Small Grants Final Technical Report

CPWF SG 503 FTR 2007
ENHANCE ADOPTION OF HIGH POTENTIAL INTERVENTIONS FOR

INCREASING AGRICULTURAL WATER PRODUCTIVITY
Conditions for Sustainable Adoption of Water and Moisture System Innovations
in Nile River Basin: Case of Makanya Watershed in Tanzania
ANNEX A
SUA ALERT IFPRI
JULY, 2007
CPWF SG 503 FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Soil Water Management Research Group (SWMRG) of the Sokoine University of Agriculture
(SUA) in collaboration with the Association for Land-use, Environmental care, Research and
Technology transfer (ALERT) and International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) of
Washington DC, implemented the research project number CPWF SG 503 on Conditions for Sustainable
Adoption of Water and Moisture System Innovations in Nile River Basin: Case of Makanya Watershed in Tanzania
under a CPWF Small Grant Program on “Enhance Adoption of High Potential Interventions for
Increasing Agricultural Water Productivity”
The purpose of the research project was to improve adoption of agricultural water and moisture system
innovations (WMSIs) among smallholder farmers for enhanced livelihood in semi-arid areas. The
development challenge abreast of this project is on how the rate and intensity of adoption of robust
endogenous and novel WMSIs can be enhanced. The objectives of the research project were: (i) to
establish an inventory of smallholder water and moisture system innovations practiced in the study area
and their potential to improve household livelihoods; (ii) to identify biophysical and socio-economic
determinants of adoption of the WMSIs in the study area; (iii) to identify perceptions of the farmers
and local communities on the WMSIs; (iv) to promote strategies and approaches that facilitate scaling
up of WMSIs and (v) to produce and share policy recommendations for the adoption of water and
moisture system innovations to enhance uptake by key stakeholders.
This study was conducted in Makanya Catchment in Tanzania, covering five villages namely Chajo,
Mhero, Malindi, Mgwasi and Makanya. Both participatory approaches and questionnaire interviews
were conducted to collect data and relevant information. A series of consultation meeting and
workshops with stakeholders were conducted to share knowledge and information generated as part of
the implementation of communication plan.
The results showed that the current extent of use of water and moisture innovation systems (WMSIs),
in the study area, is as follows:
WMSIs practiced in the study area
Most of the WMSIs practiced in the catchment can be categorised into storage and in-situ water
capture type. Storage structures include charco dams (malambo), small ponds (ndiva), wells and tanks
(surface or subsurface). These are important WMSIs for domestic use, crop and livestock production.
This is mainly because the rains are erratic and sometime last for a short period. In-situ WMSIs,
commonly known as soil-water conservation innovations, comprise a group of techniques for
preventing runoff and promoting infiltration. A number of cultural practices such as trees-on-farm,
cover crops, mulching, ridging and addition of manure, fall under this category. Others include stone
and earth terraces, fanya juu/chini and contour ridges/bunds, borders/basins, deep tillage, trash lines,
and ripping; run off diversion, valley bottom farming and large planting pits. A number of these
WMSIs practiced in the Makanya catchment are traditional while the others are introduced. Intensity
and extent of adoption differ between the lowlands, midlands and uplands.
Potential of WMSIs to improve farmers livelihoods
The study revealed that WMSIs that involve supplementary irrigation had higher returns to land and
labour therefore have potential for improving household livelihood based on crop enterprises involved.
For example, run-off diversion for spate irrigation had higher returns to land (TAS 222,266/ha § US$
176) and labour (TAS 202/person/day § US$ 0.16/person/day) compared to over WMSIs in the
lowland under Lablab enterprise. In the midlands diversion of stream flows had returns to land (TAS
451,655/ha § US$ 358) under Lablab enterprise. In the uplands ndiva had higher returns to land (TAS
2,908.125/ha § US$ 2308) and labour (TAS 6,613/person/day § US$ 5.2). On the other hand, tree-
ii
on-farm had high returns to land (TAS 1,301,425/ha § US$ 1033) and labour (TAS 21,154/person/day
§ US$ 16.8) in upland in coffee enterprise.
Biophysical and socio-economic determinants of adoption of the WMSIs
The results showed that determinants that positively and/or negatively influence adoption of
innovations are mainly biophysical and socio-economic. The biophysical determinants include
topography (control erosion), yield increase/productivity, reduce inconvenience in irrigation schedule,
irrigation task is simplified by controlling water, conserve soil, fertility and moisture, good crop growth,
shortage of enough water to conserve, land shortage, increased production, rainfall shortage, protect
water loss and poor working tools. The socio economic determinants include bye-laws for group the
use the same ndiva, cash crops, low education level, low income level, inadequate labour force, land
tenure, cost involved, poor technology, unwillingness to take up the technology, having other
alternative activities, lack of expertise/technology, lack of collective action (kiwili), high cost to
implement, lack of information about technology, traditions and norms of using draught animals and
laziness, ignorance, jealousy, complacency. Between 62.5 and 70% of mentioned determinants that
positively influence farmers to adopt WMSIs are of biophysical in nature. It was also found that
between 69.2 to 79% of all the factors negatively affect farmers to adopt WMSIs are socio-economic in
nature.
Determinants of technology adoption at household level include household capital endowments

(capital assets - human, natural, physical, financial and social), land tenure and access to market and
services have influenced adoption of WMSIs in Makanya Catchment. Results show that there are
positive relationships between adoption of WMSIs with human capital (education level, training of
farmers, household labour and age of farmers); natural capital (farm size); physical (ownership of
livestock and house type); financial capital (liquid asset - bank account) and social capital (farmer
association sand networks). Other factors include access to market and policy environment. It is worth
noting that results showed negative relationship on adoption of most WMSIs for women except for
cover crops. This is due to the fact that most women are dealing with leguminous crop which are
commonly use as cover crops, in their effort to provide food for their households.
Perceptions of the farmers and local communities on the WMSIs

Results showed that the need for conserving soil and water, improving food security, increasing
productivity, low rainfall and increasing income were perceived as most important reasons for adopting
most WMSIs at farm level. On the other hand farmers’ perceived that inadequate
knowledge/education/skills and low income are the most important reasons for them not adopting
some innovations they perceive to be good for their farm households. There are significant correlations
among reasons for adopting the innovations. During focus group discussions women groups perceived
advantages of adopting some WMSIs differently from groups of men farmers. For example, women
farmers perceived that charco-dams and water tanks improved availability of water near homesteads
which reduced their work load of walking long distances in search of water, therefore providing ample
time to do other households chores. On the other hand men emphasised that charco dams increased
water availability for livestock, thus protecting livestock from dying while moving them to the River in
search of water.
Strategies and approaches that facilitate scaling up of WMSIs
The project assessed current strategies and approaches for scaling up of WMSIs. Results show that
scaling-up of potential WMSIs entailed communication, interaction and interrelation amongst key
stakeholders through social and institutional networks. Sharing of knowledge and information is done
mostly within the family members and farming communities within in the villages and between village
to village. A few farmers learned about WMSIs in schools and colleges while other through
interventions by the government and change or development agents like NGOs and development
projects. The farmers’ response shows that interactive methods like on-farm trials, field/exchange
iii
visits, demonstration plots, meetings and seminars were effective in knowledge sharing. Similarly,
learning from parents, extension workers and village government leaders were also found to be
effective.
Policy issues for the adoption of WMSIs
Review of policies to assess their adequacy in promoting adoption of WMSIs revealed that most
policies and strategy papers have contain clauses related to conservation of water and moisture. These
documents include National Water Policy of 2002, Tanzania Agricultural and Livestock Policy of 1997,
the National Environmental Policy 1997; National Forestry Policy of 1998; and strategy papers like the
Agricultural Sector Development Strategy of 2001 and the National Strategy for Growth and Reduction
of Poverty of 2005. There are major weaknesses in implementation of policies which make promotion
and uptake of WMSIs difficult. These include policies’ documents not available and therefore not know
to most executives; limited understanding of the policies to both communities and extension officers;
poor community involvement in policy making process; some cases where policies are interpreted
politically in favour of a few or groups of individuals. In addition, there are conflicting policies and bye-
laws which also create confusion among farming communities.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The study found out that most of the household in the Makanya Catchment are practicing at least one
WMSI. The WMSIs that involve supplementary irrigation had higher returns to land and labour, which
indicates that in semi-arid environment supplementation of rainfed agriculture, is important. Venturing
in high value crops like vegetables under capital intensive WMSIs like ndiva would effectively reduce
income poverty in water constrained dry lands. Most of the constraints to adoption are related to socio-
economic determinants. This implies that successful promotion of novel technologies to farm and
community levels should address socio-economic constraints for smooth uptake of technologies. The
needs to conserve soil and water, improving food security and increasing income were perceived as
most important factors for adopting WMSIs. However, there are gender differences on perception of
advantages and disadvantages over adoption of WMSIs, which in-turn affects uptake of WMSIs.
Furthermore, limited accessibility of policies and low understanding of policies, regulations and bye-
laws limit promotion and uptake of WMSIs. Therefore it is recommended that availability of policy
documents at village, ward and division levels should be enhanced as well as education on policy, laws,
principles and procedures for leaders and communities to foster smooth implementation.
iv
ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS
ALERT : Association for Land use, Environmental care, Research and Technology Transfer
CARITAS : Roman Catholic Agency for Community Development
CBOs : Community Based Organisations
CPWF : Geographical Information System
DALDO : District Agricultural and Livestock Development Officer
DC : District Council
FGD : Focus Group Discussion
IFPRI : International Food Policy Research Institute
KSPs : Knowledge Sharing Products
NGOs : Non Government Organisations
SAIPRO : Same Agricultural Improvement Project
SG : Small Grant
SSA : Sub Saharan Africa
SSI : Smallholder System Innovations
SUA : Sokoine University of Agriculture
SWMRG : Soil Water Management Research Group
TIP : Traditional Irrigation Improvement Project
VECO : Vredeseilanden Country Office
VEO : Village Executive Officer
WEO : Ward Executive Officer
WDC : Ward Development Council
WMSIs : Water and Moisture System Innovations
WSIs : Water System Innovations
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................................................................. II
ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS.............................................................................................................................. V
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..............................................................................................................................................VI
LIST OF FIGURE .......................................................................................................................................................VIII
LIST OF TABLES ..........................................................................................................................................................IX
LIST OF APPENDICES................................................................................................................................................IX
INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 STUDY VILLAGES ....................................................................................................................................................... 2
METHODOLOGY........................................................................................................................................................... 3
2.1 DELIVERY OF OUTPUT 1 ............................................................................................................................................ 3
2.1.1 Review of literature on existing WMSIs...................................................................................................................... 3
2.1.2 Introducing the project in the selected village.................................................................................................................. 3
2.1.3 Participatory agro-ecosystem analysis .......................................................................................................................... 3
2.2.1 Review of different econometric adoption models............................................................................................................. 3
2.2.2 Identify determinants of adoption ............................................................................................................................... 3
2.3.1 Identification of farmers’ and community perceptions ...................................................................................................... 4
2.4.1 Review and documentation of strategies and approaches for scaling up ................................................................................ 4
2.4.2 Development of the knowledge sharing and communication strategy and plan....................................................................... 4
2.5.1 Review and assessment of adequacy of water related policies ............................................................................................. 5
2.5.2 Village level assessment of water policy........................................................................................................................ 5
2.6 DATA COLLECTION ................................................................................................................................................... 5
2.6.1 Sampling Procedure ................................................................................................................................................ 5
2.6.2 Data Processing and Analysis .................................................................................................................................. 6
2.7 LIMITATION OF THE METHODOLOGY........................................................................................................................ 7
SMALLHOLDER WMSIS IN THE MAKANYA CATCHMENT............................................................................... 8
3.1 OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................................ 8
3.2 AGRO-ECOSYSTEMS IN MAKANYA CATCHMENT ........................................................................................................ 9
3.2.1 Uplands............................................................................................................................................................... 9
3.2.2 Mid lands ............................................................................................................................................................ 9
3.2.3 Lowlands ............................................................................................................................................................. 9
3.3 WMSIS PRACTICED IN THE MAKANYA CATCHMENT .................................................................................................. 9
3.3.1 Uplands............................................................................................................................................................. 10
3.3.2 Midlands ........................................................................................................................................................... 11
3.2.3 Lowlands ........................................................................................................................................................... 12
3.4 INTENSITY OF ADOPTION OF WMSIS IN MAKANYA CATCHMENT ........................................................................... 12
3.5 POTENTIAL OF WMSIS IN HOUSEHOLD LIVELIHOODS IMPROVEMENT AND POVERTY REDUCTION .......................... 13
3.5.1. Performance of crop enterprises under different WMSIs in lowland................................................................................. 13
3.5.2. Performance of crop enterprises under different WMSIs in the midland ........................................................................... 14
3.5.3. Performance of crop enterprises under different WMSIs in the upland ............................................................................. 17
DETERMINANTS OF ADOPTION OF WMSIS IN THE MAKANYA CATCHMENT...................................... 20
vi
4.1 DETERMINANTS OF ADOPTION OF WMSIS AT COMMUNITY LEVEL .......................................................................... 20
4.2 DETERMINANTS OF ADOPTION OF WMSIS AT FARM LEVEL IN MAKANYA CATCHMENT .......................................... 20
4.2.1 Household Capital Endowments ............................................................................................................................. 21
4.2.3 Access to Markets and Services............................................................................................................................... 25
PERCEPTION OF LOCAL COMMUNITIES IN ADOPTION OF WATER AND MOISTURE SYSTEM
INNOVATIONS............................................................................................................................................................. 26
5.1. PERCEPTION ON REASONS AND PRIORITY FOR ADOPTION OF WMSIS .................................................................... 26
5.2 PERCEPTION ON THE REASONS FOR NOT ADOPTING WMSIS .................................................................................. 27
5.3 CORRELATIONS OF THE FARMERS’ PERCEPTIONS ON THE REASONS FOR ADOPTING WMSI.................................... 27
5.4 FARMERS’ PERCEPTIONS ON THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES FOR ADOPTING WMSI............................... 28
5.4.1 Advantages of adopting WMSIs as perceived by Women.............................................................................................. 28
5.4.2 Advantages of adopting WMSIs as perceived by Men .................................................................................................. 29
5.4.3 Advantages of adopting WMSIs as perceived by Village Leaders................................................................................... 29
5.4.4 Disadvantages of adopting WMSIs as perceived by Women .......................................................................................... 30
5.4.5 Disadvantages of adopting WMSIs as perceived by Men............................................................................................... 31
5.4.6 Disadvantages of adopting WMSIs as perceived by Village leaders ................................................................................. 31
SCALING UP STRATEGIES FOR THE POTENTIAL NOVEL TECHNOLOGIES .......................................... 33
6.1 STRATEGIES AND APPROACHES FOR SCALING-UP OF WATER AND MOISTURE INNOVATION SYSTEMS ...................... 33
6.2 POTENTIAL STRATEGIES AND APPROACHES IDENTIFIED BY STAKEHOLDERS ........................................................... 35
6.3 THE KEY STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVED IN PROMOTING WMSIS IN THE CATCHMENT ............................................... 35
6.4 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE POTENTIAL STRATEGIES AND APPROACHES ON ADOPTION OF WMSIS .............................. 36
6.5 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMUNICATION STRATEGY IN MAKANYA CATCHMENT ............................................. 37
6.5.1 At farmers Level ................................................................................................................................................. 37
6.5.2 Beyond Farmers’ Level.......................................................................................................................................... 37
6.6. SIGNIFICANT SUCCESS STORIES AFTER IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMUNICATION STRATEGY .................................. 38
6.6.1 Critical factors that led to success: ............................................................................................................................ 38
6.6.2 Constraints: ........................................................................................................................................................ 39
6.6.3 Key lessons learnt: ................................................................................................................................................ 39
6.6.4 Future implications for action of similar research interventions:....................................................................................... 39
POLICY ISSUES FOR THE ADOPTION OF WMSIS.............................................................................................. 40
7.1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................... 40
7.2 ANALYSIS OF POLICIES/BYE-LAWS ON WMSIS AT VILLAGE LEVEL......................................................................... 40
7.2.1 Farmers perception on policies and bye-laws that affect the use of the WMSIs ................................................................... 40
7.2.2 Perception of farmers according to gender.................................................................................................................... 40
7.2.3 Perception of community leaders on the policies............................................................................................................ 41
7.2.4 Perception of extension workers at district, wards and village levels.................................................................................. 41
7.3 THE CONFLICTING POLICIES ................................................................................................................................... 43
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................................... 44
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................................................ 46
vii
LIST OF FIGURE
Figure 1: Location of the study villages within the Makanya watershed ........................................................ 2
Figure 2: Yield of lablab under different WMSIs in masika season in the lowland..................................... 13
Figure 3: Returns to land from lablab under different WMSIs in masika season in the lowland.............. 14
Figure 4: Returns to labour from lablab under different WMSIs in masika season in the lowland.......... 14
Figure 5: Yield of lablab under different WMSIs in masika season in the midland .................................... 14
Figure 6: Returns to land from lablab under different WMSIs in masika season in the midland ............. 15
Figure 7: Returns to labour from lablab under different WMSIs in masika season in the midland ......... 15
Figure 8: Yield of bean under different WMSIs in vuli season in the midland ............................................ 15
Figure 8: Yield of bean under different WMSIs in vuli season in the midland ............................................ 16
Figure 9: Returns to land from bean under different WMSIs in vuli season in the midland ..................... 16
Figure 10: Returns to labour from lablab under different WMSIs in vuli season in the midland ............. 16
Figure 11: Yield of maize under different WMSIs in vuli season in the midland ........................................ 16
Figure 12: Returns to land from maize under different WMSIs in vuli season in the midland ................. 17
Figure 13: Returns to labour from maize under different WMSIs in vuli season in the midland ............. 17
Figure 14: Yield of bean under different WMSIs in vuli season in the upland ............................................ 17
Figure 15: Returns to land from bean under different WMSIs in vuli season in the upland ..................... 18
Figure 16: Returns to labour from bean under different WMSIs in vuli season in the upland ................. 18
Figure 17: Returns to land from vegetables under different WMSIs and seasons in the upland ............. 18
Figure 18: Returns to labour from vegetables under different WMSIs and seasons in the land .............. 18
Figure 19: Yield of coffee under different WMSIs in the upland.................................................................. 19
Figure 20: Returns to land from coffee under different WMSIs in the upland........................................... 19
Figure 21: Returns to labour from coffee under different WMSIs in the upland....................................... 19
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Category of the water and moisture system innovation in the catchment...................................... 8
Table 2: WMSIs in the Makanya Catchment .................................................................................................... 10
Table 3: Extent of practicing WMSIs in upland areas..................................................................................... 10
Table 4: Extent of practicing WMSIs in midland areas .................................................................................. 11
Table 5: Extent of practicing WMSIs in lowlands ........................................................................................... 12
Table 6: Intensity of adoption of WMSIs in the Makanya catchment.......................................................... 12
Table 7: Family labour and adoption of water and moisture system innovations ...................................... 22
Table 8: Gender and adoption of water and moisture system innovations ................................................. 22
Table 9: Perceive reasons for adopting of first priority WMSIs .................................................................... 26
Table 10: Perceive reasons for adopting priority two WMSIs ....................................................................... 26
Table 11: Perceive reasons for adopting priority three WMSIs..................................................................... 27
Table 12: Reasons for not adopting innovation perceived to be good for the household ........................ 27
Table 13: Correlations of the farmers’ perceptions on the reasons for adopting WMSIs......................... 28
Table 14: Source of knowledge and information currently used as indicated by farmers ......................... 33
Table 15: Perception of farmers on the extent of adopting from trained farmers ..................................... 34
Table 16: Effectiveness of Knowledge and Communication methods in Makanya Catchment .............. 36
Table 17: Number of farmers adopting bench terraces and terraces established in Malindi village ........ 38
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Table of results on the determinants of adoption.................................................................... 46

