Tanzania AgWater Solutions

1,037 views
951 views

Published on

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.

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,037
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
34
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Please send logos and names of national partners and collaborators
  • Get originals
  • Get originals
  • TW- Is this a solution that we are proposing because we think it is good or is it a solution that is addressing a development challenge identified by farmers? The way the top box is framed gives the impression that this is a top down solution, but I know it is not so it would be good to revise the top box.
  • TW- Is this a solution that we are proposing because we think it is good or is it a solution that is addressing a development challenge identified by farmers? The way the top box is framed gives the impression that this is a top down solution, but I know it is not so it would be good to revise the top box.
  • Landuse map by IWMI, 2010 for AgWater SolutionsLivelihood map by AgWater solutions baseline PGIS assessment (Cinderby et al., 2011)
  • Should this be a table or headings and boxes? What is more readable? Boxes can be split over 2 pages with pictures.
  • Tanzania AgWater Solutions

    1. 1. Tanzania Project overview, results and recommendationsResearchers 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. a SEI corresponding authorStein, H. Tindwa, S.D. Tumbo, b IWMI corresponding authorContributors and Editors: c National dialogue facilitatorW. Ells, A. Evans, M. Giordano, B. Neves, M. Ranawake, D. Vallee d FAO corresponding author www.awm-solutions.iwmi.org 1
    2. 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. 2
    3. 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 3
    4. 4. Project Overview—The ContextSmallholder agricultural water management (AWM) is a promising investment option toimprove the livelihoods and food security of the rural poor (Comprehensive Assessment ofWater 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 successstories adoption remains slow and limited inscale. Large scale adoption of AWMoptions that target poor people,especially women, in a sustainable andresponsible 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? 4
    5. 5. Project OverviewThe AgWater Solutions Project aims to improve the livelihoods of poor and marginalizedsmallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia through agricultural watermanagement (AWM) solutions.An AWM solution is any measure,including technologies, products andpractices, that increases or improvesAWM knowledge, policies, financingand 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.AWM solutions are identified through research and stakeholder discussions to understand thecontext, needs and investment opportunities. In total more than 20,000 stakeholders havebeen interviewed. 5
    6. 6. Project Approach: From Research to Impact Continual Dialogue, Learning and Adapting 4 Core: Engagement with primary stakeholders (e.g. farmers, policymake rs, investors) 2 Continual Dialogue, Learning and Adapting 6
    7. 7. Scope of Work > 400 farmers, dealers, officials interviewed Burkina Faso Ethiopia Ghana Tanzania Zambia IndiaField Studies MP WB Manual well drilling x xWater capture Rainwater harvesting x x x On-farm water storage x x x River diversion xWater storage Small reservoirs x x x x Groundwater use constraints x x xwater lifting Water lifting technologies x x x x x xwater use Drip irrigation systems x Conservation agriculture xPractices Watershed management x Inland valleys/bas fond x x Financing AWM xAWM support/ Equipment supply chain xissues Institutional innovations x x AWM adoption/Gender issues x x Comparison of AWM options x Watershed assessment &Assessing x x x x scenariosoptions National suitability mapping x x x x x x x Regional suitability mapping Sub-saharan Africa India 7
    8. 8. AWM Solutions in Tanzania 8
    9. 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 anddependence on rainfall which is unreliable and irregular. Both crops and livestock are adversely affected by periodicdroughts.Irrigation holds the key to stabilizing agricultural production in Tanzania toimprove food security, increase farmers‟ productivity and incomes, and toproduce higher value crops such as vegetables and flowers.In 2002 there were 1,189 irrigation schemes covering 192,000 ha acrossthe country but less that 10% of the high-medium irrigation potential landis currently irrigated.Irrigation is a key strategy for growth. Tanzania aims to increase theirrigated area to 7 million ha by 2015 and raise paddy yields from 2tons/ha to 8 tons/ha. 9
