small irrigation schemes 

I.03.11 Lipimbi irrigation scheme 

Nakaleza irrigation 

scheme 

Chilumba irrigation 

scheme 

Winter 

rice 

Winter 

maize Beans 


Perennial 


Winter 

cotton Vegetables Other Sugarcane Maize Cotton Soybeans Sorghum Rice irrigated 

area 

Total 

equipped 

area 

280 47 — — 140 — 23 11 8 4 280 792 466 

336 56 — — 168 — 28 13 10 4 336 952 560 

204 34 — — 102 — 17 8 6 3 204 578 340 

— 1,755 293 — 293 585 — 1,024 491 369 164 — 4,973 2,925 

— 120 20 — 20 40 — 70 34 25 11 — 340 200 

— 120 20 — 20 40 — 70 34 25 11 — 340 200 

— 120 20 — 20 40 — 70 34 25 11 — 340 200 

Chigolo irrigation scheme — 60 10 — 10 20 — 35 17 13 6 — 170 100 

Mphere irrigation scheme — 60 10 — 10 20 — 35 17 13 6 — 170 100 

Pemba irrigation scheme — 60 10 — 10 20 — 35 17 13 6 — 170 100 

Kabumbu irrigation 

scheme 

Chigolo 2 irrigation 

scheme 

Other potential medium or 

small irrigation schemes 

— 180 30 — 30 60 — 105 50 38 17 — 510 300 

— 120 20 — 20 40 — 70 34 25 11 — 340 200 

— 2,160 360 — 360 720 — 1,260 605 454 202 — 6,120 3,600 

Total 6,141 18,916 942 6,676 1,351 2,765 11,120 11,503 1,859 5,149 1,346 6,141 73,909 47,911 

Note: During the wet season, the areas cultivated with winter maize can be cultivated with supplementary irrigation with maize (50 percent), cotton (24 percent), soybeans or equivalent (18 percent), and sorghum (eight percent). The areas cultivated with 

winter rice can be cultivated with supplementary irrigation with rice. The breakdown of wet season crops for the Lower Shire Valley irrigation project is different (51 percent maize, 20 percent rice, 25 percent soybeans, and four percent sorghum). 

65


developments in the other parts of the Lake Malawi/Niassa/Nyasa 

subbasin, so that finally, around 

5,000 hectares were considered as potential medium 

or small irrigation schemes, for cultivating mainly 

maize, but also potatoes, sweet potatoes, beans, 

and vegetables. 

a1.4 Mozambique 



From 1996 to 1997, the government of Mozambique 

prepared a set of guidelines for the agricultural and 

fisheries sectors. The Política Agrária e Estratégias 

de Implementação (PAEI) and Política Pesqueira e 

Estratégias de Implementação (PPEI) declared that 

agricultural and fishery activities should contribute 

to Mozambique’s development objectives in 

four main areas: (i) food security, (ii) sustainable 

economic development, (iii) reduction of the unemployment 

rate, and (iv) poverty reduction. The PAEI 

set the context for the development of the first phase 

of the National Agricultural Programme (ProAgri 

1) in 1998 and the PPEI led to the formulation of 

the Plano de Desenvolvimento do Sector Pesqueiro 

(Development Plan for Fishery) in 2001. 

The government of Mozambique prepared the 

Plano de Acção para a Redução da Pobreza Absoluta 

II, PARPA 2 (second Poverty Reduction Support 

Strategy). PARPA 2, approved by the cabinet in 

September 2006, covers the period from 2006 to 2009 

and continues many of the objectives laid out in the 

first PARPA (2001 to 2005) but with the next stage 

of results largely expected through investments 

in rural areas and second-stage reforms. PARPA 2 

also adds focus on key crosscutting objectives that 

require coordination across key sectors. 

Unlike the sectoral approach in PARPA 1, 

PARPA 2 uses a pillar approach based on the fiveyear 

government program. PARPA 2 has three main 

pillars, a foundation of macroeconomic and public 

financial management, and eight crosscutting topics. 

Pillar 1 is about governance, Pillar 2 is about 

human capital. Pillar 3 concentrated on economic 

development: This pillar addresses improving the 

investment climate and removing key constraints 

to growth. Reforms and measures under this pillar 

target (a) macroeconomic management; (b) improving 

the business environment; (c) development of 

the financial system; (d) promoting the creation 

of a strong, dynamic, competitive, and innovative 

private sector; (e) promoting the priority sectors, 

broadening the business class, and creating jobs 

(including in agriculture and agrarian services, 

natural resource management, industry, fisheries, 

tourism, mineral extraction, oil exploration, and 

several employment creation programs); (f) improving 

the integration of Mozambique into the regional 

and international economy; and (g) promoting 

the integration and consolidation of the domestic 

market, including road and water transport, ports 

and railways, bridges, marketing systems, and the 

regulation of internal trade. 

PARPA’s main pillars for agriculture are embedded 

in policy and strategy documents in the 

agriculture and fishery sectors. These documents 

are PAEI, Visão do Sector Agrário em Moçambique 

(VSAM), and ProAgri 2 (2005 to 2009). The VSAM 

was developed in 2003, prior to the consultation and 

planning process for the formulation of the second 

phase of the ProAgri. It describes in detail Mozambique’s 

agricultural sector and provides some direction 

toward its long-term development. The VSAM 

seeks “an agricultural sector that is integrated, 

sustainable, and competitive, diversified, a basis 

for welfare and economic accumulation, [and] articulated 

through value-added chains with broadly 

shared benefits.” The VSAM defined the following 

critical pillars for agricultural sector development: 

(a) input and output markets, (b) financial services, 

(c) technology, and (d) access to natural resources. 

This vision guided the development of the second 

phase of the ProAgri 2. 

Certain documents from Gabinete do Plano de 

Desenvolvimento da Região do Zambeze (the Office 

of Development Planning for the Zambezi Region) 

were used, such as Oportunides de Investimentos 

no Vale do Zambeze (Investment Opportunities in 

the Zambezi River Valley), dated November 2008, 

to build the identified project scenarios. 

Mozambique’s territory covers the lower part of 

the Zambezi River Basin, both upstream and downstream 

of the confluence with the Shire River coming 

from Malawi and Tanzania. The Mozambican part 

66


Table A1.14. Irrigation abstraction points in 

Mozambique 

Irrigation 

Control 

point Name 

abstraction 

point 

27 Lower Luangwa I.05.04 

29 Cahora Bassa I.02.02 

30 Between Cahora Bassa and Mphanda 

I.02.03 

Nkuwa 

33 Tete I.02.04 

32 Luenha I.02.06 

52 Upstream Zambezi Delta I.01.01 

53 Zambezi Delta I.01.02 

of the basin has a huge irrigation potential, with 

available water from the regulated large upstream 

lakes and reservoirs (Lake Malawi/Niassa/Nyasa, 

Cahora Bassa, and Kariba). 


The modeled irrigation abstractions in Mozambique 

fall within the Zambezi Delta subbasin (1), the Tete 

subbasin (2), and to a lesser extent, the Luangwa 

subbasin (5). The model incorporates seven control 

points, one each for the following: 

• Irrigation in the Mozambican part of the lower 

Luangwa River valley; 

• Irrigation using water directly from Lake Cahora 

Bassa; 

• Irrigation in the small Zambezi River subbasin 

between the Cahora Bassa Dam and the projected 

Mphanda Nkuwa Dam; 

• Irrigation in the subbasin between the projected 

Mphanda Nkuwa Dam and the confluence with 

the Shire River, excluding the Luenha River 

subbasin; 

• Irrigation in the Luenha River subbasin; 

• Irrigation in the Zambezi River subbasin, upstream 

of the Zambezi Delta entrance; and 

• Irrigation schemes inside the Zambezi Delta. 

One control point (32) is shared with Zimbabwe 

and one other (27) with Zambia. 


The current situation of irrigation development in 

the Mozambican part of the Zambezi River Basin 

is quite well known due to the 2003 study from the 

Direcção Nacional de Hidráulica Agrícola (National 

Directorate for Agricultural Hydraulics). 


No irrigation scheme was inventoried in this small 

western part of Mozambique. 


Almost no irrigation was developed using water 

directly from Lake Cahora Bassa or from small influents. 

Three small irrigation schemes take waters 

from small lake inlets in the Distrito de Mágoè that 

produce mainly vegetables (Direcção Nacional de 

Hidráulica Agrícola 2003): 

• The Nascente Cacondua, Mphende irrigation 

scheme (five hectares); 

• The Guivite William irrigation scheme (one 

hectare); and 

• The Sistema de Cegonhas irrigation scheme 

(four hectares). 


Almost no irrigation was inventoried in the 

subbasin between Cahora Bassa and Mphanda 

Nkuwa. Two hectares of irrigated beans and five 

hectares of irrigated fruits use water from the 

N’Sanagoè and the Maroeira rivers (Direcção 

Nacional de Hidráulica Agrícola 2003), as do three 

hectares of the Regadio Misongo in the Maravia 

District. 


The following irrigation schemes were inventoried 

in this part of the Zambezi River Basin (Direcção 

Nacional de Hidráulica Agrícola 2003): 

• Approximately 100 hectares of small-scale irrigation 

schemes (regadio de classe A), especially 

67


in the Macnaga, Chiuta, Moatize, Tsangano, and 

Angonia districts); 

• Scheme of Kapanga in the Moatize District, with 

40 hectares of vegetables; 

• Scheme of Associação de Camponeses de 

M´padue in the Moatize District, with 27 hectares 

of maize and vegetables; 

• Scheme of União das Cooperativas Agro- 

Pecuárias do vale de Nhartanda, with 24 hectares 

of maize and vegetables; 

• Scheme of Centro Provincial de Formação 

Agrária de Tete (CPFAT), with 12 hectares of 

maize and vegetables; and 

• 115 hectares irrigated for a total of 1,025 hectares 

of regadios de classe B (more than 50 hectares) in 

the Tsangano District, with maize and potatoes 

(batata reno). 

• It is worth noting that the abandoned Lembane 

scheme in the Chemba District (200 hectares 

equipped) and the 2,300 hectares of the former 

scheme known as Empresa Estatal de Caia. 


The outlet of the Luenha River subbasin is situated 

in Mozambique, so that there is a small part of the 

Luenha River subbasin in Mozambique where irrigation 

is possible. 

The following irrigation schemes (beans and 

maize) were inventoried in this part of the Zambezi 

River Basin (Direcção Nacional de Hidráulica 

Agrícola 2003): 

Figure A1.10. Pumping station in the Zambezi River, 

for the Mpadue irrigation scheme 

Figure A1.11. Plot from the scheme União das 

Cooperativas Agro-Pecuárias do vale de Nhartanda 

Figure A1.12. Pumping station in the Zambezi River, 

for the CPFAT irrigation scheme 

Figure A1.13. Abandoned infrastructure of the 

Lambane scheme 

Source: Direcção Nacional de Hidráulica Agrícola 2003. 

68


• Associação Agrícola Múdue, 15 hectares, in the 

Changara District; 

• Asociação Agrícola Tatchira, seven hectares, in 

the Changara District; 

• Associação Agrícola Nhazue, 15 hectares, in the 


• Associação Agrícola Cuve, 10 hectares, in the 


• Associação Agrícola Tinachinanga, 7.5 hectares, 

in the Changara District; 

• José Fidelis de Sousa, three hectares, in the 


• Propriedade da Igreja Católica, 1.3 hectares, in 

the Changara District; 

• Silva Gomes, one hectare, in the Changara 

District; and 

• Bunga, 20 hectares of vegetables, in the Guro 

District. 


Different types of irrigation are present in the Zambezi 

Delta. 

• Recession irrigation. In addition to the recession 

irrigation, it is also possible to find some 

schemes for supplementary rice irrigation during 

the dry season in the Delta. For instance (Direcção 

Nacional de Hidráulica Agrícola 2003), 

there are at least three functioning irrigation 

schemes in the Zambezi Delta: the Regadio de 

Matilde-Chacuma (50 hectares of maize and rice 

in the Chinde District), the Regadio de Sombo 

(250 hectares of rice), and the very recent Regadio 

de Thewe 1 and 2 (145 hectares). 

• Commercial surface irrigation. According to Beilfuss 

and Brown (2006), “the total extent of sugar 

production fields is currently less than [that 

which] occurred prior to the civil war. Currently, 

Marromeu [the south bank of the Zambezi Delta 

and adjacent uplands] supports about 12,000 

hectares of irrigated agriculture, with sugarcane 

as the main crop (10,000 hectares [Sena Sugar 

Estate]) and about 2,000 hectares [of] other cash 

crops [vegetables, fruit trees, rice and other 

cash crops like tobacco and cotton].” Among 

the 2,000 hectares of other cash crops could be 

the Sistema de Irrigaçao de Chinde, but no information 

was found about it, except a general 

localization on a map (Gabinete do Plano de 

Desenvolvimento da Região do Zambeze 2007) 

and the fact that it is currently facing problems 

with accessibility and infrastructures. According 

to Thá and Seager (2008), less than half of the 

planted area of Sena factory is irrigated today. 

It is estimated that the irrigation area is currently 

7,000 hectares in the Zambezi Delta, including 

Figure A1.14. Floating pumping station installed on 

a canal, taking water from the Zambezi River, Sena 

Sugar Estate 

Figure A1.15. Localization of the outlet of the main 

canal, probably not functioning well, Sena Sugar 

Estate 

Source: Direcção Nacional de Hidráulica Agrícola 2003. 

69


5,000 hectares of Sena company sugarcane and 2,000 

hectares equally shared among sugarcane, vegetables, 

and fruits (tobacco and cotton being cultivated 

during the wet season). This hypothesis holds even 

if the Sena Sugar Estate, situated at the entrance of 

the Delta, is considered as part of the I.01.01 subbasin. 

Indeed, the distinction between upstream and 

downstream of the Zambezi River entrance could 

be helpful for analyzing the impact of irrigation on 

the Zambezi Delta. For this purpose, the Sena Sugar 

Estate should be considered upstream because the 

water abstracted will not benefit flood expansion 

in the Delta. 


The Mozambican districts covering the Zambezi 

Delta are mainly Chinde, Mopeia (Zambézia Province), 

Marromeu, and Cheringoma (Sofala Province). 

As described above, it is estimated that 2,000 

hectares are irrigated in the Delta, equally shared 

among sugarcane, vegetables, and fruits (tobacco 

and cotton being cultivated during the wet season). 

Many schemes in the Zambezi Delta are not 

operated at their full potential capacity, including 

Thewe 1 (95 hectares of 200 hectares), Thewe 2 (50 

hectares of 1,000 hectares), and Sombo/Chinde (250 

of 1,000 hectares). 


projects 


No irrigation project was found in this small eastern 

part of Mozambique. 


The main irrigation project directly linked to the 

Cahora Bassa Reservoir is the building of the 7,500 

hectare irrigation scheme of Vale de Chitima at the 

outlet of the Cahora Bassa Dam (Gabinete do Plano 

de Desenvolvimento da Região do Zambeze 2007). 

The consultant assumes that the irrigated crops will 

be vegetables (50 percent) and beans (50 percent). 

However, the consultant has not found any calendar 

for this project, so it will be regarded as long-term 

Table A1.15. Current irrigation areas in Mozambique (ha) 

Control 

point 

Name 

Irrigation 

abstraction 

point 


Winter 

maize Beans Vegetables Citrus Sugarcane Maize Cotton Soybeans Sorghum 

Total 

irrigated 

area 

Total 

equipped 

area 

29 Cahora Bassa I.02.02 — — 10 — — — — — — 10 10 

30 Between 

Cahora 

Bassa and 

Mphanda 

Nkuwa 

I.02.03 2 — 8 — 1 — — — 12 10 

33 Tete I.02.04 95 — 170 50 — 48 23 17 8 410 315 

32 Luenha I.02.06 — 60 — — — 30 14 11 5 140 80 

52 Upstream of 

the Zambezi 

Delta 

53 Zambezi 

Delta 

I.01.01 — — — 5,000 — — — — 5,000 5,000 

I.01.02 — — 666 666 666 — — — — 1,998 1,998 

Total 95 62 866 724 5,666 79 38 28 13 7,570 7,413 

Note: During the wet season, the areas cultivated with winter crops can be cultivated with supplementary irrigation with maize (50 percent), cotton (24 percent), soybeans or 

equivalent (18 percent), and sorghum (8 percent). 

70


Figure A1.16. Chitima 1 irrigation project 

IBRD 37958 

July 2010 

MAIN CHANNELS 

EQUIPPED IRRIGATION AREAS 

Zambezi 

Songo 

PUMPING STATION 2 

RESERVOIRS ALONG THE 

MAIN CANAL (N-S AND W-E) 

MAIN ROAD 

Lake 

Cahora Bassa 

Chicoa 

EE1 

EE2 

Maroeira 

RIVERS 

R1 

R2 R3 R4 R5 

Chitima 

Muze 

0 

5 10 

KILOMETERS 

Domba 

Tedoooo 

Nhaconhe 

Ghirodeze 

Source: Gabinete do Plano de Desenvolvimento da Região do Zambeze 2007. 

and included in the high-level irrigation scenario 

rather than in this section on identified projects. 


According to the Direcção Nacional de Extensão 

Agrária (the National Directorate of Agrarian Services, 

DNSA), numerous small irrigation schemes 

are projected to be rehabilitated or built in Mozambique, 

but no information was found on the precise 

concerned areas/crops, with the exception (for this 

abstraction point I.02.3) of the projected irrigation 

scheme of Lipaque (150 hectares of maize and beans) 

in the Chiuta District. 


There are many irrigation projects in Mozambique 

that will contribute to an agriculture production 

increase and the concretization of the revolução 

verde (green revolution), which targets poverty 

reduction, food self-sufficiency, and the change 

from subsistence agriculture to commercial agriculture. 

Specific irrigation plans were identified in 

the stretch of the Zambezi River Basin between the 

projected Mphanda Nkuwa Dam and the confluence 

with the Shire River (information obtained at 

meeting with Gabinete do Plano de Desenvolvimento 

da Região do Zambeze, November 2008). 

A large irrigation scheme project and numerous 

small multi-purpose dams to be built for irrigation 

were identified in the part of the Basin between the 

projected Mphanda Nkuwa Dam and the confluence 

with the Shire River: 

• The M’condezi-Revubue irrigation scheme 

(6,000 hectares, mainly wheat); and 

• 5,000 hectares of multi-purpose dam projects 

(mainly wheat), including the rehabilitation of 

the Lembane scheme in the Chemba District 

71


(2,300 hectares) and the rehabilitation of the 

regadios de classe B (more than 50 hectares) in 

the Tsangano District. 


There is a project identified in the Mozambican part 

of the Luenha River basin: the Luenha irrigation 

scheme, with 8,000 irrigated hectares (information 

obtained at meeting with Gabinete do Plano de 

Desenvolvimento da Região do Zambeze, November 

2008). 


According to Beilfuss and Brown (2006), “the target 

situation is difficult to define but, under present 

conditions with the sugar mill operating at full 

potential, we would expect development up to 

20,000 hectares of irrigated sugarcane. We expect an 

increase of irrigated land on the order of 6.0 percent 

per year, which would reflect healthy economic 

development for the rural sector with a growth rate 

similar to the figures observed during recent years.” 

Moreover, Gabinete do Plano de Desenvolvimento 

da Região do Zambeze plans different 

sugarcane irrigation projects in this area; these are 

assumed to be extensions of the existing Sena Sugar 

Estate (located nearby): 

• The Urema-Zangue irrigation scheme (15,000 

hectares); 

• The Mandua irrigation scheme (10,000 hectares); 

and 

• The Inhangoma irrigation scheme (30,000 

hectares). 

Therefore, the identified projects taken into 

consideration in the I.01.1 subbasin, just upstream 

of the Zambezi Delta, represent a total of 55,000 

hectares of irrigated sugarcane. 


According to the DNSA, there is a need for rehabilitating 

and/or extending the Chinde irrigation 

scheme. Moreover Gabinete do Plano de Desenvolvimento 

da Região do Zambeze plans different 

irrigation projects in this area, which are assumed 

to be extensions of the existing Chinde scheme 

(located nearby): 

• The Luabo Chinde irrigation scheme (17,000 

hectares of rice); 

• The rehabilitation of Sombo Chinde irrigation 

scheme (750 hectares); 

• The rehabilitation of Thewe 1 (105 hectares) and 

Thewe 2 (950 hectares); and 

• The Ilha Salia Chinde irrigation scheme (4,000 

hectares of rice). 

Some of these areas may be included in the 

forthcoming PROIRRI Sustainable Irrigation Development 

IDA-funded project, which is expected to 

improve irrigation systems for an aggregated area 

of around 5,000 hectares in the Provinces of Sofala 

and Manica. 

A1.5 Namibia 



Development policy and the national agenda are 

set out in Vision 2030 and the national development 

plans (NDP). The agricultural sector’s overall 

objective as defined in the NDP 2 (2001–06) mission 

statement is to contribute to the improvement of 

levels of household and national food security and 

to create employment opportunities. According to 

NDP 2, this mission is to be accomplished by achieving 

the following immediate objectives: 

• Increase agricultural production at national and 

household levels; 

• Improve the agricultural balance of trade by 

raising the volume and value of agricultural 

exports and reducing those of imports; 

• Promote complementary farmer livelihood opportunities; 

and 

• Increase the in-country value added to agricultural 

output. 