Appendix B: Most Significant Change Stories ................................................................................................. 57
ix
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
From January 2006, the Soil Water Research Management Research Group (SWMRG) of the Sokoine
University of Agriculture (SUA) in collaboration with a local NGO known as Association for Land-use,
Environmental care, Research and Technology transfer (ALERT) and International Food Policy
Research Institute (IFPRI) of Washington DC, has been implementing a research project number
CPWF SG 503 on Conditions for Sustainable Adoption of Water and Moisture System
Innovations in Nile River Basin: Case of Makanya Watershed in Tanzania under a CPWF Small
Grant Program on “Enhance Adoption of High Potential Interventions for Increasing
Agricultural Water Productivity”
The purpose of the research project is to improve adoption of agricultural water and moisture system
innovations (WMSIs) among smallholder farmers for enhanced livelihood in semi-arid areas. The
project was designed to contribute in improving the currently low adoption of water and moisture
systems innovations for increased productivity of agricultural water in the semi-arid areas. In the semi-
arid areas scarcity and variability of agricultural water and moisture is a major constraint to improved
livelihood of smallholder farmers in the semi-arid dryland areas.
Water Moisture System Innovations (WMSIs) are defined as any management technology or practice
that has the objective to reduce risks of rainfed-induced water stress and/or increase agricultural
productivity. They include water harvesting, drip irrigation, precision agriculture and conservation
farming technologies aiming at improving water productivity while conserving resources (Rockstrom et
al., 2004). Most WMSIs are understood in a systems context where water management forms an
integral part of a production system, including interactions between soil, water and crop management
(e.g., conservation tillage which aims to improve soil properties for water conservation).
The development challenge abreast of this project is on how the rate and intensity of adoption of
robust endogenous and novel WMSIs can be enhanced. In this regard, this project (CPWF SG 503) is
designed to meet this challenge by delivering its purpose after attaining the following outputs (stated in
results form):
1. Inventory of smallholder water and moisture system innovations practiced in the study area
and their potential to improve household livelihoods Established
2. Biophysical and socio-economic determinants of adoption of the WMSIs in the study area
Identified
3. Perceptions of the farmers and local communities on the WMSIs Identified
4. Strategies and approaches that facilitate scaling up of WMSIs Promoted
5. Policy recommendations for the adoption of water and moisture system innovations
Produced and Shared for uptake by key stakeholders
1
1.2 Study Villages
The study villages were selected by stakeholders during the project inception workshop held in Same
from 22nd to 23rd March 2006. The selection process was guided by three criteria that: i) the target of the
project is only five villages, ii) the villages must represent the three biophysical locations of the
watershed landscape (upland, midland and lowland), and iii) the selected village should be the one really
manifesting non-existence or very low extent of adoption of WMSIs and not already researched in
terms of adoption of the same. In the first place 13 potential villages were identified entailing 7, 4, and
1 from the upland, midland and lowland respectively. Based on the selection criteria two villages were
unanimously selected in the upland (Suji and Mhero), two in the midland (Chajo and Mgwasi) and one
in the lowland (Makanya). Figure 1 presents the selected study villages.
Figure 1: Location of the study villages within the Makanya watershed
2
CHAPTER 2
METHODOLOGY
2.1 Delivery of output 1
2.1.1 Review of literature on existing WMSIs

This activity was an entry point for establishing an inventory of smallholder WMSIs and their
underlying potential to improve household livelihoods. The activity was implemented through in-depth
review of existing WMSIs at regional, national and watershed levels (Annex B1).
2.1.2 Introducing the project in the selected village

This activity was undertaken by a team of researchers who paid visits to the selected villages. The
project was introduced to the village leader then to the group of selected farmers who attended FGD.
The process followed normal protocols involving paying a courtesy to village offices to introduce the
project to respective village executive officers. The village officers assisted to make arrangements for
the general meetings with farmers. In the meetings the research team introduced the project
background, objectives and expected community outcomes/impacts and the roles of the local
communities in the research process stipulated by stakeholders during an inception meeting.
2.1.3 Participatory agro-ecosystem analysis

In this project, participatory agro-ecosystem analysis refers to application of participatory and quasi-
participatory (mainly researcher based) methods in implementing research activities in the field. In this
study the term agro-ecosystem refers to a dynamic association of crops, pastures, livestock, other flora
and fauna, atmosphere, soils, and water. Agro-ecosystems are contained within larger landscapes that
include uncultivated land, drainage networks, wildlife and rural communities
(www.fao.org/ag/wfe2005/glossary_en.htm). This activity was done during FGD in the initial stages of the
project implementation and subsequent field visits during implementation of the project.
2.2.1 Review of different econometric adoption models

The basic intent of this activity was to establish and critique different adoption models from the view
points of adoption theories and models (Annex B2).
2.2.2 Identify determinants of adoption

Using participatory approaches (FGD, key informant interviews and observations) and questionnaire
survey, critical determinants of adoption of WMSIs, farmers’ perceptions on novel innovations and
dissemination and information sharing methods were identified and assessed
3
2.3.1 Identification of farmers’ and community perceptions

Perceptions on the preconditions and externalities for adoption of WMSIs were explored at farm and
community levels. Farm level data for perceptions were collected through a questionnaire administered
in the household survey while that for community level were collated through FGD and key
informants’ interviews.
At community level, the preconditions and externalities were assessed through focused group
discussions to capture community wide perceptions on the adoption of WMSIs. In the analysis of farm
level perception, the conventional attitudinal scale (Likert) was used evaluate different attributes of
preconditions for adoption of different WMSIs. Attitudinal rating aspects on the Likert scale that were
loaded in factor analysis include very important; important; not so important; not important at all.
2.4.1 Review and documentation of strategies and approaches for scaling up

In this regard, it is imperative to review and critique different approaches and strategies for scaling up
for enriching the project communication plan (Annex B3).
2.4.2 Development of the knowledge sharing and communication strategy and plan
In the development of knowledge sharing and communication strategy, the first stage involved
categorization of stakeholders and identification of their information needs. This was done through a
knowledge sharing and communication strategy workshop. The stakeholders were categorized into
groups such as farmers, planners, district agricultural officers, trade officers and the private sectors
involved with handling farmers’ products or providing inputs. After categorization, through open
discussions in the workshop among the stakeholders’ information needs, knowledge, attitude and
practice were analyzed. The ways of information brokerage and sharing were also elicited. The
framework was shared in the stakeholders’ consultation workshop.
The aims of the knowledge sharing and communication strategy in relation to the project purpose were:
x To facilitate participation and commitment of stakeholders in the research process so as to

foster the sense of ownership of research outputs, which would propel uptake of research
results
x To ensure that farmers access and use best-bet WMSIs that would enable them to increase
productivity of resources (land, water, capital and labour) in order to reduce poverty and
increase food security
x Bridging the research and policy by brokering research results to policy and development
practitioners at district and national levels
Therefore, for successful and sustainable outcomes, the promotion of the research outputs and
products of this project involved a process whereby a framework for knowledge sharing to different
stakeholders was developed as one of the project activities. The development and operationalization of
the knowledge sharing and communication strategy involved dissemination of potential innovations
through study visits, agricultural exhibitions, training, informative stakeholders’ workshops and
lobbying and advocacy in order to pass the research knowledge across a range of stakeholders to
ensure scaling up/out.
4
2.5.1 Review and assessment of adequacy of water related policies

The process involved collection material related to policies and institutional frameworks e.g.
legislations, guidelines with a bearing to WMSIs adoption and access and undertake content analysis for
adequacy/potential and shortfall/caveats, and equate with local realities and priorities. Key extracts and
statements from the policy, strategy and legislation documents explicitly have been synthesized to
concretize strengths and weaknesses of the contents to highlight domains for robust reformations for
efficient and sustainable adoption of WMSIs (Annex B4).
2.5.2 Village level assessment of water policy

At village level the project sought to evaluate awareness, attitudes and opinions of farmers on the
policies and legislations related to water, land and other related natural resources such as catchment
forests. Such awareness has been evaluated with a major focus on how these policies affect
(hinder/enhance) adoption of and access to WMSIs. The policies were further evaluated in relation to
the planning process and participation of local stakeholders and implications for policy efficacy at local
level.
2.6 Data Collection
Data was collected through focus group discussions with key informants, and individual interviews
using a structured questionnaire as detailed in Annex B5.
2.6.1 Sampling Procedure

Households
By design a minimum of 60 respondents from each of study village located in the three biophysical
locations on the watershed landscape (i.e. upland, midland and lowland). The overall sample size was
300 respondents. Simple random sampling was used to select the respondents from an updated village
register of all households. A few case studies were undertaken to track interesting field stories and
processes related to adoption of WMSIs that were used to supplement or complement to the other
research findings.
Key informant interviews
Before each focus group interviews, short meetings were held with village leaders. Key informants were
people that were knowledgeable in WMSIs in their village and sub-villages. For this reason,
chairpersons of villages and sub-villages, elders and extension staff at ward and village levels constituted
the key informant interviews.
Key informant interviews were held at village level that brought together village leaders and extension
staff. The second session involved farmers. Researchers facilitated the discussion and started by
explaining the objective of the survey. The discussions focused on identification of the extent and
performance of WMSIs in the respective village or sub-village. This included information on types of
WMSIs found in the area, agro-ecosystem analyses, perception of the factors affecting wide adoption of
the WMSIs and policies influencing the uptake of WMSIs. The WMSIs currently in use; areas and
activities where WMSIs are mostly practiced and areas suitable for WMSIs for various activities were
also discussed.
5
Structured interviews
Development of the household questionnaire survey involved undertaking a series of tasks. These
include design of the questionnaire, piloting the questionnaire in the field and post-piloting
incorporation of adjustments in the final questionnaire that was used to undertake a baseline survey.
The questionnaire was crafted to address basic strands embedded in all of the project outputs. This is
because only one household questionnaire survey was done in during project implementation. The
architecture of the questionnaire entailed four broad parts. First part comprised of introductory
information, the second part comprised of information of water and moisture system innovations, the
third part comprised of socio-economic aspects of water and moisture system innovations and the last
part was on household development. In order to increase accuracy and efficiency in the interview
process the questionnaire was translated into Swahili which is the official language well understood by
both the interviewers and interviewees.
Selection and training of enumerators
The enumeration process was carried out by a team of local enumerators including village/ward
extensionists, social workers, and primary school teachers. At least 3 local enumerators identified by
respective village leaders were appointed from each village. Use of local enumerators enables flexibility
in the time of undertaking the interviews as the enumerator and the respondent could agree on the time
of interview. Because one might have an ample time to revisit the farms to clarify some issues that
appear unclear during the interviews and get acquainted of field realities such as typologies of WMSIs.
Training of enumerators was done in two phases for two days. The first phase involved training on the
theoretical and practical insights into research in general and social survey in particular. Critical aspects
that were introduced under the first phase included: the concept of research as a systematic enquiry, the
art and science for establishing convenient interviewer-interviewee interface and probing, and the
externalities of leading questions. The second phase involved going through all the questions as to
understand the construct and the intended purpose of each question and pre-testing the instrument in
the field. From the lessons acquired after pre-testing the questionnaire was amended to incorporate
necessary changes and establishing common of styles of asking some questions.
Arrangements for household survey were done in advance by formally informing the village and sub-
village leaders to inform the selected households. Through collaboration between the research team
and local leaders, the letters specifying the date of visit to a particular village/sub-village cluster were
distributed some days before survey started. The household survey was conducted by visiting different
individual heads of households at home or in the field. During the interviews, in case the household is
absent the spouse was the proxy respondent. Collection of data was done for two weeks. One of
researchers based in the field monitoring the progress, collect filled questionnaire, review them and give
feedbacks to enumerators for redress.
2.6.2 Data Processing and Analysis

The collected primary data were analyzed in view of delivering the elements of project outputs across.
For the first output, descriptive analysis aimed at eliciting a portfolio of WMSIs by different biophysical
(e.g. location, farm characteristics such as slope/terrain, crop type etc) and socio-economic variables
(e.g. gender, age, wealth, education, access to extension etc). The analysis was undertaken using
available spreadsheet and statistical packages such as Excel and SPSS.
6
2.7 Limitation of the Methodology
Due to the project setting and implementation it was not possible to have physical data on crop
enterprises therefore the data used to compute returns to land and labour for production enterprises
relied from farmers recalls during household surveys which may be prone to over or under estimation.
7
CHAPTER 3
SMALLHOLDER WMSIs IN THE MAKANYA CATCHMENT
3.1 Overview
Farmers in the Makanya catchment are aware that both crop and livestock production can be improved
substantially through concentration of scarce rainwater as well as provision of supplementary water
during critical times. The following sections of this chapter cover the agro-ecosystems in the Makanya
Catchment, existing WMSIs and the extent and intensity of adoption at household level.
The WMSIS practiced in the catchment storage type and in-situ water capture type (Table 5). Storage
structures like small ponds (ndiva) are important WMSIs for crop production. This is mainly because
the rains are erratic and sometime last for a short period. These small ponds (ndiva) are normally
constructed at a relatively higher (upland) area are used to store water from streams during the night
that supplement irrigation during the day. Charco dams are mostly found in the lowlands and mainly
purposed for livestock but currently used also for domestic purposes. Ground/underground tanks have
been promoted mainly for kitchen gardening. The tank surfaces are usually sealed with mortar to
reduce seepage losses while covering the tanks, with iron sheet minimizes evaporation.
In-situ WMSIs, also known as soil-water conservation, comprises a group of techniques for preventing
runoff and promoting infiltration. They aim at retaining moisture that would otherwise be wasted as
runoff from the cropped area. The most common technology is conservation tillage which aims to
maximize the amount of soil moisture within the root zone. A number of cultural moisture practices
such as mulching, ridging, addition of manure, etc. could fall under this category. In-situ water
conservation is also combined with runoff farming on farms with terraces, in which the terrace channel
(mainly fanya juu and contour ridges/bunds) collects and stores runoff from small external catchments
while the cropland between the channels harvest and conserve direct rainfall. However, excess runoff
that may be generated from the cropland between the terrace channels would be collected at the
channel.
Table 1: Category of the water and moisture system innovation in the catchment
Category WMSIs
Storage x Storage ponds ‘Ndiva’
x Wells
x Charco dams
x Tanks - Ground/underground
In-situ x Terraces – fanya juu/chini, bench
x Mulching
x Contours
x Conservation of natural vegetation
x Border/basins
x Deep tillage
x Use of ripper
8
3.2 Agro-ecosystems in Makanya Catchment
3.2.1 Uplands
The uplands are dominated by various farming systems with a network of furrows and storage ponds
known as “ndivas”. Crops grown includes horticultural crops, maize, coffee/banana system, sweet and
round potatoes, yams, beans, trees-on-farm (for fruits, timber and shade), sugarcane and cassava.
Others crops are on small-scale such as wheat and flower gardens. Rainfed and irrigated crop
production using the existing traditional irrigation system is widely practiced. Zero grazing is common
where animals are housed and stall fed. Local and crossbred cattle are kept. Other animals include goats
and local chickens..
3.2.2 Mid lands

Major farming system is rainfed crop production with an exception of a few horticultural crops served
by a traditional irrigation system. Cropping systems include sole maize, maize with sunflower, maize
with groundnuts, legumes and pulses (lablab bean/common beans/pigeon). Others are cassava, sweet
and round potatoes, bananas, groundnuts, sugarcane and vegetables such as amaranthus, cabbages,
tomatoes, onions, sweet pepper, and the African egg plant (ngogwe). Other cropping systems include
sugarcane and coffee/ banana and cover crops like lablab. Livestock production is also practiced where
animals are zero grazed or tethered. A mixture of cross bred and local breeds is common.
3.2.3 Lowlands
The farming systems in this area are purely rainfed with exception of horticulture which gets
supplementary irrigation from water harvested and stored in charco dams. The systems include maize
and legume (beans and lablab) intercropping, horticulture where vegetables like amaranthus, tomatoes,
cabbage, okra are grown. Others crops grown are sweet potatoes, water melons and cucumber. Agro-
pastoralism is practiced in the lowlands, mainly extensive grazing for local cattle, sheep and goats. Local
chickens are also kept.
3.3 WMSIs practiced in the Makanya Catchment
A number of WMSIs are practiced in the Makanya catchment as shown in Table 1. Mostly are
traditional while the others are introduced and vary according to the toposequence across the
catchment. Similarly the intensity and extent of adoption differ between the lowlands, midlands and
uplands as shown on Tables 2 - 4.
9
Table 2: WMSIs in the Makanya Catchment
Areas Water Conservation Innovations Moisture Conservation Innovations
Highlands x Storage ponds (ndiva) x Bench terraces, Fanya juu/Fanya chini

x Cisterns x Mulching (crop residues)
x Wells x Cover crops ( potatoes, legume, lablab,
x Small charco-ponds legumes, pumpkins)
x Wetlands x Contours
x Natural vegetation conservation x Conservation of natural vegetation
x Canals x Deep tillage
x Tree planting at water sources x Large pits
x Valley bottoms x Use of FYM and compost
x Terraces
Midslopes x Storage pond (ndiva) x Bench terraces,
x Tanks x Contours (Fanya juu/Fanya chini)
x Wells x Tied ridges
x Charco dams x Mulching and Cover crops
x Conservation of natural vegetation & water x Deep tillage through ripper
sources
Lowlands x Charco-dams x Basins/borders
x Storage tanks x Mulching
x Tanks – underground/subsurface x Deep tillage
x Basins/borders x Cover crops
3.3.1 Uplands
WMSIs mostly practiced in the uplands include mulching, traditional deep tillage, trees-on-farm and use
of farm yard manure while the least practiced are rainwater harvesting, diversion of stream flow and
terraces as shown on Table 2.
Table 3: Extent of practicing WMSIs in upland areas

