tanzania agwater solutions
DESCRIPTION
Findings from a study in Tanzania on agricultural water management (AWM) solutions. It presents the findings from case studies, mapping of suitable areas for interventions, scenarios for social and environmental impact, and feedback from stakeholder dialogue.TRANSCRIPT
1
Tanzania
www.awm-solutions.iwmi.org
Project overview, results and recommendations
Researchers and Authors:J. Barrona, S. Cinderby, A. de Bruin, C. De Fraiture, F. C. Kahimba, B. Keraitab, V. Kongoc, H. F. Mahoo, K. D. Mutabazi, W. B. Mbungu, L. Peiser, G. Santinid, C. Stein, H. Tindwa, S.D. Tumbo, Contributors and Editors:W. Ells, A. Evans, M. Giordano, B. Neves, M. Ranawake, D. Vallee
a SEI corresponding authorb IWMI corresponding authorc National dialogue facilitator d FAO corresponding author
2
Introduction to the Slide Deck
This slide deck is intended to be used for background reading and to provide material for oral presentations but it should not be presented in its current form.
For presentations please use the slide deck titled “Tanzania Country Synthesis Presentation”
Neither the slide deck nor presentation are intended to be used in their entirety. They are a resource from which sections can be selected and modified as appropriate for the target audience or the message to be conveyed.
3
Slide Deck Summary
1. Project Overview –aim, scope, approach … p4
2. AWM Solutions for Tanzania… p8
• Why is investment needed and where will it have most impact? … p9
• Improving Productivity of Communal Irrigation Schemes … p13
• Increasing Access to and Benefits from Water Lifting Technologies … p18
• Opportunities to enhance the adoption of Conservation Agriculture … p23
3. Watershed Implications … p31
4. Stakeholder Perspectives and Recommendations … p36
5. Summary … p39
6. Policy Implications … p40
7. Project Publications and References … p41
4
Project Overview—The Context
Smallholder agricultural water management (AWM) is a promising investment option to improve the livelihoods and food security of the rural poor (Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture 2007, AfDB 2007). There are many initiatives by farmers, NGO’s, private sector and government, and there is further potential.
However, despite documented success stories adoption remains slow and limited in scale. Large scale adoption of AWM options that target poor people, especially women, in a sustainable and responsible way, remains a challenge.
• Smallholder AWM often falls between institutional cracks.
• It tends not to address issues of gender and equity.
• AWM is not just about technologies, but also markets, institutions, capacity, enabling infrastructure.
Key questions asked by the project: What, where and how to invest in order to sustainably and cost-effectively achieve the greatest livelihood benefits?
5
Project Overview
The AgWater Solutions Project aims to improve the livelihoods of poor and marginalized smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia through agricultural water management (AWM) solutions.
AWM solutions are identified through research and stakeholder discussions to understand the context, needs and investment opportunities. In total more than 20,000 stakeholders have been interviewed.
An AWM solution is any measure, including technologies, products and practices, that increases or improves AWM knowledge, policies, financing and implementation. It must also:
• Contribute to smallholder livelihoods.
• Benefit women and men equally and not increase income disparities.
• Be cost-effective to implement.
• Be suitable for out-scaling.
• Address resource sustainability.
6
Catalyzing
Implementation
4
Understanding the
AWM Context1
Evaluating and
Piloting AWM
Options
2
Assessing Investment Potential
3
Continual Dialogue, Learning and Adapting
Continual Dialogue, Learning and Adapting
Core: Engagement with primary
stakeholders (e.g. farmers,
policymakers, investors)
Project Approach: From Research to Impact
7
Field StudiesBurkina Faso Ethiopia Ghana Tanzania Zambia India
MP WB
Water capture
Manual well drilling x x
Rainwater harvesting x x x
On-farm water storage x x x
River diversion x
Water storage Small reservoirs x x x x
Groundwater use constraints x x x
water lifting Water lifting technologies x x x x x x
water use Drip irrigation systems x
Practices
Conservation agriculture x
Watershed management x
Inland valleys/bas fond x x
AWM support/ issues
Financing AWM x
Equipment supply chain x
Institutional innovations x x
AWM adoption/Gender issues x x
Assessing options
Comparison of AWM options x
Watershed assessment & scenarios
x x x x
National suitability mapping x x x x x x x
Regional suitability mapping Sub-saharan Africa India
Scope of Work > 400 farmers, dealers, officials interviewed
8
AWM Solutions in Tanzania
9
Why is investment in AWM needed?
The agriculture sector continues to drive economic growth in the country, contributing 45% of the country’s GDP andabout 30% of its export earnings, while employing over 80% of the nation’s workforce. Annually some 5.1 million hectaresare cultivated, of which 85% are under food crops.
The major constraint facing the agriculture sector is falling labor and land productivity due to poor technologies and dependence on rainfall which is unreliable and irregular. Both crops and livestock are adversely affected by periodic droughts.