    10. 10. Mapping the Livelihood ContextWhy are the maps needed?Livelihood maps can be used to identify wherepeople 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 sharerelatively homogeneous living conditions. The maincriteria 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/ 10
    11. 11. Where to invest to have the maximum impact onrural livelihoodsThe livelihood zones (LZ) were combined with physical availability of water, presence of targetbeneficiaries and water as a limiting factor for livelihoods, to produce maps of potential investmentfor AWM.This map shows where AWM can be the entry point for improving livelihoods and where to prioritizeinvestments in AWM to have the most impact on rural livelihoods. High potential areas are thoseshowing 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. 11
    12. 12. Improving Community Managed River Diversions More information about this case study can be found on the project website http://awm-solutions.iwmi.org/ 13
    13. 13. Improving Community Managed River DiversionsOver 90% of community managed river diversion (CMRD) schemes are „traditional‟ irrigation schemes initiated andmanaged 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 andhousehold income.There are large differences in productivity between farmers in the same irrigation scheme, suggesting thatinfrastructure 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 andmarketing, can contribute to Tanzania‟s poverty alleviation and development goals. Yield gaps Paddy yields in CMRDs in Mvomero (n=127) 9 7 8 Current Improved traditional scheme Formal scheme 6 7 Expected Yields (tons/ha./season)Paddy Yields (ton/ha) 5 6 4 5 3 Unimproved 4 traditional scheme 3 2 2 1 1 0 0 Mkindo Hembeti Dakawa 1991 2001 2008 2015Findings are based on literature reviews, a survey of 200 farmers and interviews with community members and officials at all levels. 14
    14. 14. The SolutionsExpand and improve infrastructure, concentrating on off-takes andmain canals.This can be based on models used by IFAD‟s smallholder paddy riceirrigation project in semi-arid and marginal areas, and the World Bank‟sRiver Basin Management and Smallholder Irrigation Improvement Project(RBMSIIP).Improve on-farm management and income by enhancing extensionservices and offering training in on-farm water management, farmingpractices, bookkeeping and marketing. Innovative approaches such aspracticed by Kilimanjaro Agricultural Training Centre (ATC) show thatimproving the information given to farmers can lead to yield increases of 30-75%. Farmers who attended farmer schools in rice cultivation conducted bythe Mkindo Farmers‟ ATC consistently achieve higher yields (by 30-200%)than their peers.Strengthen micro-credit facilities to enable infrastructureimprovements and investment in better farming practices. Optionsinclude separating savings and credit cooperative organizations (SACCOs)from the banking system, investing directly in credible SACCOs andenforcing transparent lending terms. A micro-credit organization in Mkindo isexperimenting with delayed bulk selling – they give credit at the beginning ofthe season and farmers repay the debt in bags of paddy. The organizationstores the paddy and sells later in the season when prices are higher. 15
    15. 15. What can be Gained? Improving Schemes Income from paddy grown in traditional irrigation schemes Farmers irrigating in improved schemes (Mkindo and Dakawa) earned considerably more than those in Income (US$/day) unimproved schemes (Hembeti). Irrigation revenues from CMRDs contributed more than 85% of household incomes Rainfed farmers Irrigation farmers in irrigating households. Mkindo (improved) 1.61 3.65 Dakawa (improved) 5.16 5.88 Hembeti (unimproved) 0.2 1.64Farmer TrainingKilimanjaro ATC and the TANRICE project found that yieldsimproved in all areas after training. The training program costUS$800-1000 per farmer and took an innovative approach. Impact of farmer training on productivity 6 Before After Paddy yields (tons/ha.) 5 4 3 2 1 0 Kitivo Kiroka Ilonga Ruanda Sakalilo Titye 16
    16. 16. 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 farmersBiophysical criteria and conditions At a 50% adoption rate: Distance fromMarket accessibility Aridity index perennial rivers Community managed river diversion schemes could High: cropland High: Dry- benefit 153,000 – 509,000 farmers. This equates to 2 – 8% area < 4h from Requirement: subhumid and of rural households. markets; <1 km from humid areas Moderate: <8h perennial rivers Moderate: The potential application area is 153,000 – 509,000 ha or from markets Semi-arid areas around 2% of the total agricultural land area. 17