WMSIs Upland (n = 120)
n %
Mulching 96 81
Traditional Deep Tillage 86 74
Trees-on-farm 84 71
Application of FYM 82 69
Cover crop 58 50
Ndiva System 55 46
Post Irrigation Tillage 51 43
Large Planting Pits 42 36
Earth Terraces 35 30
Trash Lines 25 21
Stone Terraces 23 20
Runoff Diversion Ditches 20 17
Runoff Diversion 12 10
Valley Bottom Farming 12 10
RWH Tank and Pipe 7 6
Diversion of Stream Flow 4 3
Fanya Juu/Chini Terraces 3 3
n = number of respondents
10
Mulching is the most practiced innovation where 81% of the households are practicing. This is mainly
due to the coffee banana system where the coffee and banana farms are mulched. The other innovation
is the traditional deep tillage and use of farm yard manure to conserve moisture due to shortage of rains
and irrigation water where 69% of the households apply farm yard manure and 71% plant trees on
farms. The technologies are adopted to increase crop productivity and income that accrue from crop
sales and therefore improving the food security as reported by most of the respondents. Other reasons
for adoption are the steep slopes, by laws enforced to conserve the environment and the frequent
shortages of rainfall. However non adoption of WMSIs for some of the households is due to labour
and capital intensiveness of some of the innovations such as construction of water tanks and pipe, and
stone terraces. Lack of income, working tools, resources and materials are other factors mentioned to
limit adoption of WMSIs.
3.3.2 Midlands
Midland farmers mostly practice the traditional deep tillage where 66% of the households make use of
it. The run off diversion, ndiva and mulching are also common as 43%, 35% and 31% of the
households respectively, practice them. Table 3 shows more of the WMSIs and the extent of their
adoption in the midlands. The extent of adoption of Diversion of run-off and stream flows in the
midlands is not as high as in the upland areas. Location disadvantage was mentioned by all respondents
in the midlands as the main reason for not adopting the diversion of stream flow innovation as
abstraction is high in uplands limiting water flowing downstream. However, low income and lack of
technical know-how contribute to low use of technological know-how to improve the structures for
maximizing run-off diversion. Despite the need for use of farm yard manure to improve fertility and
conserve moisture, 83% of farmers fail to use it due to lack of transport as it is bulky and difficult to
carry to farm sites. Other reasons for non adoption include lack of tractors for deep tillage, ndivas not
functioning, and negative effects of some tree species to crops. Ripping is a newly introduced
technology that is still in pilot sites.
Table 4: Extent of practicing WMSIs in midland areas

WMSIs Midland (n = 120)
n %
Ndiva System 42 35
Mulching 37 31
Diversion of Stream Flow 33 28
Cover crop 29 24
Trees-on-farm 26 22
Earth Terraces 19 16
Trash Lines 15 13
Stone Terraces 10 8
Runoff Diversion Ditches 8 7
Bordered Basins 8 7
Valley Bottom Farming 6 5
RWH Tank and Pipe 4 3
Fanya Juu/Chini Terraces 3 3
Ripping 2 2
11
3.2.3 Lowlands
Mostly, the WMSIs used in the lowlands include the runoff diversion, bordered basins, cover crops,
traditional deep tillage and large planting pits. Diversions of runoff and bordered basins are common,
practiced by 87% and 58% of the households respectively. These innovations are useful in collecting
run off water during occasional rainfall events that usually occur in the semi arid lowlands or run-off
from the surrounding mountains.
Compared to the uplands and midlands, the lowlands in the Makanya catchment practice fewer WMSIs
and the mostly practiced are the runoff diversion used by 87% of the households and the bordered
basins by 58%. The need to conserve soil and water compelled farmers to adopt different innovations
in order to increase production and improve the food security. However, adoption of mulching, post
irrigation, charco dams, FYM and ripping is still low due to various reasons including inadequate
knowledge, labour constraints, lack of tools like ox-cart to fetch FYM to distant fields and low income.
Table 5: Extent of practicing WMSIs in lowlands

WMSIs Lowland (n = 60)
n %
Bordered Basins 34 58
Cover crop 23 39
Mulching 5 8
Charco Dams 5 8
Ndiva System 1 2
Ripping 1 2
3.4 Intensity of Adoption of WMSIs in Makanya Catchment
Table 6, shows the intensity of adoption of WMSIs. The intensity varies with the toposequence across
the Makanya catchment. Generally each household has adopted at least 2 innovations and most of the
households do not go beyond 4 WMSIs per plot. The adoption intensity was found to be higher in
lowlands whereby more than 68% of farmers in the lowlands have 4 innovations in their farms. This is
due to the fact that crop production in the lowlands is highly constrained to water and moisture
compared to the midlands and highlands where availability of water and moisture for crop production
is higher. Therefore farmers in the lowlands implement different innovation in the same farm plot to
maximise use of available water and moisture.
Table 6: Intensity of adoption of WMSIs in the Makanya catchment

Catchment position Intensity of adoption WMSIs Total
2 3 4
Lowlands (n = 60) 0 (0%) 18 (30.0%) 41 (68.3%) 59 (98.3%)
Midlands (n = 120) 20 (16.7%) 57 (47.5%) 37 (30.8%) 114 (95%)
Uplands (n = 120) 60 (50.0%) 42 (35.0%) 9 (7.5%) 111 (92.5%)
Total (n = 300) 80 (26.0%) 117 (39.0%) 87 (29.0%) 284 (94.7%)
12
3.5 Potential of WMSIs in household livelihoods improvement and poverty reduction
The ultimate aim to adopt and practice improved WMSIs is to increase productivity and income of
farmers, which in turn improves the livelihoods of farming households and reduce poverty. In this
study the economics of WMSIs entail the physical output (yield), and returns to land and labour from
major income crops. Various crop enterprises were cited by farmers for income generation. The
economic analysis involved categorization of the yield, and returns to land and labour into respective
WMSIs practiced in the production process and seasons. Computational and theoretical insights
pertinent to these economic analyses are extensively presented in the methodology manual (Annex B5).
Selected crop enterprises under WMSIs practiced in different toposequence in the Makanya Catchment
are analysed and discussed in the following sections. Worth noting, only WMSIs that farmers felt were
major contributors of the realized income were considered in the economic analysis.
3.5.1. Performance of crop enterprises under different WMSIs in lowland

In the semi-arid lowland lablab is grown as cover crop but also as cash earner exported to Kenya.
Results in Fig. 2 show that adoption was higher under runoff diversion system than under bordered
basins and mulching. Mulching and bordered basins WMSIs are in-field practices which do not bring in
agricultural water from outside contrary to runoff diversion. The results have shown that in the semi-
arid environment supplementation of direct rainfall with externally generated runoff is important.
0.8
0.69
0.7
0.6 0.57
Yield (ton/ha)
0.5 0.46
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Bordered basins Mulching Runoff diversion
Major Water and Moisture System Innovations
Figure 2: Yield of lablab under different WMSIs in masika season in the lowland
Figures 3 and 4 indicate that farmers earned up to TAS 222,266/ha (US$ 176 1 ) and TAS 202/person-
day from lablab under runoff diversion system. Intermediate and lowest levels of returns were realized
from lablab enterprise under mulching and bordered basins. Runoff diversion appears to be most
preferred over other WMSIs in terms of increased lablab yield and income generation to farmers.
1
1 US $ = 1260 (July 2007)
13
250,000 250
222,266
Retu rn s to lab o u r (T AS /p erso n -d ay)

202
Retu rn s to lan d (T AS /ha)
200,000 200
154
150,000 139,500
150
116,250 113
100,000 100
50,000 50
0 0
Bordered basins Mulching Runoff diversion Bordered basins Mulching Runoff diversion
Water and Moisture Systems Innovations Major Water and Moisture Systems Innovations
Figure 3: Returns to land from lablab under Figure 4: Returns to labour from lablab under
different WMSIs in masika season in the lowland different WMSIs in masika season in the lowland
3.5.2. Performance of crop enterprises under different WMSIs in the midland

3.5.2.1. Lablab enterprise
In the midland, lablab is grown mainly during masika season under a range of WMSIs. Fig. 5 indicates
that the highest yield level of lablab was realized under direct diversion of stream flow followed by ndiva
system and under trees-on-farm. Diversion of stream flow through tradition furrow irrigation and ndiva
are WMISs with sure and manageable supply of agricultural water. Traditional deep tillage and
mulching which do not involve commanding in extra water, apart from the direct rain, recorded the
least yield level of all WMSIs practiced for lablab production. This means, moisture from rainfall is
highly inadequate unless farmers search for supplemental water like diverting run-off or stream flow.
1.4
1.2
1.2
1 0.89
0.86
Yield (ton/ha)
0.8
0.63 0.63
0.6
0.44
0.4
0.2
0
Traditional Mulching Runoff Tree planting Ndiva Diversion of
deep tillage diversion stream flow
Major Water and Moisture Systems Innovations
Figure 5: Yield of lablab under different WMSIs in masika season in the midland
Returns in terms of gross margins per unit land and labour were determined by considering the physical
output together with input and output prices involved in the production and exchange processes. In the
smallholder family farm, land and labour are key factors of production. Fig. 6 indicates that returns to
land from lablab enterprise were the highest under furrow irrigation involving direct channelling of
water from the stream followed by ndiva system. Although direct diversion of stream flow had higher
14
return to land than ndiva system, the latter recorded lower return to labour than the former (Fig. 7).
This difference implies that diversion of stream flow through furrow irrigation practices is more labour
intensive than ndiva system. Also ndiva assure more reliable water availability than flowing streams
during irrigation. The crop fields are not strategically located relative to the position of the stream,
always far from this water source hence requiring farmers to dig much longer furrows to direct the
water.
566
500,000 451,655 600
450,000
400,000 500
Returns to labor (TAS/person-day)

Returns to land (TAS/ha)
350,000 318,383
400
300,000 256,156 299
250,000 300 231 198 208
200,000 166,563 159,375
140,812 200 126
150,000
100,000 100
50,000
0 0
TraditionalMulching Runoff Trees Ndiva Diversion TraditionalMulching Runoff Trees- Ndiva Diversion
deep diversion -on-farm of stream deep diversion on-farm of stream
tillage flow tillage flow
Major Water and Moisture Systems Innovations Major Water and Moisture Systems Innovations
Figure 6: Returns to land from lablab under Figure 7: Returns to labour from lablab under
different WMSIs in masika season in the midland different WMSIs in masika season in the midland
3.5.2.2. Bean enterprise
The bean legume gave higher yields under trash lines than the same crop under other WMSIs. It is
interesting to note that runoff diversion which involves supplementing the cropland with external water
did not outsmart other WMSIs in terms of yield. Agronomically, bean legume is prone to water logging
hence application of extra water might reduce the yield.
1.2 1.13
1.0
Yield (ton/ha)
0.8 0.72
0.6
0.39
0.4 0.26
0.2
0.0
Runoff Traditional Mulching Trashlines
diversion deep tillage
Figure 8: Yield of bean under different WMSIs in vuli season in the midland
15
Figure 9: Yield of bean under different WMSIs in vuli season in the midland
Trash lines recorded higher return to land and labour compared other WMSIs (Figures 9 and 10).
Although traditional deep tillage had lower returns to land than that of runoff diversion in case of
returns to labour the reverse was true. This suggests that runoff diversion is more labour demanding
than traditional deep tillage. Labour intensiveness of runoff diversion might be associated with regular
maintenance of runoff conveyance and distribution canals.
400,000 500 457

345,625
450

350,000
400
300,000
350
250,000 300
182,875
200,000 250
144,603
150,000 96,428 200
150 117
100,000 78 76
100
50,000 50
0 0
Runoff Traditional Mulching Trashlines Runoff Traditional Mulching Trashlines
diversion deep tillage diversion deep tillage
Major Water and Moisture Systems Innovations Major Water and Moisture System Innovations
Figure 10: Returns to land from bean under different Figure 11: Returns to labour from lablab under
WMSIs in vuli season in the midland different WMSIs in vuli season in the midland
3.5.2.3. Maize enterprise
Large planting pits performed a bit higher by a difference of 0.08 ton of maize per ha compared to
traditional deep tillage (Fig. 11). The two WMSI do not involve outsourcing of water supplemental
irrigation. Large pits form depressions around the plants which holds water much longer compared to
just tillage.
0.4
0.34
0.35
Yield (ton/ha)
0.3 0.26
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
Traditional deep tillage Large planting pits
Figure 12: Yield of maize under different WMSIs in vuli season in the
midland
16
In a reversed trend as compared to yield, large planting pits resulted into lower returns to land and
labour compared to traditional deep tillage. Difference in returns might be attributed to variation in
either or both production costs and producer prices among respective farmers.
70,000 65,938 100 92

61,459
90
60,000 75
80
50,000 70
60
40,000
50
30,000 40
30
20,000
20
10,000 10
0 0
Traditional deep tillage Large planting pits Traditional deep tillage Large planting pits
Major Water and Moisture System Innovations Major Water and Moisture System Innovations
Figure 13: Returns to land from maize under Figure 14: Returns to labour from maize under
different WMSIs in vuli season in the midland different WMSIs in vuli season in the midland
3.5.3. Performance of crop enterprises under different WMSIs in the upland

3.5.3.1. Bean enterprise
Fig. 14 indicates that bean legume is normally grown under systems which do not involve
supplementation of the direct rain. These systems include stoned grass trash lines, mulching and a
typical rainfed system that does not involve any soil and moisture conservation practices. In the
reference vuli season, bean crop under rainfed system performed better than other WMSIs in terms of
yield. Factors that might contribute to reduced yield of bean legume under stoned grass trash lines and
mulching in the sub-humid climate would be fungal disease and insect pests which are favoured these
systems. Other farmers reported that they planted on steep slopes with stoned/grass trash lines but the
performance was also poor compared to other systems.
1.6 1.49
1.4
Yield (ton/ha)
1.2
1
0.8 0.69
0.6 0.54
0.4
0.2
0
Trashlines Mulching Rainfed system
Figure 15: Yield of bean under different WMSIs in vuli season in the
upland
17
The patterns of returns to land from bean enterprise in Fig. 15 resembled that of yield in Fig. 14.
Implying that respective yields consistently translated into a similar pattern of returns to land. However,
in the case of returns to land, mulching had higher return to labour than other WMSIs. This is because
mulching would tremendously reduce labour intensive operations such as weeding.
700,000 621,875 25,000

21,019
600,000
20,000
500,000
400,000 15,000
243,625
300,000
10,000
161,667
200,000
5,000 2,128
100,000 997
0 0
Trashlines Mulching Rainfed system Trashlines Mulching Rainfed system
Figure 16: Returns to land from bean under Figure 17: Returns to labour from bean under
different WMSIs in vuli season in the upland different WMSIs in vuli season in the upland
3.5.3.2. Vegetable enterprise
Economic analysis of vegetables was restricted to returns leaving aside physical yield. This is because a
number of vegetable crops were reported by farmers in different units of weight measurement which
are incomparable in terms of a common average. Farmers involved in vegetables production under
ndiva system in vuli season realised higher returns to land and labour as shown in Figures 17 and 18.
This implies that choice of WMSIs should take into consideration other factors such as crop
requirements. Development interventions by NGOs to improve the traditional irrigation systems like
ndiva encourage them to produce high value crops like vegetables. Results show that venturing in high
value crops like vegetables under capital intensive WMSIs involving storage like ndiva would effectively
reduce income poverty in water constrained dry lands.
6,613
3,500,000 7,000
2,908,125
3,000,000 6,000
2,500,000 5,000
2,000,000 4,000
1,500,000 3,000
802,000
1,000,000 2,000
739
500,000 1,000
0 0
Stone terrace-masika Ndiva-vuli Stone terrace-masika Ndiva-vuli
Figure 18: Returns to land from vegetables under Figure 19: Returns to labour from vegetables
different WMSIs and seasons in the upland under different WMSIs and seasons in the land
18
3.5.3.3. Coffee enterprise
Coffee is a perennial crop traditionally grown in the sub-humid highlands. In the sub-humid
environment, once coffee has established it does not sternly require irrigation but performs better in
moist aerated soil conditions. In view of this, farmers tend to grow coffee under shed of woody trees
(agro-forestry) and mulching systems. Yield analysis results in Fig. 19 show that the yield of coffee
under agro-forestry system was bit higher than that of the same crop under mulching.
1.5
1.46
1.45
1.4
Yield (ton/ha)
1.35
1.3 1.29
1.25
1.2
Mulching Trees-on farm
Figure 20: Yield of coffee under different WMSIs in the upland
Figures 20 and 21 indicate that integration of agro-forestry in coffee production resulted into higher
economic returns to land and labour. Apparently, mulching recorded much lower returns to labour
than agro-forestry system implying that the former is labour demanding than the latter. Mulching
requires labour to collect grass much regularly whereas trees-on-farm is done once over a long time.
The common agro-forestry trees such as Grevillea in coffee farming system can persist in the farm over
a decade.
1,400,000 1,301,425 25,000

