executive summary feasibility study of kilombero valley

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Feasibility Study of Kilombero Valley Irrigation Schemes Technical Assistance to Support the Development of Irrigation and Rural Roads Infrastructure Project (IRRIP2)

May 2016 – Final Version

This document was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by CDM Smith for the Technical Assistance to Support the Development of Irrigation and Rural Roads Infrastructure Project, Task Order number AID-621-TO-12-00002, under the USAID Global A&E IQC (Contract No.: EDH-I-00-08-00023-00).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Feasibility Study of Kilombero Valley Irrigation Schemes Technical Assistance to Support the Development of Irrigation and Rural Roads Infrastructure Project (IRRIP2) Prepared by: Chris Hall, Irrigation Component Leader Keith F. Williams, Chief of Party Organization: CDM International, Inc. (CDM Smith)

Submitted to: Thomas Kaluzny, United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR)

USAID Contract No.: EDH-I-00-08-00023-00, Task Order AID-621-TO-12-00002

Report Date: 07 May 2016

DISCLAIMER The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FEASIBILITY STUDY OF KILOMBERO VALLEY IRRIGATION SCHEMES i

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ......................................................................................................... i

List of Tables ................................................................................................................ ii

List of Figures............................................................................................................... ii

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................ iii

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1-1

2 ACTIVITIES COMPLETED ................................................................................ 2-1

3 ENGINEERING SCENARIOS EVALUATED ..................................................... 3-1

4 COSTS AND ECONOMIC ASSESSMENTS ..................................................... 4-1

5 FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT ........................................................................... 5-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FEASIBILITY STUDY OF KILOMBERO VALLEY IRRIGATION SCHEMES ii

6 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................. 6-1

List of Tables

Table 1.1: Projects with Development Potential ................................................ 1-1

Table 1.2: Study Area Summary ....................................................................... 1-2

Table 2.1: Development Potential for Basin-Irrigated Rice ................................ 2-1

Table 2.2: Yield, Operating Cost, and Revenue Estimates for Agricultural Scenarios .......................................................................................... 2-3

Table 2.3: Annual Costs of Irrigation to IO Members ........................................ 2-7

Table 3.1: Engineering Interventions by Scenario ............................................. 3-1

Table 3.2: Engineering Scenarios Developed and Costed ................................ 3-2

Table 3.3: Summary of Basin Irrigation Infrastructure (Scenario 3) by Scheme ............................................................................................ 3-3

Table 3.4: Summary of Center Pivot Sprinkler Irrigation Infrastructure (Scenario 4) by Scheme ................................................................... 3-4

Table 3.5: Summary of Solid Set Sprinkler Irrigation Infrastructure (Scenario 4) by Scheme ................................................................... 3-4

Table 3.6: Summary of Drip Irrigation Infrastructure (Scenario 5) by Scheme ............................................................................................ 3-5

Table 4.1: Summary of Estimated Construction Costs and EIRR ..................... 4-1

List of Figures

Figure 1.1: Location of IRRIP2 Schemes within Kilombero Valley ..................... 1-3

Figure 1.2: Feasibility Study Reporting Structure ............................................... 1-4

Figure 5.1: Proposed 2,766-ha Basin Irrigation Scheme for Kisegese 1 and 2 Blocks ..................................................................................... 5-3

Figure 5.2: Proposed 280-ha Drip Irrigation Scheme for Udagaji ....................... 5-5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FEASIBILITY STUDY OF KILOMBERO VALLEY IRRIGATION SCHEMES iii

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

CCRO Certificate of Customary Right of Occupancy cm centimeter CVL Certificate of Village Land EA Environmental Assessment EFA environmental flow assessment EIRR economic internal rate of return FS feasibility study FTF Feed the Future GoT Government of Tanzania ha hectare IO Irrigators’ Organization IRRIP2 Technical Assistance to Support the Development of Irrigation and

Rural Roads Infrastructure Project IV improved varieties kg kilogram km kilometer LiDAR light detection and ranging LV local varieties m meter m3/s cubic meters per second mm millimeter NIC National Irrigation Commission RBWB Rufiji Basin Water Board SAGCOT Southern Agricultural Growth Corridor of Tanzania SMU Scheme Management Unit SRI System of Rice Intensification TSH Tanzanian shilling USAID United States Agency for International Development USD United States dollar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FEASIBILITY STUDY OF KILOMBERO VALLEY IRRIGATION SCHEMES 1-1