In addition to the sector objectives spelled out 

in NDP 2, Namibia’s agricultural development is 

72


Table A1.16. Identified irrigation projects in Mozambique (hectares) 

Control 

point Name 

Irrigation 

abstraction 

point Project 


Winter 

maize Beans 

Perennial 


Winter 

rice Vegetables Sugarcane Maize Cotton Soybeans Sorghum Rice irrigated 

area 

Wheat 

29 Cahora Bassa I.02.02 n/a — — — — — — — — — — — — — 

I.02.03 Lipaque irrigation scheme 

— 75 75 — — — 75 36 27 12 — 300 150 

30 Between Cahora Bassa 

and Mphanda Nkuwa 

33 Tete I.02.04 M’condezi-Revubue irrigation 

scheme 

Total 

equipped 

area 

6,000 — — — — — 3,000 1,440 1,080 480 — 12,000 6,000 

Dam projects (multiple use) 2,700 — — — — — 1,350 648 486 216 — 5,400 2,700 

Rehabilitation of Lembane 


2,300 — — — — — 1,150 552 414 184 — 4,600 2,300 

32 Luenha I.02.06 Luenha irrigation scheme — — 4,000 — 4,000 — 2,000 960 720 320 — 12,000 8,000 

52 Upstream Zambezi 

Delta 

I.01.01 Sena Sugar Extension - 

Urema-Zangue irrigation 

scheme 

Sena Sugar Extension - 

Mandua irrigation scheme 

Sena Sugar Extension - 

Inhangoma irrigation scheme 

53 Zambezi Delta I.01.02 Luabo Chinde irrigation 

scheme 

Ilha Salia Chinde irrigation 

scheme 

Rehabilitation of Thewe 1 


Rehabilitation of Thewe 2 


— — — — — 15,000 — — — — — 15,000 15,000 

— — — — — 10,000 — — — — — 10,000 10,000 

— — — — — 30,000 — — — — — 30,000 30,000 

— — — 17,000 — — — — — — 17,000 34,000 17,000 

— — — 4,000 — — — — — — 4,000 8,000 4,000 

— — — 105 — — — — — — 105 210 105 

— — — 950 — — — — — — 950 1,900 950 

Total 11,000 75 7,825 22,055 7,750 55,000 9,450 4,536 3,402 1,512 22,055 144,660 103,705 

Note: No schemes were found for control point 27 (I.05.04). 

Note: During the wet season, the areas cultivated with winter crops can be cultivated with supplementary irrigation with maize (50 percent), cotton (24 percent), soybeans or equivalent (18 percent), and sorghum (eight percent). The areas cultivated with 

winter rice can be cultivated with rice during the wet season. 

73


also guided by the National Agricultural Policy of 

1995, the objectives of which are to: 

• Achieve growth rates and stability in farm 

incomes, agricultural productivity, and production 

levels that are higher than the population 

growth rate; 

• Ensure food security and improve nutritional 

status; 

• Create and sustain viable livelihood and employment 

opportunities in rural areas; 

• Improve the profitability of agriculture and 

increase investment in agriculture; 

• Contribute to the improvement of the balance 

of payments; 

• Expand vertical integration and domestic value 

added for agricultural products; 

• Promote the sustainable utilization of the nation’s 

land and other natural resources; and 

• Contribute to balanced regional rural development 

based on comparative advantage. 

These objectives are to be pursued through the 

following strategies as proposed in a 2003 review 

of the National Agricultural Policy: 

• Create an enabling macroeconomic and institutional 

setting; 

• Refocus government support toward communal 

area farmers and vulnerable groups; 

• Promote a free-market environment and border/opportunity 

cost pricing; 

• Pursue diversification to nontraditional crops 

and value adding; 

• Advance human resource development; 

• Achieve privatization of support services to 

farmers; and 

• Increase community/farmer participation in 

resources management. 

In a joint venture of government, commercial, 

and smallholder farmers and through aquaculture 

development schemes, a Green Scheme policy was 

updated in 2008 to develop the irrigation areas and 

stimulate the use of communal lands. Formal irrigation 

is not developed extensively in the Namibian 

part of the Zambezi River Basin. Water availability 

does not support land availability and market ac- 

cess in the Caprivi Strip, which faces many land 

tenure issues. Some large irrigation projects have 

even been abandoned today, including the Caprivi 

sugar irrigation project and several joint projects 

with neighboring Zambia. 


The Namibian part of the Zambezi River Basin 

mainly concerns one subbasin, namely the Cuando/ 

Chobe subbasin (8). Irrigation abstractions in Namibia 

are therefore modeled through one control 

point which is also shared with Zambia. 

As noted earlier, this abstraction point is located 

in the Cuando/Chobe subbasin (control point 7). 

However, as this is a ‘dead branch’ of the system, 

the abstraction point is modeled under control 

point 8. 


The Ministry of Environment and Tourism of 

Namibia (2000) mentions that very little irrigation 

activity is taking place at the time of the MSIOA 

study. This was confirmed during the national 

consultation on November 2, 2009. There are only 

two schemes under irrigation in the Caprivi region 

at the moment: the Kalimbeza rice project (total 

field area: 193 hectares; total area currently under 

irrigation: 90 hectares) and Katima Farm (total area 

under irrigation at the moment: 30 hectares; future 

plan: to extend it to 400 hectares). Kalimbeza rice 


Namibia 

Control point Name Irrigation abstraction point 

7 (8) Caprivi I.08.03 

Table A1.18. Current irrigation areas in Namibia (ha) 

Irrigation 

Control 

point Name 

abstraction 

point Rice Vegetables Total 

7 (8) Caprivi I.08.03 100 20 120 

Note: During the wet season, it is assumed that there is no supplementary irrigation. 

74


Figure A1.17. Caprivi sugar project area 

ZAMBIA 

Zambezi 

ZAMBIA 

Katima 

Mulilo 

Kalimbeza 

NAMIBIA 

ALTERNATIVE 1 

SUGAR ESTATE AREA 

SUGAR MILL SITE 

ALTERNATIVE 2.1 

ALTERNATE CANAL ROUTES 

DYKE 

ALTERNATIVE 2.2 

Bukalo 

NATIONAL ROAD 

MAIN ROAD 

OTHER ROADS/TRACKS 

RIVERS 

C3 

FLOODED AREA/MARSH 


A 

C2 

B 

E1 

C1 

Karongwe 

E2 

Lake 

Liambezi 

Muyako 

Chobe 

Ngoma Bridge 

BOTSWANA 

BOTSWANA 

IBRD 37960 

July 2010 

Source: Afridev Associates 2004a. 

project is dealing with rice, and Katima Farm is 

involved in jatropha production for biofuel and carrying 

out some test trials on bananas and various 

vegetables. According to FAO (1997), there were 

around 7,000 jatropha of irrigation areas in the 

Namibian part of the Basin, which are probably 

included in the recession irrigation of the Lake 

Liambezi floodplain. 


projects 

According to meetings with officers from the Ministry 

of Agriculture and Rural Development of 

Namibia, there are no major projects using waters 

from the Zambezi River Basin because of land tenure 

issues, tribal conflicts, and market accessibility. 

Therefore, only 300 additional hectares should be 

considered for a near future development. 

There is one major project in this part of the 

Basin, the Caprivi project, but it is unlikely that 

this project would be implemented in the short 

or medium term. This project is well detailed 

in the Afridev Associates study (2004b) and in 

the previous Schaffer Feasibility Study which 

concludes that it would be feasible to develop 

around 10,000 hectares of sugar, with a further 

5,000 hectares of sugar (40 percent) or other crops 

(60 percent) around Lake Liambezi, as well as a 

sugar mill. The breakdown of crops is also given 

in these studies. This project could be associated 

with the Lake Liambezi Recharge project 

(for environmental uses), which could inundate 

approximately 6,000 hectares of lands that are 

currently cultivated in the lake and a further 

3,000 hectares that are situated in the floodplain 

(the lake recharge project is not considered in the 

modeling in the MSIOA study). 

75


Table A1.19. Identified projects in Namibia: Irrigation areas (ha) 

Control 

point 

Name 

Irrigation 

abstraction point Project Wheat Vegetables 

7 (8) Caprivi I.08.03 New small/medium 

irrigation schemes 

Note: During the wet season, it is assumed that there is no supplementary irrigation. 

Total irrigated 

area 

Total equipped 

area 

150 150 300 300 

A1.6 Tanzania 



The government of Tanzania’s principal goals are 

sustainable economic growth and poverty alleviation. 

The government has sought to achieve this 

through a series of policies and strategies designed 

to establish an enabling environment for sustainable 

development. These include: 

• The Tanzania Vision 2025 of 1995; 

• The Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper of 2000 

and follow-up National Strategy for Growth; 

• The Tanzania Assistance Strategy of 2002; 

• The Rural Development Strategy of 2002; 

• The Agricultural Sector Development Strategy 

(ASDS) of 2001; 

• The National Irrigation Master Plan of 2002; 

• The National Irrigation Policy of 2007; and 

• The National Water Sector Development Strategy 

(NWSDS), 2006 to 2015. 

The ASDS, formulated in 2001, is closely linked 

to both the rural development and poverty reduction 

strategies. It has established a framework for 

improving agricultural productivity and profitability 

to achieve improved farm incomes, reduced 

rural poverty, and greater food security. The specific 

targets are (a) reducing the proportion of the rural 

population below the basic poverty line to 20.4 percent 

by 2010, (b) reducing the percentage of rural 

food poor to 11.6 percent by 2010, and (c) achieving 

a growth rate in agriculture of at least 5.2 percent. 

At the core of ASDS is a sector-wide approach 

that changes the functions of central government 

from an executive role to a normative one by limit- 

ing its role to policy, legislation, regulation, and 

oversight. The strategy focuses on productive and 

gainful agriculture, where subsistence agriculture 

would be replaced by profitable agriculture, and 

where both the spotlight and resources switch from 

public institutions to farmers and agribusiness. 

The Agricultural Sector Development Programme 

(ASDP) is the operational framework 

response to ASDS. Completed in 2003, the ASDP 

framework stresses the need to change the way 

things are done in the sector (“business as unusual”). 

ASDP is a long-term process designed to 

forge connections among both the Agricultural Sector 

Lead Ministries themselves and the government 

and empowered farmers by using a demand-driven, 

field-based planning process. In addition, the program 

proposes to expand the type of support to 

include both public- and private-sector service providers. 

In 2002, the National Irrigation Master Plan 

identified a total irrigation development potential of 

29.4 million hectares, of which 2.3 million hectares 

are classified as high potential, 4.8 million hectares 

as medium potential, and 22.3 million hectares as 

low potential. However, only 274,000 hectares were 

under improved irrigated agriculture as of 2007. 

According to the National Strategy for Growth 

and Reduction of Poverty (NSGRP), which is the 

national organizing framework focusing on economic 

growth and poverty reduction, the rate of 

growth is expected to reach 10 percent by 2010. 

The NSGRP targets are in line with the aspiration 

of the Tanzania Development Vision 2025 for high 

and shared growth; high-quality livelihoods; peace, 

stability and unity; good governance; high-quality 

education; and international competitiveness. 

Tanzania has put the highest priority on the 

development of the agricultural sector as a means 

to meet both NSGRP targets and the MDGs. How- 

76


ever, the volatility of rainfall continues to represent 

a major constraint on agricultural productivity and 

rural livelihoods. The country’s overall poverty levels 

have accordingly fallen only modestly between 1993 

and 2003, from 41 percent to 39 percent in the rural 

areas, where most households depend on agriculture, 

compared with urban areas, where poverty levels 

have fallen from 28 percent to 18 percent. At this rate 

of change, Tanzania is highly unlikely to achieve the 

millennium targets of reducing food insecurity and 

halving poverty by 2015 without setting and implementing 

appropriate strategies to curb the situation. 

Irrigation development is seen as an important 

strategy to achieving set targets and goals. Sustainable 

irrigation development is a basis for improved 

food security and poverty alleviation. It includes 

the provision of irrigation infrastructure, such as 

institutional arrangements and capacity building, 

both technical and financial, that is consistent with 

irrigated area expansion targets and intensification. 

Additional elements of sustainable development include 

responding to the new decentralized, demanddriven, 

service-oriented paradigm and engaging 

private-sector participation in investment and service 

delivery. Notwithstanding the irrigation subsector’s 

high strategic potential and the priority given to its 

expansion, it faces considerable challenges, including 

inadequate funding, inadequate institutional capacity, 

inappropriate technology, and land insecurity. 

The National Irrigation Policy (2007) aims to 

enhance crop productivity and profitability through 

irrigated agriculture to ensure sustainable food security 

and poverty reduction. Its goals are to 

• Accelerate investment in the irrigation subsector 

by both public and private sector players; 

• Ensure that irrigation development is technically 

feasible, economically viable, socially 

desirable, and environmentally sustainable; 

• Optimize, intensify, and diversify irrigated crop 

production to supplement rain-fed crop production 

effectively; 

• Ensure demand driven, productive, and profitable 

irrigation development models that are 

responsive to market opportunities; 

• Strengthen institutional capacity at all levels 

for the planning, implementation, and management 

of irrigation development; 

• Empower beneficiaries for effective participation 

at all levels in irrigation planning, implementation, 

and management; 

• Strengthen technical support services, develop 

and disseminate new practices, innovations, 

and technologies; and 

• Mainstream crosscutting and cross-sectoral issues 

such as gender, HIV/AIDS, environment, 

health, land, and water in irrigation development. 

The NWSDS, 2006 to 2015, was developed to 

support the realignment of other water related key 

sectoral policies, such as energy, irrigation, industry, 

mining, and the environment. The NWSDS sets out 

how the ministry responsible for water will implement 

the national water policy to achieve the targets 

of the National Strategy for Growth and Poverty 

Reduction (MKUKUTA) targets. This will, in turn, 

guide the formulation of the ministry’s Harmonized 

National Water Sector Development Plan and the 

Water Sector Development Programme as inputs 

into the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework 

financial-planning process. 

The Zambezi River Basin in Tanzania comprises 

eight districts: Rungwe, Ileje, Makete, Kyela, Mbinga, 

Ludewa, Mbozi, and Mbeya Rural. Tanzania 

considers this part of the Basin to have great potential 

for irrigation, as reflected in table A1.20. 

That potential is relatively well exploited today in 

comparison with other countries in the Zambezi 

River Basin. 


The Tanzanian part of the Zambezi River Basin 

encompasses one subbasin, namely the Shire River 

and Lake Malawi/Niassa/Nyasa (3). Irrigation 

abstractions in Tanzania are modeled through four 

control points, including three of which are shared 

with Malawi. 


After meeting the Ministry of Water and Irrigation 

(November 2009), the current area under irrigation. 

Thanks to these meetings, the current area 

under irrigation for the Zambezi River Basin in 

77



Tanzania 

Irrigation 

Control 

point Name 

abstraction 

point 

34 Rumakali I.03.12 

36 Songwe I.03.05 

40 Lake Malawi/Niassa/Nyasa subbasin I.03.08 

43 Lake Malawi/Niassa/Nyasa subbasin I.03.10 

Tanzania could be estimated at 23,200 đ hectares. 

Most of these are situated in the Songwe River 

subbasin (15,000 hectares), mainly under smallholder 

farmers. The cropping pattern is mostly 

paddy rice (approximately 85 percent). Other 

crops such as maize, tomatoes, and tea cover the 

remaining 15 percent. These irrigated hectares 

are higher in number than the estimate found in 

the NORPLAN COWI, DHI, and W&PES study 

(2002), which found that only 412 hectares had 

been developed in the Songwe River for irrigation. 

This difference is probably due to projects 

being completed between 2002 and 2010, and 

that according to the Ministry of Water and Irrigation 

these 15,000 hectares are being irrigated 

but not efficiently in terms of water-management. 

Therefore, the consultant considered that half of 

the 23,200 hectares (11,600 hectares) are irrigated 

currently and that the other half is deemed to be 

rehabilitated for irrigation. 

Some additional information was found in 

socioeconomic profiles for the Ruvuma, Iringa, 

and Mbeya regions, including the fact that approximately 

1,000 hectares were irrigated in the 

Lake Malawi/Niassa/Nyasa subbasin part of the 

model. Moreover, there are two irrigated Tea Estates 

(approximately 60 hectares) in this part of the 

Lake Malawi/Niassa/Nyasa subbasin. These are 

the Luponde Tea Estate on the Lupali River, and 

the Mufindi Tea Company on the Masigira River. 


projects 

According to the director of irrigation and technical 

services, the potential areas are as follows: 

• High-potential irrigation area: 50,473 hectares; 

• Medium-potential irrigation area: 261,774 hectares; 

and 

• Low-potential irrigation area: 534,271 hectares. 

According to the NORPLAN COWI, DHI, and 

W&PES study (2002), there are plans in the upper 

catchment (maize) of the Tanzanian part of the Songwe 

River basin to further extend the schemes mentioned 

above to 820 hectares and to assist farmers 

in expanding their less formal irrigation schemes to 

130 hectares. In the lower catchment (rice), one new 

Table A1.21. Current irrigation areas in Tanzania (ha) 

Irrigation 


Perennial 

crops 

Wet season crops 

Total Total 

Control 

abstraction Winter Winter 

irrigated equipped 

point Name 

point rice maize Vegetables Tea Maize Cotton Soybeans Sorghum Rice area area 

34 Rumakali I.03.12 425 50 25 — 25 12 9 4 425 975 500 

36 Songwe I.03.05 6,375 750 375 — 375 180 135 60 6,375 14,625 7,500 

40 Lake Malawi/Niassa/ 


I.03.08 3,009 354 177 60 177 85 64 28 3,009 6,963 3,600 



I.03.10 — — — — — — — — — — 

Total 9,809 1,154 577 60 577 277 208 92 9,809 22,563 11,600 



78


Table A1.22. Potential irrigation areas in the 

Tanzanian districts of the Zambezi River Basin (ha) 

District 

High-potential 

irrigation area 

Medium-potential 


Low-potential 


Rungwe 8,553 14,991 26,544 

Ileja 6,557 11,493 20,350 

Kyela 4,847 8,493 15,350 

Makete 3,436 22,921 23,625 

Mbinga 4,176 51,066 291,204 

Ludewa 22,904 152,810 157,500 

Total 50,473 261,774 534,271 

Source: Meeting with the Director of Irrigation and Technical Services, November 2009. 

The government of the Republic of Zambia has 

placed agriculture as one of the key priority sectors 

for economic growth, development, and poverty 

reduction. The government’s vision is to develop 

an efficient and competitive agricultural sector 

that ensures food security at both household and 

national levels and also maximizes the sector’s 

contribution to the gross domestic product (GDP). 

To realize this vision, the government has in the 

past three years prepared several documents to 

guide development in the sector. These documents 

are the National Agricultural and Cooperative 

Policy; Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP); 

Agricultural Commercialization Programme (ACP); 

and Transitional National Development Plan. The 

national development goal of reducing poverty and 

reaching middle income country status by 2030 are 

articulated in the country’s Vision 2030. 

Among the major policy shifts that accompanied 

economic liberalization in the early 1990s 

was the focus on agricultural growth and other 

rural activities and infrastructure for poverty alscheme 

(for a reported potential of 4,800 hectares) 

has been planned but not yet surveyed or designed, 

and there are proposals to extend the existing Ngana 

scheme (now at six hectares) to 600 hectares once 

the farmers become legally organized and registered 

and ask the irrigation section for assistance. 

Moreover, according to the Ministry of Water 

and Irrigation, the government’s priority is improvement 

coupled with rehabilitation of the existing 

traditional irrigation schemes. For this reason, 

the consultant has considered that the identified 

projects will essentially double the current irrigation 

areas, mainly through rehabilitation. This will 

bring the total irrigated area to 23,200 in the near 

future. This represents half of the high-potential 

irrigation area identified by the Ministry of Water 

and Irrigation. 

A1.7 Zambia 



Table A1.23. Identified projects in Tanzania: Irrigation areas (ha) 

Irrigation 


Perennial 

crops 

Wet season crops 

Total Total 

Control 

abstraction Winter Winter 


point Name 

point rice maize Vegetables Tea Maize Cotton Soybeans Sorghum Rice area area 

34 Rumakali I.03.12 425 50 25 — 25 12 9 4 425 975 500 

36 Songwe I.03.05 6,375 750 375 — 375 180 135 60 6,375 14,625 7,500 



I.03.08 3,009 354 177 60 177 85 64 28 3,009 6,963 3,600 



I.03.10 — — — — — — — — — — 

Total 9,809 1,154 577 60 577 277 208 92 9,809 22,563 11,600 

Note: During the wet season, the areas cultivated with winter areas can be cultivated with supplementary irrigation with maize (50 percent), cotton (24 percent), soybeans or 


79


leviation. Current irrigation sector policy stems 

directly from the PRSP (2002). The PRSP called 

for a sustainable and competitive agriculture sector 

that ensures food security and maximizes the 

sector’s contributions to GDP and exports. The 

earlier ACP (2001) was incorporated as the core 

strategy for agriculture in the PRSP. The ACP 

focuses on infrastructure development in highpotential 

agricultural areas and the strengthening 

of cooperatives and farmer organizations as 

a vehicle for achieving demand driven growth, 

profitable irrigated agriculture, and a sustainable 

sector. The ACP emphasized the full participation 

of farmers in irrigation development. 

Since the late 1990s, commercial smallholder 

irrigation has begun to emerge, principally through 

a variety of contract farming or outgrower schemes 

promoted by the private sector. Non-governmental 

organizations have been mobilizing and supporting 

the formation of community based groups and 

farmer groups, and apex farmer organizations have 

begun to emerge to enable farmer members to access 

markets directly. These developments have been 

limited to areas with better developed infrastructure, 

such as main roads and railway lines. 

In 2005, through the Ministry of Agriculture and 

Cooperatives (MACO), the government adopted a 

national agriculture policy intended to provide an 

enabling environment for the growth of the agricultural 

sector through to 2015. The main thrust of the 

policy is to ensure a future for Zambia’s development 

based on a vibrant, competitive, and efficient 

agricultural sector that ensures food security and 

significantly contributes to income and employment 

generation, increased industrial development, 

export earnings, overall economic growth, and poverty 

reduction. The agricultural policy framework 

is therefore being implemented within the overall 

framework of the poverty reduction initiatives, such 

as the PRSPs. 

Within this overall framework, and taking into 

account the vulnerability of Zambia’s agricultural 

sector to weather and climatic vagaries, MACO has 

designed a national irrigation strategy that would 

provide guidance to all levels and types of investments 

in irrigated agriculture. A national irrigation 

plan (NIP) was also developed as part of the NDP 

that would run from 2006 to 2011 and specify the 

strategic investments and activities required to 

initiate and operate a competitive and sustainable 

agricultural sector. 

The main target groups for this intervention 

in the NIP are inclusive of smallholders as well as 

emerging commercial and large-scale commercial 

farmers, all living in areas with a high potential 

for irrigation. In the NIP, the irrigated area could 

be increased by about 70,000 hectares, of which 

10,000 hectares would be assigned among largescale 

commercial farmers, 30,000 hectares among 

emergent farmers, and 30,000 hectares among 

small-scale farmers. Incremental production based 

on this distribution would result in guaranteed 

food for strategic reserves, reduction in food 

imports, export of surplus food, export of highvalue 

cash, and increased industrial outputs and 

employment. 