Irrigation holds the key to stabilizing agricultural production in Tanzania to improve food security, increase farmers’ productivity and incomes, and to produce higher value crops such as vegetables and flowers.
In 2002 there were 1,189 irrigation schemes covering 192,000 ha across the country but less that 10% of the high-medium irrigation potential land is currently irrigated.
Irrigation is a key strategy for growth. Tanzania aims to increase the irrigated area to 7 million ha by 2015 and raise paddy yields from 2 tons/ha to 8 tons/ha.
1991 2001 2008 20150
100000200000300000400000500000600000700000800000900000
1000000Irrigation coverage gap
Traditional-current
Develo
ped a
reas
(ha)
10
Mapping the Livelihood Context
Why are the maps needed?
Livelihood maps can be used to identify where people will benefit most from AWM interventions.
• Different contexts create different needs and require different types of AWM and other investments.
• Different livelihood groups have different attitudes and needs.
• Water is more important for some livelihoods than others.
How were the maps created?
They are based on areas where rural people share relatively homogeneous living conditions. The main criteria used were:
• The predominant source of income (livelihood activities).
• The natural resources available to people and the way they are used.
• The prevailing agro climatic conditions that influence farming activities.
More information about the livelihood and potential mapping can be found on the project website in the livelihood brief http://awm-solutions.iwmi.org/
11
The livelihood zones (LZ) were combined with physical availability of water, presence of target beneficiaries and water as a limiting factor for livelihoods, to produce maps of potential investment for AWM.
This map shows where AWM can be the entry point for improving livelihoods and where to prioritize investments in AWM to have the most impact on rural livelihoods. High potential areas are those showing the highest potential for AWM investment. These areas are identified on the basis of:
• where water is physically available (without water AWM is impossible);• where the target beneficiaries are mostly located based on rural population density and poverty
rate; • where water is key for livelihoods i.e. the extent to which livelihoods depend on secure access to
sufficient water and where lack of water is a major constraint for rural populations. Factors include population pressure and seasonality of water availability.
Where to invest to have the maximum impact on rural livelihoods
13
Improving Community Managed River Diversions
More information about this case study can be found on the project website http://awm-solutions.iwmi.org/
14
Improving Community Managed River Diversions
Over 90% of community managed river diversion (CMRD) schemes are ‘traditional’ irrigation schemes initiated and managed by farmers. Infrastructure is poor, yields are low and water use efficiency is 15-30%.
Investing in improvements to existing CMRD irrigation schemes can lead to gains in water productivity and household income.
There are large differences in productivity between farmers in the same irrigation scheme, suggesting that infrastructure is not the only problem. On-farm water management and farming practices could also be improved.
Infrastructure improvements, coupled with a watershed management approach, farmer training, micro-credit and marketing, can contribute to Tanzania’s poverty alleviation and development goals.
1991 2001 2008 20150
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Yield gaps
Current
Expected
Padd
y Yi
elds
(ton
/ha)
Findings are based on literature reviews, a survey of 200 farmers and interviews with community members and officials at all levels.
Mkindo Hembeti Dakawa 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Paddy yields in CMRDs in Mvomero (n=127)
Yiel
ds (t
ons/
ha./
seas
on)
Improved traditional scheme
Unimproved traditional scheme
Formal scheme
15
The Solutions
Expand and improve infrastructure, concentrating on off-takes and main canals. This can be based on models used by IFAD’s smallholder paddy rice irrigation project in semi-arid and marginal areas, and the World Bank’s River Basin Management and Smallholder Irrigation Improvement Project (RBMSIIP).
Improve on-farm management and income by enhancing extension services and offering training in on-farm water management, farming practices, bookkeeping and marketing. Innovative approaches such as practiced by Kilimanjaro Agricultural Training Centre (ATC) show that improving the information given to farmers can lead to yield increases of 30-75%. Farmers who attended farmer schools in rice cultivation conducted by the Mkindo Farmers’ ATC consistently achieve higher yields (by 30-200%) than their peers.
Strengthen micro-credit facilities to enable infrastructure improvements and investment in better farming practices. Options include separating savings and credit cooperative organizations (SACCOs) from the banking system, investing directly in credible SACCOs and enforcing transparent lending terms. A micro-credit organization in Mkindo is experimenting with delayed bulk selling – they give credit at the beginning of the season and farmers repay the debt in bags of paddy. The organization stores the paddy and sells later in the season when prices are higher.
16
What can be Gained?
Improving SchemesFarmers irrigating in improved schemes (Mkindo and Dakawa) earned considerably more than those in unimproved schemes (Hembeti). Irrigation revenues from CMRDs contributed more than 85% of household incomes in irrigating households.
Farmer TrainingKilimanjaro ATC and the TANRICE project found that yields improved in all areas after training. The training program cost US$800-1000 per farmer and took an innovative approach.