1 INTRODUCTION

The Government of Tanzania (GoT) and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) have prioritized the potential of expanded irrigation to deliver increased productivity of staple crops in the Kilombero Valley of Morogoro Region as a key contributor to economic growth for Tanzania. The “Technical Assistance to Support the Development of Irrigation and Rural Roads Infrastructure Project” (IRRIP2), funded by USAID under the Feed the Future (FTF) initiative, has completed comprehensive feasibility studies (FS) to evaluate the development of four potential irrigation schemes (Kisegese, Udagaji, Mgugwe, and Mpanga-Ngalimila1) in Kilombero Valley. Preliminary assessments completed by the GoT identified these areas as having potential for agriculture where appropriate engineering works could control flooding and support a wet season crop of basin-irrigated rice, together with a dry season crop of basin-irrigated rice or non-rice crops.

The study objective is to derive an irrigation scenario that sustainably uses available resources to provide increased irrigated areas for appropriate crops such that production of staple crops (i.e., rice and maize) is increased and the project is economically attractive. Although the initial scope was to focus exclusively on basin irrigation of paddy rice, the FS process identified potentially attractive alternative irrigation scenarios, which were explored where the basin alternative was not clearly viable.

Table 1.1 presents two projects described further in Section 5 that could be considered for additional investigation.

Table 1.1: Projects with Development Potential

Study Area

Irrigated Area (ha) Beneficiaries1

Irrigation Method Cropping

Estimated Construction Cost (USD) EIRR

Kisegese (Blocks 1 and 2)

2,766 36,220 Basin Rice and

maize 22,520,000 11.7%

Udagaji 280 2,320 Drip Vegetables2 5,544,000 21.0% 1 Population of villages in project area, estimated from Kilombero District records. 2 Assumes wet season crop of cabbage and dry season crop of tomatoes. ha = hectare; USD = United States dollar; EIRR = economic internal rate of return

1.1 Areas Studied

The study areas are within the western side of the Kilombero Valley floodplain and include:

Kisegese, at the base of the Udzungwa escarpment, bordering the Udzungwa National Park. The Kisegese study area is located at the confluence of the Ruipa, Chiwachiwa and Londo rivers, 47 kilometers (km) by road east of Ifakara.

Udagaji, also at the base of the Udzungwa escarpment, and fed by the Udagaji River that flows off the escarpment close to the study area. Udagaji village is located approximately 72 km by road to the southwest of the Kisegese area.

1 For convenience, Mpanga-Ngalimila – the official name in project proposals – is referred to as Mpanga in this FS.


Mgugwe, which shares its northern border with the Udagaji study area. The Mgugwe River, a tributary of the Kihansi River, flows to the west and north of the study area. Mgugwe village is located approximately 9 km by road to the south of Udagaji village.

Mpanga-Ngalimila (Mpanga), fed by the Mpanga River, which forms the southern boundary of the area before joining the Mnyera and Ruhudji rivers to form the eastern boundary. Mpanga village is located approximately 36 km by road to the south of Mgugwe village.

Salient features of the study areas are summarized in Table 1.2, with their locations shown on Figure 1.1.

Table 1.2: Study Area Summary

Study Area Study

Area (ha) Source of Water

Number of Villages

within Study Area

Number of Households1 Population1

Kisegese 16,131 Ruipa and

Chiwachiwa rivers 10 5,842 36,220

Udagaji 5,371 Udagaji River 2 1,363 2,320

Mgugwe 3,701 Mgugwe River 2 1,507 3,737 Mpanga - Ngalimila

28,141 Mpanga River 9 6,390 27,199

Total 53,344 23 15,102 69,476 1 2012 National Census Data. Not all villages have census data; therefore, these figures are not complete.


Figure 1.1: Location of IRRIP2 Schemes within Kilombero Valley


1.2 Reporting Structure

The feasibility study of the Kilombero Valley irrigation schemes covers the Kisegese, Udagaji-Mgugwe2, and Mpanga areas in Kilombero District. The feasibility study is documented in three main reports (one for each study area) with a series of associated annexes covering specific components. This executive summary, prepared as a standalone document, covers the three study areas, given the similarities between them. Figure 1.2 illustrates the layout of the feasibility study reports for the three study areas.