    17. 17. 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/ 18
    18. 18. Water Lifting Technologies - Increasing Access and BenefitsImproving access to motor pumps could reduce the labor requirements of manual irrigation, allowfarmers 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 increasefarmers’ incomes. Awareness of WLTs The opportunity % of farmers Over 85% of irrigators in Tanzania still use buckets and watering Treadle Motor Region Bucket cans. These are useful WLTs but farmers complain about the Pump Pump drudgery and labor requirements. Tanga (n=1832) 93 98 100 Morogoro (n=1350) 96 100 100 Many people know about motor pumps and treadle pumps but they do not use them. Dodoma (n= 2100) 91 100 100 Dar es Salaam (n= 550) 100 100 100 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). WLT Ownership % of farmers There may be the possibility to increase access for women. In the Treadle Motor sample there were 18 men using WLTs for every one woman and only Region Bucket Pump Pump 7% of the farmers using motor pumps were women. Tanga (n=1832) 1 4 95 Yields vary according to location and crop but they are generally Morogoro (n=1350) 4 5 94 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 Dodoma (n= 2100) 1 10 89 season incomes. Dar es Salaam (n= 550) 3 5 92 19
    19. 19. What Limits use of WLTs?CostsEven though the profits from using motor pumps can be greater than treadle pumps and buckets or wateringcans, farmers may not be able to invest in them because of the initial costs. 48% of farmers gave this as the reason fornot 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 notto invest in a pump themselves. Income and expenditure on WLTs (per person) Motor Treadle Buckets/ Reasons given by farmers for not using WLTs pumps pumps watering cans100 Average capital cost of 254.87 86.77 3.46 pump (US$) 80 Average capital cost of 137.04 48.50 0.00 accessories (US$) 60 Total 391.91 135.27 3.46 40 Morogoro 20 Expenditure (US$/ha) 861.00 737.00 655.00 Revenue (US$/ha) 1809.00 1584.00 1504.00 0 Profit (US$/ha) 948.00 847.00 790.00 Treadle Pump Motor Pump Manual Bucket (n=65) (n=117) (n=114) Dodoma Expenditure (US$/ha) 1190.00 1175.00 1130.00 Water scarcity (%) Pump costs and quality (%) Tedious Revenue (US$/ha) 3464.00 2661.00 2810.00 Profit (US$/ha) 2256.00 1486.00 1680.00 20
    20. 20. The SolutionsOptions should be explored for government provision of creditassurance to existing savings and credit cooperative organizations(SACCOs) so that they do not have to be funded by banks and cangive more flexible loans.Pump rental is another option to overcome the high cost ofpurchasing pumps. Models for this include “irrigation serviceproviders” in which the pump owner rents the pump on a short termbasis (e.g., per hour) and is responsible for maintaining the pumpand providing technical and agricultural guidance.Access to quality pumps can be improved by creating anddistributing a registry of information on all motor pumps on themarket.Training will be important for extension serviceproviders, farmers and pump dealers. Extension services need toprovide information and advice on crops that are typically grownwith pumps (i.e., vegetables) and not just on traditional crops andcereals. They should also provide advice on marketing tactics.Farmers should be trained in the selection, use and maintenance ofpumps. Pump dealers should be trained to offer advice to farmersabout pump selection, maintenance and repair. 21
    21. 21. 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. 22
    22. 22. Conservation Agriculture: In-situ Water Harvesting and TerracingMore information about this case study can be found on the project website http://awm-solutions.iwmi.org/ 23