Kitivo Kiroka Ilonga Ruanda Sakalilo Titye0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Impact of farmer training on productivity
Before After
Padd
y yi
elds
(ton
s/ha
.)
Income from paddy grown in traditional irrigation schemes
Income (US$/day)
Rainfed farmers Irrigation farmers
Mkindo (improved) 1.61 3.65
Dakawa (improved) 5.16 5.88
Hembeti (unimproved) 0.2 1.64
17
CMRD - Who can Benefit and Where?
Assumed to be a more favorable AWM solution in areas where there is a prevalence of traditional and market oriented small holder farmers
At a 50% adoption rate:
Community managed river diversion schemes could benefit 153,000 – 509,000 farmers. This equates to 2 – 8% of rural households.
The potential application area is 153,000 – 509,000 ha or around 2% of the total agricultural land area.
Biophysical criteria and conditions
Market accessibilityDistance from
perennial rivers Aridity index
High: cropland area < 4h from
markets;Moderate: <8h from markets
Requirement: <1 km from
perennial rivers
High: Dry-subhumid and humid areasModerate:
Semi-arid areas
18
Water Lifting Technologies - Increasing Access and Benefits
More information about this case study can be found on the project website http://awm-solutions.iwmi.org/
19
Water Lifting Technologies - Increasing Access and Benefits
Improving access to motor pumps could reduce the labor requirements of manual irrigation, allow farmers who rely on rain to irrigate and improve efficiency and yield. Since water lifting technologies (WLTs) are usually used to irrigate vegetables in the dry season, if managed well, they could increase farmers’ incomes.
The opportunity
Over 85% of irrigators in Tanzania still use buckets and watering cans. These are useful WLTs but farmers complain about the drudgery and labor requirements.
Many people know about motor pumps and treadle pumps but they do not use them.
Only a small percentage of farmers own motor pumps but in some places many rent pumps (e.g., Lukozi, Lushoto District, 69% of manual irrigators rent pumps).
There may be the possibility to increase access for women. In the sample there were 18 men using WLTs for every one woman and only 7% of the farmers using motor pumps were women.
Yields vary according to location and crop but they are generally higher for motor pump users (e.g., tomatoes 13.3 tons/ha compared to 10.6 tons/ha). Profits are also higher due to higher yields and dry season incomes.
Awareness of WLTs
% of farmers
Region Treadle Pump
Motor Pump Bucket
Tanga (n=1832) 93 98 100
Morogoro (n=1350) 96 100 100
Dodoma (n= 2100) 91 100 100
Dar es Salaam (n= 550) 100 100 100
WLT Ownership
% of farmers
Region Treadle Pump
Motor Pump Bucket
Tanga (n=1832) 1 4 95
Morogoro (n=1350) 4 5 94
Dodoma (n= 2100) 1 10 89
Dar es Salaam (n= 550) 3 5 92
20
What Limits use of WLTs?
CostsEven though the profits from using motor pumps can be greater than treadle pumps and buckets or watering cans, farmers may not be able to invest in them because of the initial costs. 48% of farmers gave this as the reason for not investing in motor pumps. The operational costs, especially fuel, are also a problem.
QualityThere are now more, lower cost, pumps on the market but the quality can be poor and pumps fail within a few months. KnowledgeMany farmers do not have sufficient knowledge to make informed choices about pump size and quality when buying. They also lack technical expertise to maintain their pumps. When other farmers observe pump failure they may decide not to invest in a pump themselves. Income and expenditure on WLTs (per person)
Motor pumps
Treadle pumps
Buckets/watering cans
Average capital cost of pump (US$) 254.87 86.77 3.46
Average capital cost of accessories (US$) 137.04 48.50 0.00
Total 391.91 135.27 3.46
Morogoro
Expenditure (US$/ha) 861.00 737.00 655.00
Revenue (US$/ha) 1809.00 1584.00 1504.00
Profit (US$/ha) 948.00 847.00 790.00
Dodoma
Expenditure (US$/ha) 1190.00 1175.00 1130.00
Revenue (US$/ha) 3464.00 2661.00 2810.00
Profit (US$/ha) 2256.00 1486.00 1680.00
Treadle Pump (n=65)
Motor Pump (n=117)
Manual Bucket (n=114)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Reasons given by farmers for not using WLTs
Water scarcity (%) Pump costs and quality (%)
Tedious
21
The Solutions
Options should be explored for government provision of credit assurance to existing savings and credit cooperative organizations (SACCOs) so that they do not have to be funded by banks and can give more flexible loans.
Pump rental is another option to overcome the high cost of purchasing pumps. Models for this include “irrigation service providers” in which the pump owner rents the pump on a short term basis (e.g., per hour) and is responsible for maintaining the pump and providing technical and agricultural guidance.
Access to quality pumps can be improved by creating and distributing a registry of information on all motor pumps on the market.