Figure 1.2: Feasibility Study Reporting Structure

2 Although Udagaji and Mgugwe were identified as separate schemes in the original project proposals, the FS treats them as one study area – referred to as Udagaji-Mgugwe – given their proximity and inter-dependence. Udagaji and Mgugwe schemes are covered under one FS main report.


2 ACTIVITIES COMPLETED

A variety of data was collected during the FS to support the assessments. The component studies are summarized below and synthesized in the overall assessment in the FS main reports, with annexes to the FS main reports providing supporting detail.

2.1 Topographic Survey and Mapping

Satellite imagery, covering 86,800 ha at a resolution of between 0.5 and 2.5 meters (m), was procured to assist with area identification and survey planning. Topographic survey data, covering 53,000 ha for the four study areas, were obtained using light detection and ranging (LiDAR) technology to provide 10-centimeter (cm) resolution spot height data, corrected for vegetation, and ortho-rectified color imagery. The data were of sufficient accuracy to avoid the need for additional conventional survey.

2.2 Soil Survey

A semi-detailed soil survey and land evaluation study was completed across the four study areas, covering 53,344 ha. Soil suitability maps were developed for irrigated paddy rice and for irrigated non-rice crops (maize), which were the foundation for the engineering layouts for the irrigation schemes. Priority was given to the development of the clay-rich soils most suitable for rice irrigation, in preference to those soils with a sandy or loam texture and a more permeable structure. Further details are given in FS Annex A: Soils and Land Suitability for each study area. The findings are summarized in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1: Development Potential for Basin-Irrigated Rice

Potential

Kisegese Udagaji Mgugwe Mpanga Totals

Area (ha) Area (ha) Area (ha) Area (ha) Area (ha) %

Basin-Irrigated Rice High development potential

2,607 655 0 437 3,699 7%

Medium development potential

252 874 0 899 2,025 4%

Basin-Irrigated Maize High development potential

3,351 0 0 8,519 11,870 22%

Not to be developed using basin irrigation

9,921 3,842 3,701 18,286 35,750 67%

Total(1) 16,131 5,371 3,701 28,141 53,344 100% Potential area for double-cropped rice

2,859 1,529 0 1,336 5,724 11% 1 Determined through FS soil survey

Only 11 percent of the soils in all study areas were found to be suitable for double-cropped paddy rice, with an additional 22 percent suitable for growing a wet season crop of rice followed by a dry season crop of maize. The remaining soils were either too permeable to be used for basin irrigation (too sandy) or too steeply sloped (greater than 1 percent). The best soils for basin irrigation are in Kisegese, with no suitable soils identified in Mgugwe, and minimal areas in Udagaji and Mpanga.


No specific problems regarding soil chemical properties, which would seriously curtail the production of rice, such as potential salinity or toxicity problems, were identified in any of the study area soil samples.

All areas will require land leveling as part of any basin development. This process is least expensive at Kisegese where the localized topography is flattest and most expensive in Udagaji and Mpanga where the landform is riven with relic river courses and localized depressions.

2.3 Agricultural Studies

Information on existing farming practices was collected through discussions with various project stakeholders in the larger villages in each study area. Focus groups were held with stakeholders, and data on cropping patterns and yields were collected through surveys. Full details are given in FS Annex B: Agriculture for each study area.

The area in and around the study areas is sparsely populated with rural villages, which tend to be located near the main rivers and their tributaries. The villages are surrounded by smallholdings, which use shallow groundwater for domestic purposes.

Three projects scenarios were evaluated from a strictly agricultural perspective:

Scenario 1: Existing situation (reference case).

Scenario 2: Improved Rainfed – Assumed use of improved agronomic practices such as the System for Rice Intensification (SRI), improved seed varieties, and all required inputs to enhance the wet season crop. In addition, a limited amount of engineering interventions were included to safeguard the crops from flooding, improve drainage, provide land leveling, and enhance access from the field to the market.

Scenario 3: Basin irrigation of rice and maize – Assumed use of all improved agronomic practices and inputs for both wet and dry season cropping. Engineering interventions were assumed to provide irrigation water, protect against flooding, level land to form level basins, remove surplus drainage water, and enhance road access from field to market.