The interventions proposed in this NIP are 

analyzed and presented tailored to the resolution 

of four key and interrelated constraints: (i) finance 

and investment, (ii) policy and legal, (iii) institutional 

and social, and (iv) market linkages. The set 

of proposed NIP interventions should be implemented 

in totality and in a complementary manner 

to stimulate an irrigation based agricultural 

industry in Zambia. To the extent possible, these 

sets of interventions should be considered part of a 

mutually reinforcing total picture for the generation 

of the required impact. 

The proposed intervention to improve the 

finance and investment environment includes the 

establishment of an irrigation development fund 

to serve as a source of capital for irrigation-related 

projects and technology acquisition by farmers and 

industry operators who fall into the following categories. 

In order to facilitate and create an enabling 

environment for the development of irrigation, 

some policy and legal interventions that provide 

incentives for investment are proposed, such as (a) 

reduction of cost of energy, (b) reduction in cost of 

irrigation equipment, and (c) improved incentives 

for investing in irrigation. 

A conducive and facilitating institutional and 

social environment for the investment and operation 

of irrigated farming is very necessary. The following 

interventions are proposed to improve the 

institutional and social environment: 

80


Table A1.24. Irrigation abstraction points in Zambia 

Control point Name Irrigation abstraction point Comment 

1 Kabompo I.13.01 n/a 

2 Upper Zambezi — Considered to be used for irrigation only by Angola 

3 Lungue Bungo — Considered to be used for irrigation only by Angola 

4 Luanginga — Considered to be used for irrigation only by Angola 

5 Barotse I.09.01 n/a 

7 Caprivi I.08.02 Included in I.06.01 for the model 

8 Livingstone before Victoria Falls I.06.01 Shared with Zimbabwe, Namibia, and Botswana 

10 Between Victoria Falls and Batoka I.06.05 Shared with Zimbabwe 

12 Between Batoka and Kariba I.06.07 Shared with Zimbabwe 

15 Kariba Dam I.06.11 Shared with Zimbabwe 

16 Upper Kafue I.07.01 n/a 

18 Middle Kafue before Kafue Flats I.07.02 n/a 

20 Kafue Flats I.07.03 n/a 

21 Lower Kafue before Kafue Gorge Lower I.07.04 n/a 

23 Lower Kafue after Kafue Gorge Lower I.07.05 n/a 

24 Mupata I.04.01 Shared with Zimbabwe 

25 Lunsemfwa I.05.01 n/a 

26 Upper Luangwa I.05.02 n/a 

27 Lower Luangwa I.05.03 Shared with Mozambique 

• Streamlining issuance of water rights; 

• Improved capacity for MACO extension; 

• Improved capacity of farmer organizations; 

• Support to outgrower promoters (in terms of 

expansion of outreach and mobilization capacity, 

outgrower promoters dealing with irrigation 

will require support in the form of transportation); 

and 

• Support for irrigation research, as it is important 

that the research capacity of the National Irrigation 

Research Station at Nanga be reestablished 

and supported to maintain, generate, and disseminate 

improved technology packages. 

The Technology Development and Advisory 

Unit at the University of Zambia also should be 

supported to improve its capacity to manufacture 

irrigation equipment. Irrigation is a high-cost enterprise, 

and achieving a rapid return on investment 

requires strong market support and linkages. The 

NIP recognizes the agriculture market development 

plan developed by MACO and asserts the desirability 

of forging close linkages with it. 

As part of the appraisal and evaluation processes 

for proposals submitted for assistance, 

market factors should be taken into account before 

approval. It is also important to target high potential 

areas and the identification of the right crop enterprises. 

Irrigation farmers should be mobilized and 

supported through farmer organizations/groups 

to reduce transaction costs. Both farmers and their 

groups should be instructed in marketing skills. 

Access to regional and international markets for 

the irrigated products should be enhanced through 

improved sanitary and phyto-sanitary advisory 

services and facilities. 


The Zambian part of the Zambezi River Basin 

concerns most of the thirteen major Zambezi River 

subbasins: 

81


• Tete subbasin (2); 

• Mupata subbasin (4); 

• Luangwa subbasin (5); 

• Kariba subbasin (6); 

• Kafue subbasin (7); 

• Cuando/Chobe subbasin (8); 

• Barotse subbasin (9); 

• Luanginga (10); 

• Lungúe Bungo subbasin, named Lungwebungu 

in Zambia (11); 

• Upper Zambezi subbasin (12); and 

• Kabompo subbasin (13). 

Irrigation abstractions in Zambia are modeled 

through 19 control points, some of them shared with 

other Zambezi riparian countries. 


The consultant found many documents and sources 

dealing with irrigation in Zambia, including 

• Yachiyo Engineering Co. 1995; 

• Stephens 2008; 

• The Zambian National Farmer Union database; 

• The ZRA inventory; 

• Imagen Consulting Ltd 2008; and 

• MASDAR Ltd 2004. 

According to the 2006 NDP 5, crop production 

increases will notably come from expansion of land 

under irrigation in Zambia from the current estimated 

100,000 hectares to 200,000 hectares by 2010. 

According to the 2008 Zambian Integrated Water 

Resources Management and Water Efficiency Implementation 

Plan (GWP and CIDA 2008), the 2008 area 

irrigated in Zambia is estimated at 100,000 hectares, 

which comprises approximately 52,000 hectares 

under formal (commercial) farming and 48,000 

hectares under informal (subsistence) farming. 


Data concerning this part of the Basin are quite rare, 

notably because the subbasin is not very developed 

in terms of irrigation. According to Yachiyo Engineering 

Co. (1995), the total irrigated area in Zambia 

is around 2,800 hectares beyond the main Zambezi 

tributaries. Consequently, without the irrigated 

area in the southern province, one can consider 

that the irrigated area in the Kabompo subbasin 

(13) in Zambia was less than 800 hectares in 1995. 

Moreover, according to this study, the irrigated area 

was approximately 520 hectares in the northwestern 

province of Zambia in 1995. This study also gives 

the proportion of each irrigated crop per subbasin 

in Zambia. This breakdown is used to estimate the 

current crop configuration. 

According to Coche (1998), there is one irrigation 

scheme in the Kabompo subbasin: Mwinilunga 

Pineapple, with 350 hectares irrigated. This irrigation 

scheme was not yet built at the time of the 

Yachiyo Engineering Co. (1995) study. According 

to Stephens (2008), the irrigated area in the northwestern 

province is only 300 hectares because of 

marketing constraints. Therefore, it is assumed that 

350 hectares are irrigated today in the Kabompo 

subbasin, with the breakdown of crops indicated 

in Yachiyo Engineering Co. (1995). 


Data concerning this part of the Basin are also quite 

rare, again because the subbasin is not very developed 

in terms of irrigation compared with other 

parts of Zambia. According to Yachiyo Engineer- 

Table A1.25. Current irrigation areas in Zambia: Kabompo subbasin (ha) 

Irrigation 

Dry season crops Perennial crops Wet season crops Total Total 

Control 

point Name 

abstraction 

point 

Winter 

wheat 

Vegetables 

(tomatoes) Other Citrus Pasture Maize Tobacco 

irrigated 

area 

equipped 

area 

1 Kabompo I.13.01 136 64 45 23 82 88 48 486 350 

Note: During the wet season, the areas cultivated with winter wheat can be cultivated with supplementary irrigation with maize (65 percent) and tobacco (35 percent). 

82


Table A1.26. Current irrigation areas in Zambia: Barotse subbasin (ha) 

Irrigation 


Control 

point Name 

abstraction 

point 

Winter 

wheat 

Vegetables 


irrigated 

area 

equipped 

area 

5 Barotse I.09.01 78 36 26 13 47 51 27 278 200 


ing Co. (1995), the total irrigated area in Zambia is 

around 2,800 hectares beyond the main Zambezi 

tributaries. Consequently, without the irrigated 

area in the southern province, one can consider that 

the irrigated area in the Zambian part of the Upper 

Zambezi River was less than 800 hectares in 1995. 

According to this study, the irrigated area was approximately 

seven hectares in the western province 

of Zambia in 1995. This study also gives the breakdown 

of each irrigated crop per subbasin in Zambia. 

According to Coche (1998), there is one irrigation 

scheme in the Barotse subbasin (8): the 

Sefula Scheme, with 200 hectares of irrigated rice. 

According to Stephens (2008), the irrigated area in 

the western province is only 100 hectares of rice. 

Therefore, it is assumed that the current irrigation in 

the Barotse subbasin provides 200 hectares of formal 

irrigation, with the breakdown of crops indicated 

in Yachiyo Engineering Co. (1995). 

Abstraction points I.08.02 and I.06.01 

It is assumed that there is no water intake in Namibia 

with benefit to Zambia (I.08.02). Concerning 

the abstraction in the Southern Province in Zambia, 

the subbasin lateral to the Zambezi River between 

the Caprivi strip and Victoria Falls, different sources 

describe the irrigation area in the southern province, 

which is situated in this subbasin and is adjacent 

to which concerns this subbasins and neighboring 

subbasins and the Kafue River Basin. Moreover, the 

Kafue River Basin is quite well known, so it is possible 

to gather the irrigation characteristics of the 

Zambian subbasins collectively for I.06.01, I.06.05, 

and I.06.07. According to Stephens (2008), there is 

approximately 5,000 hectares of irrigation area in 

these subbasins. One more precise source was available, 

the Zambian National Farmer Union data which 

describes approximately 3,000 hectares of wheat and 

300 hectares of tobacco in the Chisamba area. Again, 

Yachiyo Engineering Co. (1995) gives the proportion 

of each irrigated crop per subbasin in Zambia in 1995. 

The ZRA inventory of withdrawals from the 

Zambezi River above Kariba and directly from the 

Kariba Dam describes some precise abstraction 

points. Therefore, according to the ZRA inventory, 

it is assumed that the current irrigation area in the 

I.06.01 Kariba subbasin (6), upstream of Victoria 

Falls, Zambian part, is 1,500 hectares. 


It is assumed that there is no irrigation in the small 

subbasin between Livingstone and the projected 

Table A1.27. Current irrigation areas in Zambia: Kariba subbasin upstream of Victoria Falls (ha) 

Control 

point 

Name 

Irrigation 

abstraction 

point 


Winter 

wheat 

Vegetables 


irrigated 

area 

Total 

equipped 

area 

8 Livingstone 

I.06.01 584 273 195 97 351 380 204 2,084 1,500 

before Vic Falls 


83


Table A1.28. Current irrigation areas in Zambia: Kariba subbasin downstream of Victoria Falls (ha) 

Control 

point Name 

12 Between Batoka 

and Kariba 

Irrigation 

abstraction 

point 


Winter 

wheat 

Vegetables 


irrigated 

area 

Total 

equipped 

area 

I.06.07 195 91 65 32 117 127 68 695 500 


Table A1.29. Current irrigation areas in Zambia: Kariba subbasin, Kariba Reservoir (ha) 

Control 

point Name 

15 Kariba 

Dam 

Irrigation 

abstraction 

point 


Total 

irrigated 

area 

Total 

equipped 

area 

Winter Vegetables 

Winter 

wheat (tomatoes) Other cotton Citrus Pasture Maize Tobacco Cotton 

I.06.11 836 390 279 500 137 502 544 293 500 3,480 2,644 

Note: During the wet season, the areas cultivated with winter wheat can be cultivated with supplementary irrigation with maize (65 percent) and tobacco (35 percent); the winter 

cotton areas can be cultivated with summer cotton. 

Batoka Gorge (I.06.05). According to the ZRA inventory, 

it is also assumed that the current irrigation 

area in the I.06.7 Kariba subbasin (6), between 

Batoka Gorge and the Kariba Reservoir, Zambian 

part, is 500 hectares. 


It is stipulated that the current irrigation area in 

the I.06.9 Kariba subbasin, which withdraws water 

directly from Lake Kariba, Zambian part, is 2,644 

hectares. This figure corresponds to the ZRA inventory 

of 2,144 hectares, plus the 500 hectares of 

irrigated cotton of the Gwembe irrigation project 

(Euroconsult Mott MacDonald 2007). 

Abstraction points I.07.01, I.07.02, I.07.03, 

I.07.04, and I.07.05 

Data for this part of the Basin are more precise 

than for the other parts of Zambia and for most of 

the Zambezi River Basin because there have been 

many recent studies of the Kafue subbasin (7). 

Therefore, numerous sources describe the irrigation 

area in the Kafue River Basin, the most recent and 

complete being the work of Stephens (2008). One 

can also find pieces of information concerning the 

Kafue River irrigation in Yachiyo Engineering Co. 

(1995), Coche (1998), Piésold (2003), and Imagen 

Consulting Ltd. (2008). One more detailed source 

was available: data from the Zambian National 

Farmer Union, which were included (for this part 

of Zambia) in the work of Stephens. Discussions 

with Stephens and with commercial farmers (June 

2008) clarified the current situation of irrigation in 

the Kafue River Basin. 

According to Stephens (2008), the current irrigation 

area, from surface water, in the I.07 Kafue 

subbasin is approximately 35,000 hectares, whereas 

according to Yachiyo Engineering Co. (1995), it is 

approximately 30,000 hectares (surface and groundwater), 

and according to Imagen Consulting Ltd. 

(2008), it is 40,660 hectares. The differences may be 

explained by the recent growth in irrigation in this 

area, especially with commercial farms. Table A1.30 

presents a summary of the Kafue irrigation zones. 

The source from which the summary data were 

drawn (Imagen Consulting Ltd. 2008) also provides 

data on the crop budget. 

In this study, the consultant considered only 

surface water irrigation schemes. The Upper Kafue, 

Mpongwe Kampemba, and Munkumpu irrigation 

zones are included in the I.07.01 Upper Kafue subbasin. 

There is no surface irrigation in the I.07.02 

84


Table A1.30. Kafue irrigation zones 

Irrigation zones Irrigation area—Surface water (ha) Irrigation area—Groundwater (ha) Water source 

Upper Kafue 608 — Kafue River 

Mpongwe Nampamba — 1,938 Sink hole 

Mpongwe Kampemba 1,015 — Kafue River 

Munkumpu 2,512 — Ipumbu River 

Kabwe — 465 Borehole 

Chisamba — 2,258 Borehole 

Choma 560 — Mbabala and Chisaboyo Rivers 

Mazabuka 28,815 — Kafue River 

Kafue Sugar 6,427 — Kafue River 

Lusaka West — 4,415 Borehole 

Chiawa (estimated) 960 — Kafue River 

Subtotal 40,897 9,076 

Total 49,973 

Source: Imagen Consulting Ltd. 2008. 

subbasin Middle Kafue before Kafue Flats, but 

rather swamp and borehole irrigation. Most of the 

Kafue irrigation takes place in the I.07.03 Kafue 

Flats subbasin, including the Choma, Mazabuka, 

and Kafue Sugar zones. Finally, in the Lower Kafue 

(I.07.05), the irrigation is practiced in the Chiawa 

zone (figure A1.18). 

In the Kafue Flats, the main crop is sugarcane. 

The main sugarcane producers are (the sources 

for the information are Timothy Stephens and the 

manager of the Delta Farm): 

Figure A1.18. Pivot irrigation – the Chiawa 


• Delta Farm: 2.000 hectares of sugarcane; 

• Nega Nega Farm: 600 hectares of sugarcane; 

• Nakambala Sugar Estate: 12.000 hectares of 

sugarcane (included in a total of 17,000 hectares 

according to State of Environment 2003); 

• Kaleya outgrowers: 2,200 hectares of sugarcane; 

• Nanga Farms: 3.000 hectares of sugarcane (only 

1,750 hectares in the State of Environment 2003); 

and 

• Kafue Sugar: 2.500 hectares of sugarcane. 

Other cultivated crops include coffee (Muioli 

and Terra Nova schemes), vegetables, bananas, tobacco, 

wheat, and soybeans in the wet season plus 

small areas of beans, citrus, pasture, and other crops. 

Source: Google Earth 2008. 


Not many resources cover with irrigation in the 

Zambian part of this section of the Basin which is 

small but contains the Chongwe subbasin: 

• There were approximately 1,650 hectares irrigated 

with surface waters, which are probably 

85


Figure A1.19. Kaleya outgrowers 

Source: BRLi 2008. 

Table A1.31. Current irrigation areas in Zambia: Kafue subbasin (ha) 

Irrigation 

Dry season 

crops Perennial crops Wet season crops Total Total 

Control 

point Name 

abstraction 

point 

Winter 

wheat Sugarcane Coffee Banana Soybeans Tobacco 

irrigated 

area 

equipped 

area 

16 Upper Kafue I.07.01 4,135 — 42 4,135 — 8,312 4,177 

18 Middle Kafue before 

the Kafue Flats 

I.07.02 — — — — — — — — 

20 Kafue Flats I.07.03 1,275 33,068 596 82 773 502 36,296 35,021 

21 Lower Kafue before 

Kafue Gorge Lower 

I.07.04 — — — — — — — — 

23 Lower Kafue after 

Kafue Gorge Lower 

I.07.05 960 — — — 960 — 1,920 960 

Total 6,370 33,068 596 124 5,868 502 46,528 40,158 

Note: During the wet season, the areas cultivated with winter wheat can be cultivated, with supplementary irrigation, with tobacco (502 hectares) and soybeans (the rest). The 

difference between this total of 40,158 equipped hectares and the announced total of 40,660 equipped hectares comes from the fact that the consultant modeled irrigated tobacco 

as a wet season crop. 

Therefore, it is estimated that the current irrigation 

area in the I.04.01 Mupata subbasin, Zambian 

portion, is around 1,000 hectares (from the hypothesis 

that the Zambian National Farmer Union figure 

is almost equally shared among three different subsituated 

in this subbasin or were in the Luangwa 

subbasin in 1998, according to the Coche study 

(1998) (50 hectares of Chanyanya scheme, 50 

hectares of Chipapa, and 20 hectares of Kaunga); 

• There are more than 15 schemes representing 

approximately 3,300 hectares at Chisamba, 

according to the recent Zambian National 

Farmer Union data, but it was not possible to 

distinguish where they were precisely situated 

(or in the Kafue, the Zambezi, or the Luangwa 

subbasins); and 

• There is not much more than 500 hectares 

around the banks of the Zambezi River between 

Kariba and Cahora Bassa, according to the irrigation 

expert Timothy Stephens (consulted 

in June 2008). 

86


Table A1.32. Current irrigation areas in Zambia: Mupata subbasin (ha) 

Irrigation Dry season crops Perennial crops Wet season crops Total Total 

Control 

point Name 

abstraction 

point 

Winter 

wheat 

Vegetables 

(tomatoes) Citrus Coffee Maize Tobacco 

irrigated 

area 

equipped 

area 

24 Mupata I.04.01 130 220 220 430 85 46 1,130 1,000 

Note: During the wet season, the areas cultivated with winter wheat can be cultivated, with supplementary irrigation, with maize (65 percent) and tobacco (35 percent). 

basins). The proportion of different crops is given 

by Yachiyo Engineering Co. (1995). 

Abstraction points I.05.01, I.05.02, and 

I.05.03 

Not many sources are providing information on 

irrigation activities in the Luangwa subbasin (5); 

however, there were: 

• 8,900 hectares irrigated with surface waters in 

the Luangwa subbasin in 1995, according to 

Yachiyo Engineering Co. (1995); 


the Mwomboshi and Mkushi schemes (1,594 

and 7,500 hectares, respectively), according to 

the joint FAO and World Bank identification 

mission (2008b); and 


the eastern and northern provinces, according 

to Stephens (2008), but this zone includes 

the irrigation from the Congo River Basin (the 

consultant estimated that only half is situated 

in the Luangwa River subbasin). 

One may therefore suppose that the current irrigation 

area in the Luangwa subbasin is 10,100 hectares 

(approximately 13 percent more than the 1995 

estimates of the master plan contained in Yachiyo 

Engineering Co. 1995). Whilst there is no irrigation 

inventoried in the Lower Luangwa (I.05.03), 

there are some known schemes in the Lunsemfwa 

subbasin (I.05.01, 9,100 hectares) and in the Upper 

Luangwa subbasin (I.05.02, 1,000 hectares). The 

Lunsemfwa subbasin notably includes the following 

two large schemes: 

• The Mwomboshi scheme, where the commercial 

farmers currently irrigate 1,594 hectares from 

stored water in farm dams (average approximately 

2 x 106 m3) and from small weirs placed 

in the Mwomboshi River; and 

• The Mkushi scheme, where it is estimated that 

there are now 7,500 hectares (970 hectares in 

1998, 2,300 hectares in 2001, and 5,250 hectares 

in 2005) of irrigation in the block. 

The proportion of crops is again the one given 

in Yachiyo Engineering Co. (1995) for the Luangwa 

Table A1.33. Current irrigation areas in Zambia: Luangwa subbasin (ha) 

Irrigation 


Control 

abstraction Winter 

Vegetables 


point Name 

point wheat Beans (tomatoes) Other Citrus Pasture Maize Tobacco area area 

25 Lunsemfwa I.05.01 4,225 217 2,275 433 1,408 542 2,746 1,479 13,325 9,100 

26 Upper Luangwa I.05.02 464 24 250 47 155 60 302 162 1,464 1,000 

27 Lower Luangwa I.05.03 — — — — — — — — — — 

Total 4,689 241 2,525 480 1,563 602 3,048 1,641 14,789 10,100 

Note: During the wet season, the areas cultivated with winter wheat and winter beans can be cultivated, with supplementary irrigation, with maize (50 percent) and soybeans (50 

percent) for the Upper Luangwa; and maize only for the Lunsemfwa River basin (because of sandy soils). 

87


subbasin (for instance, 40 percent of the area is cultivated 

with wheat). 


projects 


Some irrigation projects in the Kabompo subbasin 

were found in the 1995 study by Yachiyo Engineering 

Co., notably: 

• 1,000 hectare Mwombes run-of-river project; 

• 2,300 hectare Mwinilunga run-of-river project; 

and 

• 3,000 hectare Kabompo run-of-river project. 