Returns to labor (TAS/person-
21,154
1,200,000
981,944 20,000
1,000,000
15,000
800,000
600,000 10,000
400,000
5,000
day)
1,255
200,000
0
0
Mulching Trees-on-farm
Mulching Trees-on-farm
Figure 21: Returns to land from coffee under Figure 22: Returns to labour from coffee under
different WMSIs in the upland different WMSIs in the upland
19
CHAPTER 4
DETERMINANTS OF ADOPTION OF WMSIs IN THE MAKANYA
CATCHMENT
Water stress is one of the major limitations to agricultural productivity in the Makanya catchment as it
affects both livestock and crop production which is the mainstay of the people in the catchment. This
situation threatens generation of income, frustrates efforts to attain food security and improved
livelihoods among rural households. As a coping strategy traditional WMSIs have been used for a long
time. Farmers have adopted different WMSIs at different levels as discussed in chapter 3. However this
adoption is influenced by a number of factors/determinants which either affects it positively thus
promote adoption of more WMSIs and by many farmers or have negative influences and limit it. These
determinants are either natural, physical, human, social or financial related. This chapter will deal with
the different adoption determinants and the way they influence adoption of WMSIs in the Makanya
catchment.
4.1 Determinants of adoption of WMSIs at community level
During focus group discussions farmers mentioned several factors that influence adoption of WMSIs
(Appendix A-Table A1). Results show that different innovations have different sets of factors that
influence their adoption both positively and negatively. It was also noted that these factors differ along
the toposequence due to biophysical, socio-economic, cultural and technological aspects of the
locations, communities and innovations per se. Further analysis of the determinants as presented in the
table revealed that the WMSIs can be categorised into two major types: storage and in-situ water
management. The findings also showed that determinants that positively influence adoption of
innovations are mainly biophysical and socio-economic. Between 62.5 and 70% of mentioned
determinants that positively influence farmers to adopt WMSIs are of biophysical in nature. It was also
found that between 69.2 to 79% of all the factors negatively affect farmers to adopt WMSIs are socio-
economic in nature. These findings suggest that farmers are more motivated by biophysical factors to
adopt innovation, but they are constrained by socio-economic circumstances. This implies that
successful promotion of novel technologies to farm and community levels should address socio-
economic constraints for smooth uptake of technologies.
4.2 Determinants of adoption of WMSIs at farm level in Makanya Catchment
A farm level analysis of the determinants of technology adoption has centered on the household
surveys conducted in the study area. It is at the household where most farm level decisions on
agricultural production are taken. 2 The socio-economic determinants of adoption of agricultural
technologies can be grouped into major types as household capital endowments, land tenure, access to
market and services, population density, government policies and regulation and characteristics of the
2
Some decisions are also taken at community level for management aspects that require implementation by the whole community. Studies on
collective action have analyzed the institutions and other factors that affect adoption of improved management practices at community level, e.g.
planting trees, controlling soil erosion, community level irrigation, community grazing land management, etc.
20
technology (Feder, et al., 1985 3 ; Reardon and Vosti, 1995 4 ; Franzel, 1999). This chapter deals with the
first three types, while chapter 7 takes into account government policies and regulation issues.
4.2.1 Household Capital Endowments

4.2.1.1 Human Capital
This includes assets embodied in people’s knowledge and abilities, such as education, experience, and
training, family labour, gender of household members, source of income and age of household
members. This part deals with education, extra training, labour, gender and the age of household heads.
a. Education of Head of Household
Results on the effect of education on adoption of WMSIs are presented in (Appendix A-Table A2). It
shows that there is a positive relationship between education levels and adoption of most innovations.
The most significant relationship was found for those who have basic primary education and more. The
Pearson chi squares confirmed the relationship in different levels of significant between 1-10%. Most
significant relationship was found in trees-on-farm (P = 0.014). A significant positive relationship was
observed in the adoption of mulching, FYM, fanya juu/chini and charco dam technologies in the heads
of households with amore than basic primary education (P < 0.1).
b. Training of the Head of Household
Results of additional training of the heads of household are presented in Appendix A-Table A3. The
training which the heads of household obtained was categorised in to three, those who did not have any
extra training after basic education, those who attended adult education and those who had vocational
training. The results showed that there have been positive significant relationships between kind of
extra training obtained and the adoption of various innovations at different levels between 1 - 10%.
There are some innovations like runoff diversion, mulching, direct diversion of stream flows, valley
bottom and borders that are home grown and have been passed onto from generation to generation as
it is indicated in Table 14 (Section 6.1).
c. Family Labour
The major source of manpower in the Makanya catchment is the household members. The more family
members working on the farm the more likelihood of adoption of WMSIs as it becomes possible to
construct and maintain them.
The results of the cross tab between family labour and adoption of WMSIs indicate that there is a great
chance of finding adoption of WMSIs in the families with members up to 5 who are fully working on
the farm. This is the case with adoption of run off diversion, cover crop and traditional deep tillage and
the relationship is positive (Table 7). Innovation such as runoff diversion needs labour to maintain the
diversion canals. In addition, 40% of household with between 1-3 family members involved in farm
activities have adopted run off diversion while 44.8% of households with 3-5 members involved in
farming activities have adopted run off diversion. The same trend is observed with adoption of cover
crop technology but a strong relationship is found in the runoff diversion (P = 0.01). A linear by linear
association (P < 0.1) has revealed a possibility of adoption of traditional deep tillage by household
(56%) with no family members who work fully on farm.
3 Feder, G., Just, R.E., Zilberman, D., 1985. Adoption of agricultural innovations in developing countries: A survey. Economic Development
and Cultural Change 33, 255–297.
4 Reardon, T. and S. Vosti. 1995. Links between rural poverty and the environment in developing countries: Asset categories and investment
poverty. World Development 23(9): 1495-1506
21
Table 7: Family labour and adoption of water and moisture system innovations
WMSIs Adoption Members working fully on the farm Pearson Chi-Square
None 1-3 3 – 5 >5 Value Sig. (2-sided)
Runoff diversion Yes N 1 99 13 1 11.290 0.010
% 5.0 40.0 45.0. 100.0
No N 18 146 16 0
% 95.0 60.0 55.0 0.0
Cover crop Yes N 2 96 12 0 6.340 0.096
% 11.0 39 41.0 0.0
No N 16 151 17 1
% 89.0 61.0 59.0 100.0
Traditional deep tillage Yes N 10 149 22 1 2.990* 0.084
% 56.0 60.0 76.0 100.0
No N 8 98 7 0
% 44.0 40.0 24.0 0.0
* Linear by Linear association
d. Gender of Head of Household
Gender of the head of household has a chance to influence adoption of certain innovations. A
difference was noted between the female headed households (FHH) and male headed households
(MHH) in adoption of WMSIs across the catchment. MHH have adopted more innovations than the
FHH. Results in Table 8 show that there are positive relationships between gender and adoption of a
few innovations with male headed household having relatively high chances.
Table 8: Gender and adoption of water and moisture system innovations

WMSI Adoption Gender of HH Pearson Chi-Square Fisher's Exact Test
head
Male Female Value Sig. (2- Sig. (2- Sig. (1-
sided) sided) sided)
Earth terraces Yes N 45 9 4.080 0.043
% 21.0 11.0
No N 168 73
% 79.0 89.0
FYM yes N 85 24 0.137 0.074
% 39.5 30.0
no N 130 57
% 60.5 70.0
Cover crop yes N 74 36 0.138 0.077
% 35.0 44.0
no N 140 45
% 65.0 56.0
Trash line yes N 34 6 3.605 0.058
% 16.0 7.0
no N 180 75
% 84.0 93.0
Analysis of the innovations which revealed significant adoption relationships it was observed that
among the MHH, 21.0% of have adopted earth terraces, 39.5% have adopted FYM, 35.0% have
adopted cover crops and 16.0 have adopted trash lines. In the case of FHH, a positive relationship was
observed in the adoption of cover crop (Fisher’s exact test for significance, P = 0.077) where by 44.0%
22
of the FHH adopted the innovation. The likelihood of this finding to happen is based on the fact that
most women are dealing with leguminous crop which are commonly use as cover crops, in their effort
to provide food for their households.
e. Age of Head of Household
The age of household head has influence on adoption of WMSIs as indicated in Appendix A-Table A4.
Mostly the head of households with more than 50 years of age showed a positive chance of adopting
most innovations. The Pearson Chi Square statistic indicates that there is statistically significant
difference between the age groups in the likelihood of adopting trees-on-farm (50.0%) at P < 0.01;
mulching (56%) at P = 0.031; ndiva (41.0%) at P = 0.012. On the other hand Linear by linear
association has revealed that the age groups of > 50 has positive relationship in their likelihood to
adopt post irrigation surface tillage (3.5%) at P = 0.072; and retention ditch (13.0%) at P = 0.055. The
group age of between 36 -50 has shown a positive significant relationship in adoption of post irrigation
surface tillage (29.0% at P = 0.072). Furthermore a positive relation was found between age groups 20
– 35 of age (23.0%) in adoption of borders at P = 0.060. These findings give a clue that age depicts the
experience a farmer has, though it may not be a direct proportional assumption. However it was found
that most innovations adopted by farmers of age > 50 are indigenous in nature while border, a new
introduction had a positive relationship with younger farmers.
4.2.1.2 Natural Capital
These are stocks of assets embodied in natural resources, including the quantity and quality of land,
investment on land such as irrigation infrastructure, soil and conservation structures, trees, and access
to other resources physical assets (e.g., livestock and equipment). However, this part discusses land size
only.
a. Land Size
There is a variation in the sizes of land owned by different households in the catchment. This varies
from the 0.5 of an acre to about 5. The size also gets smaller, as one goes up the catchment from the
lowlands. The size of land owned by a household influences the decision making on the number and
kind of WMSIs to be adopted.
The results on the relationship between land size and adoption showed that majority of farmers with
land size between 2.25 and 5.0 acres have positive relationship with adoption of WMSIs. The Pearson
chi squares affirm the strength of the relationship (Appendix A-Table A5). Highly significant positive
relationship (P < 0.01) was observed in the adoption of run off diversion (78.0%) for farmers with > 5
acres while tree on farm (27.0%) and runoff diversion (46.5%) for farmers with 2.25 -5.0 acres.
Although results showed that RHW tanks and pipes are adopted by only 6.4% of the farmers with 2.25
– 5.0 acres, they are potential water system innovations in the study area in future. Stoned terraces are
preferred mostly with those who own between 0.75 to 5.0 acres of land. The WMSIs like trees-on-farm,
mulching and FYM depicted positive relationship in their likelihood for adoption by households with
shortage of land.
4.2.1.3 Physical Capital
This includes physical assets that are used for production of goods and services. They include livestock,
buildings, machinery, tools, equipment, furniture, etc. Among these livestock and house type are
covered in this section.
a. Livestock
23
Livestock ownership shows to have relationship with adoption of some innovations as presented in
Appendix A-Table A6. Since the actual numbers of adoption of various innovations are greater than
expected values, there is a positive relationship between adoption of innovation and types of livestock.
The Pearson Chi Square statistics indicate that there is a statistically difference between type of
livestock and adoption. The category of farmers owning cattle showed significant and positive
relationship with adoption of most WMSIs. However Sheep and goats owners experienced a good
relationship in run off diversion and borders. This is due to the fact that most livestock owners who
practice run off diversion and borders are located in the lower drier parts of the catchment which is
favourable for sheep and goats. The higher significant levels (P < 0.01) were found on trees-on-farm,
mulching, ndiva, FYM, cover crops and retention ditches in relation to cattle owners. This confirms
that the relationships were not by chance because the innovations are related to cattle production in
terms of supply of farm yard manure, fodder grass planted on contours, fodder grass left over utilised
as mulches and poles used for building cattle pens.
b. House Type
The results on the relationship between house type and adoption of innovations are presented in
Appendix A-Table A7. These show strong relationships between people with houses built using burnt
brick and adoption of innovation. However runoff diversion show a positive relationship with those
who own houses built using trees and mud (P < 0.01).
Having a good house gives an indication of well-being within the household. This household is likely
to be endowed with resources which could lead to adoption of desired innovations. The strong
statistical significant values (P 0.05) tell us that the difference in adoption of WMSIs seen between
those with good and poor wall type is likely not by chance and therefore house type has gained
evidence towards having a true association with adoption of innovations.
4.2.1.4 Financial Capital
a. Liquid Assets
Appendix A-Table A8 shows the relationship between liquid assets and adoption of WMSIs. A few
innovations adopted showed positive relationship between having a bank account and their adoption.
Higher significances were found in the use of valley bottoms and FYM.
This trend is attributed to the fact that most of the valley bottoms are utilised for vegetable production
which also encourage use of a lot of manure. Likely vegetable enterprise earns a lot of cash as shown in
chapter 3 (section 3.5.3.2). Some innovations are capital intensive whose adoption needs cash. For
example, RWH tanks and pipes were adopted by only 11.0% (P = 0.014) and stone terraces (19.0% at P
= 0.097) which is likely attributed to availability of finance at a time of adoption.
4.2.1.5 Social Capital
This refers to social organizations such as farmer associations, networks, norms, and social trust that
facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefits.
b. Farmer Associations and Networks
The analysis of group meeting the head of household attended has shown relationship with adoption of
innovations (Appendix A-Table A9).
There has been a strong positive relation between using of ndiva and percentage of meeting attended.
Pearson Chi Square statistics showed higher significant levels (P < 0.01) in the midland and upland
areas where ndiva is mostly practiced. The heads of households whose attendance to the meeting
24
exceeded 75% showed a good chance of adopting the innovation. Run off diversion was also found to
be related to group networking especially in the midlands (P = 0.46) while post irrigation surface tillage
was significant different in both midland (P = 0.012) and upland (P = 0.000). Stone terraces were
observed to have positive relationship with frequency of group meetings in the midland (P = 0.012)
and upland (P = 0.000), this innovation is mostly practiced in these areas due to their landscape nature.
Mid and uplands have some slopes which need terraces in order to manage soil ad water. Fanya
juu/chini terraces are significantly different at P = 0.008 with the frequency of group meetings in the
midlands. Traditional tillage was found to be significantly different at P = 0.043 in the upland. This is
attributed to the farming system which is traditional multi-storey system in the uplands were major
crops are banana and coffee which need deep tillage as part of its management.
4.2.3 Access to Markets and Services.

Access to market was analysed using the distances to the roads. The results are shown in Appendix A-
Table A10. It was found that a somewhat large proportion of households which are located at distances
up to 3.0 km from the roads (up to 76.0%) are mostly positively related to adoption of most water and
moisture system innovations.
It was found that run off diversion and borders which are practiced by most farmers who stay > 7.0 km
from the main roads or urban centres. The results showed that 93.0% and 67.0% of farmers staying >
7.0km have adopted run off diversion and borders respectively. In most cases these are farmers who
reside in the lowland areas of the catchment and thus their agricultural production depends much on
the spate irrigation as a result of run off diversion, while borders are used to manage water during
irrigation exercise.
The Pearson Chi Square and likelihood ratio showed that there is a statistically significant difference
between various distances to the roads/urban centres in their likelihood of adopting water and
moisture system innovations.
25
CHAPTER 5
PERCEPTION OF LOCAL COMMUNITIES IN ADOPTION OF WATER AND
MOISTURE SYSTEM INNOVATIONS
5.1. Perception on reasons and priority for Adoption of WMSIs
It was found that the intensity of adoption in the study area is ranging between 2 and 4 WMSIs,
though in some few cases some have up to 6 innovations (Table 6). This section explains how did
farmers arrive at the decision to adoption of the first three priority innovation because most of the
farmers fall within this range. The perceived reasons for adopting priority 1-3 innovations at farm level
is presented in the Tables 9 to 11. The results showed that soil and water conservation, improving food
security, increasing productivity, low rainfall and increasing income are perceived as most important
reasons for adopting priority 1 innovations at farm level as indicated by more than 50% of the
respondents.
Table 9: Perceive reasons for adopting of first priority WMSIs

Perceived Reasons N % Meana SE Std.
Mean Deviation
Soil and water conservation 203 68 1.25 0.03 0.457
Improving food security 192 64 1.26 0.04 0.537
Increasing productivity 189 63 1.33 0.04 0.505
Low rainfall 194 65 1.38 0.05 0.673
Increasing income 164 55 1.41 0.05 0.654
Lack of irrigation water 131 44 1.58 0.07 0.774
Steep slopes 109 36 2.18 0.10 1.056
Group motivation 84 28 2.38 0.11 0.993
A fashion 88 29 2.59 0.09 0.839
Law/by-law enforcement 77 26 3.09 0.10 0.891
aScale: 1 = Very important; 2 = Important; 3 = Not so important; 4= Not important at all
Likewise, in the second priority, soil and water conservation, increased productivity and improving
food security were perceived most important reasons for adopting WMS innovations as indicated by
more than 50% of respondents (Table 10).
Table 10: Perceive reasons for adopting priority two WMSIs

Perceived Reasons for Adoption priority two N % Meana SE Std.
WMSIs Mean Deviation
Low rainfall 131 44 1.42 0.06 0.690
Steep slopes 77 26 2.19 0.13 1.124
A fashion 62 21 2.76 0.10 0.803
26
Results in Table 11 show similar trends where same reasons are given for adoption of priority 3.
Table 11: Perceive reasons for adopting priority three WMSIs

Perceived Reasons for Adoption priority three N % Meana SE Std.
WMSIs Mean Deviation
Low rainfall 90 30 1.50 0.08 0.723
Steep slopes 61 20 2.18 0.15 1.162
A fashion 53 18 2.81 0.10 0.761
5.2 Perception on the Reasons for not Adopting WMSIs
The results of farmers’ perceptions on the reasons for not adopting innovations they perceived good
for the household are presented in Table 12. About 45% of the respondents perceived that inadequate
knowledge/education/skills are the most important reasons for them not adopting some innovations
they perceive to be good for their farm households, followed by poor income (32%).
Table 12: Reasons for not adopting innovation perceived to be good for the household
Reasons N %
Inadequate knowledge/education/skills 134 45
Poor income 97 32
Inability 47 16
They don’t have time to work on WMSIs 39 13
Costly 37 12
Water shortage 37 12
Labour shortage 36 12
No ndiva 26 9
No equipment 14 5
No capital 12 4
5.3 Correlations of the Farmers’ Perceptions on the Reasons for Adopting WMSI
Results of correlations of farmers’ perceptions on the reasons for adopting water and moisture system
innovation are indicated in Table 13. There are significant correlations among the reasons for adopting
the innovations. Important correlations are between low rainfall and lack of irrigation water, soil and
water conservation, increasing productivity, increasing income and improving food security; soil and
water conservation and steep slopes, increasing productivity, increasing income and improving food
security. Another is between steep slopes and group motivation, bye-law enforcement, increasing
productivity and increasing income. There is a very interesting correlation which is between fashion and
group motivation, bye-law enforcement and increasing income. This implies that some members of the
community do adopt technologies simply because they see someone practicing it. Also in its relation to
motivation to join group, some people just join groups as fashion. The correlation found in this case
gives an indication that among the reasons they are those which stir up farmers’ urge to adopt.
27
Table 13: Correlations of the farmers’ perceptions on the reasons for adopting WMSI in the
study area
Reasons
of
and
conservation
enforcement
Steep slopes
Law/by-law
productivity
Low rainfall
motivation
Increasing
Increasing
irrigation
Fashion
income
Group
water
water
Lack
Soil
Low rainfall
Lack of irrigation water .544(**)
Soil and water conservation .473(**) .286(**)
Steep slopes .384(**)
Group motivation .380(**)
Law/by-law enforcement .528(**) .398(**)
Fashion .364(**) .276(*) .453(**) .728(**)
Increasing productivity .574(**) .545(**) .546(**) .376(**) .253(*)
Increasing income .529(**) .653(**) .382(**) .379(**) .446(**) .388(**) .389(**) .650(**)
Improving food security .506(**) .495(**) .401(**) .250(*) .557(**) .455(**)
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
5.4 Farmers’ Perceptions on the Advantages and disadvantages for Adopting WMSI
Apart from these responses on reasons for adopting WMSIs from the household interviews, during
focus group discussions farmers also informed the research team some advantages and disadvantages
of adopting WMSIs. Men and Women groups expressed their opinion about advantages and
disadvantages of different WMSIs and where relevant difference in perception along the topo-sequence
is discussed.
5.4.1 Advantages of adopting WMSIs as perceived by Women