Despite challenges of annual flooding, access to markets, a low level of mechanization, and little fertilizer use, the Kilombero Valley is one of the most important and productive regions in the country. However, by pricing the labor necessary for the various agricultural activities, net revenues for rice and maize are negative under the existing situation (Scenario 1). Under Improved Rainfed using SRI (Scenario 2), positive net revenues are possible together with wet and dry season maize. With Basin Irrigation (Scenario 3), the net revenues improve dramatically (see Table 2.2).


Table 2.2: Yield, Operating Cost, and Revenue Estimates for Agricultural Scenarios

Yield (kg/ha)

Price (TSH/kg)

Gross Revenue (TSH/ha)

Input Cost

(TSH/ha) Labor Cost

(TSH/ha)

Net Revenue (TSH/ha)

Scenario 1: Wet Season Rainfed (current situation)

Wet Season – Paddy LV broadcast

1,733 444 769,452 285,934 751,122 -267,604

Wet Season – Paddy IV broadcast

2,625 444 1,165,500 613,395 797,855 -245,750

Dry Season – Maize 1,500 250 375,000 136,052 330,035 -91,087

Scenario 2: Improved Rainfed (possible future situation)

Wet Season – Paddy LV

2,600 444 1,154,400 468,427 787,022 -101,049

Wet Season – Paddy IV

3,900 444 1,731,600 976,403 840,355 -85,158

Wet Season – Paddy SRI

4,200 444 1,864,800 959,138 669,340 236,322

Wet Season – Maize 4,000 250 1,000,000 561,052 413,368 25,580

Dry Season – Maize 4,500 250 1,125,000 561,052 430,035 133,913

Scenario 3: Basin Irrigation (possible future situation)

Wet Season – Paddy SRI IV

5,580 444 2,477,520 790,590 788,940 897,990

Wet Season – Paddy Mechanized IV

6,068 444 2,694,192 1,672,377 90,680 931,135

Dry Season – Paddy SRI IV

6,000 444 2,664,000 795,257 797,340 1,071,403

Dry Season – Paddy Mechanized IV

6,525 444 2,897,100 1,682,025 185,250 1,029,825

Dry Season – Maize 7,000 250 1,750,000 1,223,808 298,840 227,352

Notes: IV = improved varieties; LV = local varieties; SRI = System for Rice Intensification; kg = kilogram; TSH = Tanzanian shilling

2.4 Hydrology and Flood Mapping

2.4.1 Climate and Rainfall

The climate of the Kilombero Valley is hot and humid throughout the year. Average annual rainfall is approximately 1,400 millimeters (mm) (ranging from 1,000 to 2,000 mm) and occurs predominantly in November to April, with a unimodal rainfall regime.

The rainfall profiles generally show similarity across all sites, with highest rainfall occurring in March and April and dry periods from June to October. The project installed an automatic weather station at each of the study areas to supplement existing data and refine assumptions made at the feasibility stage.

Data from the climate station located at Ifakara have a combined record period from 1927 to 2014 and were considered the most appropriate to use in order to derive inputs for further assessments. The inputs for the feasibility studies include:

Availability of reliable rainfall falling on the irrigation areas to reduce abstractions from the rivers when meeting crop water requirements

Extreme rainfall events to inform design of scheme internal and external drains


2.4.2 River Flows and Flood Protection

The Kilombero Valley is one of the largest natural freshwater wetland ecosystems in East Africa. Surface water supplies are plentiful over the whole area, with all the larger streams and rivers in the mountain areas flowing perennially but with significant variability in flows throughout the year. All the rivers are subject to seasonal flooding during prolonged periods of the year. The flat topography and the resulting complex river network, with many old and contemporary river channels, together with high and often intense rainfall, results in spate flows. This combination of fluvial and rainfall conditions results in swamps and wetlands, levees, former meanders, and abundant micro-topographic features.

The hydrology studies have informed a variety of component studies:

Water availability – The seasonal abundance and reliability of flows is a critical issue for sustainable irrigation development. Early analysis showed that for schemes to be economically viable, double cropping of rice, or rice followed by maize, was essential. The size of the irrigation development is firmly dictated by dry season water availability in all study areas. In all areas, however, dry season flows are a small fraction of the wet season flows.

Flood protection – Analysis of extreme events has been used to simulate the current flood regime and review the need for flood protection mechanisms and their impact on the surrounding areas under a range of projected extreme flood events.