    23. 23. Conservation Agriculture – water harvesting and terracingConservation Agriculture (CA) covers many techniques to optimize yields and profits by improvingsoil structure, conserving water, and reducing inputs. Positive yield and environmental impactshave been demonstrated by farmers using CA techniques but lack of finances, knowledge andlandownership rights impede adoption. The opportunity Crop yields in six locations using CA and conventional practices CA is a particularly important portfolio of 8000 Seasonal maize grain yield (t ha-1) technologies to realize yield potentials for staple 7000 crops such as maize, cassava, millet and 6000 Con Con+F CF+F sorghum. 5000 4000 It offers opportunities for farmers without direct 3000 access to water sources (other AWM options 2000 such as water lifting devices are of no use 1000 without a water source). 0 To make best use of the investment in water capture (in-situ rainwater harvesting) it should be combined with suitable fertiliser. Experimental location Further innovation is possible to reduce the Con –=conventional farming current human labour requirements. Con+F = conventional farming + fertilizer CF+F = conservation farming + fertilizer Source: Rockström et al., 2010 24
    24. 24. Conservation Agriculture – Techniques and ChoiceCA covers many techniques and farmers often use more than one Constraints to adoption Some of the many CA techniques Choice of technique is influenced by: include:Terracing - sections of a hill are leveled or • Location and environmental conditions. • Labor intensivenessgrassed to prevent rapid runoff, contributing to • Ability to conserve soil moisture • Lack of trainingwater and nutrient conservation. e.g., terraces and conservation tillage • High capital costsIn-situ rainwater harvesting – capturing water in Arusha; pits in Dodoma.and conserving it in the soil. • Lack of land ownership • Lower labor requirements were favoredConservation tillage - maintenance of the soil in Dodoma. • Delay in realizingcover and rotation of crops. returns (around 2 • External support e.g.,subsidized inputs years).Chololo pits – micro-catchments and water and training.storage pits. • Gender and livelihood roles.Trenches – collect water and act as compostingpits.Cover cropping - intercropping to reduceevaporation. 25
    25. 25. 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 years A 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 70 80 <25% 25% >50% 100% <25% 25% >50% 100% 60 70 60 50% of respondents % of respondents 50 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 Terraces Zero tillage Cover cropping Ridges Terraces Zero tillage Cover cropping Large pits CA Technologies CA Technologies Yield loss predicted by farmers if CA technologies were Yield loss predicted by farmers if CA technologies were removed in Arusha removed in Dodoma 26
    26. 26. Solutions – Stimulating Adoption 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. 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. 27
    27. 27. In-situ Water Harvesting - Who can Benefit and Where? Assumed to be a more favorable AWM solution in areas where there is a prevalence of traditional smallholder farmers 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. 28
    28. 28. Water conservation terracing - Who can Benefit and Where? Assumed to be a more favorable AWM solution in areas where there is a prevalence of traditional smallholder farmers 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. 29
    29. 29. Country level investment costsBased on the potential mapping some investment costs for each of the solutions have been calculated. Investment cost (min-max) AWM option Unit cost (US$) (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 25-350The 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. 30
    30. 30. 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/ 31
    31. 31. Why do this Assessment?AWM interventions may have a number of unforeseen impacts on the environment and society. Thisassessment was undertaken with people in the Mkindo watershed to understand their current practicesand to consider what might happen under various AWM intervention scenarios.The Situation Livelihoods MapThe Mkindo watershed is located in the east ofTanzania. It covers 913 km2 including mountainousareas, a wetland and agro-pastoral low lands. The twomain rivers drain into the wetland which has beengradually cleared for agriculture, mainly paddy.About 26% of the population lives below theTanzanian poverty line. Rangeland Woodland Forest Bush landFarmers in the official irrigation schemes do better Agricultural land Grasslandfinancially than farmers relying on rainfed agriculture. CloudsRice yields in the main irrigation scheme are twicethose of rainfed lands. Livestock owners are the leastsecure.A wide range of AWM options are used in thewatershed including gravity fed furrowsystems, unlined canals, supplemental irrigation fromrivers, manual irrigation with buckets and motorizedpumps. Landuse map by IWMI, 2010 for AgWater Solutions; Livelihood map by AgWaterSome commercial growers use sprinklers and operate solutions baseline PGIScontract farming systems with smallholder farmers. assessment (Cinderby et al., 2011) 32