Some irrigation projects in the Barotse subbasin 

were inventoried by Yachiyo Engineering Co. (1995): 

• The Nakatoya 10 hectare project; 

• The Katima Mulilo 1,000 hectare run-of-river 

project (200 hectares vegetables, 400 hectares 

wheat, and 400 hectares citrus); 

• The Zambezi Floodplain 3,000 hectare run-ofriver 

project (vegetables); 

• The Ngamwe Rapid 1,000 hectare run-of-river 


wheat, and 400 hectares citrus); 

• The Manto Rapid 1,000 hectare run-of-river 


wheat, and 400 hectares citrus); and 

• The Sioma Rapid 1,000 hectare run-of-river 


wheat, and 400 hectares citrus). 


The consultant has not identified some irrigation 

projects using waters from the Caprivi area 

(I.08.02). However, the identified projects taken 

into consideration in the I.06.01 small Zambezi 

River lateral subbasin, upstream of Victoria Falls in 

the Zambian part, represent a total of 782 hectares 

(half of the Zambian irrigation area development 

planned in the middle Zambezi River Basin pro- 

gram on agricultural water management for food 

security). 


The identified projects in the I.06.07 subbasin, 

between Batoka Gorge and the Kariba Reservoir 

(Zambian part), represent a total of 782 hectares 

(half of the Zambian irrigation area development 

planned in the mid-Zambezi River Basin agricultural 

water management for food security program). 

There is no identified project in the small subbasin 

between Victoria Falls and the projected Batoka 

Gorge (I.06.05). 


The African Development Bank identified two 

projects involving future abstractions directly 

from Lake Kariba. These are the Nzenga (100 

hectares, smallholders, mixed cropping), and the 

Sinazongwe (150 hectares, smallholders, mixed 

cropping). 


I.07.04, and I.07.05 (Kafue subbasin) 

A number of irrigation projects in the I.07 Kafue 

subbasin were inventoried. They include extension 

the current farms and the creation of new irrigation 

schemes. The identified projects are: 

• The Kampembe farm extension at Mpongwe 

(Stephens 2008); 

• The Machiya run-of-river project (Yachiyo Engineering 

Co. 1995); 

• The Kafue Sugar extension project (Stephens 

2008); 

• The Cotton Development Trust on the Magoye 

River (Stephens 2008); 

• The Kaleya smallholders extension project 

(meeting with the Delta Farm manager, 

June 2008); 

• The Nega-Nega project (NEPAD and FAO 

2004a); and 

• The Chiawa Estate extension (meeting with 

Timothy Stephens, June 2008). 

88


Figure A1.20. Area of middle Zambezi River Basin program on agricultural water management for food security 

A N G O L A 

Zambezi 

Mongu 

Western 

North-Western 

Copperbelt 

Z A M B I A 

Central 

LUSAKA 

Lusaka 

Southern 

Eastern 

Lake 

Cahora Bassa 

MALAWI 

Zambezi 

LILONGWE 

Kwando 

Mashonaland 

West 

Mashonaland 

Central 

N A M I B I A 

Linyati 

B O T S W A N A 

PROJECT AREA 

Kasane 

Livingstone 

Matabeleland 

North 

Lake 

Kariba 

Shangani 

Midlands 


Bulawayo 

HARARE 

Mashonaland 

East 

Masvingo 

Mutare 

Manicaland 

M O Z A M B I Q U E 

MAIN ROADS 

RIVERS 

ADMINISTRATIVE BOUNDARIES 


0 

Francistown 

100 200 

KILOMETERS 

Matabeleland 

South 

IBRD 37959 

July 2010 

Source: AfDB, SADC, FAO, and ADB 2006. 

The identified projects taken into consideration 

in the I.07 Kafue subbasin represent a total of 

37,910 hectares. 


in the I.07.01 Kafue subbasin, upstream of the Itezhi 

Tezhi Dam, represent a total of 6,000 hectares (1,000 

hectares for the Kampembe Farm extension and 

5,000 hectares for the Machiya run-of-river project). 

The projected irrigated crops are estimated to be 

wheat (96 percent), vegetables (two percent), and 

tomatoes (two percent), as for the existing irrigation 

schemes in the Copperbelt Valley. 


in the I.07.03 Kafue Flats represent a total of 4,950 

hectares in the short-term plus 26,000 hectares in 

the long-term: 

• The Kafue Sugar extension project (1,500 hectares 

of sugar); 

• The Cotton Development Trust on the Magoye 

River (80 hectares of cotton, which will not be 

irrigated during the dry season); 

• The Kaleya smallholders extension project (370 

hectares of sugar); and 

• The Nega-Nega project (600 hectares of sugar for 

the short-term plus 4,100 hectares of sugarcane 

for the long-term). 9 These figures are much lower 

than the initial Nega-Nega extension project. 

9 

Source: National Consultation Workshop in Lusaka, Zambia on September 16, 2009. 

89


Figure A1.21. Different phases of the Nega-Nega 

project 

PHASE II. 

10,000 Ha 

PHASE IV. 

4,000 Ha 

PHASE III. 

8,000 Ha 

PHASE I: NEPAD – NEGA-NEGA PROPOSED 

IRRIGATION PROJECT AREA. 3,000 Ha 

Canal 

DELTA FARM 

N 

KAFUE RIVER 

The total area of identified projects in the Luangwa 

subbasin is 6,130 hectares. 

The identified projects in the I.05.01 Lunsemfwa 

subbasin cover a total of 4,650 hectares. The proportion 

of different crop areas is given by the FAO and 

the World Bank (2008). 

The identified project taken into consideration 

in the I.05.02 Upper Luangwa subbasin, upstream 

of the Lunsemfwa confluence, represents a total of 

1,480 hectares. The proportion of different crop areas 

is given in Yachiyo Engineering Co. (1995) for the 

Luangwa subbasin. 

ADB – SIP PROJECT AREA 

Source: NEPAD and FAO 2004a. 


The identified projects included in the I.04.01 subbasin 

between Kariba and Cahora Bassa dams (on 

Zambian territory) are: 

• The scheme linked to the Chongwe Dam 

project of 810 hectares (Yachiyo Engineering 

Co. 1995); 

• The Lusitu project (World Bank-financed project) 

of 250 hectares, smallholders, mixed crops; 

and 

• Kanakantapa (Chongwé District) of 620 hectares 

in first phase and 1,500 hectares in total, smallholders, 

mixed crops. 

Abstraction points I.05.01, I.05.02, and 

I.05.03 

The identified irrigation projects in the Luangwa 

subbasin are: 

• The commercial agriculture development project 

at Mwomboshi and Mkushi schemes, 4,650 

hectares of extension (FAO and World Bank 

2008); and 

• The Lundazi Dam irrigation project of 1,480 

hectares (Yachiyo Engineering Co. 1995). 

A1.8 Zimbabwe 



During the 1990s, there was a concerted drive by 

the government to recast agriculture and water 

development policy and strategy in order to revive 

the sector. Zimbabwe’s Agriculture Policy Framework, 

1995 to 2010 (ZAPF), launched in 1996 after 

extensive stakeholder consultation, established 

four pillars: (i) the transformation of smallholder 

agriculture into a fully commercial farming system; 

(ii) an annual increase in agricultural output 

significantly larger than the annual population 

growth rate; (iii) the development of physical 

and social infrastructure in all rural areas; and 

(iv) the development of fully sustainable farming 

systems throughout the country. ZAPF placed 

much greater reliance on market forces than in the 

past, increased levels of private-sector investment, 

and made substantial improvements to efficiency 

in the use of capital. In the smallholder sector, 

ZAPF again emphasizes a commitment to strategies 

that transform the sector into a fully commercial 

farming system, implying that it should 

be self-sustaining and profitable. ZAPF included 

among its key strategies that (a) priority would be 

given to farmer-managed and -operated systems; 

(b) effective water-user associations would be 

encouraged and facilitated in the planning, development, 

and evaluation of irrigation projects; and 

(c) water allocation would take into account and 

address the imbalances in water supply between 

90


Table A1.34. Identified irrigation projects in Zambia 

Control 

point Name 

Irrigation 

abstraction 

point Project 

Winter 

wheat 


Vegetables 

(tomatoes) Beans Other 

Winter 

cotton Sugarcane Citrus Pasture Coffee Bananas Soybeans 

Summer 

cotton Maize Tobacco 

1 Kabompo I.13.01 Mwombes run-of-river 390 182 — 130 — — 65 234 — — — — 254 137 1391 1,001 

1 Kabompo I.13.01 Mwinilunga run-of-river 896 418 — 299 — — 149 538 — — — — 582 314 3196 2,300 

1 Kabompo I.13.01 Kabompo run-of-river 1,169 545 — 390 — — 195 701 — — — — 760 409 4169 3,000 

5 Barotse I.09.01 Nakatoya 3 1 — 1 — — 1 2 — — — — 2 1 11 8 

5 Barotse I.09.01 Katima Mulilo run-ofriver 

5 Barotse I.09.01 Zambezi Floodplain 

run-of-river 

5 Barotse I.09.01 Ngamwe Rapid runof-river 

5 Barotse I.09.01 Manto Rapid run-ofriver 

5 Barotse I.09.01 Sioma Rapid run-ofriver 

16 Upper Kafue I.07.01 Kampembe farm 

extension 

400 200 — — — — 400 — — — — — 260 140 1400 1,000 

— 3000 — — — — — — — — — — 0 0 3000 3,000 

400 200 — — — — 400 — — — — — 260 140 1400 1,000 

400 200 — — — — 400 — — — — — 260 140 1400 1,000 

400 200 — — — — 400 — — — — — 260 140 1400 1,000 

960 20 — — — — 20 — — — 960 — — — 1960 1,000 

16 Upper Kafue I.07.01 Machiya run-of-river 4,800 100 — — — — 100 — — — 4,800 — — — 9800 5,000 

20 Kafue Flats I.07.03 Kafue Sugar extension — — — — — 1,500 — — — — — — — — 1500 1,500 

20 Kafue Flats I.07.03 Cotton Development 

Trust on the Magoye 

River 

20 Kafue Flats I.07.03 Kaleya smallholders 

extension 

20 Kafue Flats I.07.03 Nega-Nega project 

long term 

23 Lower Kafue 

after Kafue 

Lower 

— — — — 80 — — — — — — 80 — — 160 80 

— — — — — 370 — — — — — — — — 370 370 

— — — — — 4,700 — — — — — — — — 4700 4,700 

I.07.05 Chiawa Estate 

extension 950 — — — — — — — — 10 950 — — — 1910 960 

Total 

irrigated 

area 

Total 

equipped 

area 


91


Table A1.34. Identified irrigation projects in Zambia 

(continued) 

Control 

point Name 

8 Livingstone 

before Vic 

Falls 

12 Between 

Batoka and 

Kariba 

15 Kariba 

Dam 

15 Kariba 

Dam 

25 Lunsemfwa 

26 Lunsemfwa 

26 Upper 

Luangwa 

Irrigation 

abstraction 

point Project 

I.06.01 Mid-Zambezi Delta 

agricultural water 

management for food 

security program 

I.06.07 Mid-Zambezi Delta 


management for food 

security program 

I.06.11 Nzenga 

I.06.11 Sinazongwe 

I.05.01 Commercial agriculture 

development project— 

Mwomboshi 

I.05.01 Commercial agriculture 

development project– 

Mkushi 

I.05.02 Lundazi Dam irrigation 

Winter 

wheat 


Vegetables 

(tomatoes) Beans Other 

Winter 

cotton Sugarcane Citrus Pasture Coffee Bananas Soybeans 

Summer 

cotton Maize Tobacco 

305 142 — 102 — — 50 183 — — — — 198 107 1087 782 

305 142 — 102 — — 50 183 — — — — 198 107 1087 782 

39 18 — 13 — — 6 23 — — — — 25 14 139 100 

59 27 — 20 — — 10 35 — — — — 38 20 209 150 

1,470 — 75 — — — 155 425 — — — — 1545 — 3670 2,125 

2,100 — 125 — — — 200 100 — — — — 1113 1113 4750 2,525 

687 370 35 70 — — 229 88 — — — — 361 361 2201 1,479 

24 Mupata I.04.01 Chongwe Dam 105 179 — — — — 178 — 348 — — — 68 37 915 810 

24 Mupata I.04.01 Lusitu 33 55 — — — — 55 — 108 — — — 21 11 283 250 

24 Mupata I.04.01 Kanakantapa (total) 195 330 — — — — 330 — 645 — — — 127 68 1695 1,500 

Total 16,065 6330 235 1,126 80 6,570 3,393 2,512 1,101 10 6,710 80 6332 3258 53802 37,422 

Total 

irrigated 

area 

Total 

equipped 

area 

92


large large-scale commercial farmers and smallholder 

irrigators. 

The land reform undertaken by the Zimbabwean 

government has resulted in an expansion 

of smallholder irrigation area (i.e., the long-term 

reform that officially began 1979). The reform split 

up commercial irrigation schemes and ushered in 

two new groups of farmers, namely A1 who irrigate 

small areas sometimes using shared irrigation infrastructure, 

and A2 who are commercial irrigators. 

In some cases, the A2 farmers also share irrigation 

infrastructure. 

ZAPF identified achieving food security as one 

of the priority national target areas for the period 

from 1995 to 2020. Traditionally, Zimbabwe has 

been food secure at the national level and a net 

maize exporter in normal years. Food insecurity 

was only a household level concern among the poor 

or those without enough land to farm. However, 

food shortages at both the national and household 

levels have increased over the last five years and the 

country has had to rely on food aid and commercial 

grain imports to meet its requirements. Although 

droughts have played a big role in this scenario, 

the general contraction in the economy, the slow 

pace at which newly resettled farmers have commenced 

agricultural activities, and the onset of the 

HIV/AIDS pandemic have also been significant 

contributing factors. 

Faced with dwindling donor support, the 

government of Zimbabwe launched the Millennium 

Economic Recovery Programme (MERP) in 

2000. MERP was an 18-month program intended 

to achieve economic stability through a combination 

of fiscal and monetary policy measures 

that included setting public-sector salaries and 

wages at 12 percent of GDP and introducing a 

cash-budgeting system. Furthermore, Z$1.6 billion 

was allocated to support small-scale farmers 

in the communal and resettlement areas. Other 

measures were the establishment of the Zimbabwe 

Revenue Authority and the Privatization Agency 

of Zimbabwe to facilitate the privatization of 

public enterprises. 

The long-term policy objectives for the agricultural 

sector as a whole are set out in ZAPF. Under 

this policy framework, agricultural development is 

based on the following principles: 

• Land and agrarian reforms will be pursued to 

ensure the productive use of land; 

• Institutional development will focus on efficient 

delivery of services to farmers; 

• Pursuance of that will lead to increased production 

and ensure household food security; and 

• The creation of a public-sector investment program 

will support agricultural development. 

The Land Reform and Resettlement Programme, 

under implementation since 2000, is part 

of the above framework and has so far resulted in 

the broadening of the potential agricultural production 

base through land redistribution. Under 

the program, the government has acquired approximately 

11 million hectares of land, bringing 

the total amount of land redistributed since independence 

to 14.4 million hectares. The target of the 

program is to settle a total of 350,000 indigenous 

families. 

In 2003, MERP was succeeded by the National 

Economic Revival Programme (NERP). A multisector 

macro framework, NERP forms the basis 

for several strategic framework documents under 

which different government programs were to 

be implemented. In the agricultural sector, NERP 

drew heavily from ZAPF. It notes the severe socioeconomic 

challenges facing the country and 

focuses on the following measures for agriculture 

and rural development: a) security of land tenure, 

b) promotion of effective land utilization, c) review 

of minimum farm sizes, d) provision of farm input 

support, and e) proper producer pricing policies. 

The Ministry of Water Resources and Infrastructural 

Development prepared five and ten year 

development plans in July 2007. They established 

the following priorities: 

Immediate priorities (one year, July 2007 to 

June 2008): 

• Complete rehabilitation/development of 

14,988 hectares (summer 2007/2008 and winter 

2008); 

• Complete irrigation development on 987 hectares 

of land under land clearing; 

• Complete irrigation development on 484 hectares 

of national winter projects in the Public 

Sector Investment Programme; 

93


• Complete outstanding rehabilitation projects 

(approximately 10,000 hectares); 

• Rehabilitate idle center pivot equipment (2886 

hectares); 

• Complete rehabilitation of A1 and A2 non- 

Maguta projects; 

• Complete rehabilitation of Maguta target (7954 

hectares); 

• Complete currently ongoing irrigation development 

projects under the Public Sector Investment 

Programme; 

• Produce irrigation policy and act; and 

• Embark on A1 and A2 farmer training. 

Short-term priorities (three years): 

• Commission at least 28,000 hectares of rehabilitated/newly 

developed irrigation schemes; 

• Complete irrigation development on remaining 

1,800 hectares under land clearing; 

• Transform into an irrigation agency/entity; 

• Achieve enhanced efficiency in irrigation 

through farmer and operator training; 

• Complete all outstanding A1 and A2 rehabilitation 

(see idle equipment document); 

• Advance new irrigation development on 5,000 

hectares utilizing water in existing dams (on 

average 200 hectares per province per year); 

• Capacitate Department of Irrigation with adequate 

resources: transport, personnel, construction 

equipment, adequate survey and camping 

equipment; 

• A database of approved irrigation equipment 

suppliers; 

• A database (up to date) of all irrigation schemes 

(50,000 of more than 100,000 hectares); 

• Further staff development; and 

• The upgrade of Zimbabwe Irrigation Technology 

Center facilities. 

Medium-term priorities (five years): 

• Develop irrigation schemes using dams with 

underutilized water; 

• Develop irrigation schemes using dams currently 

under construction; and 

• Enhance farmer irrigation management skills— 

A1, A2, and communal. 

Long-term priorities (10 years): 

• Develop new irrigation schemes to exploit 

unused water bodies (approximately 113,000 

hectares of the 300,000 hectares target; 

• Develop an average 500 hectares per province 

per year using enhanced Department of Irrigation 

capacity; 

• Continue enhancing farmer irrigation management 

skills—A1, A2, and communal; and 

• Irrigation development from proposed medium 

to large dams. 


The Zimbabwean part of the Zambezi River Basin 

falls within three subbasins of the Zambezi 

River: 

• Tete subbasin (2); 

• Mupata subbasin (4); and 

• Kariba subbasin (6). 

Irrigation abstractions in Zimbabwe are modeled 

through nine abstraction points, some of them 

shared with other riparian countries. Figure A1.22. 

shows the location of the Gwayi, Sanyati, and Manyame 

river subbasins). 



During data collection for the modeling, data per 

province was available but lacked in precision 

in certain cases. The FAO AQUASTAT database 

provides a breakdown of irrigated areas by crop in 

1999. From the ZRA inventory (as for the Zambian 

abstractions in this part of the Zambezi River Basin), 

it is estimated that the current irrigation area 

in this Kariba subbasin, upstream of Victoria Falls, 

Zimbabwean part, is 75 hectares. 


There does not appear to be any irrigation abstractions 

in the small subbasin between Livingstone 

and the projected Batoka Gorge Dam site (I.06.06). 

94


Moreover, it is assumed that the current irrigation 

area between Batoka Gorge and the Kariba Reser- 

voir on the Zimbabwean side is 500 hectares, similar 

to the Zambian territory in the subbasin. 

Table A1.35. Irrigation abstraction points in Zimbabwe 

Control point Name Irrigation abstraction point Comment 

8 Livingstone before Victoria Falls I.06.02 Shared with Zambia, Namibia, and Botswana 

10 Between Victoria Falls and Batoka I.06.06 Shared with Zambia 

12 Between Batoka and Kariba I.06.08 Shared with Zambia 

13 Gwayi I.06.09 n/a 

14 Sanyati I.06.10 n/a 

15 Kariba Dam I.06.12 Shared with Zambia 

24 Mupata I.04.02 Shared with Zambia 

28 Manyane I.02.01 n/a 

32 Luenha I.02.05 Shared with Mozambique 

Figure A1.22. River basins of Zimbabwe 

ZIMBABWE RIVER BASINS 

28° 34° 

Zambezi 

16° 

18° 

ZAMBIA 

Zambezi 

Lake 

Kariba 

Sanyati 

S A N Y A T I 

M A N YA M E 

Manyame 

Mazowe 

M A Z O W E 

HARARE 

18° 

20° 

Shangani 

G W A Y I 

Gwayi 

R U N D I 

S A V E 

Save 

MOZAMBIQUE 

20° 

BOTSWANA 

M Z I N G WA N E 

Rundi 

Nuanetsi 

Shashe 

Mzingwane 

22° 

0 50 100 150 

KILOMETERS 

Limpopo 

SOUTH AFRICA 

26° 28° 32° 

22° 

IBRD 37961 

July 2010 

Source: Zimbabwe National Water Authority 2006. 

95



I.02.01, and I.02.05 

Available data concerning the irrigation area in 

Zimbabwe are principally at provincial scale. Consequently, 

when necessary, the irrigation area inside a 

given watershed is estimated using area proportions 

drawn from the provincial data. 

Irrigation areas per province, as well as crop 

budgets, were taken from the FAO AQUASTAT 

(1999) database for a total of 175,000 hectares for 

the entire country. The Manzungu study (2002) also 

recounts provincial irrigation area, and estimates 

the total to be 120,000 hectares, though the data 

is most likely older than the FAO (1999) figures. 

However, the FAO and ASFR study (2000) gives 

AGRITEX estimates (1999) of a country irrigation 

area of 120,000 hectares. 

Moreover, numerous sources emphasize that 

some existing irrigation schemes need to be rehabilitated, 

particularly the NEPAD and FAO study 

(2004b), as well as a study from the Minister of 

Agriculture in 2008. Consequently, it is assumed in 

this study that 80 percent of the FAO (1999) 175,000 

equipped hectares are still irrigated today and that 

20 percent are no longer irrigated and need rehabilitation. 

The Shangani/Gwayi River Basin (I.06.09), 

whose area is 54,610 km², is situated inside the 

Matabeleland North Province which covers 75,025 

km². 