The women in uplands analyzed various advantages related to adoption of water and moisture system
innovation as follows:
x Use of ndiva enhances accessibility to irrigation water and hence farmers are more assured of
supply of agricultural water that can be used for production of high value crops like vegetables.
x Post irrigation tillage are an indigenous innovations practiced to reduce evaporation by
disconnecting soil capillaries.
x Mulching is especially practiced in coffee field and vegetable plots and is perceived to conserve
soil fertility, prevent soil erosion, reduce evaporation and hence enhance yields.
x In trees-on-farm, some trees are associated with soil fertility improvement, some for supply of
timber; fresh air and provision of shade and to conserve moisture in the soil and is mostly
planted in coffee farms.
x Cover crops are practiced to improve soil fertility especially planted in association with maize.
x Water harvesting tanks prolong water accessibility in the vicinity of the households and
therefore reduce work load for women who otherwise had to walk long distances to fetch
water.
In the lowlands technologies that are common and their perceived advantages include:
28
x Charco-dams which improve accessibility of water at vicinity of the homestead thus women
perceive them as very important for domestic water availability. Availability of water near
homesteads provides ample time for women to do other things due to reduce work load of
walking long distances in search of water.
x Diversion of run-off: most of the time farmers in the lowlands received very low rains, but
utilise run-off from the surrounding highlands diverted into farm fields to supplement
agricultural water for crop production.
x Deep tillage is widely used in this area to enhance percolation of diverted run-off.
x Mixed cropping of maize with lablab help to conserve moisture, but also improve soil fertility
and hence increased yields.
x Valley bottom farming is widely practiced especially during bad seasons and in the dry season to
capture residual moisture for production of vegetables and other early maturing crops.
5.4.2 Advantages of adopting WMSIs as perceived by Men

During FGD with a groups of men farmers from the uplands they indicated that there are many
advantages of adopting the water and moisture system innovations in their farms such as increased crop
yields, reduced water loses which resulted into reduced consumption of irrigation water (e.g. when
using terraces); some innovations have simplified their tillage practices and conserve soil fertility. In
broad sense they perceived an increase in household’s income through increased production cycles and
improved general farm environment resulting the farm becoming attractive. These observations are
summarised as follows:
x Use of ripper particularly in the mid-slopes was perceived to increase labour productivity,
increase soil water and moisture holding capacity. This increases chances of getting some crop
harvests with little rainfall and preserve soil fertility.
x Charco dams are perceived to enhance water accessibility close to the household and livestock.
This protects livestock from dying while moving them to the River in search of water.
x Deep tillage reduces water speed thus facilitate conserve water and moisture as a result of
enhanced infiltration and deep percolation,
x Diversion furrows/canals promote rainwater harvesting through run-off collection.
5.4.3 Advantages of adopting WMSIs as perceived by Village Leaders

Village leaders in uplands perceived adoption of different innovations show some degree of variation.
For example, village leaders in the uplands and midlands perceived that terraces have the ability to
preserve soil fertility and soil moisture, prevent soil erosion, which in-turn contribute to increased yield,
raise nutrition status and increased income at farm level.
x Trees-on-farm: it is perceived that the adoption rate of trees-on-farm was high in the uplands
and midlands because of demands for tree products (firewood, fruits, and timber), household
decoration and selling of tree seedlings. Exotic trees are vividly numerous in numbers. The
areas that were bare in the past are now covered by trees such as Grevillea spp, Cederela odorata,
Casuarinas spp, Acrocarpus spp and fruit trees (guavas, avocado and citrus).
x Ndivas are traditional irrigation systems widely adopted. Improvement of these traditional
irrigation improvement systems is done by various development programme and more ndivas
are currently being constructed. Ndivas enhance access to water for use by many users and
provide access of water on demand.
29
x Terraces in the catchment are extensively practiced in areas where there is improvement by
development intervention like Traditional Irrigation Program (TIP). Construction of terraces
was a condition for allocation of water to water users.
x Traditional systems like top soil tillage after irrigation are perceived to enjoy wide scale
acceptance due because they are indigenous practices.
x Mulching is well adopted and extensively used in vegetable production on terraces to conserve
moisture, improve soil fertility, controlling weeds and reduce evaporation. Generally, it was
perceived that high adoption of some innovations is associated with high value crops like cash
crops and those which need low cost of investment. Innovation such as mulching is perceived
to be of low cost innovation, and is practiced in coffee farming which lead to high yields.
x Contour farming is perceived to enhance soil and water conservation thus ensures more crop
yield, while farmyard manure enhances soil fertility, improve organic matter in the soil thus
improve water holding capacity, amends the soil structure therefore enhances infiltration, yield
is enhanced. Contours are also perceived as innovations with multiple advantages in uplands
where they are constructed for planting fodder grasses while act as erosion check.
x Deep tillage facilitates water infiltration, improves soil texture, retains moisture, enhances plant
roots penetration and increases yield.
x Early/timely planting promotes efficient use of little rainfall that falls in the field.
x Irrigation canals divert water from the rivers and stream into the micro-dams and distribute
water into the farm, for supplemental irrigation.
5.4.4 Disadvantages of adopting WMSIs as perceived by Women

Women farmers in the uplands they also mentioned some disadvantages associated with practicing
some of the technologies as follows:
x There is a general perception that some tree species such as eucalyptus drain much water from
the soil thus affecting water sources.
x Terraces were found to be costly to make. For example, setting, stones, digging, constructing
needs expertise which in most cases is lacking; after construction of terraces they demand more
fertilizer supplementation to recover soil fertility, and are normally destroyed during rains if not
well laid.
x Ndiva and furrows require frequent maintenance e.g. de-silting and clearance, hence are labour
intensive.
x Post irrigation tillage is expensive and labour demanding if farm size is large
x Farmyard manure is bulky that makes it difficult to transport to the field and women perceived
it is laborious.
x Cover crops were perceived to pose competition for light, nutrients and water with the main
crops.
On the other hand, the women in lowlands indicated that
x Charco-dams and their furrows have to be frequently maintained due damage by water,
blockage and silting after rainfall events therefore pose labour intensity.
x Deep tillage is widely used in this area therefore enhances loose soil to be easily washed away.
x Mixed cropping is perceived that it leads to reduced yields due to competition (e.g. lablab
competes with maize) and enhances pests hideouts.
30
x Valley bottom farming is prone to water logging and crops washed away by heavy storms.
5.4.5 Disadvantages of adopting WMSIs as perceived by Men

Although men farmers indicated that there are many advantages of adopting the water and moisture
system innovations there are some disadvantages as a result of adopting some innovation especially
when there is inadequate expertise and use of proper knowledge. These include:
x Planting of some harmful exotic trees perceived to drain water from the soil and therefore
aggravate drought in the soil,
x Making terraces without proper layout and measurements that may lead to loss of soil/farming
area and cause huge environmental degradation. This may be enhanced by using stones to
reinforce terraces.
x There was a remarkable point of view that adoption of some innovations has resulted into
disappearance of communal/tradition practice of renting land to members of marginal groups
in the community e.g. landless. Interestingly they reveal that adoption of some innovations
reduces grazing areas.
x Restriction of cultivation and grazing near the water sources has not been well adopted due to
land shortage – Bye-laws are in place but there has been not a strong enforcement action from
the responsible parties.
x Charco dams in some cases pose problems of siltation as a result of run-off collection from
ephemeral streams and grazing lands, and in some cases digging charco dams on unsuitable
soils cause the dams to be ineffective due to leakage and percolation.
5.4.6 Disadvantages of adopting WMSIs as perceived by Village leaders

Village leaders remarked that in the past people did not see rationale of adopting any soil and water
conservation technologies because they perceived that soil productivity was high. Adoption is
increasing now when communities realized that soil lost fertility has deteriorated. Village leaders
perceived that low education level amongst community members caused low adoption of WMSI and
technologies. In addition, the following disadvantages are associated with low adoption of some of the
innovations:
x Low rate of adoption of water storage tanks is attributed to lack capital to construct/buy
materials used to set up such a rooftop harvesting system. They conclude that high cost of
some innovations has mired their wide adoption e.g. the case of water tanks.
x Labour intensity and cost attached to implementation of some innovations have caused some
farmers to find it difficult to adopt such technology was linked to construction of bench
terraces.
x Past efforts to promote contours by colonial extension workers was perceived to have created
an attitude of imposed colonial rules. Farmers were forces to implement it in their farms by the
government agents, and failure to comply ended up into corporal punishment.
x Improperly made terraces may create a problem of water logging when it rains excessively. In
some cases terraces making is time consuming, labour intensive and costly, and also needs
expertise.
x Micro-dams may not offer sanitary water suitable for domestic use because in most cases canals
are poorly constructed and not covered.
x Deep tillage was perceived on steep slopes leads to erosion if not properly done.
31
x Farmyard manure use is perceived to be tedious due to bulkiness, sometimes once applied in
the field too much water is required by plants.
x There was a concern that contour farming reduces farm size (one meter was perceived too
much for a smallholder farmer who has small land area).
x Early planting is perceived to end up in crop loss during dry year and
x Mulching is perceived to act as a good hideout for crop pests (e.g. rodents).
x Fish ponds are not widely spread due to lack of technical know how. The innovations was
recently introduced and promoted by one of religious organization in the catchment.
32
CHAPTER 6
SCALING UP STRATEGIES FOR THE POTENTIAL NOVEL TECHNOLOGIES
Scaling-up of potential water and moisture system innovations (WMSIs) entails active communication,
interaction and interrelation amongst key stakeholders through social and institutional networks. In this
study, communication focused at knowledge sharing among researchers, to improve the research
process itself; and knowledge sharing between researchers and users, for enhancing promotion and
uptake of technologies by farming communities for improved WMSIs. Different strategies and
approaches currently used to communication to and amongst farmers who are end-users and
intermediary users such as local leaders, local government leaders, development agents and extension
officers were identified. Suitable strategies and approaches for communicating and promoting the
uptake of technologies by farming communities were adopted and tested to assess its effectiveness. The
chapter describes the process of promoting potential novel WMSIs technologies in the Makanya
Catchment.
6.1 Strategies and approaches for scaling-up of Water and Moisture Innovation Systems
Analysis of the approaches currently used by farmers’ to receive knowledge and information revealed
that there are various sources of knowledge and information for different WMSIs practiced. There is
sharing of knowledge and information within the family members, i.e. between spouses, parents and
their children; sharing among farming communities within in the villages and between village to village.
Some farmers learned about WMSIs in schools and colleges while other through interventions by the
government and change or development agents like NGOs and development projects. Results in Table
14 show that 88% of respondent learnt from parents within the family about valley bottom farming,
which is basically indigenous knowledge.
Table 14: Source of knowledge and information currently used as indicated by farmers
Technology Source of knowledge and information (%Respondent, N=300)
Within the Within the Beyond the At school/ Government Change
family village village college dept. agents
Valley bottom farming 88 6 0 0 0 6
Ndiva system (ponds) 54 40 3 1 0 2
Runoff diversion 54 40 3 1 0 2
Charco dams 50 33 0 0 0 17
Diversion of stream flow 49 43 8 0 0 0
Post irrigation tillage 49 43 0 3 0 5
Large planting pits 49 45 1 4 0 1
Cover crop 46 38 7 3 1 5
Runoff diversion ditches 41 48 11 0 0 0
Application of FYM 40 34 12 5 2 7
Fanya juu/chini terraces 40 60 0 0 0 0
Traditional deep tillage 39 51 5 3 0 3
Mulching 38 45 4 8 2 4
RWH tank and pipe 36 13 13 25 13 0
Stone terraces 32 32 3 6 0 26
Trash lines 31 46 15 3 0 5
Trees-on-farm 29 47 6 7 1 10
Earth terraces 5 95 0 0 0 0
Ripping 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bordered basins 0 0 0 0 0 0
33
Few (6%) learnt from other farmers within the villages and change agents respectively. The knowledge
of using Ndiva system, an indigenous innovation of supplementary irrigation is also spreading within
the family (54%), but also among farmers within the village (40%). Other technologies that have been
promoted for a long time in the study area such as run-off diversion, post irrigation tillage, large
planting pits, planting of cover crops, application of FYM and traditional deep tillage also spread
amongst family members and within village communities.
Furthermore, although results indicated that some innovations like knowledge on trees-on-farm (47%),
construction of stone terraces (32%), and digging of charco-dams (33%), are spreading among farmers
within the family or villages farmers acknowledged that they were introduced by changes agents and
extension workers from development projects and NGOs. In addition, farmers indicated that they
learnt about RWH storage tanks in institutions like schools and colleges as indicated by 25% of
respondents. Ripping and bordered-basins are new technologies being introduced in the area and most
farmers are not yet aware.
Farmers were asked to indicate whether fellow farmers learn and adopt from trained farmers. Table 15
shows that farmers do adopt from other farmers, depending on their needs and availability of resource
endowment. Adoption of technologies like charco dams was indicated by 50% of respondents to be
high in the lowlands for storage of run-off water for livestock and domestic use. On the other hand
adoption of stone terraces was indicated to be high in the uplands as more farmers get awareness to
conserve soil as well as increase efficiency of water and moisture conservation especially in traditional
irrigation system. Low adoption of WMSI like ripping is because these are newly introduced in the area
and is still in pilot and demonstration farms.
Table 15: Perception of farmers on the extent of adopting from trained farmers
Technology Extent of people adopted from trained farmers
Many A few None
Charco dams 50 17 33
Diversion of stream flow 38 41 21
Stone terraces 37 47 17
Bordered basins 37 54 10
Trees-on-farm 33 40 27
Ndiva system 31 29 40
Runoff diversion 31 30 39
Application of FYM 28 36 37
Cover crop 28 33 39
Runoff diversion ditches 28 28 44
Post irrigation tillage 27 40 33
Traditional deep tillage 27 42 31
Mulching 24 42 34
RWH tank and pipe 22 44 34
Trash lines 21 48 30
Large planting pits 18 41 41
Valley bottom farming 15 60 25
Earth terraces 11 53 37
Fanya Juu/Chini terraces 0 75 25
Ripping 0 0 0
From these results lessons drawn are that farmers-to-farmers knowledge sharing approaches have a
potential for improving promotion of WMSIs. Developing capacity of farmers to continue promoting
WMSIs to wider audiences (scaling-out) is essential. Since researchers are few, involvement of
34
intermediary users is also inevitable so that they provide technical backstopping to support farmers
efforts.
6.2 Potential strategies and approaches identified by stakeholders
During consultation workshops involving various stakeholders several strategies and approaches
perceived to facilitate the promotion of the water and moisture system innovations were identified. The
proposed strategies and the approaches are as follows:
1. Provision of training on proper utilization of land and water through farmer learning groups and
farmer innovators through farmer field schools, study tours, exchange visits, group networking
communication and innovator farmers to reach out to others.
2. Empowerment farmers to implement potential innovations by provision of softy loans – (e.g.

inputs and equipment), food for work and innovator farmers to be recognized by the District
Council.
3. Review and improve bye-laws to facilitate proper implementation and enforcement of available
bye-laws and regulations in management of water sources considering active involvement of ward
and village leadership, extension workers and farmers. It was also proposed that extension workers
should have copies of the bye-laws to make a follow upon.
4. Training of local leaders on leadership skills, good governance and cross cutting issues to
innovative farmers by making use of farmer learning groups and farmer innovators.
5. To spread expertise to target smallholder farmers in implementation of potential innovation e.g.

construction of ndiva, tanks and charco dams by training paraprofessionals.
6. Evaluation of water sources and areas suitable for water harvest through use of participatory
approaches e.g. participatory agro-ecosystem evaluation/analysis.
7. Empower villages to survey and set land use planning by training paraprofessionals on land use
planning.
The group discussions during stakeholders’ workshop yielded a wide range of strategies which include
training of different cadres of main actors, empowerment of communities, reviews of bye-laws that
govern the management of water. The approaches proposed are interactive and foster community
participation and involvement in the process. An approach that promotes recognition of innovator
farmers by the District Council is one of important strategy to foster innovativeness among the
farmers, and in turn it might be a useful tool to enhance the innovator farmers to reach out to others.
6.3 The Key Stakeholders Involved in Promoting WMSIs in the Catchment
Consultation to identify the key stakeholders involved in promotion of WMSIs in Makanya Catchment
was carried out in each village and at the district level. During focus groups discussions in the villages a
number of stakeholders were identified. These include Village Extension Agents from the District
Council and Village and sub-village leaders. Invariably, a number of development projects and non-
governmental organisations including religious organisations were mentioned to provide support to
farmers in the area. One of the organisations includes Traditional Irrigation Project (TIP) as mentioned
in Mhero and Malindi villages. It was involved in improvement of traditional irrigation systems
including ndiva. Other development organisations include Tanzania Technology Development
Organisation (TATEDO); Evangelical Lutheran Church of Tanzania (ELCT) which promoted fish
farming and Chome Catchment SACCOS which involves all water user groups in the area and Forestry
35
Department (both at Central and Local governments). In addition, SAIPRO, Water department at
District level, CARITAS, WORLD VISION through ADP and VECO were identified to be among the
ones which promoted water and moisture system innovation in the catchment. SWMRG-SUA was
involved in the promotion of rainwater harvesting technologies in Makanya, Chajo and Mgwasi such as
improved use of run-off diversion, ripper technology through Farmers Field Schools (FFS) approaches
and construction of water storage tanks and improvement of charco-dams in collaboration with
RELMA/SearNet.
6.4 Effectiveness of the potential strategies and approaches on adoption of WMSIs
Results in Table 16 show farmers’ perceptions on effectiveness of the methods and approaches used to
communicate knowledge and information about WMSIs.
Table 16: Effectiveness of Knowledge and Communication methods in Makanya Catchment