Training will be important for extension service providers, farmers and pump dealers. Extension services need to provide information and advice on crops that are typically grown with pumps (i.e., vegetables) and not just on traditional crops and cereals. They should also provide advice on marketing tactics. Farmers should be trained in the selection, use and maintenance of pumps. Pump dealers should be trained to offer advice to farmers about pump selection, maintenance and repair.
22
Motor Pumps - Who can Benefit and Where?
Assumed to be a more favorable AWM solution in areas where there is a prevalence of market oriented small holder farmers
At a 50% adoption rate:
Low cost motor pumps could benefit 532,000 - 781,000 farmers. This equates to 8 – 12% of rural households.
The potential application area is 426,000 – 625,000 ha or 1 - 2% of the total agricultural land area.
23
Conservation Agriculture:
In-situ Water Harvesting and Terracing
More information about this case study can be found on the project website http://awm-solutions.iwmi.org/
24
Conservation Agriculture – water harvesting and terracing
Conservation Agriculture (CA) covers many techniques to optimize yields and profits by improving soil structure, conserving water, and reducing inputs. Positive yield and environmental impacts have been demonstrated by farmers using CA techniques but lack of finances, knowledge and landownership rights impede adoption.
The opportunity
CA is a particularly important portfolio of technologies to realize yield potentials for staple crops such as maize, cassava, millet and sorghum.
It offers opportunities for farmers without direct access to water sources (other AWM options such as water lifting devices are of no use without a water source).
To make best use of the investment in water capture (in-situ rainwater harvesting) it should be combined with suitable fertiliser.
Further innovation is possible to reduce the current human labour requirements.
Source: Rockström et al., 2010
ZambiaTanzania
Ethiopia(Mek)
Ethiopia(Naz)
Kenya (Rachunyo)
Kenya (Machakos)0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
Crop yields in six locations using CA and conventional practices
Con Con+F CF+F
Experimental location
Sea
sona
l mai
ze g
rain
yie
ld (
t ha
-1)
Con –=conventional farmingCon+F = conventional farming + fertilizerCF+F = conservation farming + fertilizer
25
Conservation Agriculture – Techniques and Choice
Some of the many CA techniques Choice of technique is influenced by:Constraints to adoption
include:
Terracing - sections of a hill are leveled or grassed to prevent rapid runoff, contributing to water and nutrient conservation.
In-situ rainwater harvesting – capturing water and conserving it in the soil.
Conservation tillage - maintenance of the soil cover and rotation of crops.
Chololo pits – micro-catchments and water storage pits.
Trenches – collect water and act as composting pits.
Cover cropping - intercropping to reduce evaporation.
• Location and environmental conditions.
• Ability to conserve soil moisture e.g., terraces and conservation tillage in Arusha; pits in Dodoma.
• Lower labor requirements were favored in Dodoma.
• External support e.g.,subsidized inputs and training.
• Gender and livelihood roles.
• Labor intensiveness
• Lack of training
• High capital costs
• Lack of land ownership
• Delay in realizing returns (around 2 years).
CA covers many techniques and farmers often use more than one
26
Impacts and Implementation - Solutions
Highest Yields• Maize on terraces (1.3 t/ha), • Bean on ridges (1.5 t/ha)• Cassava on terraces and minimum tillage (0.5 t/ha). • Large pits and ridges produced maize yields of 1 t/ha which is twice that of typical maize yield in the study areas.
However, the yield levels of sorghum, groundnuts, and lablab were low across the CA technologies.
Protection in low rainfall yearsA study in 2007/08, a year with below average rainfall (630 mm), a significant difference was found in yield between conventional tillage (1.7 t/ha) conservation tillage (3.8 t/ha) (Mkoga et al., 2010).
Farmers rely on CA techniques and perceive that their crop yields would decline if they ceased using them, with the majority indicating that losses would be >50% or more for most techniques
Yield loss predicted by farmers if CA technologies were removed in Arusha
Yield loss predicted by farmers if CA technologies were removed in Dodoma
Terraces Zero tillage Cover cropping
Ridges0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70<25% 25% >50% 100%
CA Technologies
% o
f res
pond
ents
Terraces Zero tillage Cover cropping Large pits0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80<25% 25% >50% 100%
CA Technologies
% o
f res
pond
ents
27
Solutions – Stimulating Adoption
To stimulate adoption the following strategies were proposed by stakeholders:
• Train trainers (e.g. NGOs, suppliers, extension agents) on CA techniques and their benefits.• Provide good materials and training packs.• Train farmers, clearly stipulating the advantages and disadvantages of each technology. Include
demonstration plots and exchange visits. • Register these farmers to become trainers. • Form farmer groups to enhance up-scaling.
Technologies suitable for promotion include:
• Terraces – maximum maize and cassava yield. • In-situ rainwater harvesting and storage.
Also• Management of strategic watersheds.• Soil moisture conservation e.g., cover crops.• Optimization of water infiltration and retention –
tillage and crop choice.
28
In-situ Water Harvesting - Who can Benefit and Where?