It is therefore assumed that the irrigation area is 

currently 1,300 hectares in the Shangani River Basin, 

where 2,243 hectares represent the irrigated area in 

the Matabeleland North Province (FAO 1999): 

54,610 

80 % x x 2,243 = 1,300 

75,025 

The Sanyati River and Sengwa River basins 

(I.06.10), whose areas cover 43,500 and 25,000 km², 

respectively, are principally shared between two 

provinces: Midlands (49 166 km²) and Mashonaland 

West (57,441 km²). The I.06.10 irrigation abstraction 

point also represents all the irrigation abstractions 

inside the basins of Zimbabwean rivers entering 

Lake Kariba. It is therefore assumed that the irrigation 

area is currently 21,600 hectares, where 8,962 

hectares and 33,057 hectares, respectively, represent 

the irrigation areas in the Midlands and Mashonaland 

West Province (FAO 1999): 

43,500 + 25,000 

80% x 

x (8,962 + 33,057) = 21,600 ha 

49,166 + 57,441 

The Zimbabwean part of the subbasin between 

Kariba and Cahora Bassa dams (I.04.02) represent 

around half of the area of the Mashonaland West 

Province. It is estimated that the irrigation area 

is currently 21,600 hectares in the Shangani River 

Basin, where 33,000 hectares represent the irrigation 

area (FAO 1999). The FAO AQUASTAT (1999) 

database gives the breakdown of irrigated areas 

per crop in 1999: 

43,500 + 25,000 

80% x 

x (8,962 + 33,057) 

49,166 + 57,441 

= 21,600 ha 

The Chirundu irrigation scheme is now nonoperational 

and will not be added to the 13,200 

hectares. This scheme was situated along the Zambezi 

River, 65 km downstream of Kariba Gorge. 

The estate was established by the Chirundu Sugar 

Estates Ltd, a company that was started in December 

1953. The company acquired 2,300 hectares 

of land on the south bank of the Zambezi River 

(Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development of 

Zimbabwe 2009a). It is difficult to establish whether 

the development of this estate was related to the 

establishment of Kariba Dam. 

The Manyame River Basin (I.02.01) includes approximately 

half of the Mashonaland West Province 

plus half of the Mashonaland Central Province. It is 

estimated that the irrigation area is currently 22,092 

hectares, where 22,174 hectares and 33,057 hectares, 

respectively, represent the irrigation areas in the 

Mashonaland Central and Mashonaland West Province 

(FAO 1999). The breakdown of irrigated areas 

by crop in 1999, from FAO AQUASTAT database, 

is used for the present study: 

1 

80% 

x x (22,174 + 33,057) = 22,092 ha 

2 

The Zimbabwean part of the Luenha River Basin 

(I.02.05) covers around half of the Mashonaland 

Central Province plus half of the Mashonaland East 

Province. It is estimated that the irrigation area is 

currently 12,653 hectares, where 22,174 hectares and 

96


9,458 hectares, respectively, represent the irrigation 

areas in the Mashonaland Central and Mashonaland 

East provinces (FAO 1999). The breakdown of irrigated 

areas by crop in 1999, from FAO AQUASTAT 

database, is also applied here: 

1 

80% x x (22,174 + 9,458) = 12,653 ha 

2 


Water for irrigation was not a priority in the feasibility 

and design studies for Kariba Dam, which 

might explain why little irrigation development 

has occurred in Zimbabwe and Zambia using the 

water from Lake Kariba. To date, only two irrigation 

schemes have been established on the Zimbabwean 

side of the Lake (I.06.12). These are the Charara 

Estates, a privately owned commercial irrigation 

scheme with 50 hectares of irrigation for the production 

of bananas and horticultural crops, and 

the Gatshe Gatshe community smallholder irrigation 

scheme, with an irrigated area of 18 hectares 

which is being managed by smallholders (maize 

and vegetables). 


projects 

A number of identified future irrigation projects 

in Zimbabwe were inventoried, especially during 

the national consultation workshop September 

25, 2009. Firstly, they concern the rehabilitation 

of existing irrigation schemes. As previously 

estimated, these rehabilitations should affect 20 

percent of the existing equipped area, or an additional 

25 percent of the existing irrigation area 

calculated above. In 2004, for instance, the targeted 

area for rehabilitation was 25,000 hectares 

in all of Zimbabwe (Ministry of Agriculture and 

Rural Development of Zimbabwe 2004), so that 

it is relatively normal to find 17,000 hectares of 

rehabilitation in the Zimbabwean part of the subbasin. 

Secondly, some specific sites were identified 

by the consultant, together with the Zimbabwean 

Direction of Irrigation: 

• The mid-Zambezi agricultural water management 

for food security program; 

• The Binga scheme (upstream of Kariba Lake), 

which could pass from 18 hectares (now, community 

irrigation) to 400 hectares, and next 

40,000 hectares (maize, beans), but it appears 

that this extension already includes the Kariba 

lakeshore project (see below); 

• Extension of banana schemes around Lake 

Kariba (up to 2,000 hectares), but it appears 

that this extension already includes the Kariba 

lakeshore project (see below); 

• The Kariba lakeshore project is a short-term 

(three to five years) project that covers part of 

Matabeleland North up to part of Mashonaland 

West provinces of Zimbabwe. It stretches about 

280 km from Mulibizi River in the Binga area 

upstream of Lake Kariba to Charara, close to 

Kariba town. The project area is about 92,000 

hectares (source, given to the consultant by the 

director of irrigation, Ministry of Agriculture 

and Rural Development of Zimbabwe 2009b); 

and 

• The Zambezi River Basin irrigation project, 

which covers nearly 400,000 hectares in northern 

Zimbabwe (source, given to the consultant by 

the director of irrigation, Ministry of Agriculture 

and Rural Development of Zimbabwe 2009b). 


The identified projects taken into consideration in 

this small subbasin (abstraction point I.06.02) upstream 

of Victoria Falls on the Zimbabwean side, 

represent a total of 605 hectares (half of the Zimbabwean 

irrigation area development planned in the 

mid-Zambezi agricultural water management for 

food security program). 


The identified projects in the small subbasin (abstraction 

point I.06.08) between Batoka Gorge and 

Lake Kariba, Zimbabwean side, represent a total of 

605 hectares (half of the Zimbabwean irrigation area 

development planned in the mid-Zambezi agricultural 

water management for food security program). 

No project was inventoried in the small subbasin 

between Victoria Falls and the projected site for the 

Batoka Gorge Dam (abstraction point I.06.06). 

97


Table A1.36. Current irrigation areas in Zimbabwe 

Control 

point Name 

8 Livingstone before 


10 Between Victoria 

Falls and Batoka 

12 Between Batoka 

and Kariba 

Irrigation 

abstraction 

point 

Winter 

wheat 

Perennial 


Vegetables 

(tomatoes) Other Sugarcane Tea Coffee Bananas Citrus Pasture Maize Soybeans Cotton Tobacco irrigated 

area 


I.06.02 29 5 7 21 2 4 2 5 7 8 10 5 104 75 

I.06.06 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 

I.06.08 194 32 48 137 16 24 — 16 32 46 50 66 31 694 500 

13 Gwayi I.06.09 503 84 126 356 42 63 — 42 84 121 131 171 81 1,803 1,300 

14 Sanyati I.06.10 8,362 1,394 2,090 5,920 697 1,046 — 697 1,394 2,007 2,174 2,843 1,338 29,962 21,600 

15 Kariba Dam I.06.12 — 25 18 — — — 25 — — 18 — — — 86 68 

24 Mupata I.04.02 5,110 852 1,277 3,618 426 639 — 426 852 1,226 1,329 1,737 818 18,310 13,200 

28 Manyane I.02.01 8,552 1,426 2,137 6,055 713 1,069 — 713 1,426 2,053 2,224 2,908 1,368 30,644 22,092 

32 Luenya I.02.05 4,898 817 1,224 3,468 408 613 — 408 817 1,176 1,274 1,665 784 17,551 12,653 

Total 27,648 4,635 6,927 19,576 2,305 3,457 25 2,305 4,610 6,654 7,189 9,400 4,424 99,154 71,488 

Note: During the wet season, the areas cultivated with winter wheat can be cultivated, with supplementary irrigation, with maize (24 percent), soybeans (26 percent), cotton (34 percent), and tobacco (16 percent). 

Total 

equipped 

area 

98



I.02.01, and I.02.05 

The identified projects in the Shangani/Gwayi River 

Basin (abstraction point I.06.09) represent 336 hectares 

(20 percent of the current equipped area) plus 

230 hectares (Tshatshani scheme), or a total of 566 

hectares. The identified projects in the Sanyati/Sengwa 

River Basin (abstraction point I.06.10) represent 

4,202 hectares (20 percent of the current equipped 

area) plus 1,000 hectares (Mazvidadei scheme), or a 

total of 5,202 hectares. The identified projects taken 

into consideration for the abstraction point I.04.02 

represent 3,300 hectares (20 percent of the current 

equipped area). 

The rehabilitation of the existing irrigation 

schemes in the Zimbabwean Manyame subbasin 

(abstraction point I.02.01) represent an area equal to 

20 percent of the equipped area, or 25 percent of the 

current irrigated area: 5,523 hectares with the same 

breakdown of crops as the current irrigated area. 

Some other projected irrigation schemes have also 

been inventoried in this subbasin I.02.01: 

• The Mushumbi Pools ARDA scheme extension 

of an estimated1,000 hectares of cotton during 

the wet season and probably 1,000 hectares of 

winter crops if the irrigation is secured (Euroconsult 

Mott MacDonald 2007); and 

• The 1,000 hectare Mazvikadei irrigation scheme 

extension (NEPAD and FAO 2004b). 

The rehabilitation of the existing irrigation 

schemes in the Zimbabwean Luenha subbasin 

(I.02.05) represent an area equal to 20 percent of the 

equipped area, or 25 percent of the current irrigated 

area: 3,163 hectares with the same breakdown of 

crops as the current irrigated area. One other projected 

irrigation scheme has also been inventoried 

in this subbasin: the projected Mwenje Nyarumwe 

irrigation scheme, with 500 hectares, half wheat and 

beans during the dry season and maize during the 

wet season (AGRITEX 1998). 


The Zambezi River Basin irrigation project consists 

of two self-contained shoreline projects and the 

Chirundu-Muzarabani project (385,000 hectares 

itself). They should take most of their water demand 

from Lake Kariba (but also from some other 

reservoirs to be built and from groundwater). According 

to current investigations by the Department 

of Irrigation in the project area, there are plans to 

develop more than 5,000 hectares of land in the 

Mbire and Muzarabani districts utilizing flows from 

the Zambezi River. These projects include Dande, 

Dandito, Arishibowa, and Dadzi. The planned irrigation 

method will be 80 percent pressurized and 

20 percent gravity irrigation. 

If it goes forward, this irrigation project will 

be implemented later than the Kariba lakeshore 

project, so the consultant will consider only the 

Kariba lakeshore project as an identified short-term 

irrigation project in addition to the 5,000 hectares of 

the Zambezi irrigation project. 

The Kariba lakeshore project consists of various 

blocks with intakes from the rivers lateral to 

Lake Kariba, and Lake Kariba itself. Therefore, for 

simplification, the model assumes that all of the 

project’s water abstractions are taken from Lake 

Kariba (I.06.12) even if in reality some of these 

abstractions are taken from small-lake influents or 

from an upstream part of the Lake. 

99


Table A1.37. Identified irrigation projects in Zimbabwe 

Control 

point Name 

8 Livingstone 

before Victoria 

Falls 

12 Between 

Batoka and 

Kariba 

Irrigation 

abstraction 

point Project 

I.06.02 Mid-Zambezi 


management for 

food security 

programme 

I.06.08 Mid-Zambezi 


management for 

food security 

programme 

13 Gwayi I.06.09 Rehabilitation / 

optimization of the 

use of reservoirs – 

concerning 20% of 

the equipped area 

Winter 

wheat 


Vegetables 

(tomatoes) Other Sugarcane Tea Coffee Citrus Pasture Maize Soybeans Cotton Tobacco 

Total 

irrigated 

area 

Total 

equipped 

area 

234 39 59 166 20 29 20 39 56 61 80 37 839 605 

234 39 59 166 20 29 20 39 56 61 80 37 839 605 

130 22 33 92 11 16 11 22 31 34 44 21 466 336 

13 Gwayi I.06.09 Tshatshani scheme 89 15 22 63 7 11 7 15 21 23 30 14 319 230 

14 Sanyati I.06.10 Rehabilitation/ 





1,627 271 407 1,152 136 203 136 271 390 423 553 260 5,829 4,202 

14 Sanyati I.06.10 Mazvidadei scheme 387 65 97 274 32 48 32 65 93 101 132 62 1,387 1,000 

15 Kariba Dam I.06.12 Zambezi Basin 

irrigation project - 

short term - current 

investigations by 

the department 

of irrigation in the 

project area 

15 Kariba Dam I.06.12 The Kariba 

Lakeshore Project - 

short term 

1,936 323 484 1,370 161 242 161 323 465 503 658 310 6,936 5,000 

35,615 5,938 8,900 25,216 2,969 4,454 2,969 5,938 8,548 9,260 12,109 5,698 127,615 92,000 


100


Table A1.37. Identified irrigation projects in Zimbabwe 

(continued) 

Control 

point Name 

Irrigation 

abstraction 

point Project 

24 Mupata I.04.02 Rehabilitation / 





28 Manyane I.02.01 Mushumbi Pools 

ARDA Scheme 

Extension 

28 Manyane I.02.01 Mazvikadei 


Extension 

28 Manyane I.02.01 Rehabilitation / 





32 Luenya I.02.06 Mwenje Nyarumwe 


32 Luenya I.02.06 Rehabilitation / 





Winter 

wheat 


Vegetables 

(tomatoes) Other Sugarcane Tea Coffee Citrus Pasture Maize Soybeans Cotton Tobacco 

Total 

irrigated 

area 

Total 

equipped 

area 

1,278 213 319 905 107 160 107 213 307 332 434 204 4,578 3,300 

387 65 97 274 32 48 32 65 93 101 132 62 1,387 1,000 

387 65 97 274 32 48 32 65 93 101 132 62 1,387 1,000 

2,138 356 534 1,514 178 267 178 356 513 556 727 342 7,661 5,523 

194 32 48 137 16 24 16 32 46 50 66 31 694 500 

1,224 204 306 867 102 153 102 204 294 318 416 196 4,387 3,163 

Total 45,860 7,646 11,460 32,470 3,823 5,735 3,823 7,646 11,006 11,924 15,592 7,338 164,324 118,464 

Note: During the wet season, the areas cultivated with winter wheat can be cultivated with supplementary irrigation with maize (24 percent), soybeans (26 percent), cotton (34 percent), and tobacco (16 percent). 

101

Annex 2. 

Identified Irrigation Projects and 

High-Level Irrigation Projects 

A2.1 Identified Irrigation Projects (IP) 

and Associated Abstractions 

The additional equipped irrigation area of the identified projects 

comes to approximately 336,000 hectares (table A2.1). When this area 

is added to the existing equipped area of the current situation (183,000 

hectares), the sum reaches an estimated 519,000 hectares. 

The additional average irrigated area (sum of winter, summer, 

and perennial) is approximately 514,000 hectares which together with 

the current average irrigated area of roughly 260,000 hectares brings 

the total to 774,000 hectares. The additional area includes 140,000 

hectares of additional irrigated perennial crops (78 percent sugarcane), 

approximately 41 percent of the total equipped area. Without the 

perennial crops, the projected irrigation areas have a mean cropping 

intensity of 195 percent. Winter wheat represents 37 percent of the 

projected irrigated winter crop areas. 

Table A2.4 indicates the annual water abstraction required for the 

identified projects. The total abstraction requirements are approximately 

5,885 million m 3 , or approximately 4.5 percent of the estimated 

available run-off over the Zambezi River Basin (129,689 million m 3 

per year). 10 Because these supplementary abstractions represent approximately 

1.8 times the current irrigation abstractions, irrigation 

abstractions in the Zambezi River Basin may well triple in the short 

to medium term. 

A2.2 High-Level Irrigation Projects 

(HLI) and Associated Abstractions 

To approach the possible limits of the Zambezi River Basin’s irrigation 

potential, or to show some effects of any high-level irrigation development 

scenario, a ‘high-level irrigation’ (HLI) scenario was modeled 

based on information gathered in the riparian countries concerning 

10 

Source: Euroconsult Mott MacDonald 2007. In this rapid assessment, the irrigation 

abstractions needs are estimated to be 1.5 million m 3 . This value was probably underestimated 

because it has been calculated from 1990s data, where for instance, fewer 

irrigated areas for perennial crops were taken into account. 

103


Table A2.1. Additional areas of identified irrigation projects, by subbasin and country (ha) 

Irrigated (ha) Equipped (ha) Dry season (ha) Wet season (ha) Perennial (ha) 

Subbasin 

Kabompo (13) 10,719 6,300 4,419 4,419 1,881 

Upper Zambezi (12) 5,000 5,000 0 0 5,000 

Lungúe Bungo (11) 625 500 375 125 125 

Luanginga (10) 5,000 5,000 5,000 0 0 

Barotse (9) 12,413 7,008 5,405 5,405 1,603 

Cuando/Chobe (8) 450 300 300 150 0 

Kafue (7) 20,520 13,610 6,910 6,910 6,700 

Kariba (6) 184,388 119,592 64,796 69,096 50,496 

Luangwa (5) 11,063 6,130 4,933 4,933 1,197 

Mupata (4) 8,566 5,860 2,706 2,706 3,154 

Shire River - Lake Malawi/ 

Niassa/Nyasa (3) 

101,166 59,511 48,331 41,655 11,180 

Tete (2) 55,621 30,336 25,285 25,285 5,051 

Zambezi Delta (1) 99,110 77,055 22,055 22,055 55,000 

Total 514,641 336,202 190,515 182,738 141,387 

Country 

Angola 10,625 10,500 5,375 125 5,125 

Botswana 20,300 13,800 6,500 10,800 3,000 

Malawi 78,026 47,911 36,791 30,115 11,120 

Mozambique 137,410 96,205 41,205 41,205 55,000 

Namibia 450 300 300 150 0 

Tanzania 23,140 11,600 11,540 11,540 60 

Zambia 61,259 37,422 23,837 23,837 13,585 

Zimbabwe 183,431 118,464 64,967 64,967 53,497 

Total 514,641 336,202 190,515 182,738 141,387 

some long-term irrigation development strategies 

(table A2.5). This also allowed for incorporating 

potential in terms of water availability and the 

more long-term plans for irrigation in the riparian 

countries. These figures are based on estimates 

provided by the riparian countries and are used in 

this analysis to mark the upper limit of irrigated 

agriculture in the Zambezi River Basin. The degree 

of realism in achieving such high level of irrigation 

development cannot be assessed. 

As shown in table A2.7, the additional equipped 

irrigation area of the HLI scenario is approximately 

1,210,000 hectares, bringing the basin total equipped 

area to 1,730,000 hectares (i.e., the sum of current 

situation, IPs and HLI projects). The additional 

average irrigated area (sum of winter, summer, and 

perennial areas) is roughly 2,020,000 hectares; bringing 

the basin total average irrigated area to approximately 

2,800,000 hectares (table A2.7.) It includes 

360,000 hectares of additional irrigated perennial 

crops (65 percent of sugarcane), or approximately 

30 percent of the total additional equipped area. 

Without the perennial crops, the projected irrigation 

areas have a mean cropping intensity of 197 percent. 

Winter wheat represents 36 percent of the projected 

irrigated winter crop areas. 

104

Annex 2. Identified Irrigation Projects and High-Level Irrigation Projects 

Table A2.2. Identified irrigation project, by subbasin and crop (additional ha) 

Subbasin 

Winter 

wheat 

Winter 

rice 


Winter 

maize Vegetables Beans 

Winter 

cotton Other Sugar Tea Coffee Citrus Bananas Pasture Maize Soybeans Sorghum Cotton Tobacco Rice 

Kabompo (13) 2,455 0 0 1,145 0 0 819 0 0 0 409 0 1,472 1,596 0 0 0 859 0 10,719 6,300 

Upper Zambezi 

(12) 

Lungúe Bungo 

(11) 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,000 5,000 

0 250 0 125 0 0 0 0 0 0 125 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 625 500 

Luanginga (10) 0 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,000 5,000 

Barotse (9) 1,603 0 0 3,801 0 0 1 0 0 0 1,601 0 2 1,042 0 0 0 561 0 12,413 7,008 

Cuando/Chobe 

(8) 

0 150 0 150 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 450 300 

Kafue (7) 6,710 0 0 120 0 80 0 6,570 0 0 120 10 0 0 6,710 0 80 0 0 20,520 13,610 

Kariba (6) 40,960 0 5,000 8,541 0 0 10,295 28,499 3,356 5,033 6,472 0 7,136 15,120 12,466 2,300 13,686 6,688 0 184,388 119,592 

Luangwa (5) 4,258 0 0 370 235 0 70 0 0 0 584 0 613 3,019 0 0 0 1,474 0 11,063 6,130 

Mupata (4) 1,610 0 0 777 0 0 319 905 107 1,260 670 0 213 523 332 0 434 321 0 8,566 5,860 

Shire River - 

Lake Malawi/ 


0 15,950 20,070 1,928 942 6,676 2,765 11,120 60 0 0 0 0 12,080 5,356 1,439 2,136 0 15,950 101,166 59,511 

Tete (2) 15,330 0 75 4,722 4,075 0 1,082 3,066 361 542 361 0 722 8,614 3,853 1,212 5,108 693 0 55,621 30,336 

Zambezi Delta 

(1) 

0 22,055 0 0 0 0 0 55,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22,055 99,110 77,055 

Total 72,926 43,405 25,145 21,680 5,252 6,756 15,352 110,160 3,883 6,835 10,341 10 10,158 41,994 28,717 4,951 21,444 10,596 38,005 514,641 336,202 

% of winter 

crops 

% of summer 

crops 

% of perennial 

crops 

38% 23% 13% 11% 3% 4% 8% 

12% 8% 23% 16% 3% 12% 6% 21% 

78% 3% 5% 7% 0% 7% 

Note: One hectare of vegetables only appears in the dry-season column in the above table even though vegetables can be cultivated during the wet season as well. 