Communication methods Effective (% of respondents) Not Effective (% of respondents)
Male Female Male Female
On-farm trials 70 25 2 4
Field/exchange visits 69 22 6 3
Demonstration plots 68 25 3 3
Village meetings 63 25 9 3
Seminars 62 24 10 4
Inter-generational - parents 62 26 9 3
Extension workers 61 22 10 7
Village government leaders 61 22 10 7
Group networking 55 18 17 10
Radio broadcasting 55 18 16 11
Printed materials 48 16 24 13
Most farmers responded that interactive methods like on-farm trials, field/exchange visits,
demonstration plots were effective in knowledge sharing because they provided opportunity for getting
answers to questions in cases there was a need. Similarly, meetings and seminars were also found so
effective, as well as learning from parents, extension workers and village government leaders. Farmer
group networking is still limited in most areas but peeking up as most development institution prefers
to work with groups. Radio broadcasting is also preferred as a way of creating awareness on new
technologies. However, during group discussions with women farmers it was found out currently the
time of broadcasting farmers programmes is not suitable for them because it falls within the time they
are engaged with household cores. Focus group discussions with young farmers indicated that there are
many radio stations most of which broadcast programmes that are more entertaining, but do not
broadcast information about farming. In the Makanya Catchment the most preferred radio stations are
Radio Voice of Gospel (RVOG), Radio One and Radio Free Africa (RFA). Unfortunately, they rarely
broadcast information about farming.
Few farmers, particularly women (only 16%), indicated that printed materials are effective compared to
other methods because most of the times are not accessible and when available they are difficult to
understand because of the way information is presented. In most cases after reading the printed
materials, farmers wanted to seek for clarification information from their VEOs who are rarely
available in the villages. For example, during the FGD, farmers in Malindi, Chajo and Mgwasi villages
identified brochures/leaflets as one strategy for scaling up of the WMSIs as a reference material and for
creating awareness to farmers of new technological information. However, they insisted presence of
extension workers for more interactive discussion for effective uptake.
36
In view of the outcome of the questionnaire survey and focus group discussions above interactive
knowledge sharing and communication methods are mostly preferred.
6.5 Implementation of the Communication Strategy in Makanya Catchment
6.5.1 At farmers Level

Based on the results from FGDs and questionnaire survey a knowledge sharing and communication
strategy was developed and implemented. Development of a communication strategy involved key
stakeholders in knowledge sharing and communication. An in-depth analysis of the knowledge, attitude
and practices (KAP) of different stakeholders was further conducted. This analysis resulted into
development of a knowledge sharing and communication strategic plan for dissemination of the
WMSIs in the watershed to enhance scaling up/out (Appendix ….).
The selected approaches focused on enhancing farmer-to-farmer knowledge sharing and learning.
These approaches included study or exchange visits to areas with similar environment to interact with
fellow farmers who are already successfully practicing improved WMSIs. Forty (40) farmers visited
Nane-Nane Agricultural shows in Arusha in August 2006 where various improved technologies are
exhibited by fellow farmers and development organisations. Thereafter, 10 farmers from upland
villages, Mhero and Malindi, visited Lushoto which is also a highland area; while other 15 farmers from
midlands and lowlands villages Mgwasi, Chajo and Makanya villages visited Karatu district where they
learnt about Conservation Agriculture, a potential WMSI for dry lands.
After the study visits, practical training of farmers by fellow farmers (experts) from these areas on
practical aspects of WMSIs was conducted in their respective villages. After the training Lead Farmers
prepared demonstration farms where they practiced improved techniques of their choices learnt from
the visits and training. For example in the uplands farmers practiced WMSIs like stone and earth
terracing, mulching for vegetable production and pit-holes planting (for bananas). The choice of crops
is more on high value crops to increase return to investment. Similarly, in the midlands and lowlands
Lead Farmers set demo farms for Conservation Agriculture which emphasise use of lablab as cover
crop in maize farming. Lablab is a potential cash crop in the area. Group formation was also promoted
to encourage group networking. The approach emphasized on combination of various approaches and
methods for knowledge sharing and communication.
The most innovative approach to knowledge sharing and communication of technological knowledge
and information in the Project is active involvement of Village and sub-village leaders in some villages.
This helped to mobilise farmers and easy to make follow-up of implementation on the agreed activities.
For example, in Malindi and Mhero villages, Village Chairpersons were among farmers who
participated in the exchange visits and training activities. These leaders were lead farmers in their
villages which lead to great enthusiasm by fellow farmers in the villages.
6.5.2 Beyond Farmers’ Level

Knowledge sharing and communication of WMSI information and technologies beyond farmers level
was implemented through involvement of key stakeholders especially Extension workers from study
Village and district offices, and staff from NGOs working in the study areas in the study visits.
Extension staff from the Same District Council and SAIPRO actively participated in Karatu and
Lushoto study visits.
At policy level in the district, interaction with District Executive Directors (DED), District Agricultural
and Livestock Development Officers and Subject Matter specialists was also carried out from the
inception workshop and during implementation of field activities.
37
6.6. Significant Success Stories after Implementation of Communication Strategy
After interaction with fellow farmers during exchange visits and seeing the benefits of practicing
improved WMSIs techniques in Lushoto and Karatu, followed by practical training we observed that
there is rapid adoption of WMSIs in all villages. Within a short time (one year) of project
implementation farmers have implemented a number of WMSIs in their farms and shared knowledge
with fellow farmers in their villages as shown in most significant change stories (Appendix B). For
example, in Malindi villages alone the Village Chairman, Mrs. Machuve reported that by August 2007,
189 households have constructed 1876 bench terraces (Table 17). Farmers indicated that they were
motivated to construct bench terraces after seeing that they would earn more income by planting high-
value crops like bananas and vegetables (tomatoes, onions, carrots and spinach) that would fetches a
good market in the nearby market and were will increase productivity of scarce water resources.
Table 17: Number of farmers adopting bench terraces and terraces established in Malindi
village
Farmers who adopted Established terraces by adopting farmers
2006 2007 Total 2006 2007 Total
144 144 1118 130 1248
45 45 0 628 628
189 1876
From these results and observations made while monitoring the process is a good indication that
WMSIs have a potential to improve rainfed agriculture as a measure to address challenges posed by
climate change. Interactive and participatory processes in knowledge sharing and learning used by the
project to promote activities have increased farmers’ enthusiasm to adopt WMSIs that have been there
over 50 years. Involvement of District Level extension staff is envisaged to continue promoting WMSIs
which have the potential of benefiting more than 10,000 farm families in Makanya catchment.
6.6.1 Critical factors that led to success:
x Involvement of farmers and other partners institutions in planning of the knowledge sharing
and communication strategy brought a sense of ownership amongst stakeholders
o Supply of rippers and input for conservation agriculture demonstration from Ministry
of Agriculture, Department of Agro-Mechanisation through its Northern Zonal Office.
o Supply of additional inputs by a local NGO, SAIPRO working in the study area.
o Support to farmers from Same District Council through Ward and Village Extension
Officers.
o Involvement of VECO, ADP-Ruvu, District Commissioner, and Member of Parliament

in informative workshop.
x Targeting of village, ward and district leaders as champions of promoting the technologies. For
example, Village Chairpersons in Malindi and Mhero villages, Kwesasu and Chankoko sub-
villages are members of farmer-learning groups and their villages have performed wonderfully
as the case of terraces in Malindi villages referred in table.
x Recognition of gender participation in exchange visits and training activities enhancing

adoption of WMSIs. For example, in Malindi villages in year one, among participating farmers
38
who adopted practicing of bench terraces 17% were women; while in year 2, participating
women were 28%.
x Combination of forms of information sharing and learning through discussions and provision
of basket of choice in terms of technologies to be adopted by farmers. Farmers residing in the
uplands i.e. Mhero and Malindi, were exposed to innovations that are suitable for sloping
terrain like those seen in Lushoto, and hence they felt it was relevant to their conditions. On the
other hand, farmers from mid and low lands visited Karatu district which has similar terrain and
thus felt it is suitable for them.
x Promotion of high value crop-based enterprises added value to the adoption of WMSI hence
encouraged farmers to invest in these innovations. Farmers from Makanya Catchment learnt
from fellow farmers in Lushoto that planting bananas on bench terraces which had ready
market and fetched good price had higher returns to investment.
x Presence of researchers in the knowledge sharing and learning processes that enable them to
address problems associated with ‘lack-of-fit’ with farmers in the field such as choice of the
innovations according to soil types and farmers resource ability.
6.6.2 Constraints:
Absence of Farmers organisations in agricultural marketing: although there are Savings and Credit
Cooperative Societies in Makanya Catchment, there are not very strong to support and organise farmers
in marketing of their produce.
Poor infrastructure such as water storage facilities and roads: The uplands part of the catchment
comprise of steep hills and not well served with public transport, which hinder transportation of the
high value products like vegetables which are perishable. This caused loss of crops especially during the
rain season.
6.6.3 Key lessons learnt:
x Adoption of water system innovations depends much on a combination of different promotion

methods.
x Farmers always learn by seeing and doing – experiential learning is very important than just
sending messages without giving farmers ample time to learn.
x Interactive methods complemented by other methods and media of communication like

exchange visits, audio-visual and printed materials are more effective.
x Linking farmers with marketing institutions is key to motivate farmers invest in WMSIs.
6.6.4 Future implications for action of similar research interventions:
x Increase capacity for farmer-to-farmer knowledge sharing and learning
x Increase capacity of researchers in knowledge sharing and communication strategy development
x Changing mind-set of researchers towards promotion of research products through knowledge

sharing and communication.
39
CHAPTER 7
POLICY ISSUES FOR THE ADOPTION OF WMSIs
7.1 Introduction
Policy is one of the factors which have shown to affect adoption of many INRM-based technologies in
many other countries including Tanzania. Discussions with stakeholders revealed that natural resource
management especially in relation to water and moisture system innovations (WMSIs) has been
traditionally treated as a technical problem which needed only technical solutions. A good
understanding of stakeholders’ perception on policy, socio-economic and biophysical issues affecting
adoption of WMSIs is crucial in designing strategies for promotion of WMSIs. This chapter therefore
presents results of stakeholders’ perceptions and understanding on policy with respect to its influence
in the adoption of WMSIs in the Makanya catchment area in northern Tanzania and their relative
contribution to livelihood improvement.
The study reviewed policies in Tanzania and observed that most policies such as National Water Policy
which (URT, 2002), Tanzania Agricultural and Livestock Policy of 1997 (URT, 1997), the National
Environmental Policy 1997 (URT, 1997), strategy papers like the Agricultural Sector Development
Strategy (URT, 2001) and the National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty (URT, 2005)
have touched issues related to conservation of water and moisture. A number of policy changes over
the history of the nation have had a bearing on the adoption of WMSIs over the period of time. Several
discussion including stakeholders’ workshops and focus group discussions conducted during project
implementation in Makanya Catchment and field observation are in agreement that policy has a
significant contribution towards adoption of WMSIs by farmers. Results presented are a synthesis of
stakeholders’ discussions and consultations.
7.2 Analysis of Policies/Bye-Laws on WMSIs at Village Level
At village level analysis focused on farmers’ perception of the policies and how they affect practicing of
WMSIs. Generally, many farmers and agricultural extension agents have heard about policy, but only a
few have accessed policy documents and ever read them. However, there are variations across the
different villages in terms of awareness and understanding of policies and bye-laws. For the sake of the
analysis we have divided the policies analysis in three categories as follows: (i) Farmers level by gender,
(ii) Community Leaders and (iii) District Leaders and Extension officers.
7.2.1 Farmers perception on policies and bye-laws that affect the use of the WMSIs
The focus group discussions conducted in the study villages revealed that some community members
are aware of few policies that influence in one way or another use of water and moisture system
innovations. The policies that were mentioned included: Environmental Policy, Agricultural Policy,
Livestock Policy, Water Policy, Land Policy and Forestry Policy. Farmers also are aware of bye-laws
which affect the WMSIs. These include (i) Bye-law against grazing in farming lands, (ii) Bye-law against
grazing and farming in water sources, (iii) Bye-law against uncontrolled tree cutting, (iv) Bye-law against
cultivating on steep slopes, and (v) Bye-law against cultivating in gullies.
7.2.2 Perception of farmers according to gender

Men and women also had varying understanding of the policies and bye-laws. Men seemed to be very
much informed of the natural resources management issues and laws from the government acts passed
40
by the parliament as mentioned above. They also explained about bye-laws that are developed at village
level and passed at the District level. They also added that at local level there are regulations constituted
by various local user groups e.g. Ndiva committees. Other bye-laws mentioned by men include bye-
laws that required conservation of water sources and restricted farming activities in eroded areas and
near the gullies.
Women on the other hand were informed about bye-laws that restrict to graze on farmlands,
prohibition of cutting down of trees, bush fires for conservation of forestry reserves, farming near
water sources for conservation of water sources and restricted farming on the steep slopes to conserve
land. These bye-laws affected them differently depending on the location of their farms and other
needs like grazing or firewood. Women are also aware of local bye-laws on construction of terraces
which are a prerequisite for allocation of irrigation water. These are formulated at sub village level.
Women noted those bye-laws that are set by farmers groups that require collective action like
repair/maintenance of ndiva as a requirement to access water. A lawbreaker is penalised as stipulated in
the group’s regulations. They were also aware of the bye-laws to conserve water sources that are
constituted at District Council level.
In general, there was no difference in terms of the level of understanding of bye-laws by gender
because they all affected the community. However, women groups were not much aware of national
policies.
7.2.3 Perception of community leaders on the policies

The focus group discussions on policy issue revealed that most of the community leaders are aware of
only few policies as discussed earlier. There are challenges expressed by village and sub-village leaders
who are supposedly implementers of policies at local level. They reported that some of the policies are
not implemented because they are not known and that it becomes difficult to implement because of
poor understanding, bureaucracy and poor governance. They also said that policies are not
implemented because of poor education and masculine system by higher leadership that is dominated
by dictatorship where by everything is forcibly imposed from above. This system gives orders which are
not productive. It means most things are planned at higher levels and expecting their implementation at
low levels with high expectation of good results without any facilitation. They asked for improvement
of policy education to village leaders, religious leaders and farmers because they have ability to bring
people together. They therefore urged policy makers to ensure that policies reach the communities at
large through educational programmes.
On the other hand villages leaders reported that bye-laws are better known to farmers because they are
formulated from grass-root level e.g. by-laws against trees cutting, cultivating close to water sources,
and against setting bush fires. It was also learnt, however, that most bye-laws are not consistent with
the policies and may be conflicting. In some cases there is a time lag between bye-laws formulation and
their endorsement ready for implementation, something that makes some bye-laws to be outdated by
the time of their enforcement.
7.2.4 Perception of extension workers at district, wards and village levels