2.4.3 Environmental Flow Assessment

As a complementary activity under IRRIP2, an environmental flow assessment (EFA) for the Rufiji Basin was conducted in parallel with the FS in accordance with the requirements of the Water Management Act of 2009. The EFA is documented in a separate report that provides recommended flows for the scheme rivers to maintain aquatic and riparian ecosystems in a near natural state. The outcome of the EFA studies informs the knowledge base in relation to the maximum amount of water that can be sustainably abstracted from the scheme rivers.

2.4.4 Climate Change

A review of climate change predictions specific to Tanzania identified potential changes, including an increase in the magnitude of extreme events (rainfall and river discharge), increase in prevailing temperatures, and a reduction in reliable rainfall and river flows. Adaptive management scenarios to address the potential impacts have been identified.

2.5 Environmental Studies

The Kilombero Valley is biologically diverse and home to a number of endemic and rare species. In recognition of this, the valley includes a Ramsar site and the Kilombero Game Control Area.

USAID prepared an independent programmatic Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed Kilombero irrigation schemes in 20133. The environmental issues identified in the draft EA for additional investigation were addressed fully under the FS and associated EFA. To address the environmental issues raised in the draft EA,

3 Prepared pursuant to the United States Code of Federal Regulation 22 CFR 216.6(d) to assess general impacts of irrigated agriculture within the Kilombero Valley. An EA is a required component of USAID-funded activities.


the FS identified the need for fish passes to be provided on the off-taking weirs, determined the key wetlands for exclusion, determined that the Ruipa wildlife corridor is likely no longer viable4, and identified one ungazetted forest reserve that has been excluded from the scheme boundary.

2.6 Land Tenure

The FS identified a number of issues relating to tenure of significant parcels of land within Kisegese and Mpanga. The status of these tenure issues is in flux, and their resolution is outside the scope of this FS. This FS pursued an engineering solution assuming that the tenure issues are resolved and these lands remain within the recommended scheme boundaries. Other important issues relate to the ownership of land under the completed project and its potential use as collateral for securing loans.

The villages within the study areas are in varying degrees of completion in establishing official village boundaries, or Certificates of Village Land (CVLs), and producing village land use plans. Most villages have not completed either process. Once these are completed, a village can issue Certificates of Customary Rights of Occupancy (CCROs), the strongest form of land rights in rural Tanzania, to individual farmers. To date, no village in the study areas has issued any CCROs.

2.7 Social Studies

The FS included a comprehensive social study to collect baseline information on the communities within the study areas to identify any potential social limitations or considerations for wider scheme development. Base data were assembled from past surveys, population censuses, and grass roots interviews. The primary source of data was through the completion of household surveys in November and December 2014, covering 290 households across the project areas, focus group discussions and key informant interviews.

The data collected reinforces the fact that, while the introduction of large-scale irrigation schemes may well bring significant social benefits in the longer term, this can only occur within an integrated, multi-sectoral environment where all stakeholders, including the beneficiary communities, take responsibility for the different components that must be in place to fully optimize the benefits of the investment. A number of key issues were identified during the social studies, which will need to be addressed concurrently to optimize any social benefits to be derived from irrigation-led agricultural development. These are presented in Section 6.2.

2.8 Dams and Reservoirs

The FS scope of work did not include an assessment of storage facilities for water, using dams and reservoirs. These would allow larger areas to be irrigated and provide operational flexibility, especially during the dry season. Furthermore, if operated appropriately, storage facilities would reduce or remove the impact on dry season flows and contribute positively to managing any future climate change impacts. In addition, dams would provide the potential for conjunctive generation of hydroelectricity for area communities that are largely without electricity supply.

Dam construction for storage would be of most benefit if located high in the Udzungwa escarpment to maximize the power generating capability and reduce the

4 Based on information available at the time of the study. The existence of the Ruipa wildlife corridor, should it be later determined, would not have an appreciable impact on the viability of the Kisegese irrigation scheme. Mitigation measures would need to be accounted for during detailed design.


impact on migrating fish that spawn at the foot of the escarpment. Suitable dam sites, warranting further study, appear to be available, especially for the Ruipa and Mpanga rivers, both of which have been the subject of studies as far back as the late 1950s and as recently as 2010.