At a 50% adoption rate:
In-situ water harvesting could benefit 317,000 – 1,447,000 farmers. This equates to 5-23% of rural households.
The potential application area is 586,000 – 2,678,000 ha or 2 - 9% of the total agricultural land area.
Assumed to be a more favorable AWM solution in areas where there is a prevalence of traditional smallholder farmers
29
Water conservation terracing - Who can Benefit and Where?
At a 50% adoption rate:
Terracing could benefit 20,900 - 314,000 farmers. This is up to 5% of rural households.
The potential application area is 38,700 – 581,000 ha or up to 2% of the total agricultural land area.
Assumed to be a more favorable AWM solution in areas where there is a prevalence of traditional smallholder farmers
30
Country level investment costs
Based on the potential mapping some investment costs for each of the solutions have been calculated.
The assumptions made to assess investment cost were:
1. The average water amount required for irrigated agriculture is 7,500 m3/ha/yr.
2. The potential area for application of AWM options should not exceed an extent which requires more than 30% of the country Internal Renewable Water Resources. For soil and water conservation practices this assumption is not considered.
3. 50% of adoption rate by suitable farmers due to market demand.
4. For small pumps, the total investment cost is based on the number of households and not on the number of hectares.
AWM option Unit cost (US$)Investment cost (min-max)
(million US$)
Low-cost motor pumps 400 US$/household 210-310
River diversions 4250 US$/ha 650-2150
In-situ water harvesting 300 US$/ha 175-800
Terracing 600 US$/ha 25-350
31
Mkindo Watershed Study – Assessing Likely Social
and Environmental Impact of AWM Interventions
More information about the watershed case study can be found on the project website http://awm-solutions.iwmi.org/
32
AWM interventions may have a number of unforeseen impacts on the environment and society. This assessment was undertaken with people in the Mkindo watershed to understand their current practices and to consider what might happen under various AWM intervention scenarios.
Why do this Assessment?
The Situation
The Mkindo watershed is located in the east of Tanzania. It covers 913 km2 including mountainous areas, a wetland and agro-pastoral low lands. The two main rivers drain into the wetland which has been gradually cleared for agriculture, mainly paddy.
About 26% of the population lives below the Tanzanian poverty line.
Farmers in the official irrigation schemes do better financially than farmers relying on rainfed agriculture. Rice yields in the main irrigation scheme are twice those of rainfed lands. Livestock owners are the least secure.
A wide range of AWM options are used in the watershed including gravity fed furrow systems, unlined canals, supplemental irrigation from rivers, manual irrigation with buckets and motorized pumps.
Some commercial growers use sprinklers and operate contract farming systems with smallholder farmers.
Livelihoods Map
Landuse map by IWMI, 2010 for AgWater Solutions; Livelihood map by AgWater solutions baseline PGIS assessment (Cinderby et al., 2011)
Rangeland
Woodland
Forest
Bush land
Agricultural land
Grassland
Clouds
33
Social and Environmental Impact of AWM Solutions (1)
Equity Water management and access are not always equitable so farmers and livestock owners perceive there to be a lack of water. Water scarcity in the dry season forces livestock to migrate resulting in tension between livestock owners and farmers. Currently no organization exists to coordinate basin water management.
Impact of AWM Solutions Most solutions will have a positive social impact but may increase inequity, and almost all will have some impact on the environment.
The combination of expanded irrigation schemes with livestock watering ponds could be a catalyst for more food production, more jobs, improved livestock products, and sustainable resource management.
Conflict can be avoided through greater involvement of livestock and arable farmers in planning and by strengthening watershed management.
Social impacts Environmental impacts
Technology Equity GenderPoverty
ReductionWater Quality
Water Quantity
Natural Resources
Gravity based furrow system for paddy rice production + /- - + - - -Diesel pumps – irrigating from rivers + / - + + - - -
Livestock watering ponds + + + NA + +Livestock watering canal - + + NA NA -Large scale irrigation for cash crop production - NA Unclear - - -
34
Hydrologic and yield impactsCrop intensification will decrease surface water availability by 14-18% and increase groundwater availability by 50-75%.
Yields could increase 5 -135% for rice and maize, and 3 - 42% for vegetables, compared to current totals. Small reservoirs could potentially increase crop production the most (assuming land is available) but could decrease livestock grazing land and increase the potential for conflict.
Social and Environmental Impact of AWM Solutions (2)
Accelerating AWM AdoptionLocal informal village committees play an important role in AWM but are fragmented and not officially recognized. The Water User Associations (WUAs) being established by the Wami River Basin could bring these informal actors into the formal governance system.
Improving relations between village institutions and higher levels of government will increase the opportunity for negotiation of the multiple uses of land and water and potential negative impacts of interventions.