Extension workers at ward and district levels reported that policies that enhance good and sustainable
water and moisture system innovations in agriculture at different levels are known. These include
National Water Policy, Agricultural and Livestock Policy, National Environmental Policy and National
Land Policy. The policies are adequate because they protect water sources and natural vegetation and
are so related in their implementation. District level extension workers manage and promote
technology in soil, water and moisture conservation; they facilitate communities in rain water harvesting
for agriculture and they improve communities understanding in conservation of water and moisture.
41
However, they pointed out some weakness in the implementation of existing policies as related to:
policies’ documents not available to most executives; limited understanding of the policies to both
communities and extension officers; poor community involvement in policy making process; some
cases where policies are interpreted politically in favour of a few or groups of individuals. In addition,
they noted also that implementation of some policies is surrounded by corruption environments and
some clauses in various policies/laws contradict each other.
On the policy and bye-law formulation, ward and district leaders reported that the procedure of
formulating bye-law proposals at village starts at hamlet level which enables involvement of village
communities and these are then passed by Village government and the general village meeting before its
final approval by the District Council. This procedure is uniform for all villages in the District and
indeed Tanzania under the Local Government Act.
Content of the bye-laws can however vary from one village to another. This is sometimes contributed
to the level of awareness and interest of the leaders. For example, leaders from Mhero seemed more
knowledgeable on different policies and bye-laws that govern water and moisture management. In fact
in Mhero itself, there are local bye-laws which prohibit water to be allocated to a field that has no
conservation structures such as terraces. The village leaders from Mhero informed participants during
stakeholders’ workshop that they are currently working on a bye-law on improved land use system with
assistance from the land use department of the Same District Council.
During interviews with officials from the district, it was also revealed that Same District Council has a
general conservation policy which follows the National Environmental Policy and Law/Act. This law
empowers village environmental committees to develop bye-laws which guide utilization of the
resources at that level. The implementation of the Law/Act indirectly facilitates conservation of water
for both agricultural and domestic use. This is done by the fact that the conservation of resources result
into harvesting of water for future use by the local communities in both small and large scales.
In implementation of policies and bye-laws that supporting uptake of WMSIs, the District Council
through its District Agricultural Development Plans (DADPs), promote strategies and programmes for
water development to improve domestic, livestock and agricultural water availability and use. In the
financial year 2006/2007, the DADP in Same district had planned to rehabilitate charcodams, storage
ponds, building local communities’ capacity to manage water by training them in soil and water
conservation such as in-situ rainwater harvesting technologies. The plans are also incorporated into the
currently on-going Participatory Agricultural Development and Empowerment Program (PADEP)
whereby in each village level sub-project write up there is an emphasis on soil and water management.
PADEP has supported construction of micro dams/storage ponds (ndiva). Implementation of these
projects is through community based organization such as farmer groups. The district regulates
implementation of all groups ensuring that soil and water conservation issues are addressed for all
projects under DADPs, PADEP, and other NGOs.
Through stakeholders consultation we also learnt that the District Council interacts with a local basin
authority (Pangani Basin Water Office-PBWO) to facilitate water rights application and capacity
building of the local communities/water user groups on the importance of acquiring the water rights.
The District Council in Same and the PBWO collaborate in the enforcement of protecting water
sources and water bodies. In principle a big river needs a buffer zone of 200 m either side while small
rivers have a buffer zone of 30 m and smaller sources have a minimum buffer of 15 m.
It can be concluded that unlike in the past, District level are currently more coordinated in the
implementation of the policies which have influence on the adoption of the WMSIs as a result of
constant interaction with district leaders. Time is needed to assess how effective they have been.
42
7.3 The Conflicting Policies
It was revealed during FGD in Mhero village that some policies are conflicting with each other. For
example, stakeholders pointed out that Environmental Policy is contradicting with Mineral Policy,
where by in Mhero village through community based environmental conservation program a local
community protected a piece of land. After sometime an investor was granted a permit to conduct
mining activities and thus destroying all conservation efforts done by the community. It was also
revealed during stakeholders’ workshop that some of the policies and laws have negative effect on the
adoption of the WMSIs. This is due to the fact some of the laws are outdated. For example, when
cutting a tree and one is fined 1000/-, this amount of fine is so small that the offenders can very easily
cut down a tree and get away with it. In addition, implementation of minerals policy may not help
protect some of the fragile water sources and could cause environmental degradation by deforestation,
destruction of habitat, loss of biodiversity and general damage to the land. We also learnt from these
discussions that most bye-laws at District level are not honoured by court of law.
43
CHAPTER 8
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The study found out that most of the household in the Makanya Catchment are practicing at least one
WMSI. The WMSIs that involve supplementary irrigation had higher returns to land and labour, which
indicates that in semi-arid environment supplementation of rainfed agriculture, is important. Venturing
in high value crops like vegetables under capital intensive WMSIs like ndiva would effectively reduce
income poverty in water constrained dry lands. Most of the constraints to adoption are related to socio-
economic determinants. This implies that successful promotion of novel technologies to farm and
community levels should address socio-economic constraints for smooth uptake of technologies. The
needs to conserve soil and water, improving food security and increasing income were perceived as
most important factors for adopting WMSIs. However, there are gender differences on perception of
advantages and disadvantages over adoption of WMSIs, which in-turn affects uptake of WMSIs.
Furthermore, limited accessibility of policies and low understanding of policies, regulations and bye-
laws limit promotion and uptake of WMSIs. Therefore it is recommended that availability of policy
documents at village, ward and division levels should be enhanced as well as education on policy, laws,
principles and procedures for leaders and communities to foster smooth implementation.
Stakeholders identified a number of areas which need to be addressed in order to enhance adoption of
the WMSIs. It was concluded that people do not know most policies and bye-laws related to
management of natural resources. There also conflicting policies and bye-laws which also create
confusion among farming communities. These are major weaknesses which make promotion and
uptake of WMSIs difficult. Therefore the following recommendations were drawn for different levels
of implementation:
(i) Land use policy: implementation of the participatory Land use mapping for each village should be
done in all villages. There are only a few villages in Tanzania with land use maps. This normally
causes conflicts over allocation of land for various uses. The matter needs to be addressed by
facilitating land use planners to develop land use maps.
(ii) Human activities in natural forests and water sources: communities living adjacent to protected
natural forests should be educated to know which human activities are banned so that natural
forests and water sources are protected.
(iii) Conflict between traditional bye-laws and official bye-laws over protection of traditional forest
reserves and water sources should be resolved through use of participatory processes in
development of these bye-laws so that the two are merged for the better. Use of participatory
approaches would also reduce fear and conflicts between forest officers and communities leaving
near conserved forests which have direct effect on the adoption or non adoption of the
innovations to conserve the forests as well as water sources.
(iv) Education on policy, laws, principles and procedures should be provided to leaders and
communities. This includes the training on policy lobbying and advocacy for District Facilitation
Teams (DFT). Communities and community leaders should be empowered to foster effectiveness
implementation of policies, law and bye-laws.
(v) Enforcement of laws and bye-laws: each District Council has a Lawyer who is responsible with all
court cases related to those who break laws. Communities and especially leaders who are bye-laws
enforcers should be educated to utilise this facility in handling court cases to avoid corruption and
loss of human rights.
44
(vi) Availability of Policy documents: policy documents are now available in the national website
therefore District level officials should facilitate extension workers at ward and village level to
access these documents. It was proposed that copies of Policy and Strategy documents should be
made available at Ward or Division levels. This would enable leaders to work by observing laws.
(vii) Bye-laws which were formulated at sub-village levels should be identified and be set in a way that
will be open for use by respective communities.
(viii) Conflicting policies should be reviewed at District level and issue recommendation to the
respective level for amendments to foster smooth implementation.
45
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Table of results on the determinants of adoption
Table A1: Community level determinants of adoption of WMSIs in the Makanya catchment
Type Innovations Positive influence Negative influence
Storage x Storage ponds x Rainfall/Water shortage x Shortage of enough water to conserve

(ndiva) x Management of water use x Low education level
x Wells x Increased x Low income level
x Charco dams production/Productivity x Inadequate labour force
x Tanks x Cash/High value crops x Inadequate land/Land shortage
x Protect water loss x Land tenure
x Topography x Cost involved
x Shortage of domestic water x Poor technology
x Cash crops x Unwillingness to take up the technology
x Having other alternative activities.
x Lack of expertise/technology
x High cost to implement (e.g. 1300 tank
costs about 250,000/=)
x Lack of information about technology
x Unwillingness to take up the technology
Storage x Analysis x Biophysical factors = 62.5% x Socio-economic factors = 69.2%
x Socio-economic factors = 27.5% x Biophysical factors = 15.4%
x Socio-cultural factors = 15.4%
Insitu x Terraces x Relief and topography (control x Shortage of labour force
x Mulching erosion) x Low income
x Contours x Yield increase/Productivity x Lack of collective action (Kiwili)
x Conserve natural x Reduce inconvenience in x Poor working tools
vegetation irrigation schedule x High cost of implementing an
x Basins/borders x Irrigation task is simplified by innovation
x Deep tillage controlling water x Low education level
x Ripper x Conserve soil, fertility and x Land shortage
x Mulching moisture x Land tenure
x Good crop growth x Lack of information about technology
x Bye-laws for group the use the x Unwillingness to take up the technology
same ndiva
x Having other alternative activities.
x Increased production
x Traditions and norms of using draught
x Cash crops animals
x Rainfall shortage x Laziness, ignorance, jealousy,
x Protect water loss complacency,
x Poor technology
Insitu x Analysis x Biophysical factors = 70% x Socio-economic factors = 79%
x Socio-economic factors = 30% x Technological factors = 14%
x Socio-cultural factors = 7%
46
Table A2: Education and adoption of water and moisture system innovations
WMSIs Adoption Education Pearson Chi Square
< Primary Primary > Primary Value Sig. (2-sided)
Trees-on-farm yes N 0 94 13 8.513 0.014
% 0.0 38.0 45.0
no N 13 153 16
% 100.0 62.0 55.0
Mulching yes N 4 113 19 5.420 0.067
% 31.0 46.0 65.5
no N 9 132 10
% 69.0 54.0 34.5
FYM yes N 2 91 15 5.815 0.055
% 15.4 37.0 54.0
no N 11 155 13
% 84.6 63.0 46.0
Retention ditch yes N 0 27 1 4.667** 0.097
% 0.0 11.0 4.0
no N 13 218 27
% 100.0 89.0 96.
Fanya juu/chini yes N 0 4 2 3.427* 0.064
% 0.0 2.0 7.0
no N 13 241 26
% 100.0 98.0 93.0
Borders yes N 3 38 1 3.500* 0.061
% 23.0 16.0 4.0
no N 10 205 27
% 77. 84.0 96.0
Charco dams yes N 1 4 2 4.734 0.094
% 8. 2.0 7.0
no N 12 240 26
% 92.0 98.0 93.0
** Likelihood ratio
47
Table A3: Extra training obtained and adoption of water and moisture system innovations
WMSI Adoption Extra Training Obtained Pearson Chi-Square
None Adult Vocational Value Sig. (2-sided)
education
Trees-on-farm Yes N 34 13 54 36.619 0.000
% 22.0 38.0 60.0
No N 123 21 36
% 78.0 62.0 40.0
Mulching Yes N 54 9 64 36.052 0.000
% 34.0 27.0 71.0
No N 103 24 26
% 66.0 73.0 29.0
Ndiva Yes N 45 8 37 5.766 0.056
% 28.5 23.5 42.0
No N 113 26 52
% 71.5 76.5 58.0
Run off Diversion Yes N 73 14 26 7.499 0.024
% 47.0 41.0 29.0
No N 82 20 63
% 53.0 59.0 71.0
Direct diversion of Yes N 25 1 9 5.052 0.080
stream flow
% 16.0 3.0 10.0
No N 132 33 81
% 84.0 97.0 90.0
Post irrigation surface Yes N 46 4 28 5.027 0.081
tillage
% 29.0 12.0 31.0
No N 111 30 62
% 71.0 88.0 69.0
Stone terraces Yes N 12 0 19 15.256 0.000
% 8.0 0.0 21.0
No N 144 34 71
% 92.0 100.0 79.0
Earth terraces Yes N 24 2 23 8.234 0.016
% 15.0 6.0 26.0
No N 133 32 65
% 85. 94.0 74.0
FYM Yes N 43 4 52 33.094 0.000
% 28.0 12.0 58.0
No N 113 30 37
% 72.0 88.0 42.0
Cover crop Yes N 51 12 40 3.526* 0.060
% 33.0 35.0 45.0
No N 105 22 49
% 67.0 65.0 55.0
Trash lines Yes N 15 1 17 7.821 0.020
% 10.0 3.0 19.0
No N 141 33 72
% 90.0 97.0 81.0
Fanya juu/chini Yes N 1 1 4 4.079* 0.043
48
% 1. 3.0 4.5
No N 155 33 85
% 99.0 97.0 95.5
Valley bottom farming Yes N 13 0 5 5.485** 0.064
% 8.0 0.0 6.0
No N 143 34 84
% 92.0 100.0 94.0
Borders Yes N 35 1 7 13.498 0.001
% 22.0 3.0 8.0
No N 121 33 80
% 78.0 97.0 92.0
Traditional deep tillage Yes N 84 24 62 6.682 0.035
% 54.0 71.0 69.0
No N 71 10 28
% 46.0 29.0 31.0
** Likelihood ratio
Table A4: Age group and adoption of water and moisture system innovations
WMSIs Adoption Age group of Head of HH Pearson Chi-Square
(years)
20 – 35 36 – 50 > 50 Value Sig. (2-sided)
Trees-on-farm Yes N 14 33 63 17.873 0.000
% 20.0 33.0 50.0
No N 56 66 64
% 80.0 67.0 50.0
Mulching Yes N 26 42 69 6.925 0.031
% 37.0 42.0 55.0
No N 44 57 56
% 63.0 58.0 45.0
Ndiva Yes N 15 29 52 8.787 0.012
% 21.0 29.0 41.0
No N 55 70 74
% 79.0 71.0 59.0
Post irrigation surface tillage Yes N 14 29 41 3.226* 0.072
% 20.0 29.3 32.5
No N 56 70 85
% 80.0 70.7 67.5
Retention ditch Yes N 3 9 16 3.680* 0.055
% 4.0 9.0 13.0
No N 66 90 109
% 96.0 91.0 87.0
Borders Yes N 16 14 13 5.638 0.060
% 23.0 14.0 11.0
No N 53 85 110
% 77.0 86.0 89.0
49
Table A5: Farm size and adoption of water and moisture system innovations
WMSIs Farm size groups (acres) Pearson Chi-Square
0 - 0.5 0.75 - 2.0 2.25 - 5.0 > 5.0 Value Sig. (2-sided)
Trees-on-farm Yes N 4 33 67 6 14.351 0.002
% 50.0 27.0 47.0 22.0
No N 4 88 75 21
% 50.0 73.0 53.0 78.0
Mulching yes N 5 51 74 8 7.103 0.069
% 62.5 42.0 53.0 29.6
no N 3 70 66 19
% 37.5 58.0 47.0 70.4
Runoff diversion yes N 0 28 65 21 37.473 0.000
% 0.0 23.5 46.0 78.0
no N 8 91 75 6
% 100.0 76.5 54.0 22.0
RWH tank and pipe yes N 1 0 9 1 9.227 0.026
% 12.5 0.0 6.0 4.0
no N 7 121 132 26
% 87.5 100.0 94.0 96.0
Stone terraces yes N 0 14 19 0 8.787** 0.032
% 0.0 12.0 13.5 0.0
no N 7 107 122 27
% 100.0 88.0 86.5 100.0
FYM yes N 6 38 59 6 10.386 0.016
% 75.0 32.0 42.0 22.0
no N 2 82 82 21
% 25.0 68.0 58.0 78.0
Retention ditch yes N 0 6 18 4 7.229** 0.065
% 0.0 5.0 13.0 15.
no N 8 113 123 23
% 100.0 95.0 87.0 85.0
Borders yes N 0 12 26 5 6.731** 0.081
% 0.0 10.0 19.0 18.5
no N 8 107 113 22
% 100.0 90.0 81.0 81.5
** Likelihood ratio
50
Table A6: Livestock ownership and adoption of water and moisture system innovations
WMSIs Adoption Type of livestock Pearson Chi-Square
Cattle Chicken Sheep/goats Value Sig. (2-sided)
Trees-on-farm: yes N 52 16 12 19.787 0.000
% 49.0 33.0 16.0
no N 55 32 61
% 51.0 67.0 84.0
Mulching yes N 65 21 18 23.512 0.000
% 61.0 44.0 25.0
no N 41 27 55
% 39.0 56.0 75.0
Ndiva yes N 45 13 13 12.574 0.002
% 42.5 28.0 18.0
no N 61 34 60
% 57.5 72.0 82.0
Runoff diversion yes N 38 16 44 13.383 0.001
% 36.0 33.0 61.0
no N 67 32 28
% 64.0 67.0 39.0
RWH tank and pipe yes N 7 2 1 2.805* 0.094
% 7.0 4.0 1.0
no N 99 46 72
% 93.0 94.0 99.0
Post irrigation surface tillage yes N 41 11 15 8.105 0.017
% 39.0 22.9 20.5
no N 65 37 58
% 61.0 77.1 79.5
Stone terraces yes N 15 7 2 7.057 0.029
% 14.0 15.0 3.0
no N 90 41 71
% 86.0 85.0 97.0
Earth terraces yes N 26 7 9 4.643 0.098
% 24.5 15.0 12.5
no N 80 40 63
% 75.5 85.0 87.5
FYM yes N 54 12 16 18.721 0.000
% 51.0 25.5 22.0
no N 52 35 57
% 49.0 74.5 78.0
Cover crop yes N 52 18 19 9.983 0.007
% 49.5 38.0 26.0
no N 53 29 54
% 50.5 62.0 74.0
Retention ditch yes N 19 2 1 15.709 0.000
% 18.0 4.0 1.0
no N 86 45 72
% 82.0 96.0 99.0
Trash lines yes N 17 6 4 4.711 0.095
% 16.0 13.0 5.5
no N 88 41 69
% 84.0 87.0 94.5
51
Large pits yes N 26 20 24 4.952 0.084
% 25.0 43.0 33.0
no N 79 27 49
% 75.0 57.0 67.0
Borders yes N 10 4 27 25.054 0.000
% 10.0 8.5 37.0
no N 93 43 46
% 90.0 91.5 63.0
Traditional deep tillage yes N 70 25 38 4.656 0.098
% 67.0 52.0 53.0
no N 35 23 34
% 33.0 48.0 47.0
** Likelihood ratio
52
Table A7: House type and adoption of water and moisture system innovations
WMSIs Adoption Type of wall of the main dwelling Pearson Chi-
Square
Trees Stones Raw Burnt Cement Value Sig. (2-
and Bricks Bricks Bricks sided)
Mud
Trees on farm Yes N 36 7 2 64 1 12.129 0.016
% 27.0 54.0 33.0 44.0 100.0
No N 97 6 4 81 0
% 73.0 46.0 67.0 56.0 0.0
Mulching Yes N 45 6 2 84 1 17.015 0.002
% 34.0 46.0 40.0 58.0 100.0
No N 87 7 3 61 0
% 66.0 54.0 60.0 42.0 0.0
Ndiva Yes N 26 6 1 65 0 22.695 0.000
% 19.0 46.0 20.0 45.0 0.0
No N 108 7 4 79 1
% 81.0 54.0 80.0 55.0 100.0
Runoff diversion Yes N 71 0 4 39 0 32.947 0.000
% 54.0 0.0 80.0 27.0 0.0
No N 61 13 1 104 1
% 46.0 100.0 20.0 73.0 100.0
Direct diversion Yes N 12 0 0 25 0 9.390** 0.052
of stream flow
% 9.0 0.0 0.0 17.0 0.0
No N 121 13 5 120 1
% 91.0 100.0 100.0 83.0 100.0
RWH tank and Yes N 4 0 0 6 1 26.950 0.000
pipe
% 3.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 100.0
No N 129 13 5 139 0
% 97.0 100.0 100.0 96.0 0.0
Post irrigation Yes N 25 3 0 56 1 18.075 0.001
surface tillage
% 19.0 23.0 0.0 39.0 100.0
No N 108 10 5 89 0
% 81.0 77.0 100.0 61.0 0.0
Stone terraces Yes N 6 1 0 26 0 13.760 0.008
% 4.5 8.0 0.0 18.0 0.0
No N 127 12 5 118 1
% 95.5 92.0 100.0 82.0 100.0
Earth terraces Yes N 15 4 0 34 1 14.188 0.007
% 11.0 31.0 0.0 24.0 100.0
No N 118 9 5 109 0
% 89.0 69.0 100.0 76.0 0.0
FYM Yes N 27 7 2 72 1 30.220 0.000
% 20.0 54.0 33.0 50.0 100.0
No N 106 6 4 71 0
% 80.0 46.0 67.0 50.0 0.0
Valley bottom Yes N 5 0 0 13 0 3.443* 0.064
farming
53
% 4.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 0.0
No N 128 13 5 130 1
% 96.0 100.0 100.0 91.0 100.0
Borders Yes N 26 1 1 15 0 4.338* 0.037
% 20.0 8.0 20.0 11. 0.0
No N 106 12 4 127 1
% 80.0 92.0 80.0 89.0 100.0
Charco dams Yes N 6 0 0 1 0 4.210* 0.040
% 4.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0
No N 126 13 5 142 1
% 95.5 100.0 100.0 99.0 100.0
Traditional deep Yes N 74 11 1 95 1 10.077 0.039
tillage
% 56.0 85.0 20.0 66.0 100.0
No N 58 2 4 49 0
% 44.0 15.40 80.0 34.0 0.0
** Likelihood ratio
Table A8: Liquid assets and adoption of water and moisture system innovations
WMSIs Adoption Have Bank Pearson Chi- Fisher's Exact
Account Square Test
Yes No Value Sig. (2- Sig. (2- Sig. (1-
sided) sided) sided)
Trees-on-farm Yes N 18 92 0.145 0.082
% 49.0 35.0
No N 19 169
% 51.0 65.80
Mulching Yes N 24 114 5.655 0.017
% 65.0 44.0
No N 13 145
% 35.0 56.0
RWH tank and pipe Yes N 4 7 5.986 0.014
% 11.0 3.0
No N 33 253
% 89.0 97.0
Stone terraces Yes N 7 26 0.156 0.097
% 19.0 10.0
No N 30 233
% 81.0 90.0
FYM Yes N 21 88 7.222 0.007
% 57.0 34.0
No N 16 171
% 43.0 66.0
Valley bottom farming Yes N 6 12 7.554 0.006
% 16.0 5.0
No N 31 246
% 84.0 95.0
54
Table A9: Percentage of group meetings exchanging views in the adoption of WMSIs
WMSIs Location Percentage of Adoption X2
Meetings Yes No
N % N % Value
Ndiva mid never been in any group 17 23 57 77.0 18.904***
No any meeting 3 33 6 67.0
> 15% - 25% 0 0 1 100.0
> 25% - 50% 0 0 1 100.0
> 75% - 100%) 22 65 12 35.0
Ndiva Up never been in any group 32 35 59 65.0.0 30.170***
No any meeting 0 0 3 100.0.0
> 15% - 25% 1 100 0 0.0.0
> 25% - 50% 4 67 2 33.0.0
> 50% - 75% 1 100 0 0.0.0
> 75% - 100%) 17 100 0 0.0.0
Run off diversion Midland never been in any group 17 23.0 57 77.0 11.836**
No any meeting 0 0.0 9 100.0
> 15% - 25% 0 0.0 1 100.0
> 25% - 50% 0 0.0 1 100.0
> 50% - 75% 0 0.0 1 100.0
> 75% - 100%) 16 47.0 18 53.0
Post irrigation surface tillage Upland never been in any group 34 38.0 56 62.0 11.298**
> 15% - 25% 1 100.0 0 0.0
> 25% - 50% 3 50.0 3 50.0
> 50% - 75% 1 100.0 0 0.0
> 75% - 100%) 12 70.6 5 29.4
Stone terrace Mid never been in any group 4 5.0 70 95.0 14.638**
> 15% - 25% 0 0.0 1 100.0
> 25% - 50% 1 100.0 0 0.0
> 50% - 75% 0 0.0 1 100.0
> 75% - 100%) 5 15.0 29 85.0
Stone terrace Up never been in any group 9 10.0 80 90.0 46.410***
> 15% - 25% 0 0.0 1 100.0
> 25% - 50% 0 0.0 6 100.0
> 50% - 75% 1 100.0 0 0.0
> 75% - 100%) 13 76.5 4 23.5
Fanya juu/chini Mid never been in any group 1 1.0 72 97.0 15.565***
> 15% - 25% 0 0.0 1 100.0
> 25% - 50% 0 0.0 1 100.0
> 50% - 75% 0 0.0 1 100.0
> 75% - 100%) 0 0.0 34 100.0
Traditional deep tillage Up never been in any group 59 66.0 30 34.0 11.461**
> 15% - 25% 1 100.0 0 0.0
> 25% - 50% 6 100.0 0 0.0
> 50% - 75% 1 100.0 0 0.0
> 75% - 100%) 17 100.0 0 0.0
*** - P < 0.01 and ** = P < 0.05
55
Table A10: Distance to main roads and adoption of water and moisture system innovations
WMSIs Adoption Distance to the road leading to market (km) Pearson Chi-Square
0.0 - 3.0 3.1 - 5 .0 5.1 – 7.0 > 7.0 Value Sig. (2-sided)
Trees-on-farm yes N 58 10 1 2 9.454 0.024
% 45.0 34.5 12.5 12.5
no N 70 19 7 14
% 55.0 65.5 87.5 87.5
Mulching yes N 66 14 4 1 11.073 0.011
% 52.0 48.0 50.0 7.0
no N 61 15 4 14
% 48.0 52.0 50.0 93.0
Ndiva yes N 51 12 1 1 8.796 0.032
% 40.0 41.0 12.5 7.0
no N 76 17 7 14
% 60.0 57.0 87.5 93.0
Runoff diversion yes N 54 9 4 13 14.916 0.002
% 42.0 33.0 50.0 93.0
no N 74 18 4 1
% 58.0 67.0 50.0 7.0
Direct diversion of stream flow yes N 19 5 0 0 7.183** 0.066
% 15.0 17.0 0.0 0.0
no N 109 24 8 15
% 85.0 83.0 100.0 100.0
Post irrigation surface tillage yes N 43 7 5 2 6.824 0.078
% 34.0 24.0 62.5 13.0
no N 85 22 3 13
% 66.0 76.0 37.5 87.0
FYM yes N 54 6 3 3 7.461 0.059
% 43.0 21.0 37.5 19.0
no N 72 23 5 13
% 57.0 79.0 62.5 81.0
Cover Crop yes N 55 4 3 3 10.994 0.012
% 44.0 14.0 37.5 20.0
no N 71 25 5 12
% 56.0 86.0 62.5 80.0
Borders yes N 6 3 4 10 55.514 0.000
% 5.0 10.0 50.0 67.0
no N 119 26 4 5
% 95.0 90.0 50.0 33.0
Charco dams yes N 1 0 1 1 8.928 0.030
% 1.0 0.0 12.5 7.0
no N 125 28 7 14
% 99.0 100.0 87.5 93.0
Traditional deep tillage yes N 96 20 5 6 8.635 0.035
% 76.0 71.0 62. 40.0
no N 31 8 3 9
% 24.0 29.0 37.5 60.0
** Likelihood ratio
56
Appendix B: Most Significant Change Stories
STORIES OF FARMERS’ MOST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE THROUGH CPWF SG 503