Total 

irrigated 

area (ha) 

Total 

equipped 

area (ha) 

105


Table A2.3. Identified irrigation projects, by country and crop (additional ha) 

Country 

Winter 

wheat 

Winter 

rice 


Winter 


Winter 


Angola 0 5,250 0 125 0 0 0 5,000 0 0 125 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,625 10,500 

Botswana 0 0 5,000 1,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,000 0 0 5,000 2,000 2,300 0 0 0 20,300 13,800 

Malawi 0 6,141 18,916 1,351 942 6,676 2,765 11,120 0 0 0 0 0 11,503 5,149 1,346 1,859 0 6,141 78,026 47,911 

Mozambique 11,000 22,055 75 4,000 4,075 0 0 55,000 0 0 0 0 0 7,575 2,727 1,212 3,636 0 22,055 137,410 96,205 

Namibia 0 150 0 150 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 450 300 

Tanzania 0 9,809 1,154 577 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 577 208 92 277 0 9,809 23,140 11,600 

Zambia 16,066 0 0 6,330 235 80 1,126 6,570 0 1,101 3,393 10 2,511 6,333 6,710 0 80 3,258 0 61,259 37,422 

Zimbabwe 45,860 0 0 7,646 0 0 11,460 32,470 3,823 5,735 3,823 0 7,646 11,006 11,924 0 15,592 7,338 0 183,431 118,464 

Total 72,926 43,405 25,145 21,680 5,252 6,756 15,352 110,160 3,883 6,835 10,341 10 10,158 41,994 28,717 4,951 21,444 10,596 38,005 514,641 336,202 


Total 

irrigated 

area (ha) 

Total 

equipped 

area (ha) 

106


Table A2.4. Additional annual water abstraction requirements for identified irrigation projects (1,000 m 3 /year) 

Subbasin Water abstraction (‘000 m 3 /year) % 

Kabompo (13) 86,679 1% 

Upper Zambezi (12) 86,446 1% 

Lungúe Bungo (11) 7,837 0% 

Luanginga (10) 97,329 2% 

Barotse (9) 120,345 2% 

Cuando/Chobe (8) 5,165 0% 

Kafue (7) 175,070 3% 

Kariba (6) 2,640,984 45% 

Luangwa (5) 63,056 1% 

Mupata (4) 133,313 2% 

Shire River - Lake Malawi/Niassa/Nyasa (3) 766,639 13% 

Tete (2) 460,950 8% 

Zambezi Delta (1) 1,241,288 21% 

Total 5,885,102 100% 

Country 

Angola 191,612 3% 

Botswana 177,682 3% 

Malawi 612,574 10% 

Mozambique 1,557,871 26% 

Namibia 5,165 0% 

Tanzania 154,065 3% 

Zambia 546,330 9% 

Zimbabwe 2,639,803 45% 

Total 5,885,102 100% 

Table A2.10 displays the annual water abstraction 

needs for this high-level irrigation scenario 

(supplemental irrigation compared with the IP 

scenario): 

• The annual water abstractions represent a 

total of 20,200 million m 3 , or approximately 

16 percent of the estimated 11 available run-off 

over the Zambezi River Basin (compared with 

4.5 percent for the identified projects run-off of 

129,689 million m 3 per year), 

• Because these supplemental abstractions represent 

approximately nine times the current 

irrigation abstractions, irrigation abstractions 

could grow by a factor of 10 in the Zambezi 

River Basin over the long-term. 

11 

Source: Euroconsult Mott MacDonald 2007. In this rapid assessment, the irrigation abstraction needs were estimated to be 1.5 hm 3 . 

This value was probably underestimated because it was calculated from 1990s data, with fewer irrigation areas planted to perennial 

crops taken into account. 

107


Figure A2.1. Additional monthly water abstraction requirements for identified irrigation projects (1,000 m 3 /month) 

1,200,000 

1,000,000 

800,000 

600,000 

400,000 

200,000 

0 

OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP 

Month 

Table A2.5. Long-term high-level irrigation development in riparian countries 

Angola According to the Department for Irrigation, 10,000 hectares of potential irrigation (mixed crop) could be developed in each Angolan 

subbasin. 

Botswana The Zambezi Integrated Agro-Commercial Development Project Stage 2 is equivalent to Stage 1. 

Malawi So far under the Green Belt initiative (Ministry of Irrigation and Water Development 2009b), sites totaling 340,381 hectares have been 

identified as sites for new development across all the regions. These sites were preliminarily assessed for suitability of various crops 

under irrigation. 

Mozambique Information on Mozambique’s long-term irrigation plans was not available. The high-level irrigation development scenario for Mozambique 

is likely to be similar to those in neighboring countries. 

Namibia The Caprivi irrigation project consists of 12,000 hectares of sugar and 3,000 hectares of other crops. 

Tanzania According to the Department for Irrigation, there are 50,473 hectares of high-potential irrigated areas. 

Zambia and 

Zimbabwe 

Irrigation development based on the Zambezi River Basin irrigation project and the Kariba lakeshore project (long-term stages of these 

projects), which represent approximately 400,000 supplementary hectares. 

Future abstractions will be taken mainly from Lake Kariba. 

Some other parts of the Basin could also be considered, such as the Upper Zambezi River Basin in Zambia or the Kafue subbasin. 

108


Table A2.6. High-level irrigation: additional equipped irrigation areas (ha) 

Country 

Additional equipped irrigation 

area for HLI (ha) % Comment 

Angola 30,000 2 10,000 ha per subbasin with irrigation (see IP) 

Botswana 13,800 1 Stage 2 of the transfer 

Malawi 

Identified sites for long-term development, mostly downstream of 

300,000 25 

Lake Malawi/Niassa/Nyasa 

Mozambique 

100,000 from Cahora Bassa, 100,000 upstream of the Shire confluence, and 

300,000 25 

100,000 downstream of the Shire confluence, all on the Zambezi River 

Namibia 15,000 1 Caprivi Sugar project 

Tanzania 50,000 4 Lake Malawi/Niassa/Nyasa subbasin 

Zambia 

220,000 ha Kariba, 25,000 ha Kafue, 25,000 ha Lunsemfwa, 

290,000 24 

10,000 ha Kabompo, and 10,000 ha Barotse 

Zimbabwe 210,000 17 Kariba Reservoir 

Total 1,208,000 100 

Table A2.7. High-level irrigation areas in the Zambezi River Basin, by subbasin and country (ha) 

Subbasin Irrigated Equipped Dry season Wet season Perennial 

Kabompo (13) 17,014 10,000 7,014 7,014 2,986 

Upper Zambezi (12) 12,500 10,000 7,500 2,500 2,500 

Lungúe Bungo (11) 12,500 10,000 7,500 2,500 2,500 

Luanginga (10) 12,500 10,000 7,500 2,500 2,500 

Barotse (9) 17,713 10,000 7,713 7,713 2,287 

Cuando/Chobe (8) 18,000 15,000 3,000 3,000 12,000 

Kafue (7) 37,400 25,000 12,400 12,400 12,600 

Kariba (6) 719,906 443,800 276,106 280,406 163,394 

Luangwa (5) 44,957 25,000 19,957 19,957 5,043 

Mupata (4) 0 0 0 0 0 


Malawi/Niassa/Nyasa (3) 

604,630 350,000 273,110 254,630 76,890 

Tete (2) 400,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 0 

Zambezi Delta (1) 125,000 100,000 25,000 25,000 75,000 

Total 2,022,120 1,208,800 846,801 817,620 357,699 

Country 

Angola 37,500 30,000 22,500 7,500 7,500 

Botswana 20,300 13,800 6,500 10,800 3,000 

Malawi 504,888 300,000 223,369 204,888 76,631 

Mozambique 525,000 300,000 225,000 225,000 75,000 

Namibia 18,000 15,000 3,000 3,000 12,000 

Tanzania 99,741 50,000 49,741 49,741 259 

Zambia 491,524 290,000 201,524 201,524 88,476 

Zimbabwe 325,166 210,000 115,166 115,166 94,834 

Total 2,022,120 1,208,800 846,801 817,620 357,699 

109


Table A2.8. High-level irrigation: crops by season and subbasin (ha) 

Subbasin 

Winter 

wheat 

Winter 

rice 


Winter 


Winter 


Kabompo (13) 3,897 0 0 1,817 0 0 1,300 0 0 0 649 0 2,337 2,533 0 0 0 1,364 0 17,014 10,000 

Upper Zambezi 

(12) 

Lungúe 

Bungo (11) 

Luanginga 

(10) 

0 5,000 0 2,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12,500 10,000 

0 5,000 0 2,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12,500 10,000 

0 5,000 0 2,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12,500 10,000 

Barotse (9) 2,287 0 0 5,424 0 0 1 0 0 0 2,285 0 3 1,487 0 0 0 801 0 17,713 10,000 

Cuando/ 

Chobe (8) 

0 0 0 3,000 0 0 0 12,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18,000 15,000 

Kafue (7) 12,000 0 0 250 0 150 0 12,350 0 0 250 0 0 0 12,000 0 150 0 0 37,400 25,000 

Kariba (6) 167,095 0 5,000 55,095 0 0 48,916 57,559 6,777 10,166 23,857 0 65,035 80,281 23,137 2,300 27,640 43,037 0 719,906 443,800 

Luangwa (5) 15,408 0 0 3,125 833 0 591 0 0 0 2,888 0 2,155 10,197 0 0 0 6,044 0 44,957 25,000 

Mupata (4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Shire River- 

Lake Malawi/ 

Niassa/Nyasa 

(3) 

0 69,303 119,906 22,649 14,015 18,481 28,757 76,631 259 0 0 0 0 70,545 27,690 10,162 25,523 0 69,303 604,630 350,000 

Tete (2) 100,000 0 0 50,000 50,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75,000 27,000 12,000 36,000 0 0 400,000 200,000 

Zambezi Delta 

(1) 

0 25,000 0 0 0 0 0 75,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25,000 125,000 100,000 

Total 300,687 109,303 124,906 148,859 64,848 18,631 79,566 233,540 7,036 10,166 37,429 0 69,528 240,043 89,827 24,462 89,314 51,246 94,303 2,022,120 1,208,800 

% of winter 

crops 

% of summer 

crops 

% of perennial 

crops 

36% 13% 15% 18% 8% 2% 9% 

18% 10% 29% 11% 3% 11% 6% 12% 

65% 2% 3% 10% 0% 19% 


Total 

irrigated 

area (ha) 

Total 

equipped 

area (ha) 

110


Table A2.9. High-level irrigation: crops by season and country (ha) 

Country 

Winter 

wheat 

Winter 

rice 


Winter 


Winter 


Angola 0 15,000 0 7,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37,500 30,000 

Botswana 0 0 5,000 1,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,000 0 0 5,000 2,000 2,300 0 0 0 20,300 13,800 

Malawi 0 27,023 114,932 20,162 14,015 18,481 28,757 76,631 0 0 0 0 0 68,058 26,795 9,764 24,329 0 27,023 504,888 300,000 

Mozambique 100,000 25,000 0 50,000 50,000 0 0 75,000 0 0 0 0 0 75,000 27,000 12,000 36,000 0 25,000 525,000 300,000 

Namibia 0 0 0 3,000 0 0 0 12,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18,000 15,000 

Tanzania 0 42,280 4,974 2,487 0 0 0 0 259 0 0 0 0 2,487 895 398 1,194 0 42,280 99,741 50,000 

Zambia 119,392 0 0 50,656 833 150 30,493 12,350 0 0 20,152 0 55,974 69,987 12,000 0 150 38,238 0 491,524 290,000 

Zimbabwe 81,295 0 0 13,555 0 0 20,316 57,559 6,777 10,166 6,777 0 13,555 19,511 21,137 0 27,640 13,007 0 325,166 210,000 

Total 300,687 109,303 124,906 148,859 64,848 18,631 79,566 233,540 7,036 10,166 37,429 0 69,528 240,043 89,827 24,462 89,314 51,246 94,303 2,022,120 1,208,800 


Total 

irrigated 

area (ha) 

Total 

equipped 

area (ha) 

111


Table A2.10. Additional annual water abstraction requirements for high-level irrigation projects (1,000 m 3 /year) 

Subbasin Water abstraction (‘000 m 3 /year) % 

Kabompo (13) 137,586 0.68% 

Upper Zambezi (12) 151,568 0.75% 

Lungúe Bungo (11) 156,735 0.78% 

Luanginga (10) 190,692 0.94% 

Barotse (9) 171,725 0.85% 

Cuando/Chobe (8) 343,780 1.70% 

Kafue (7) 323,960 1.60% 

Kariba (6) 9,770,291 48.35% 

Luangwa (5) 271,145 1.34% 

Mupata (4) 0 0.00% 

Shire River - Lake Malawi/Niassa/Nyasa (3) 4,441,784 21.98% 

Tete (2) 2,624,280 12.99% 

Zambezi Delta (1) 1,623,150 8.03% 

Total 20,206,697 100.00% 

Country 

Angola 498,996 2.47% 

Botswana 152,782 0.76% 

Malawi 3,777,710 18.70% 

Mozambique 4,247,430 21.02% 

Namibia 343,780 1.70% 

Tanzania 664,074 3.29% 

Zambia 5,625,517 27.84% 

Zimbabwe 4,896,408 24.23% 

Total 20,206,697 100.00% 

Figure A2.2. Additional monthly water abstraction requirement of high-level irrigation projects (1,000 m 3 /month) 

1,000 m 3 /month 

4,500,000 

4,000,000 

3,500,000 

3,000,000 

2,500,000 

2,000,000 

1,500,000 

1,000,000 

500,000 

0 

OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP 

Month 

112

Annex 3. 

Estimating Crop-Related Water 

Requirements 

To estimate the direct hydrological impacts of each irrigation development 

scenario on the Basin system, irrigation abstractions for each 

scenario need to be estimated. 

A3.1 Methodology 

Crop water requirements can be estimated by calculating the crop 

evapotranspiration (ETc) minus “effective rainfall” (Peff). FAO (1998) 

stipulate that crop evapotranspiration corresponds to the water needs 

of the crop which may be satisfied by both rainfall and supplementary 

man-made irrigation. The crop evapotranspiration is calculated 

using the crop coefficient approach: multiplying the reference crop 

evapotranspiration (ETo) with a crop coefficient (Kc). 

Etc = ETo x Kc 

ETc is the crop evapotranspiration [mm d–1] 

Kc is the crop coefficient [dimensionless] 

ETo is the reference crop evapotranspiration [mm d–1]. 

The “effective rainfall” is the water from rainfall that the crop 

can use (can be defined as a function of the rainfall). The amount of 

water that must be brought to the crop by the irrigation scheme is 

therefore: crop irrigation water need = ETc – Peff (mm per time unit). 

The abstraction requirement at the irrigation scheme’s water intake 

equals the crop irrigation water need divided by the scheme efficiency, 

which represents the losses in the system. Finally, a reservoir may 

allow water regulation at the water intake so that real abstractions 

from the river may be regulated throughout the year. However, additional 

losses caused by direct evaporation from the reservoir must 

be taken into account. 

113


Table A3.1. Monthly ETos per subbasin (mm) 

Subbasin Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual 

Kabompo (13) 108 97 111 112 102 91 98 117 134 144 116 107 1,337 

Upper Zambezi (12) 112 101 110 113 110 102 111 133 147 143 116 112 1,410 

Lungúe Bungo (11) 116 105 115 116 119 110 118 138 150 146 120 119 1,472 

Luanginga (10) 127 114 128 129 132 123 136 160 183 175 135 124 1,666 

Barotse (9) 132 117 135 125 116 98 107 134 159 172 147 136 1,578 

Cuando/Chobe (8) 144 130 136 118 110 96 102 129 155 174 155 150 1,599 

Kafue (7) 121 109 124 119 111 98 107 134 157 176 140 124 1,520 

Kariba (6) 148 132 146 134 122 105 116 147 184 215 178 153 1,780 

Luangwa (5) 119 104 123 120 113 98 106 132 160 189 156 135 1,555 

Mupata (4) 136 118 140 130 121 105 113 145 180 206 163 151 1,708 

Shire River - Lake Malawi/ 


116 106 115 112 105 90 98 116 138 166 150 124 1,436 

Tete (2) 140 126 139 123 111 92 101 130 162 195 172 152 1,643 

Zambezi Delta (1) 163 144 145 123 109 90 98 121 143 178 173 165 1,652 

A3.2 Reference Crop 

Evapotranspirations and 

Crop Coefficient 

The ETos used (calculated with the Penman-Monteith 

method) are those given in the ZACPLAN Sector 

Study 3 (Patterns of Land Use and Conservation 

Practices). 

The determination of crop coefficient is done in 

two steps. Firstly, identifying the crop growth stages 

and determining their lengths, and secondly, selecting 

the corresponding Kc coefficients for each stage. 

A3.2.1 Identifying, and determining length 

for growth stages of crops 

FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 24 provides 

general lengths for the four distinct growth stages 

and the total growing period for various types of 

climates and locations. The dates of the growth period 

may be adjusted using crop calendars available 

in the FAO database (figure A3.1). 

The four growth periods are: initial period, 

development period, middle period, and late 

period. The period lengths and the sowing dates 

were simplified to fit to the decade scale used in the 

MSIOA study. For instance, table A3.2. illustrates the 

growth period lengths used for winter wheat in the 

Zambezi River Basin. 

A3.2.2 Selecting corresponding Kc 

coefficients for growth stages of crop 

Changes in vegetation and groundcover consequentially 

mean that the crop coefficient, Kc, varies 

during the growing period. The trends in Kc during 

the growing period are represented in the crop coefficient 

curve. Only three values for Kc are required 

to describe and construct the crop coefficient curve: 

the initial stage (Kc ini 

), the mid-season stage (Kc mid 

), 

and at the end of the late season stage (Kc end 

) values. 

The Kc for the development period is assumed 

to increase linearly from the values Kc ini 

and Kc mid 

. 

The Kc values are given in the FAO Irrigation and 

Drainage Paper 56, and the values applied in the 

Table A3.2. Crop calendar for winter wheat 

Sowing Initial Development Middle Late 

Crop 

date period period period period 

Winter wheat May-10 30 30 40 30 

114

Annex 3. Estimating Crop-Related Water Requirements 

Figure A3.1. Crop calendar in Zambia 

Crop calendar of Zambia 

Wheat 

Maize 

Millet 

Sorghum 

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP 

OCT NOV DEC 

Sowing Harvest © FAO 1999 

MSIOA model are presented in table A3.3. with 

corresponding growth periods. 

The sowing date is highlighted in red. The harvest 

date is highlighted in yellow. The summer crops 

(cultivated during the wet season with supplemental 

irrigation if necessary) are highlighted in pink. 

Of course, the crop calendars, the growth 

lengths, and/or the crop coefficient may vary somewhat 

from one place to another in the Zambezi River 

Basin, or from one crop variety to another; however, 

in the interest of simplification the table above is 

used for the entire study. 

A3.3 Rainfall 

The mean monthly rainfall per subbasin is given in 

the ZACPLAN Sector Study 3, Patterns of Land Use 

and Conservation Practices (table A3.4.). However, 

as explained in the Zambian National Water Resources 

Master Plan, the effective rainfall that can be 

used by crops is lower than the actual total rainfall. 

During high rainfall events (for instance, when the 

monthly rainfall exceeds 125 mm), a significant part 

of the rain will not percolate. The formula used to 

calculate the effective rainfall (Peff) from the total 

rainfall (Ptot) is the following: 

If Ptot is less than 250 mm, Peff = 

Ptot x (125–0.2 x Ptot)/125 

If Ptot is more than 250 mm, Peff = 125 + 0.1 x Ptot. 

The monthly effective rainfall per subbasin is illustrated 

in table A3.5. 

A3.4 Efficiency of Irrigation 

Schemes 

For a given decade and for a given month, the crop 

water requirements from irrigation are derived using 

the following formula, which includes different 

coefficients described in above: 

Crop.irrigation.water.need = Kc x ETo – Peff. 

But because of losses along the waterway, from 

the scheme’s intake to the crop, a lot more water 

needs to be withdrawn at the intake of the irrigation 

scheme water to bring the required irrigation 

water to the crop. There are losses for the water 

conveyance in the primary channel, for the water 

distribution in the secondary network, and for the 

field application by run-off or percolation. Consequently, 

as detailed in table A3.6, the efficiency 

figures used in this study are 39 percent and 50 

percent for schemes under gravity or pressurized 

distribution, respectively. These figures were found 

in various reports concerning irrigation schemes all 

over the Zambezi River Basin. 

115


Table A3.3. Kc for each crop considered in this study, by decades 

Kc Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

Winter wheat 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.675 0.85 1.025 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.6 0.6 0.6 

Summer maize 0.97 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.825 0.55 0.55 0.275 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.58 0.71 0.84 

Winter maize 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.58 0.71 0.84 0.97 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.825 0.55 0.55 0.275 

Summer Rice 1.088 1.125 1.163 1.163 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.05 1.05 1.05 

Winter rice 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.088 1.125 1.163 1.163 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.8 0.8 0.8 

Sugarcane 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 

Vegetables 

(tomatoes) 

0.7 0.7 0.7 0.78 0.86 0.94 1.02 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.85 0.6 0.6 0.3 

Soybeans 0.775 0.963 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.4 0.4 0.588 

Beans 0.4 0.4 0.588 0.775 0.963 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 0.35 0.35 

Tea 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.963 0.975 0.988 1 1 1 

Coffee 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 

Summer cotton 0.775 0.9 1.025 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.325 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.525 0.65 

Winter cotton 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.525 0.65 0.775 0.9 1.025 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.325 

Tobacco 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.675 0.85 1.025 

Banana 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 

Citrus 0.74 0.73 0.72 0.71 0.7 0.69 0.68 0.67 0.66 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 

Pasture 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Other 

(Tomatoes) 

0.7 0.7 0.7 0.78 0.86 0.94 1.02 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.85 0.6 0.6 0.3 

Sorghum 0.66 0.79 0.92 1.05 1.05 1.05 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.53 

116


Table A3.4. Mean monthly effective rainfall per subbasin according to ZACPLAN Sector Study 3 (mm) 


Kabompo (13) 254 216 195 50 3 1 0 1 6 46 178 259 1,209 

Upper Zambezi (12) 224 200 195 63 5 1 0 1 12 71 165 228 1,165 

Lungúe Bungo (11) 235 202 184 68 7 1 0 2 15 80 163 224 1,181 

Luanginga (10) 232 212 171 67 6 1 0 1 9 58 148 220 1,125 

Barotse (9) 195 187 113 28 2 1 0 0 2 26 90 191 835 

Cuando/Chobe (8) 157 125 112 53 5 0 0 1 8 37 85 121 704 

Kafue (7) 241 196 134 32 5 1 0 0 1 24 121 256 1,011 

Kariba (6) 164 139 76 24 5 1 0 0 2 18 68 156 653 

Luangwa (5) 236 224 147 30 3 1 0 1 0 6 98 222 968 

Mupata (4) 179 159 90 18 3 1 0 0 1 17 84 172 724 

Shire River – Lake Malawi/Niassa/Nyasa 

(3) 

240 209 243 136 29 18 11 5 5 16 79 200 1,191 

Tete (2) 197 180 108 26 7 5 3 3 3 12 78 174 796 

Zambezi Delta (1) 243 180 173 71 45 37 28 27 15 20 71 164 1,074 

Finally, for a given irrigation scheme, the water 

abstraction requirement in the rivers, for instance, 

is equal to the crops irrigation water need divided 

by the total scheme efficiency. The requirements 

for water abstractions are then calculated for each 

decade, each crop, and each subbasin in the Zambezi 

River Basin. The obtained values were compared 

with the values found in various reports, including 

all the reports used for the estimation of the current 

irrigation area and for the estimation of the areas of 

the identified irrigation projects. Taking into account 

the fact that most of the irrigation areas of the Kafue 

and Luangwa subbasins are under pressurized 

irrigation, the comparisons are very satisfactory. 

