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.

1. Tanzania
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. a SEI corresponding author
Stein, H. Tindwa, S.D. Tumbo, b IWMI corresponding author
Contributors and Editors: c National dialogue facilitator
W. Ells, A. Evans, M. Giordano, B. Neves, M. Ranawake, D. Vallee d FAO corresponding author
www.awm-solutions.iwmi.org
1

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. 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. 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?
4

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.
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.
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.
5

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. Scope of Work > 400 farmers, dealers, officials interviewed
Burkina Faso Ethiopia Ghana Tanzania Zambia India
Field Studies
MP WB
Manual well drilling x x
Water capture 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
Conservation agriculture x
Practices Watershed management x
Inland valleys/bas fond x x
Financing AWM x
AWM support/ Equipment supply chain x
issues Institutional innovations x x
AWM adoption/Gender issues x x
Comparison of AWM options x
Watershed assessment &
Assessing x x x x
scenarios
options
National suitability mapping x x x x x x x
Regional suitability mapping Sub-saharan Africa India
7

8. AWM Solutions in Tanzania
8

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 and
about 30% of its export earnings, while employing over 80% of the nation‟s workforce. Annually some 5.1 million hectares
are 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.
9

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/
10

11. Where to invest to have the maximum impact on
rural livelihoods
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.
11

13. Improving Community Managed River Diversions
More information about this case study can be found on the project website http://awm-solutions.iwmi.org/
13

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.
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 2015
Findings are based on literature reviews, a survey of 200 farmers and interviews with community members and officials at all levels.
14

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.
15

16. 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 1.64
Farmer Training
Kilimanjaro 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.
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

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
Biophysical criteria and conditions
At a 50% adoption rate:
Distance from
Market 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

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/
18

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.
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

20. What Limits use of WLTs?
Costs
Even 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.
Quality
There are now more, lower cost, pumps on the market but the quality can be poor and pumps fail within a few months.
Knowledge
Many 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 Treadle Buckets/
Reasons given by farmers for not using WLTs pumps pumps watering cans
100 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

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.
21

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.
22

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/
23

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 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

25. Conservation Agriculture – Techniques and Choice
CA 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 intensiveness
grassed to prevent rapid runoff, contributing to • Ability to conserve soil moisture • Lack of training
water and nutrient conservation. e.g., terraces and conservation tillage • High capital costs
In-situ rainwater harvesting – capturing water in Arusha; pits in Dodoma.
and conserving it in the soil. • Lack of land ownership
• Lower labor requirements were favored
Conservation tillage - maintenance of the soil in Dodoma. • Delay in realizing
cover 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 composting
pits.
Cover cropping - intercropping to reduce
evaporation.
25

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 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

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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

30. Country level investment costs
Based 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 25-350
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.
30

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/
31

32. Why do this Assessment?
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.
The Situation
Livelihoods Map
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. Rangeland
Woodland
Forest
Bush land
Farmers in the official irrigation schemes do better Agricultural land
Grassland
financially than farmers relying on rainfed agriculture. Clouds
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. Landuse map by IWMI, 2010 for
AgWater Solutions;
Livelihood map by AgWater
Some commercial growers use sprinklers and operate solutions baseline PGIS
contract farming systems with smallholder farmers. assessment (Cinderby et al., 2011)
32

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
Poverty Water Water Natural
Technology Equity Gender
Reduction Quality Quantity 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 - - -
33

34. 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.
office
Figure taken from Stein, C., Ernstson, H., Barron, J., 2011
34

35. Social and Environmental Impact of AWM Solutions (3)
Link AWM with other interventions
A 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.
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).
35

36. 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

37. 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

38. Suggestions from dialogue meetings
AWM options What should be done?
CMRDs – database of • Investment in databases on river diversion schemes and infrastructure to facilitate repair and
existing infrastructure; investment.
repairs and maintenance; • Strengthening water users‟ organizations including management and financial skills, and
and 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 ponds
Water Lifting Devices – • Appropriate and affordable technologies should be identified and promoted. Information
improving access and about the quality of goods imported into the country can be obtained from the Tanzania
availability 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‟ confidence
finance 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

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 Beneficiaries* and % of Area and % of total
Solution Statement
Solution rural households agricultural land
Communal Infrastructure improvements, farmer training, 275,000-986,000 farmers. 144,000-460,000 ha
Irrigation 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 ha
Pumps 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 or
water 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

40. Policy Implications
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 yields
On 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 programs
AWM 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
40

41. References and Project Outputs
41

42. Project Outputs
Type Reference
Project • Barron, J., Noel, S. and Mikhail, M. 2010. Review of Agricultural Water Management Intervention Impacts at the
Reports 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

43. Project • Sugden, C. 2011. Carbon Footprint of Agricultural Development: the Potential Impact of Uptake of Small
Reports 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 Information
reviewed Systems for Agricultural Water Management Scenario Development: A Tanzanian Case Study. Physics and
journal 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

44. 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 Swedish
journal 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 Geographic
Proceedings 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

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 • 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