University
Village leadership
River basin office
District offices
NGO
Water balance impact (% change)
Yield impact (% change)
Figure taken from Stein, C., Ernstson, H., Barron, J., 2011
35
Enabling positive change according to Mkindo farmers and local experts
• Provide multiple AWM solutions at local level for rainfed and irrigation agriculture and livestock
• Ask local stakeholders what they want and don’t want, and what is non-negotiable.
• Access to credit.• Access to training.• Empowerment. • Ensure governance to deal with planning of natural resources
(incl. monitoring).
Social and Environmental Impact of AWM Solutions (3)
Link AWM with other interventionsA combination of different AWM solutions and with social and institutional improvements will result in the greatest positive impact on livelihoods.
Initiatives of micro finance exist and can be supported to reach further throughout the Mkindo watershed. Also training on improved agricultural practices has improved yield in the area without the need for farmers to invest in new AWM technologies.
Focusing on high-tech interventions could by-pass the majority of farmers who depend on rainfed agriculture and livestock.
36
Stakeholder Perspectives and Recommendations
More information about stakeholder engagement and the dialogue process can be found on the project websitehttp://awm-solutions.iwmi.org/
37
Stakeholder engagement process
Tanzania
2009
Situation Analysis
2010 March
National Consultation
Livelihood Zone Mapping
Dar es Salaam
August
Technical Brainstorming Workshop
On opportunities for AWM
in Mkindo Watershed
Mkindo
September
Regional AWM Consultation
Morogoro
Upcoming event!
Technical brainstorm meeting
on Small Reservoirs
Dar es Salaam
Upcoming event!
Linking AWM dialogue process
to national initiatives
Morogoro
September
Technical Brainstorming Workshops on
AWM potential and suitability Mapping
Dar es Salaam
Upcoming event!
Regional AWM Consultation &
Meeting with Parliament Committee
on Agriculture, Water & Livestock
Dodoma
November
2nd National AWM Consultation
Dar es Salaam
November
Regional AWM Consultation
Arusha
2011 August
3rd National AWM Consultation
Dar es Salaam
8 Meetings 140 Stakeholders
The project plans and findings have been discussed in a series of workshops and meetings to inform the process, validate and improve findings, identify gaps and prioritize recommendations. Some of the comments are given here.
38
Suggestions from dialogue meetingsAWM options What should be done?
CMRDs – database of existing infrastructure; repairs and maintenance; and extension services are all required.
• Investment in databases on river diversion schemes and infrastructure to facilitate repair and investment.
• Strengthening water users’ organizations including management and financial skills, and institutional capacity.
• Better design of schemes best on availability of water and area of command • Integration of water storage e.g. rainwater harvest and construction of dams • Combine with livestock watering ponds
Water Lifting Devices – improving access and availability of good quality pumps, and knowledge around operation and maintenance.
• Appropriate and affordable technologies should be identified and promoted. Information about the quality of goods imported into the country can be obtained from the Tanzania Revenue Authority.
• Farmers should be trained in appropriate selection, use and maintenance of pumps. • Pump dealers’ capacity should be built so they can to offer advice to farmers. • Agro-dealers should be encouraged to reach remote areas.• A registry of information on different models should be available. • To achieve maximum impact and adoption, the private sector should be targeted by the
project to demonstrate the huge demand for motorized pumps if improved information and services can be provided.
• Pump rental markets are emerging but limited options to improve them should be explored.
Water conservation • The benefits of no-till farming need to be clearer because the government has tried its best to provide power tillers to farmer groups and the campaign is still on-going.
• Water storage systems or communal groundwater for the dry Dodoma.
Capacity building • Increase knowledge on more efficient water application technologies e.g. drip.• Training to improve marketing and post harvest processes.
Improve access to rural finance for AWM
• Improving farmers’ business capacity (above) will increase financial institutions’ confidence• Government - offer credit assurance to existing savings and credit cooperative organizations
(SACCOs) – i.e. more flexible loans and required collateral options.• Tax exemption on agricultural technologies such as motor pumps.
39
Summary: Opportunities and Challenges for AWM Solutions in Tanzania
Agricultural productivity can be improved but there are challenges to manage this equitably and limit negative social and environmental impact. • Training can address perceived limits to water availability and improve agricultural practices. • Strengthening local institutions and improving links between them and with formal institutions is likely to improve
negotiation, planning and results of interventions.• A mix of AWM solutions will avoid conflict and marginalization of certain groups.
AWM Solution
Solution StatementBeneficiaries* and % of
rural householdsArea and % of total
agricultural land
Communal Irrigation Schemes
Infrastructure improvements, farmer training, micro-credit and marketing should be combined to maximize the livelihoods benefits of communal irrigation schemes.
275,000-986,000 farmers. 6-18%
144,000-460,000 ha 1-2%
Motor Pumps
Improving farmers ability to select, buy or rent, and use motor pumps will provide them with the possibility to grow vegetables in the dry season and increase their incomes. They require training to enable them to select the right pumps for the job and to maintain them well. They may need affordable credit or pumps to rent.