PROJECT IN MAKANYA CATCHMENT, SAME DISTRICT, TANZANIA
Preamble
This documentary is a part of the CGIAR Challenge Programme on Food and Water with project
CPWF SG 503. The project falls in the suite “ENHANCE ADOPTION OF HIGH POTENTIAL
INTERVENTIONS FOR INCREASING AGRICULTURAL WATER PRODUCTIVITY”. The
purpose of the study is to improve adoption of agricultural water and moisture system innovations
(WMSIs) among smallholder farmers for enhanced livelihood in semi-arid areas. The project was
designed to contribute in improving the currently low adoption of water and moisture systems
innovations for increased productivity of agricultural water in the semi-arid areas. One of the project
strategies was to involve farmers into experiential learning in terms of study tours to actively facilitate
them to enhance farmer to farmer knowledge sharing and learning to create good atmosphere for
scaling out. The following are preliminary stories of some farmers who were involved in the initial
stages of the knowledge sharing and communication strategy implementation.
Story 1: Yonafika Dengera – Malindi Village
My name is Yonafika Dengera, a farmer from Malindi

village, Tariso sub-village, Suji ward in Same District. I
have been cultivating my farm without using improved
techniques for so long. After been involved in the
participatory processes in group discussions and
household interviews carried out by the CPWF SG 503
project under SWMRG-SUA and ALERT I feel that I
have changed, and some good outcomes are visible
now. I do harvest a mixture of crops without affecting
my land by planting trees and fodder grass on the edge
of my terraces.
When I went to National Agricultural shows I learnt

many things. I spread and demonstrated these technologies in a very simple way because people see
example through my garden. Some of the techniques demonstrated include planting trees and use of
simple drip irrigation technique.
This season I expect to do more great things. I will

make fanya juu terraces which look so appropriate for
my field according to the slope that would develop
into bench terraces in a very short time. On the side
of farmers in the village, I expect to inform them
about these technologies when we hold village and
sub-village meetings with aim of exposing them and
visiting my field more consultation and
demonstration. Because my field is by the roadside
when someone passes by the road it is very easy to
see and thus act as a catalyst to whoever sees it. I am
planning to put more effort in conservation of land
and forestry as seen in Lushoto, where farmers
conserved land through agro-forestry.
57
My opinion to SWMRG-SUA is that in
addition to conducting research, I ask you to
support some farmers who have shown
interest and put efforts to adopt water and
moisture system innovations. For instance, if a
farmer is interested in drip irrigation let this
farmer be supplied with materials like pipes to
distribute water in the field. I am so grateful
for the way you encourage me to move on.
Story 2: Rachel Machuve – Malindi Village
I am Rachel Machuve from Malindi village, Suji ward in Same District. Before this project came into
our village I was practicing farming system which I
mixed so many crops such as maize, beans, potatoes
and different vegetables in one plot. I was also
cultivating on a slope land without any conservation
measures. I was harvesting very little and therefore
productivity of the labour invested was very minimal.
When this project came into our village I happened
to be involved in a trip to attend National
Agricultural exhibitions in Arusha in 2006. While
there I learnt how to make terraces which help to
conserve soil and preserve soil moisture, I also learnt
different cropping systems where by crops are well
arranged in a small area.
Due to that I realised that I need to change the way I practice my farming so I decide to make terraces.
I made about 15 terraces this season, on which I planted different crops like maize, beans and potatoes.
I did not mix crops like I used to do but each crop
was grown separately. I have seen good outcomes,
though the plants are still in the field but beans
have responded very well, potatoes also are doing
very well. I also witnessed that my soil has not
been taken away by runoff. My neighbours and
other who pass-by have copied from my practice
and they liked the technology. I expect more
benefits during dry season because I can use little
irrigation water to harvest much.
My opinion about this program is to mobilise our

fellow farmers to change and come out of old
agricultural practices and practice terrace farming.
This project is only implemented in one year the period that seems to be very short to achieve much we
ask for the program to continue for even three years. I also urge for more farmers’ workshops and
more study tours in order to learn how fellow farmers from somewhere else are benefiting from
innovations like these.
58
Story 3: Thomas J. Fue – Mhero Village
My name is Thomas J. Fue, a farmer and village chairperson from Mhero village in Chome ward for
more than 22 years. Before this project on water and moisture system innovations which started in
2006, my farm was not something attractive
because the crops were not good despite so much
effort invested on.
After this project especially when I got chance to

participate in a study tour to visit National
agricultural exhibition in Arusha 2006. I learnt
things like cultivation of banana, cereals, grain
storage techniques, water and moisture
conservation structures and water harvesting
technologies.
After the study tour I decided to practice some

techniques like improving my farm by planting
new banana suckers. I also improved old banana plants through pruning and use farm yard manure,
selecting good productive seed and practicing
agro-forestry. I have used my position as the
village chairperson to convene village council and
village meetings to share the knowledge with
villagers. The villagers have planned to plant 10
banana suckers per household between October
and December 2006. This is because banana is
one of the most important crop as food and cash
crop.
Next season I expect to increase mobilization of

fellow farmers and learn how to make use of
fanya juu terraces as one of the water and moisture
system innovations especially in non irrigable
areas. This will go along with strategies to increase different varieties of banana plants. I also plan to
establish a demonstration farm to be managed by farmers participating in this project.
There are signs of achievements because more that half of the households in this village have
responded and have started banana planting program and implementing water and moisture system
innovations like construction of terraces. This goes
together with mobilizing proper land use planning
in my village.
Therefore I urge that the project to increase

opportunities for study tours, advices and
facilitation of rain water harvesting and
improvement of natural springs, facilitation of
availability of different varieties of banana plants
such as Uganda green, Paz and Mbweluma.
I am so glad with the implementation of this

project lead by SWMRG-SUA, which has built
minds, enthusiasm and zeal to our farmers.
59
Story 4: Wediel D. Idafa – Mhero Village
I am Wedieli D. Idafa, from Mhero village in Chome

ward. I am one of the group members facilitated by
CPWF SG 503 project through SWMRG-SUA on how
to manage water and conserve moisture in the soil.
Before this project I did not have any knowledge on
cultivating various crops such as banana, vegetables and
livestock keeping. After this project which facilitated us
to attend National Agricultural exhibition in Arusha on
8th August 2006, I got good knowledge on improved
agricultural practices which interested me and I decided
to work upon. One of the things I practiced is pruning of
banana plants in my field, and selection of good banana
seeds which I planted in my field. This season when the
short rains commonly known as ‘Vuli’ started I had
planted about 11 banana suckers and about 500 tomato
plants. However the tomatoes were affected by too much
rain, therefore I did not harvest any tomatoes. I also
planted hybrid maize H 614, which are still in the field.
Using the knowledge I got, I mobilized my

neighbours and have offered my farm to be a
learning field and they have accepted the idea
which we are now implementing. I expect to
increase and improve banana, vegetable and
maize cultivation. This includes establishing
farmer learning group in a demonstration farm
which I have offered for that purpose.
After the study tour I have seen success especially

in crops which I have worked upon in my farm. I
have also experience strength from exchanging
ideas with others and leant many new things.
This project has added to me new agricultural

knowledge through use of water and moisture
system innovations. I suggest program organise
more study tours for us to learn more and help
others. I am so grateful for very good and
successful study tours.
60
Story 5; Greyson Hakiel – Mgwasi Village
I am Greyson Hakieli from Maji ya Chome sub-

village, Mgwasi village in Makanya Ward. Since
my youth I have been a farmer of both food and
cash crops. My farming practices were traditional
which I inherited from my parents. I was
planting maize without using proper spacing the
practice which I continued to carry on for so
long with very little success. Thereafter we
received agricultural extension workers who
trained us to use spacing but we were planting 3
to 4 seeds per hill in which we realised changes
to some extent.
Then it happened one day just like a dream I met

researchers from SWMRG-SUA who appointed me and a few colleagues from my village to attend
agricultural exhibitions in Arusha so that we may learn new technologies and share with our
communities. I was very keen to learn what I saw, and I was able to change my farm by making terraces
for the purpose of conserving water and manure. I used proper spacing (90 cm by 30 cm) to grow
maize and used one seed per hill instead of 3 to 4 seed.
I have seen great change and achievement compared to my previous practice (especially performance of
maize planted in conserved land (left) and un-conserved land (right) in the above pictures). I shared this
with my neighbours about making terraces and 5 of them have made terraces, two of them have also
adopted use of appropriate spacing.
Another thing that attracted me is about

improvement of environment. I managed to
establish a small tree nursery of about 100
seedlings of grevillea, quinine and fruit trees
(pawpaw and passion), which I expect to plant
in my fields. Next season I expect to add
pumpkin as cash crop in my field. Finally I
would like to say that may God bless
researchers from SWMRG-SUA so that you
continue to provide more technical support to
make us get out of food shortage in our
communities. I wish you all the best.
61

Small Grants Final Technical Report

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Small Grants Final Technical Report

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

CPWF SG 503 FTR 2007

ENHANCE ADOPTION OF HIGH POTENTIAL INTERVENTIONS FOR

SUA ALERT IFPRI

WMSIs practiced in the study area

Potential of WMSIs to improve farmers livelihoods

Biophysical and socio-economic determinants of adoption of the WMSIs

Determinants of technology adoption at household level include household capital endowments

Perceptions of the farmers and local communities on the WMSIs

Policy issues for the adoption of WMSIs

Conclusions and Recommendations

ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS

ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS.............................................................................................................................. V

TABLE OF CONTENTS ..............................................................................................................................................VI

LIST OF FIGURE .......................................................................................................................................................VIII

LIST OF TABLES ..........................................................................................................................................................IX

Appendix A: Table of results on the determinants of adoption.................................................................... 46

3. Perceptions of the farmers and local communities on the WMSIs Identified

4. Strategies and approaches that facilitate scaling up of WMSIs Promoted

Figure 1: Location of the study villages within the Makanya watershed

2.1 Delivery of output 1

2.1.1 Review of literature on existing WMSIs

2.1.2 Introducing the project in the selected village

2.1.3 Participatory agro-ecosystem analysis

2.2 Delivery of output 2

2.2.1 Review of different econometric adoption models

2.2.2 Identify determinants of adoption

2.3.1 Identification of farmers’ and community perceptions

2.4 Delivery of output 4

2.4.1 Review and documentation of strategies and approaches for scaling up

x To facilitate participation and commitment of stakeholders in the research process so as to

2.5.1 Review and assessment of adequacy of water related policies

2.5.2 Village level assessment of water policy

2.6 Data Collection

2.6.1 Sampling Procedure

Key informant interviews

Selection and training of enumerators

2.6.2 Data Processing and Analysis

3.2.2 Mid lands

3.3 WMSIs practiced in the Makanya Catchment

Areas Water Conservation Innovations Moisture Conservation Innovations

Highlands x Storage ponds (ndiva) x Bench terraces, Fanya juu/Fanya chini

Table 3: Extent of practicing WMSIs in upland areas

Table 4: Extent of practicing WMSIs in midland areas

Table 5: Extent of practicing WMSIs in lowlands

3.4 Intensity of Adoption of WMSIs in Makanya Catchment

Table 6: Intensity of adoption of WMSIs in the Makanya catchment

3.5.1. Performance of crop enterprises under different WMSIs in lowland

Retu rn s to lab o u r (T AS /p erso n -d ay)

3.5.2. Performance of crop enterprises under different WMSIs in the midland

Returns to labor (TAS/person-day)

3.5.2.2. Bean enterprise

400,000 500 457

Returns to labor (TAS/person-day)

3.5.2.3. Maize enterprise

70,000 65,938 100 92

Returns to labor (TAS/person-day)

3.5.3. Performance of crop enterprises under different WMSIs in the upland

Major Water and Moisture System Innovations

700,000 621,875 25,000

Returns to labor (TAS/person-day)

3.5.3.2. Vegetable enterprise

Figure 20: Yield of coffee under different WMSIs in the upland

1,400,000 1,301,425 25,000

2.3.1 Identification of farmers’ and community perceptions

2. Empowerment farmers to implement potential innovations by provision of softy loans – (e.g.

6.5.2 Beyond Farmers’ Level

STORIES OF FARMERS’ MOST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE THROUGH CPWF SG 503

Story 1: Yonafika Dengera – Malindi Village

Story 2: Rachel Machuve – Malindi Village