2.9 Hydrogeology and Groundwater Potential

Where both surface water and groundwater resources exist, the surface water resources are usually the least expensive to exploit if these can be abstracted under gravity. Although two areas for potential groundwater exploitation were identified, one in Udagaji and one in Mpanga, the economic viability of surface irrigation at these two locations was so poor that the cost of exploitation of groundwater for irrigation would further worsen the economic position. Consequently, no field tests were carried out to determine potential yields in these locations.

2.10 Geotechnical Evaluation

A rapid geotechnical assessment of study areas was made during the FS to assess likely foundation conditions at the weir sites. Potential quarries along the left side of the Kilombero Valley were also reviewed to ascertain the availability of key materials for concrete and masonry; these proved not to be a limitation.

No intrusive geotechnical testing was conducted other than the tests undertaken as part of the soil survey. Intrusive testing will be required for those schemes that progress to detailed design to inform designs for foundations, canal lining, embankments, and excavations.

2.11 Management Studies

The FS reviewed the relevant acts and regulations related to assembling and empowering an organization appropriate for the management of the schemes. The National Irrigation Act of 2013 is intended to provide the building blocks for smallholder management structures and has been used in formulating the proposals in the FS.

For each scheme, an Irrigators’ Organization (IO) would be established with overall responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the scheme. A Scheme Management Unit (SMU), consisting of technical specialists, would be established within the IO to supervise the technical and financial day-to-day management needs.

The IO’s main responsibility to its members is water-management related: delivering and ensuring appropriate use of water for irrigation and ensuring proper drainage and flood protection. Fees collected from farmers will fund the operation and maintenance of the scheme, including salaries for SMU staff and recurrent costs for maintenance of the IO’s vehicle fleet and other equipment. The IO must be self-sustaining, with a realistic budget to cover recurrent and replacement costs and the authority to enforce collection of fees from farmers. Estimated annual costs to farmers for the proposed schemes at Kisegese and Udagaji are shown in Table 2.3.

There is no doubt that developing an appropriate management organization remains a significant challenge in the sustainability of the schemes. Substantial work is required to recruit, train, equip, and empower professionals for this purpose and ensure that the legal framework is in place to collect irrigation service fees and deal with defaulting farmers in a timely manner.


Table 2.3: Annual Costs of Irrigation to IO Members

Scheme/Component Annual Cost

(USD/ha)

Kisegese 1 and 2 Blocks – Basin Irrigation (2,766 ha) Irrigation Service Fee 94

Capital Cost Recovery Fee 29

National Irrigation Commission Fee 25

Total cost to farmer 148

Udagaji – Drip Irrigation (280 ha) Irrigation Service Fee 294

Capital Cost Recovery Fee 413

National Irrigation Commission Fee 25

Sub-total (for IO fees) 732

In-Field Equipment Replacement Costs (individual farmer) 470

Total cost to farmer 1,202

2.12 Cost Estimation

A comprehensive database of unit rates covering materials, workmanship, and transportation was developed as part of the project studies. Rates were derived from prevailing market prices for materials in Dar es Salaam and adjusted for transport and skills availability at site. A sensitivity analysis was conducted on all items having more than 10 percent of the estimated total. Key rates were also checked against recently awarded contracts of a similar nature. The database of unit rates formed the basis of the engineering cost estimates, which are included in Section 4.


3 ENGINEERING SCENARIOS EVALUATED

Engineering layouts were developed to use the best of the clay-rich soils for basin irrigation of rice and maize. Although outside the scope of work for the study, in addition to the basin scenarios developed under the agricultural component, sprinkler and drip irrigation scenarios were added (Scenarios 4 and 5) for purposes of comparison and to assess whether further development is warranted. The scenarios evaluated are below, with the engineering interventions summarized in Table 3.1. Table 3.2 shows the engineering proposals that were developed for each of these scenarios where soils were appropriate for the irrigation method.

Scenario 1: Existing Rainfed Situation – No engineering required.

Scenario 2: Improved Rainfed – A limited amount of engineering interventions were used to safeguard wet season crops from flooding, improve drainage, provide land leveling, and enhance access from the field to the market.

Scenario 3: Basin Irrigation of Rice and Maize – Engineering interventions needed to provide irrigation water, protect against flooding, provide land leveling to form level basins, remove surplus drainage water, and enhance access from field to market. These interventions would be supported by the uptake of SRI technologies

Scenario 4: Sprinkler Irrigation – More efficient use of water and the ability to irrigate more permeable soils allows the development of soils from Scenario 3, as well as additional soils that are not suitable for basin irrigation. Engineering interventions for flood protection, land leveling, drainage, and access are also provided.