399,000-595,000 farmers. 7-10%
319,000-475,000 ha1-2%
In-situ water harvesting
Forming farmer groups and training farmers has shown positive results both in spreading the use of conservation agriculture techniques like water harvesting and terracing, and increasing yields.
197,000-924,000 farmers. 3-15%
365,000-1,060,000 ha or 1-5%
Terracing 10,000-157,000 farmers. <3%
19,000-290,000 ha <2%
*at 50% adoption
40
Investments in CMRD improve paddy yields and farming incomes: For many farmers, irrigated paddy farming is a primary source of household income but the yield and income differences between improved and unimproved schemes are substantial. Paddy yields are twice as high and revenues are 1.5-2.5 times higher improved and modern schemes. Investing in improvements to traditional irrigation schemes can have significant positive effects on rural livelihoods.
Investments in motorized pumping enhance off-season farming incomes: We estimate more than 600,000 farmers lift water from rivers and wells for irrigated vegetable cultivation using buckets and watering cans, providing substantial additional incomes for farmers. Motorized pumps require a larger upfront investment, but generate greater profits, irrigate larger areas, and require significantly less labor inputs. Investments in micro-credit, pump rental markets, and extension and information for motorized pumps makes economic sense.
Investments in conservation agriculture and rainwater harvesting improve staple crop yieldsOn farm trials in several East African countries, including Tanzania, demonstrated increased maize yields from the application of conservation agriculture techniques together with improved soil and nutrient management. Experience from India shows increased cropping intensity and farm incomes from investments in on-farm ponds. Investments in both in-situ and ex-situ rainwater harvesting offers important yield and income opportunity gains for staple crop production.
Consider opportunities for linking agricultural and non-agricultural policies and programsAWM adoption is often hampered by policies outside the water realm, such as import policies, taxes and energy policies. Synergies with policies in other sectors are possible
Policy Implications
41
References and Project Outputs
42
Project Outputs
Type Reference
Project Reports
• Barron, J., Noel, S. and Mikhail, M. 2010. Review of Agricultural Water Management Intervention Impacts at the Watershed Scale: a Synthesis Using the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework. Project Report, Stockholm Environment Institute SEI, Stockholm/York
• de Bruin, A., Cinderby, S., Stein, C., Kongo, V. and Barron, J. 2011. Opportunities for Agricultural Water Management interventions in the Mkindo watershed in Tanzania. Stockholm: Stockholm Environment Institute.
• de Bruin, A., Mikhail, M., S. Noel and Barron, J. 2010. AWM Interventions and Monitoring and Evaluation: Potential Approaches at the Watershed Level. Project Report, Stockholm Environment Institute SEI, Stockholm/York
• IFPRI. 2012. Sub-Saharan Africa Regional Analysis of Communal River Diversions. Potential for Expansion in sub-Saharan Africa. Washington DC., USA: IFPRI
• IFPRI. 2012. Regional Analysis of Improved Inland Valley Irrigation. Potential for Expansion in sub-Saharan Africa. Washington DC., USA: IFPRI
• IFPRI. 2012. Regional Analysis of Motor Pumps. Potential for Expansion in sub-Saharan Africa. Washington DC., USA: IFPRI
• IFPRI. 2012. Regional Analysis of Small Reservoirs. Potential for Expansion in sub-Saharan Africa. Washington DC., USA: IFPRI
• IFPRI. 2012. Regional Analysis of Treadle Pumps. Potential for Expansion in sub-Saharan Africa. Washington DC., USA: IFPRI
• Keraita, B. 2011. Is It Worth Investing In Community Managed River Diversion Systems In Tanzania? AgWater Solutions Case Study. Colombo, Sri Lanka: IWMI.
• Keraita, B. and de Fraiture, C. 2011. Investment Opportunities for Water Lifting and Application Technologies in smallholder irrigated agriculture in Tanzania. AgWater Solutions Case Study. Colombo, Sri Lanka: IWMI.
43
Project Reports
• Sugden, C. 2011. Carbon Footprint of Agricultural Development: the Potential Impact of Uptake of Small Electric and Diesel Pumps in Five Countries in Sub Saharan Africa. In Working Paper. Stockholm: Stockholm Environment Institute.
• Tumbo, S.D., Mutabazi, K.D., Kahimba, F.C. and Mbungu, W.B. 2012. Adoption and Out-Scaling of Conservation Agriculture in Tanzania. AgWater Solutions Case Study. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute.
• Venot, J-P. 2011. Evaluating Small Reservoirs as an Agricultural Water Management Solution. AgWater Solutions Case Study. Colombo, Sri Lanka: IWMI.
• Irrigation Service Providers: A Business Plan. Increasing access to water for smallholders in Sub-Saharan Africa. AgWater Solutions Project. Colombo, Sri Lanka: IWMI.
• Tanzania National Consultation. 2009. AgWater Solutions Case Study. Colombo, Sri Lanka: IWMI.