    32. 32. Social and Environmental Impact of AWM Solutions (1)EquityWater management and access are not always equitable so farmers andlivestock owners perceive there to be a lack of water. Water scarcity in the dryseason forces livestock to migrate resulting in tension between livestock ownersand farmers. Currently no organization exists to coordinate basin watermanagement.Impact of AWM SolutionsMost solutions will have a positive social impact but may increase inequity, andalmost all will have some impact on the environment.The combination of expanded irrigation schemes with livestock watering pondscould be a catalyst for more food production, more jobs, improved livestockproducts, and sustainable resource management.Conflict can be avoided through greater involvement of livestock and arablefarmers in planning and by strengthening watershed management. Social impacts Environmental impacts Poverty Water Water Natural Technology Equity Gender Reduction Quality Quantity ResourcesGravity 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 - - - 33
    33. 33. Social and Environmental Impact of AWM Solutions (2) Water balance impact (% change) Hydrologic and yield impacts Crop intensification will decrease surface water availability by 14-18% and increase groundwater availability by 50-75%. Yield impact (% change) 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. NGO Accelerating AWM Adoption University Local 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. Village leadership Improving relations between village institutions and higher levels of government will increase the opportunity for District negotiation of the multiple uses of land and water and offices River basin potential negative impacts of interventions. officeFigure taken from Stein, C., Ernstson, H., Barron, J., 2011 34
    34. 34. Social and Environmental Impact of AWM Solutions (3)Link AWM with other interventionsA combination of different AWM solutions and with social andinstitutional improvements will result in the greatest positive impacton livelihoods.Initiatives of micro finance exist and can be supported to reachfurther throughout the Mkindo watershed. Also training on improvedagricultural practices has improved yield in the area without theneed for farmers to invest in new AWM technologies.Focusing on high-tech interventions could by-pass the majority offarmers who depend on rainfed agriculture and livestock.Enabling positive change according to Mkindo farmers andlocal 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). 35
    35. 35. Stakeholder Perspectives and Recommendations More information about stakeholder engagement and the dialogue process can be found on the project website http://awm-solutions.iwmi.org/ 36
    36. 36. Stakeholder engagement process 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. Tanzania 8 Meetings 140 Stakeholders 2011 August Upcoming event! 3rd National AWM Consultation Technical brainstorm meeting Dar es Salaam on Small Reservoirs Dar es Salaam September 2009 2010 March Technical Brainstorming Workshops on National Consultation Upcoming event!Situation Analysis AWM potential and suitability Mapping Livelihood Zone Mapping Linking AWM dialogue process Dar es Salaam Dar es Salaam to national initiatives Morogoro August Upcoming event! September Technical Brainstorming Workshop Regional AWM Consultation & Regional AWM Consultation On opportunities for AWM Meeting with Parliament Committee Morogoro in Mkindo Watershed on Agriculture, Water & Livestock Mkindo November Dodoma Regional AWM Consultation November Arusha 2nd National AWM Consultation Dar es Salaam 37
    37. 37. Suggestions from dialogue meetingsAWM options What should be done?CMRDs – database of • Investment in databases on river diversion schemes and infrastructure to facilitate repair andexisting infrastructure; investment.repairs and maintenance; • Strengthening water users‟ organizations including management and financial skills, andand extension services institutional capacity.are all required. • 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 pondsWater Lifting Devices – • Appropriate and affordable technologies should be identified and promoted. Informationimproving access and about the quality of goods imported into the country can be obtained from the Tanzaniaavailability of good Revenue Authority.quality pumps, and • Farmers should be trained in appropriate selection, use and maintenance of pumps.knowledge around • Pump dealers‟ capacity should be built so they can to offer advice to farmers.operation and • Agro-dealers should be encouraged to reach remote areas.maintenance. • 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 • Improving farmers‟ business capacity (above) will increase financial institutions‟ confidencefinance for AWM • 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. 38