Table A3.7. illustrates the abstraction requirement 

for one hectare of each crop for a gravity scheme in 

the Zambezi Delta subbasin. 

117


Table A3.5. Mean monthly effective rainfall per subbasin (mm) 


Kabompo (13) 150 141 134 46 3 1 0 1 6 43 127 151 804 

Upper Zambezi (12) 144 136 134 57 5 1 0 1 12 63 121 145 818 

Lungúe Bungo (11) 147 137 130 61 7 1 0 2 15 70 120 144 832 

Luanginga (10) 146 140 124 60 6 1 0 1 9 53 113 143 795 

Barotse (9) 134 131 93 27 2 1 0 0 2 25 77 133 624 

Cuando/Chobe (8) 118 100 92 49 5 0 0 1 8 35 73 98 578 

Kafue (7) 148 135 105 30 5 1 0 0 1 23 98 151 696 

Kariba (6) 121 108 67 23 5 1 0 0 2 17 61 117 522 

Luangwa (5) 147 144 112 29 3 1 0 1 0 6 83 143 668 

Mupata (4) 128 119 77 17 3 1 0 0 1 17 73 125 560 


Malawi/Niassa/Nyasa (3) 

148 139 149 106 28 17 11 5 5 16 69 136 828 

Tete (2) 135 128 89 25 7 5 3 3 3 12 68 126 604 

Zambezi Delta (1) 149 128 125 63 42 35 27 26 15 19 63 121 812 

Table A3.6. Efficiency of irrigation schemes in the 


Efficiency Gravity Pivot/sprinkler 

Conveyance efficiency 80% 80% 

Distribution efficiency 70% 90% 

Application efficiency 70% 70% 

Total scheme efficiency 39% 50% 

118


Table A3.7. Abstraction requirement for one hectare of each crop using a gravity scheme in the Zambezi Delta subbasin (mm) 

Crop Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total 

Wheat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 11 9 22 35 63 77 77 102 102 40 61 61 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,688 

Summer Maize 8 26 26 26 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 13 13 0 0 15 1,650 

Winter Maize 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 6 15 25 35 58 69 69 91 91 63 54 54 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,639 

Summer Rice 24 30 35 33 38 38 42 42 42 30 30 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 44 44 5,468 

Winter Rice 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 62 51 54 56 74 74 77 102 102 102 133 85 85 105 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12,223 

SugarCane 5 5 5 7 7 7 11 11 11 46 46 46 53 53 53 43 43 43 56 56 56 76 76 76 103 103 103 127 127 127 86 86 86 30 30 30 19,327 

Vegetables 

(Tomatoes) 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 20 20 37 44 52 48 55 55 69 69 69 91 91 91 121 121 121 112 74 74 0 0 0 0 0 0 14,546 

Soybeans 0 7 33 32 32 32 35 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,065 

Beans 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 15 30 57 73 73 96 96 14 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,882 

Tea 12 12 12 13 13 13 17 17 17 51 51 51 57 57 57 47 47 47 61 61 61 81 81 81 109 109 109 127 127 127 88 90 92 37 37 37 21,097 

Coffee 19 19 19 20 20 20 23 23 23 56 56 56 62 62 62 51 51 51 65 65 65 86 86 86 115 115 115 142 142 142 101 101 101 44 44 44 23,541 

Summer Cotton 0 0 16 32 32 32 35 35 0 14 14 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 2,362 

Winter Cotton 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 11 20 42 52 63 96 96 96 127 127 67 82 82 82 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,478 

Tobacco 40 40 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 20 0 16 41 2,175 

Banana 0 0 0 1 1 1 5 5 5 41 41 41 48 48 48 39 39 39 52 52 52 71 71 71 97 97 97 120 120 120 79 79 79 23 23 23 17,266 

Citrus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 14 14 25 25 25 20 20 20 40 40 40 55 55 55 79 79 79 97 97 97 57 57 57 2 2 2 11,679 

Pasture 12 12 12 13 13 13 17 17 17 51 51 51 57 57 57 47 47 47 61 61 61 81 81 81 109 109 109 135 135 135 94 94 94 37 37 37 21,434 

Other 

(Tomatoes) 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 20 20 37 44 52 48 55 55 69 69 69 91 91 91 121 121 121 112 74 74 0 0 0 0 0 0 14,546 

Sorghum 0 0 1 20 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 600 

Note: The shaded fields indicate length of irrigation period. 

119

Annex 4. 

Modeling Partial Restoration 

of Natural Flooding in 

the Zambezi Delta 

Modeling the economic impacts of partial restoration of natural floods 

in the Zambezi Delta rests upon various studies and assessments, 

especially on the work performed by Beilfuss and Brown (2006) and 

Turpie and others (1999). To assess the economic impact, modeling 

is done in a set of steps as described below. 

A4.1 Five steps of assessing impact 

of partial restoration of natural 

floods 

Step 1: Assessing current economic value of the Delta 

Wetlands. 

Table A4.1. summarizes the evaluation done by Turpie and others 

(1999) which is furthermore detailed in volume 3. 

Step 2: Modeling partial restoration of natural flooding in 

the scenarios. 

In 2006, Beilfuss and Brown studied several scenarios of partial restoration 

of natural flooding. The flow changes that were evaluated 

for these categories encompass a mixture of changes in magnitude 

of floods, changes in flood duration, and changes in timing of flood 

(e.g., the month of occurrence). The scenarios used in the present 

study are listed in table A4.2. 

The differences in the series of scenarios that incorporate restoration 

of natural flooding correspond to increases in flood magnitudes 

(4,500; 7,000; and 10,000 m 3 per second) over a time period of four 

consecutive weeks in December and in February. Figure A4.1. illustrates 

that floods in December would occur at an earlier time of the 

year than historically observed floods (including the current situation). 

The generation of early floods in December through releases from 

Cahora Bassa Dam would provide the possibility of better control of 

the potential inflows reaching Lake Cahora Bassa in great quantities 

between January and March. 

121


Table A4.1. Economic and financial values of direct uses in the Zambezi Delta (current situation) 

Direct use 

Financial gross 

value 

Financial net 

value 

USD (1999) 

Economic gross 

value 

Economic net 

value 

Factor of 

conversion 


value 

Financial net 

value 

USD (2008) 


value 

Economic net 

value 

Livestock 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 

Crops (except commercial 

agriculture) 

7,433,581 7,422,633 7,442,792 3,788,869 1.25 9,295,693 9,282,003 9,307,211 4,737,981 

Freshwater and estuarine fish 4,995,365 4,791,841 5,994,438 5,225,777 1.25 6,246,704 5,992,197 7,496,045 6,534,834 

Crustacean (prawns, crabs) 1,125,814 1,075,295 1,350,977 1,226,724 1.25 1,407,830 1,344,656 1,689,397 1,534,018 

Wild animals including birds 27,083 11,964 27,083 4,570 1.25 33,867 14,961 33,867 5,715 

Mangroves 127,787 107,668 153,345 107,149 1.25 159,798 134,639 191,758 133,990 

Palms 581,159 566,071 661,937 579,436 1.25 726,739 707,872 827,752 724,585 

Palms value added 116,068 79,881 123,414 41,757 1.25 145,143 99,891 154,329 52,217 

Reeds and papyrus 108,229 66,805 108,229 43,862 1.25 135,340 83,540 135,340 54,849 

Papyrus value added 479,506 179,788 479,506 118,685 1.25 599,622 224,825 599,622 148,416 

Floodplain grasses 361,648 360,516 433,978 370,532 1.25 452,241 450,825 542,689 463,350 

Wild food plants 252,432 251,157 252,432 240,001 1.25 315,666 314,072 315,666 300,121 

Clay 4,808 4,808 4,808 3,939 1.25 6,012 6,012 6,012 4,926 

Total 15,613,480 14,918,427 17,032,939 11,751,301 19,524,657 18,655,493 21,299,690 14,695,002 

*Value of Current situation (USD in 2008) 

122

Annex 4. Modeling Partial Restoration of Natural Flooding in the Zambezi Delta 

Table A4.2. Key characteristics of scenarios incorporating 

partial restoration of natural flooding 

Project 

code 

Zambezi 

Delta flow 

(m 3 /s) Timing Duration 

Step 3: Assessing benefits of partial 

restoration of natural flooding. 

Downstream 

tributary 

inflow (m 3 /s) 

AF4 4,500 Dec 4 weeks 800 

AF1 4,500 Feb 4 weeks 1,750 

AF5 7,000 Dec 4 weeks 800 

AF2 7,000 Feb 4 weeks 1,750 

AF6 10,000 Dec 4 weeks 800 

AF3 10,000 Feb 4 weeks 1,750 

The target situation (TS) of restoration of natural 

floods in the Zambezi Delta has been estimated 

by Beilfuss and Brown (2006) and is reproduced in 

table A4.3. The economic value of the target situation 

was assessed by applying a multiplier of 6.25 

to the value of the direct uses of the Zambezi Delta 

Wetlands encountered in the current situation (CS) 

(results of the first step). 

Step 4: Assessing the relation between 

scenarios and target situation. 

The contribution of the flood restoration scenarios 

to achieving the target situation in the Delta is 

summarized in table A4.5. for each water user/ 

beneficiary use. For example, Scenario 2 achieves 

a contribution of 17 percent of the target situation 

for the benefit item “estuarine ecology and coastal 

fisheries.” 

Step 5: Assessing the additional economic 

values of each Scenario. 

In order to define the total values of each flood 

restoration scenario, the additional economic 

values were assessed as summarized in table 

A4.6. below. They apply the same percentage of 

contribution to the target situation for each type 

of benefits as defined in the previous step of the 

assessment. The estimated total economic benefits 

for each scenario were computed using the 

economic model and compared with the losses 

associated with the corresponding Cahora Bassa 

Dam management modes (e.g., losses in hydropower 

production). 

Figure A4.1. Comparison of historic and current flooding in the Zambezi Delta 

Zambezi flow (m 3 /s) 

8000 

7000 

6000 

5000 

4000 

3000 

2000 

1000 

0 

DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN 

Month 

Historic Current 


123


Table A4.3. Target of restoring natural flooding in the Zambezi Delta 

Current situation 

1. Activities related to water availability in dry season 

Irrigated commercial 

agriculture 

(Sugarcane, 

vegetables, fruit 

trees, rice, etc.) 

Small-scale for food 

crops (maize, rice, 

sorghum, etc.) 

Small-scale for cash 

crops (cotton, sugar) 

12,000 ha (10,000 ha of 

sugarcane) 

1,5 ha/family for 6,000 

families = 9,000 ha (almost no 

irrigation, today) 

0.8 ha of cotton/family for 6,000 

families = 4,800 ha and 3.8 ha 

of sugarcane/family for 6,000 

families = 22,800 ha (almost no 

irrigation, today) 

2. Activities related to extension of flooded area 

Natural flooded rice 0,8 ha/family for 

6,000 families = 4,800 ha 

Estuarine/coastal 

fisheries 

Target situation 

(2035) 

70,000 ha with 

requirement of 100 m 3 /s 

(October) 


families = 24,000 ha 

with some irrigation 



with irrigation 



Shrimp: 10,000 t/yr Shrimp: 12,000– 

14,000 t/yr 

Freshwater fishery Minimum of 10,000 t/yr – 

Potential of 16,500 t/yr 

(if 15 kg/ha for 1.100.000 ha) 

Livestock 

5,000 heads of cattle (2,000 in 

Chinde + 2,000 in Marromeu + 

500 in Mopeia + 500 in Caia) 

Comparison 

between current 

and target 

situation 

Multiplied by 5.85 



Multiplied by 4 


Comments 

These abstractions were included 

in the HEC-model to assess if water 

requirement during the dry season 

are satisfied 

These abstractions (in target 

situation) are included in the 

HEC-model 

These abstractions (in target 

situation) are included in the 

HEC-model 

Area proportional to the total 

flooded area 

Productivity of species proportional 

to the total flooded area (will 

also indicate productivity of other 

species reliant on mangroves) 

Around 15,000 tons Multiplied by 1.5 Production proportional to the total 

flooded area 

50,000 heads of cattle 

(conditions of preregulation) 


Number of cattle proportional 

to area of pasture which is 

proportional to flooded area 

Large mammals Buffalo = 3,056 Buffalo = 20,000 Multiplied by 6.67 Number of animals proportional 

Waterbuck = 168 Waterbuck = 15,000 Multiplied by 90 to area of pasture which is 

proportional to flooded area 

Hippo = 17 Hippo = 2,000 Multiplied by 118 

Zebra = 34 Zebra = 1,500 Multiplied by 44 

Waterbirds Wattled crane < 350 Wattled crane > 400 Multiplied by 4 on 

average 

Spur winged Goose > 6,000 Spur winged Goose = 

10,000 

Goliath Heron < 100 Goliath Heron > 200 

African skimmer: rare African skimmer > 100 

Number of birds proportional to 

flooded area 


124


Table A4.3. Target of restoring natural flooding in the Zambezi Delta (continued) 

Current situation 

Target situation 

(2035) 

Comparison 

between current 

and target 

situation 

Comments 

Floodplain vegetation Mangrove: 1,030 km 2 Mangrove: the same Idem Links to flows on dry and wet 

seasons 

Riparian forest: 80,000 km 2 Riparian forest: the Idem 

Links to flows on wet seasons 

same 

Papyrus-dominated swamp: Papyrus-dominated Idem 


746 km 2 swamp: the same or 

slight increase 

Palm and acacia savanna: 

1,390 km 2 Palm and acacia 

savanna: the same 

Idem 


Water quality 

Groundwater 

recharge (water 

supply) 


Presence of invasive aquatic 

vegetation—data on extent of 

problem is lacking 

Sedimentation: reduced if 

compared to pre-regulation 

situation 

Polluted effluent discharge: had 

increased with Sena factory 

Concerns over eutrophication 

as a result of effluents from the 

Sena factory 

Salinity intrusion: no more 

flushing but reduction of 

intrusion during dry season 

if compared with regulated 

situation 

Dropping levels of water 

table—data on extent of 

problem is lacking 

Presence of invasive 

aquatic vegetation is 

drastically reduced 

no change 

Polluted effluent 

discharge: restoration of 

natural flooding could 

flush pollution 

Restoration of natural 

flooding (artificial) could 

flush parts of nitrate/ 

phosphate pollution 

Salinity intrusion: 

restoration of natural 

flooding could flush 

brackish waters 

Increase level of water 

table for boreholes 


Insufficient data to set target; 

extent of issues proportional to 

flooded area 

A4.2 Comparing results 

The simulations show that the benefits of partially 

restoring natural flooding equates to approximately 

five to six million US dollars per year. When consulting 

other sources and recognizing the limitations of 

realistically assessing the economic benefits of flood 

restoration in the Zambezi Delta, this figure reflects 

an underestimation. 

As an example, according to Hoguane (1997) and 

Gammelsrød (1996), a slight reduction in hydropower 

output to accommodate increased flows for restoration 

of floods and reduced dry-season flows would 

result in a substantial increase (about 20 percent, or 

1,500 tons per year) in prawn production and harvest. 

Based on current market rates for prawns, the annual 

benefit from improving river flows is potentially $10 

million (Li-EDF-KP Joint Venture Consultants 2001). 

125


Table A4.4. Economic and financial values of direct uses in the Zambezi Delta for the target situation 

Item 


value 

Value of Current situation (USD in 2008) 

Financial net 

value 


value 

Economic net 

value 

Factor of 

conversion 


value 

Value of Target situation (USD in 2008) 

Financial net 

value 


value 

Economic net 

value 

Livestock — — — — 6.25 — — — — 

Crops (except commercial 

agriculture) 

7,433,581 7,422,633 7,442,792 3,788,869 2.8 20,814,027 20,783,372 20,839,818 10,608,833 

Freshwater and estuarine fish 4,995,365 4,791,841 5,994,438 5,225,777 1.5 7,493,048 7,187,762 8,991,657 7,838,666 

Crustacea (prawns, crabs) 1,125,814 1,075,295 1,350,977 1,226,724 1.4 1,576,140 1,505,413 1,891,368 1,717,414 

Wild animals including birds 27,083 11,964 27,083 4,570 35.0 947,905 418,740 947,905 159,950 

Mangroves 127,787 107,668 153,345 107,149 1.0 127,787 107,668 153,345 107,149 

Palms 581,159 566,071 661,937 579,436 1.0 581,159 566,071 661,937 579,436 

Palms value added 116,068 79,881 123,414 41,757 1.0 116,068 79,881 123,414 41,757 

Reeds and papyrus 108,229 66,805 108,229 43,862 1.0 108,229 66,805 108,229 43,862 

Papyrus value added 479,506 179,788 479,506 118,685 1.0 479,506 179,788 479,506 118,685 

Floodplain grasses 361,648 360,516 433,978 370,532 1.0 361,648 360,516 433,978 370,532 

Wild food plants 252,432 251,157 252,432 240,001 1.0 252,432 251,157 252,432 240,001 

Clay 4,808 4,808 4,808 3,939 1.0 4,808 4,808 4,808 3,939 

Total 15,613,480 14,918,427 17,032,939 11,751,301 32,862,756 31,511,981 34,888,396 21,830,223 

Note: The benefits are grouped by color to correspond to the results of the next step of the evaluation. 

126


Table A4.5. Contribution to the target situation for each scenario 

Contribution to the target by activities (in %) 

Zambezi 

Delta flow 

(m 3 /s) 

Cahora 

Bassa 

discharge 


Downstream 

tributary 

inflow 

(m 3 /s) 

N° AF code 

2 AF4 4,500 3,700 Dec 4 weeks 800 0% 33% 17% 10% 25% 0% 0% 18% 27% 30% 15% 0% 10% 0% 12.3% 

4 AF1 4,500 2,750 Feb 4 weeks 1,750 0% 27% 17% 10% 25% 0% 0% 15% 27% 30% 15% 0% 10% 0% 11.6% 

8 AF5 7,000 6,200 Dec 4 weeks 800 –10% 30% 23% 30% 45% 20% 33% 25% 50% 50% 23% 20% 50% –20% 24.6% 

10 AF2 7,000 5,250 Feb 4 weeks 1,750 –10% 27% 20% 30% 45% 20% 33% 25% 50% 50% 23% 20% 50% –20% 24.1% 

14 AF6 10,000 9,200 Dec 4 weeks 800 –20% 7% 23% 30% 75% 20% 53% 35% 80% 70% 33% 45% 90% –20% 34.7% 

16 AF3 10,000 8,250 Feb 4 weeks 1,750 –20% 0% 20% 30% 75% 20% 53% 38% 80% 70% 33% 45% 90% –20% 34.2% 

Combined 

move to 

target 

Commercial 

agriculture 

Small-scale 

agriculture 

Estuarine ecology 

and coastal 

fisheries 

Mangrove 

fisheries 

Freshwater 

fisheries 

Livestock 

Large mammals 

Waterbirds 

Floodplain 

vegetation 

Invasive species 

control 

Natural resources 

availability 

Water quality 

Groundwater 

recharge (water 

supply) 

In-channel 

navigation 


Notes: 

1 

The values provided above are for the estimated move towards (+ve) or away from (-ve) target for the individual delta users that are associated with a set of low regimes optimized for all users overall. 

2 

If the flow regimes were optimized for individual users they move to target would different considerably. For instance, small-scale agriculture would benefit MORE from small predictable floods than from large predictable floods, whereas large mammals 

will benefit more from large predictable floods. 

3 

The details and reasoning associated with these scores is to be found in Beilfuss and Brown (2006) 

4 

The way that the flow regimes optimized means that essentially the above score as the individual DRIFT severity scores given by the specialists for changes and timing of large floods. It is worth noting that these were not intended for use as individual 

scores, and use thereof should go hand-in-hand with the understanding that much of DRIFT’s strength comes from the combination of scores, i.e., these individual scores would be assigned low confidence. Furthermore, it was never the intention of the 

specialists that their scores be sued individually, and thus great care should be taken in how these scores are presented. 