• Tanzania Situation Analysis. 2010. AgWater Solutions Case Study. Colombo, Sri Lanka: IWMI.
• de Fraiture, Charlotte 2011. Supporting Smallholder Private Pump Irrigation in sub-Saharan Africa. AgWater Solutions Report. Colombo, Sri Lanka: IWMI. AgWater Solutions Project. Colombo, Sri Lanka: IWMI.
Peer reviewed journal articles
• Cinderby, S., de Bruin, A., Mbilinyi, B., Kongo, V. and J. Barron. 2011. Participatory Geographic Information Systems for Agricultural Water Management Scenario Development: A Tanzanian Case Study. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 36 (14-15):1093-1102.
• Meinzen-Dick, R., van Koppen, B., Behrman, J., Karelina, Z., Akamandisa, V., Hope, L. and B. Wielgosz. 2012. Putting Gender on the Map: Methods for mapping gendered farm management systems in Sub-Saharan Africa. In IFPRI Discussion Paper 01153. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
• Stein, C., Ernstson, H. and J. Barron. 2011. A social network approach to analyzing water governance: The case of the Mkindo catchment, Tanzania. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 36 (14-15):1085-1092.
44
Peer reviewed journal articles
• Stein, C. 2011. Agricultural water management for improved food security: a social network approach. In Global Food Security: Biophysical and Social Limits and Opportunities, The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. Stockholm, Sweden.
• Xie, H., Longuevergne, L., Ringler, C. and B. Scanlon. 2012. Calibration and evaluation of a semi-distributed watershed model of sub-Saharan Africa using GRACE data. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions (9):2071–2120.
• Xie, H., You, L., Wielgosz, B. and C. Ringler. (forthcoming). What is the potential for smallholder agricultural water management in Sub-Saharan Africa? An integrated hydrologic-economic assessment. Agricultural Water Management.
Conference Proceedings
• Cinderby, S., de Bruin, A., Mbilinyi , B., Barron, J. and V. Kongo. 2010. Participatory Geographic Information Systems for Agricultural Water Management Scenario Development: A Tanzanian Case Study. Proceedings of 11th WaterNet/WARFSA/GWP-SA Symposium, Zimbabwe, October 2010.
• You, L. 2011. Potential for irrigation in Africa. In the 3rd Regional Conference on Irrigation and Drainage. Mali.
• Ringler, C. 2011. Potential for small-scale irrigation in Sub-Saharan Africa under climate change. In XIV International Water Resources Association’s World Water Congress, edited by H. Xie, L. You, B. Wielgosz, T. Zhu and C. Ringler. Brazil.
Project briefs • Activities in Tanzania. Country Update Brief. 2010. Colombo, Sri Lanka: IWMI.
• Community Managed River Diversions in Tanzania. Case Study Brief, based on a report by Keraita, B. 2011. Colombo, Sri Lanka: IWMI
• Conservation Agriculture in Tanzania Brief. Based on a report by Tumbo, S.D., Mutabazi, K.D., Kahimba, F.C. and W.B. Mbungu. 2012. IWMI: Colombo, Sri Lanka.
• Small Reservoirs in sub-Saharan Africa. Case Study Brief based on a report by Venot, J-P. 2011. Colombo, Sri Lanka: IWMI.
• Tanzania National Consultation Brief. 2009. Colombo, Sri Lanka: IWMI.
• Tanzania Situation Analysis Brief. 2010. Colombo, Sri Lanka: IWMI.
45
Project briefs • Uneven Relationships in Small Reservoir Projects in sub-Saharan Africa. Case Study Brief based on a report by Venot, J-P. 2011. Colombo, Sri Lanka: IWMI.
• Water Lifting Technology in Tanzania. AgWater Solutions Case Study Brief based on a report by Keraita, B. and C. de Fraiture. 2011.. Colombo, Sri Lanka: IWMI.
Forthcoming • de Bruin, A., and J. Barron. Forthcoming. AWM interventions and monitoring and evaluation 2: Developing indicators and thresholds based on stakeholder consultations at watershed level. In SEI Project Report. Stockholm/York: Stockholm Environment Institute.
• Xie, H., Wielgosz, B., Longuevergne, L., Ringler, C., You, L. and B. Scanlon. (under preparation). Developing and evaluating SWAT model for South Asia and its application to assessing ex-situ water harvesting potential.
• Xie, H., You, L., Wielgosz, B., Zhu, T. and C. Ringler. (under preparation). An assessment on potential for small-scale irrigation in Sub-Saharan Africa under climate change.
Non-project references
• Rockström, J, Kambutho, P., Mwalley, J., Nzabi, A.W., Temesgen, M., Mawenya, L., Barron, J., and Damgaard-Larsen, S. 2009. Conservation Farming Strategies in East and Southern Africa: A Regional Synthesis of Crop and Water Productivity from On-farm Action Research. Soil & Tillage Research 103(1):23-32