Scenario 5: Drip Irrigation – Similar engineering interventions as those for Scenario 4 but with even higher water use efficiency, greater adaptability to soils with high permeability, and for use on lands with steeper gradients.

Table 3.1: Engineering Interventions by Scenario Scenario

No. Scenario Engineering Intervention 1 Existing Situation None

2 Improved Rainfed Roads, drains, flood protection, and some land leveling

3 Basin Irrigation Weirs, fish passes, canals, drains, flood protection embankments, land leveling, roads, and management offices

4 Sprinkler Irrigation Weirs, fish passes, canals, drains, flood protection embankments, land leveling, roads, management offices, sprinkler layouts, and pumps/generators

5 Drip Irrigation Weirs, fish passes, canals, drains, flood protection embankments, roads, management offices, drip layouts, and pumps/generators


Table 3.2: Engineering Scenarios Developed and Costed

Kisegese

Scenario No. Scenario

Chiwachiwa Block

Kisegese 1 and 2 Blocks Udagaji Mgugwe Mpanga

2 Improved Rainfed

3 Basin Irrigation 2

4 Sprinkler Irrigation

5 Drip Irrigation 1 1 1

1 Costs too high for drip irrigation to be economically viable 2 Soils not suitable for basin irrigation

3.1 Scenario 2: Improved Rainfed

At present, a single crop of rice is grown over much of the study area in the rainy season. Although a second dry season crop of another type may be possible in some locations in some years, this scenario is aimed at improving the single rainy season crop of rice only.

In considering the engineering interventions that could be applied to a rainfed scenario, the benefit of one or more interventions should be assessed sequentially (incrementally). The resulting project footprint would be highly unlikely to look like the Scenario 3 footprint. The main building block of improved rainfed agriculture in relation to rice cultivation is the adoption of SRI. Engineering interventions include flood protection, reorganization of fields, a surface drainage network, an improved road network, and some limited land leveling.

In the absence of a rigorous stand-alone analysis, cost estimates for Scenario 2 have been derived from the Scenario 3 costs using a percentage prorated for the various potential engineering components.

3.2 Scenario 3: Basin Irrigation

Engineering development of Scenario 3 concentrated on addressing the physical requirements needed to feasibly implement the scenario (delivering water to the fields, optimizing water use efficiency, safeguarding infrastructure, providing access to and from fields, and providing drainage). The infrastructure is summarized in Table 3.3.


Table 3.3: Summary of Basin Irrigation Infrastructure (Scenario 3) by Scheme

Kisegese

Udagaji (1) Mgugwe Mpanga Chiwachiwa

Block

Kisegese 1 and 2 Blocks

Supply River Chiwachiwa Ruipa Udagaji Mgugwe Mpanga

Offtake Weir Weir Weir # Weir

Irrigated Area (ha) 549 2,766 200 # 8,799 Maximum Demand at Weir (m3/s)

1.35 6.29 0.42 # 21.2

Flood Protection Embankments (km)

16.8 32.5 10.8 # 58.0

Main Canal (km) 2.7 13.5 2.7 # 16.6

Secondary Canal (km) 16.0 30.4 1.9 # 7.8 Secondary and Collector Drains (km)

27.9 53.1 5.2 # 105.4

Interior Roads (km) 40.0 55.2 6.3 # 153.0 (1) This table provides indicative quantities for a 200-ha basin scheme that was initially designed. The basin scheme at Udagaji was subsequently reduced in area to 70 ha following receipt of the full EFA water availability data. Costs for the 70-ha scheme were approximated and used in the economic analysis. See FS Annex J: Engineering. # = soils not suitable for basin irrigation; m3/s = cubic meters per second

3.3 Scenario 4: Sprinkler Irrigation

Sprinkler irrigation is capable of supplying water frequently and to large or small areas and is ideally suited to the more permeable soils. Sprinkler irrigation is generally recognized as having higher efficiencies and lower labor and land leveling requirements than basin irrigation. However, both capital and running costs are higher, and management skill levels needed are commensurable with the cost of investment.