5 

Intellectual property rights for these data reside with Dr Richard Beilfuss 

6 

Colors in the column correspond to the ones in Value_TS sheet 

127


Table A4.6. Economic and financial net value of restoration of natural flooding 

AF 

code 

Zambezi Delta 

flow (m 3 /s) 

Economic Value 

Cahora Bassa 

discharge 


Downstream 

tributary inflow 

(m 3 /s) 

Small-scale 

agriculture 

Additional annual economic net value generated by each scenario (in USD) 

Mangrove 

fisheries 

Freshwater 

and estuarine 

fisheries 

Large mammals 

and water birds 

Floodplain 

vegetation 

Natural 

resources 

availability 

Total (USD) 

AF4 4,500 3,700 Dec 4 weeks 800 3,536,278 171,741 1,633,055 13,996 293,594 60,657 5,709,321 

AF1 4,500 2,750 Feb 4 weeks 1,750 2,829,022 171,741 1,633,055 11,996 293,594 60,657 5,000,065 

AF5 7,000 6,200 Dec 4 weeks 800 3,182,650 515,224 2,678,211 45,986 550,490 90,986 7,063,547 

AF2 7,000 5,250 Feb 4 weeks 1,750 2,829,022 515,224 2,547,566 45,986 550,490 90,986 6,579,274 

AF6 10,000 9,200 Dec 4 weeks 800 707,256 515,224 3,854,011 69,978 880,783 131,424 6,158,676 

AF3 10,000 8,250 Feb 4 weeks 1,750 — 515,224 3,723,366 71,978 880,783 131,424 5,322,775 

Financial Value 

AF4 4,500 3,700 Dec 4 weeks 800 6,927,791 150,541 1,497,450 36,640 293,616 77,345 8,983,383 

AF1 4,500 2,750 Feb 4 weeks 1,750 5,542,233 150,541 1,497,450 31,406 293,616 77,345 7,592,591 

AF5 7,000 6,200 Dec 4 weeks 800 623,012 451,624 2,455,819 120,388 550,530 116,018 4,317,391 

AF2 7,000 5,250 Feb 4 weeks 1,750 5,542,233 451,624 2,336,022 120,388 550,530 116,018 9,116,815 

AF6 10,000 9,200 Dec 4 weeks 800 1,385,558 451,624 3,533,983 183,199 880,848 167,581 6,602,793 

AF3 10,000 8,250 Feb 4 weeks 1,750 — 451,624 34,141,877 188,433 880,848 167,581 35,830,363 

128


In addition, Anderson and others (1990), Goodman 

(1992), and Chande and Dutton (1997) project 

a substantial economic return, in terms of trophy 

hunting and meat production, on restoring healthy 

populations of Cape buffalo and other game species 

that were decimated by illegal hunting following 

the desiccation of the floodplain grasslands below 

the dam. They estimated the capital value of the 

current standing crop of major herbivore species in 

the Marromeu Complex at more than $13 million. 

According Hoguane (1997) and Gammelsrød 

(1996), a very conservative estimate of the value of 

restored flooding in the Zambezi Delta would be 

on the order of $20 million annually, and this does 

not include the economic benefits of the improved 

flooding conditions for flood recession agriculture, 

floodplain grazing at the end of the dry season, fisheries 

productivity, use of various natural resources, 

groundwater access and water supply, and other 

activities. 

A4.3 Estimating the impact 

on other wetlands in the 


The simulation done in the MSIOA, attempted to 

estimate the economic value of the reduced inflows 

to the Barotse Floodplains, the Kafue Wetlands, the 

Luangwa and Busanga swamps, and Lower Shire 

River Wetlands. In the development scenarios, 

inflows are reduced due to the additional storage 

of water (creation of new reservoirs) and/or an 

increasing amount of abstraction upstream of the 

wetland areas. 

The methodology is based on the estimated 

reduction of inflows to the wetland areas during the 

flood period. The periods and mean flows currently 

reaching the wetlands during the flood period are 

illustrated in table A4.7. 

The method of calculation is illustrated in table 

A4.8. below, using some simulated data in the “scenario 

tested” column. 

Table A4.7. Flood periods and mean inflows 

Flows in Current Situation (m 3 /s) 

Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr 

Barotse — — 1,324.8 2,398.5 3,100 

Kafue Flat — — 900 900 — 

Luangwa — — 1,200 1,300 — 

Zambezi 3,375 4,395 5,470 — — 

Lower 

Shire 

— — 698 730 654 

Table A4.8. Estimated reduction in value, per water use in wetlands 

Total Inflow in flood period (mm 3 ) 

Current value in 2008 

(USD/year) 

Reduction of value 

(USD/year) 

Wetlands 

Flood 

period 

Current 

situation 

Scenario 

tested Reduction 

Reduction 

(in %) Financial Economic Financial Economic 

Barotse Feb–April 17,664 15,500 2,164 12% 13,973,087 10,813,074 1,712,137 1,324,937 

Kafue Flat Feb–March 4,588 4,300 288 6% — 33,931,774 — 2,128,872 

Luangwa Feb–March 6,385 6,000 385 6% — 13,010,981 — 784,454 

Zambezi Dec–Feb 34,045 32,000 2,045 6% 14,695,002 18,655,493 882,513 1,120,361 

Lower Shire Feb–April 5,337 5,000 337 6% 29,843,183 24,827,427 1,886,016 1,569,032 

Total 4,480,665 6,927,656 

Source for the factor of conversion: www.measuringworth.com/calculators/uscompare/result.php until 2007 (2,5% of inflation between 2007 and 2008) 

Factor of conversion between USD of 2001 and 2008: 1,200 

129

Annex 5. 

Estimated Impact of Climate 

Change on the Zambezi 

River basin by 2030 

The potential impact of climate change was simulated in Scenario 9 for 

five major subregions of the Zambezi River Basin. These are: Upper 

Zambezi, Kafue River Basin, Middle Zambezi, Shire River and Lake 

Malawi/Niassa/Nyasa subbasin, and the Lower Zambezi Delta. The 

parameters that additionally simulated were percentage change in 

Basin yield in 2030, and mean increase in air temperature (increase 

in 1.5°C). The results as produced by the model are reproduced in 

table A5.1. The estimated increase in air temperature further required 

a reassessment of crop-related irrigation requirements. Given the 

uncertainties associated with climate change projections, this analysis 

should be viewed with caution. 

All inflows included in the river/reservoir system analysis model 

were modified according to the changes in the subbasin yield presented 

in table A5.1. The effect of temperature increase on open water evaporation 

(OWE) was estimated for the reservoirs, and the resulting increase 

in OWE was calculated with the Penman-Monteith equation (Maidment 

1993). Non-regulated inflows into most reservoirs—Batoka Gorge, Lake 

Mphanda Nkuwa and Kafue Gorge Lower (all projected); and Lake 

Kariba, Itezhi Tezhi reservoir, Kafue Flats, Kafue Gorge Upper, Lake 

Cahora Bassa, and Lake Malawi/Niassa/Nyasa—were also estimated. 

OWE was calculated from the global climatological dataset CRU TS- 

2.1 available on the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of 

East Anglia website (Mitchell and Jones 2005). For the climate change 

Scenario 9, OWE was recalculated from maximum and minimum daily 

temperature increased by 1.5°C, vapor pressure, and cloud cover for the 

months of October 1962 through September 2002. Only the direct impact 

of temperature increase was considered in the calculation of OWE. Other 

changes in climate drivers (e.g., barometric pressure change, water vapor 

saturation pressure change, wind speed, air moisture, cloud cover 

change and precipitation change) were not simulated in the calculation 

of OWE as the necessary data was not available or sufficient. 

A5.1 FAO methodology for 

determining evapotranspiration 

In the early 1970s, FAO developed a practical procedure to estimate 

crop water requirements, which has become a widely accepted 

131


Table A5.1. Estimated impact of climate change in the Zambezi River Basin by 2030 

% change in 2030 

Subregion Basin yield Irrigation deficit 

Upper Zambezi –16 13 

Kafue subbasin –34 21 

Lower Zambezi –24 17 

Shire River and Lake Malawi/Niassa/Nyasa –14 15 

Zambezi Delta –13 27 

Assumptions and definitions Data assumption Source 

Parameter % change from historic data Climate Research Unit (CRU): 19610–90 

Method Weighted average U.S. Geological Survey (USGS): class 4 catchment area 

Emission scenario A1B IPCC 

Global Circulation Model Midrange of 23 models As assumed through modeling. 

Air temperature 1.5 degree Celsius (for evaporation estimates) As assumed through modeling. 

Source: World Bank 2009. 

Note: The emission scenario is based on the IPCC projections. 

standard, in particular for irrigation studies. Since 

the publication of the methodology as FAO Irrigation 

and Drainage Paper 24, new concepts and advances 

in research made a review and revision necessary. 

A consortium of experts organized by FAO in 

1990 recommended the adoption of the Penman- 

Monteith combination method as a new standard 

for ETo and advised on procedures for calculation 

of the various parameters. On the recommendations 

of the expert consultation, reference is made 

to the Report of the Expert Consultation. 12 Revised 

procedures were developed by FAO in cooperation 

with an international working group of high-level 

experts to estimate crop evapotranspiration based 

on the Penman-Monteith approach. Details on the 

revised calculation procedures are described in 

the Report of the Proceedings of the FAO Expert 

Consultation. 13 

Defining ETo as the rate of evapotranspiration 

from a hypothetical crop with an assumed crop 

height of 12 centimeters, a fixed-canopy resistance 

of 70 sm-1 and an albedo of 0.23, closely resembling 

the evapotranspiration from an extensive surface 

of green grass of uniform height, actively growing, 

completely shading the ground, and not short of 

water, the estimation of the ETo can be determined 

with the combination formula based on the Penman- 

Monteith approach. The complex formula determining 

the ETo can be written as: 

0.408 ∆(R 

900 

n– G) + γ U2 

(e 

a 

–e 

T + 273 

ETo 

= 

∆ + γ (1 + 0.34 U ) 

ETo = reference crop evapotranspiration [mm.d –1 ] 

Rn = net radiation at crop surface [MJ.m –2 .d –1 ] 

G = soil heat flux [MJ.m –2 .d –1 ] 

T = average temperature [°C] 

U 2 

= wind speed measured at two m height [m.s –1 ] 

(e a 

-e d 

) = vapor pressure deficit [kPa] 

Δ = slope vapor pressure curve [kPa.°C –1 ] 

Γ = psychrometric constant [kPa.°C –1 ] 

900 = conversion factor 

This formula reveals the relation between ETo 

and mean temperature. All the various complex 

parameters may be developed and simplified so 

2 

d 

) 

12 

ftp://ftp.fao.org/agl/aglw/et0-rev/eto-rept.zip 

13 

ftp://ftp.fao.org/agl/aglw/et0-rev/eto-ann5.zip 

132

Annex 5. Estimated Impact of Climate Change on the Zambezi River basin by 2030 

Table A5.2. Increase in water requirement at selected CLIMWAT stations with 1.5°C increase in temperature (%) 

Station Subbasin Country Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

Chinde Zambezi Delta Mozambique 3.9% 4.0% 4.1% 4.3% 4.7% 4.8% 4.8% 4.6% 4.3% 4.1% 3.9% 3.8% 

(1) 

Tete Tete (2) Mozambique 3.5% 3.5% 3.7% 3.9% 4.1% 4.2% 4.2% 4.0% 3.8% 3.5% 3.4% 3.4% 

Lilongwe Shire River Malawi 3.7% 3.7% 3.8% 4.1% 4.2% 4.3% 4.2% 4.1% 3.9% 3.7% 3.6% 3.6% 

and Lake 

Malawi/ 

Niassa/Nyasa 

(3) 

No Station Mupata (4) – 3.6% 3.6% 3.8% 4.0% 4.1% 4.4% 4.4% 4.2% 3.8% 3.5% 3.5% 3.6% 

Mpika Luangwa (5) Zambia 3.5% 3.5% 3.8% 4.0% 4.1% 4.4% 4.3% 4.3% 3.7% 3.4% 3.5% 3.5% 

Harare Kariba (6) Zimbabwe 3.9% 3.9% 4.0% 4.1% 4.3% 4.6% 4.6% 4.4% 4.1% 3.8% 3.8% 3.9% 

Kafue Kafue (7) Zambia 3.5% 3.6% 3.7% 3.9% 4.0% 4.2% 4.3% 3.9% 3.7% 3.3% 3.3% 3.4% 

No Station Cuando/Chobe – 3.5% 3.5% 3.6% 3.8% 3.9% 3.9% 3.8% 3.5% 3.3% 3.4% 3.5% 3.5% 

(8) 

Mongu Barotse (9) Zambia 3.6% 3.7% 3.8% 3.9% 4.0% 4.1% 4.1% 3.8% 3.5% 3.2% 3.3% 3.4% 

No Station Luanginga – 3.5% 3.5% 3.6% 3.8% 3.9% 3.9% 3.8% 3.5% 3.3% 3.4% 3.5% 3.5% 

(10) 

No Station Lungúe Bungo – 3.5% 3.5% 3.6% 3.8% 3.9% 3.9% 3.8% 3.5% 3.3% 3.4% 3.5% 3.5% 

(11) 

Luena Upper Angola 3.5% 3.5% 3.6% 3.8% 3.9% 3.9% 3.8% 3.5% 3.3% 3.4% 3.5% 3.5% 

Zambezi (12) 

Kabompo Kabompo (13) Zambia 3.3% 3.2% 3.3% 3.5% 3.5% 3.6% 3.5% 3.1% 2.8% 2.9% 3.1% 3.2% 

133


that the ETo can be expressed as a function of the 

latitude, altitude, average temperature, daily relative 

humidity, wind speed, and sun hours. To verify 

the step-by-step calculation procedures of the FAO 

Penman-Monteith approach, a spreadsheet was developed. 

14 Both this spreadsheet and the CLIMWAT 

database were used in this study to determine the 

impacts of a change in average temperature on the 

ETo. The main assumption is that the mean temperature 

is the only parameter to change, so that 

the mean daily relative humidity, the wind speed, 

and the hours of sunlight are assumed to remain 

constant when temperature increases. 

A5.2 Calculations of ETo 

for a temperature increase 

of +1.5°C 

Calculations of variations of ETo were done using 

data from CLIMWAT stations in the ZRB and for 

simulating temperature increases of +1.5°C. Where 

more than one CLIMWAT stations was available in 

one subbasin, one station of was chosen to reflect 

the impact of temperature increase over the mean 

ETo of that subbasin. 

No CLIMWAT station was found for the Mupata 

subbasin (4) so that the variation of ETo was 

taken to be equal to the mean of the variations chosen 

for the adjacent subbasins (2, 5, 6, and 7). No 

CLIMWAT station was identified for the Cuando/ 

Chobe subbasin (8), Luanginga subbasin (10) and for 

the Lungúe Bungo subbasin (11). Hence, the variation 

in ETo over these subbasins were taken to equal 

the variation of ETo in the adjacent Upper Zambezi 

subbasin (12). Table A5.2. shows the CLIMWAT stations 

whose data was selected and analyzed. 

A5.3 New evapotranspiration 

table 

From the data collected and the generated new 

variation table, it was possible to calculate a new 

Table A5.3. Increased water requirement at select CLIMWAT stations when temperature increases by 1.5°C 

(Scenarios 8 and 9) 

Irrigation water abstraction Scenario 8 Scenario 9 

Subbasin 

Water abstraction 

(‘000 m 3 ) % 

Water abstraction 

(‘000 m 3 ) % 

Kabompo (13) 86,679 1 90,005 1 104 

Upper Zambezi (12) 86,446 1 91,773 1 106 

Lungúe Bungo (11) 7,837 0 8,822 0 113 

Luanginga (10) 97,329 2 101,563 2 104 

Barotse (9) 120,345 2 125,708 2 104 

Cuando/Chobe (8) 5,165 0 5,442 0 105 

Kafue (7) 175,070 3 214,424 3 122 

Kariba (6) 2,616,084 45 2,811,011 44 107 

Luangwa (5) 63,056 1 71,123 1 113 

Mupata (4) 133,313 2 157,042 2 118 

766,639 13 854,791 13 111 

Shire River – Lake Malawi/ 


% compared with 

Scenario 8 

Tete (2) 460,950 8 523,547 8 114 

Zambezi Delta (1) 1,241,288 21 1,317,520 21 106 

Total 5,860,202 100 6,372,771 100 109 

14 

ftp://ftp.fao.org/agl/aglw/et0-rev/fao-pmon.zip 

134

Annex 5. Estimated Impact of Climate Change on the Zambezi River basin by 2030 

ETo so as to also calculate new irrigation water 

abstractions requirements. These are illustrated 

in table A5.3., and show that an increase in temperature 

of 1.5°C results in an annual 10 percent 

increase in irrigation water requirements. Water 

abstractions required by the identified irrigation 

projects in the Shire River and Lake Malawi/Ni- 

assa/Nyasa subbasin downstream of the Lake cannot 

be fully satisfied. Lake outflow is considerably 

reduced as a result of increased temperatures and 

evaporation. At Basin level, the area available for 

average irrigation is reduced from 774,000 hectares 

as simulated in Scenario 8, to 705,000 hectares in 

Scenario 9. 

135

Annex 6. 

Overview of Control Points 

in River/Reservoir Model 

Table A6.1. Control Points and associated abstraction points and projects in River/Reservoir Model 

Country 

Control 

point 

Name 

Irrigation 

abstraction 

point 

Angola 2 Chavuma I.12.01 Sugarcane irrigation project 

Project 

3 Lungúe Bungo I.11.01 Small irrigation development with the Perimetro de Luena model 

4 Luanginga I.10.01 Cazombo/Lumbalo Nginbo rice irrigation project 

6 Cuando I.08.01 n/a 

Botswana 8 Livingston, before Victoria Falls I.06.04 Zambezi Integrated Agro-Commercial Development Project 

Malawi 51 Lower Shire I.03.01 Nchalo Estate extension 

Kalima irrigation scheme 

Mbenderana irrigation scheme 

Mtendere irrigation scheme 

Mlenza irrigation scheme 

Others 

49 Between Tedzani Falls and 

Kapichira Falls 

I.03.02 Shire Valley irrigation project Phase 1 

Shire Valley irrigation project Phase 2 

45 Between Nkula Falls and 

Tedzani Falls 

I.03.04 Bimbi irrigation schemes 

Rehabilitation of Likangala irrigation scheme (WB financed) 

Others 

36 Songwe I.03.06 IFAD floodplain project 

Nkhangwa irrigation scheme development 

40 Lake Malawi/Niassa/Nyasa I.03.09 SSIDS irrigation schemes 

Rehabilitation of Limphansa irrigation scheme (WB financed) 

Development of new small-scale irrigation schemes (WB financed) 

Development of new mini-scale irrigation schemes (WB financed) 

Other potential medium or small irrigation schemes 

43 Lake Malawi/Niassa/Nyasa I.03.11 Lipimbi irrigation scheme 

Nakaleza irrigation scheme 

Chilumba irrigation scheme 


137


Table A6.1. Control Points and associated abstraction points and projects in River/Reservoir Model (continued) 

Country 

Control 

point 

Name 

Irrigation 

abstraction 

point 

Project 

Chigolo irrigation scheme 

Mphere irrigation scheme 

Pemba irrigation scheme 

Kabumbu irrigation scheme 

Chigolo 2 irrigation scheme 

Other potential medium or small irrigation schemes 

Mozambique 29 Cahora Bassa I.02.02 n/a 

30 Between Cahora Bassa and I.02.03 Lipaque irrigation scheme 

Mphanda Nkuwa 

33 Tete I.02.04 M’condezi-Revubue irrigation scheme 

Dam projects (multiple use) 

Rehabilitation of Lembane irrigation scheme 

32 Luenya I.02.06 Luenha irrigation scheme 

52 Upstream Zambezi Delta I.01.01 Sena Sugar Extension – Urema-Zangue irrigation scheme 

Sena Sugar Extension – Mandua irrigation scheme 

Sena Sugar Extension – Inhangoma irrigation scheme 

53 Zambezi Delta I.01.02 Luabo Chinde irrigation scheme 

Ilha Salia Chinde irrigation scheme 

Rehabilitation of Thewe 1 irrigation scheme 

Rehabilitation of Thewe 2 irrigation scheme 

Namibia 7 (8) Caprivi I.08.03 New small/medium irrigation schemes 

Tanzania 34 Rumakali I.03.12 Rehabilitation 

36 Songwe I.03.05 Rehabilitation 

40 Lake Malawi/Niassa/Nyasa 

I.03.08 Rehabilitation 

subbasin 

43 Lake Malawi/Niassa/Nyasa 

I.03.10 Rehabilitation 

subbasin 

Zambia 1 Kabompo I.13.01 Mwombes run-of-river 

Mwinilunga run-of-river 

Kabompo run-of-river 

5 Barotse I.09.01 Nakatoya 

Katima Mulilo run-of-river 

Zambezi Floodplain run-of-river 

Ngamwe Rapid run-of-river 

Manto Rapid run-of-river 

Sioma Rapid run-of-river 

16 Upper Kafue I.07.01 Kampembe farm extension 

Machiya run-of-river 


138

Annex 6: Overview of Control Points in River/Reservoir Model 

Table A6.1. Control Points and associated abstraction points and projects in River/Reservoir Model (continued) 

Country 

Control 

point 

Name 

Irrigation 

abstraction 

point 

Project 

20 Kafue Flats I.07.03 Kafue Sugar extension 

Cotton Development Trust on the Magoye River 

Kaleya smallholders extension 

Nega-Nega project long term 

23 Lower Kafue after Kafue Lower I.07.05 Chiawa Estate extension 

8 Livingstone before Vic Falls I.06.01 Mid-Zambezi Delta agricultural water management for food security 

program 

12 Between Batoka and Kariba I.06.07 Mid-Zambezi Delta agricultural water management for food security 

program 

15 Kariba Dam I.06.11 Nzenga 

Sinazongwe 

25 Lunsemfwa I.05.01 Commercial agriculture development project—Mwomboshi 

Commercial agriculture development project—Mkushi 

26 Upper Luangwa I.05.02 Lundazi Dam irrigation 

24 Mupata I.04.01 Chongwe Dam 

Lusitu 

Kanakantapa (total) 

Zimbabwe 8 Livingstone before Vic Falls I.06.02 Mid-Zambezi agricultural water management for food security programme 

12 Between Batoka and Kariba I.06.08 Mid-Zambezi agricultural water management for food security programme 

13 Gwayi I.06.09 Rehabilitation / optimization of the use of reservoirs – concerning 20% of 


Tshatshani scheme 

14 Sanyati I.06.10 Rehabilitation / optimization of the use of reservoirs – concerning 20% of 


Mazvidadei scheme 

15 Kariba Dam I.06.12 Zambezi Basin irrigation project - short term - current investigations by 

the department of irrigation in the project area 

The Kariba Lakeshore Project - short term 

24 Mupata I.04.02 Rehabilitation / optimization of the use of reservoirs – concerning 20% of 


28 Manyane I.02.01 Mushumbi Pools ARDA Scheme Extension 

Mazvikadei Irrigation Scheme Extension 

Rehabilitation / optimization of the use of reservoirs – concerning 20% of 


32 Luenya I.02.06 Mwenje Nyarumwe Irrigation Scheme 

Rehabilitation / optimization of the use of reservoirs – concerning 20% of 


139

THE WORLD BANK GROUP 

1818 H Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20433 USA

Download - Open Knowledge Repository - World Bank

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?