    38. 38. Summary: Opportunities and Challenges for AWM Solutions in TanzaniaAgricultural productivity can be improved but there are challenges to manage this equitably and limit negativesocial 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 Beneficiaries* and % of Area and % of total Solution Statement Solution rural households agricultural landCommunal Infrastructure improvements, farmer training, 275,000-986,000 farmers. 144,000-460,000 haIrrigation micro-credit and marketing should be combined to 6-18% 1-2%Schemes maximize the livelihoods benefits of communal irrigation schemes.Motor Improving farmers ability to select, buy or rent, 399,000-595,000 farmers. 319,000-475,000 haPumps and use motor pumps will provide them with the 7-10% 1-2% 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.In-situ Forming farmer groups and training farmers has 197,000-924,000 farmers. 365,000-1,060,000 ha orwater shown positive results both in spreading the use of 3-15% 1-5%harvesting conservation agriculture techniques like water harvesting and terracing, and increasing yields.Terracing 10,000-157,000 farmers. 19,000-290,000 ha <3% <2%*at 50% adoption 39
    39. 39. Policy ImplicationsInvestments in CMRD improve paddy yields and farming incomes:For many farmers, irrigated paddy farming is a primary source of household income but the yield andincome differences between improved and unimproved schemes are substantial. Paddy yields are twiceas high and revenues are 1.5-2.5 times higher improved and modern schemes. Investing inimprovements to traditional irrigation schemes can have significant positive effects on rurallivelihoods.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 cultivationusing buckets and watering cans, providing substantial additional incomes for farmers. Motorized pumpsrequire a larger upfront investment, but generate greater profits, irrigate larger areas, and requiresignificantly less labor inputs. Investments in micro-credit, pump rental markets, and extension andinformation 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 yieldsfrom the application of conservation agriculture techniques together with improved soil and nutrientmanagement. Experience from India shows increased cropping intensity and farm incomes frominvestments in on-farm ponds. Investments in both in-situ and ex-situ rainwater harvesting offersimportant 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 andenergy policies. Synergies with policies in other sectors are possible 40
    40. 40. References and Project Outputs 41
    41. 41. Project Outputs Type ReferenceProject • Barron, J., Noel, S. and Mikhail, M. 2010. Review of Agricultural Water Management Intervention Impacts at theReports 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. 42
    42. 42. Project • Sugden, C. 2011. Carbon Footprint of Agricultural Development: the Potential Impact of Uptake of SmallReports 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 • Cinderby, S., de Bruin, A., Mbilinyi, B., Kongo, V. and J. Barron. 2011. Participatory Geographic Informationreviewed Systems for Agricultural Water Management Scenario Development: A Tanzanian Case Study. Physics andjournal Chemistry of the Earth 36 (14-15):1093-1102.articles • 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. 43
    43. 43. Peer • Stein, C. 2011. Agricultural water management for improved food security: a social network approach.reviewed In Global Food Security: Biophysical and Social Limits and Opportunities, The Royal Swedishjournal Academy of Sciences. Stockholm, Sweden.articles • 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 • Cinderby, S., de Bruin, A., Mbilinyi , B., Barron, J. and V. Kongo. 2010. Participatory GeographicProceedings 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. 44
    44. 44. 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 • Rockström, J, Kambutho, P., Mwalley, J., Nzabi, A.W., Temesgen, M., Mawenya, L., Barron, J., and Damgaard-references 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 45

    ×