Center pivot and solid set sprinkler irrigation systems were assessed, primarily to inform the decision criteria for the basin irrigation option. Conceptual designs and potential costs were developed for comparison purposes, with infrastructure requirements shown in Table 3.4 and Table 3.5.


Table 3.4: Summary of Center Pivot Sprinkler Irrigation Infrastructure (Scenario 4) by Scheme

Kisegese

Udagaji Mgugwe Mpanga Chiwachiwa

Block



Offtake † Weir #,† Weir Weir

Irrigated Area (ha) † 2,095 #,† 1,280 6,335 Maximum Demand at Weir (m3/s)

† 2.77 #,† 1.27 9.50


† 14.5 #,† 12.4 58.0

Main Canal (km) † 13.5 #,† 4.0 24.4

Secondary Canal (km) † 27.8 #,† 8.9 105.4 Secondary and Collector Drains (km)

† 29.7 #,† 21.1 153.0

Interior Roads (km) † 55.2 #,† 24.8 300.8

Distribution Pipes (km) † 11.6 #,† 0.8 88.6 # = water resources severely restricted † = suitable land resources dispersed

Table 3.5: Summary of Solid Set Sprinkler Irrigation Infrastructure (Scenario 4) by Scheme

Kisegese


Block



Offtake Weir Weir Weir Weir Weir

Irrigated Area (ha) 549 2,766 320 1,280 8,799 Maximum Demand at Weir (m3/s)

1.35 2.77 0.20 2.59 9.50


16.8 14.5 - 16.9 58.0

Main Canal (km) 2.7 13.5 - 2.9 24.4

Secondary Canal (km) 16.0 30.4 - 17.4 105.4 Secondary and Collector Drains (km)

27.9 53.1 - 22.5 153.0

Interior Roads (km) 40.0 55.2 5.1 30.7 300.8

Distribution Pipes (km) - 980.1 23.9 503.3 3,520.0 (1) This table provides indicative quantities for a 320-ha solid set irrigation scheme that was initially designed. The scheme at Udagaji was subsequently reduced in area to 230 ha following receipt of the full EFA water availability data. Costs for the 230-ha scheme were approximated and used in the economic analysis. See FS Annex J: Engineering.


3.4 Scenario 5: Drip Irrigation

Drip irrigation is most suitable for row crops and trees and is generally able to use more saline water supplies than surface or sprinkler irrigation. It is potentially the most efficient form of irrigation; however, it has a high capital cost and requires a high level of management expertise, and is only economically viable with high value crops. Drip scenarios were assessed at Chiwachiwa and Udagaji, as shown in Table 3.6.

Table 3.6: Summary of Drip Irrigation Infrastructure (Scenario 5) by Scheme

Kisegese


Block



Offtake Weir # Weir # #

Irrigated Area (ha) 459 # 380 # # Maximum Demand at Weir (m3/s)

1.35 # 0.20 # #


16.8 # - # #

Main Canal (km) 2.7 # - # #

Secondary Canal (km) 16.0 # - # # Secondary and Collector Drains (km)

27.9 # - # #

Interior Roads (km) 40.0 # 6.0 # #

Distribution Pipes (km) 90.9 # 26.3 # # (1) This table provides indicative quantities for a 380-ha drip irrigation scheme that was initially designed. The scheme at Udagaji was subsequently reduced in area to 280 ha following receipt of the full EFA water availability data. Costs for the 280-ha scheme were approximated and used in the economic analysis. See FS Annex J: Engineering. # = Scenario 4 costs too high for drip irrigation to be viable


4 COSTS AND ECONOMIC ASSESSMENTS

Table 4.1 presents the estimated construction costs for the engineering options shown in Table 3.2. Economic and financial assessments were conducted on Scenarios 2 (improved rainfed) and 3 (basin irrigation) proposals for each scheme. Scenarios 2 and 3 are each compared with Scenario 1 (existing, without-project situation). In order to assess the benefits of irrigation over improved rainfed agriculture, Scenario 3 is also compared with Scenario 2. The same productive area is assumed for all three scenarios.

Table 4.1: Summary of Estimated Construction Costs and EIRR

Scenario Construction Cost

(USD) Irrigated Area

(ha) Cost/Hectare

(USD/ha) EIRR (%)

Kisegese: Chiwachiwa Block

2: Improved Rainfed 3,159,000 549 5,800 -1.4

3: Basin Irrigation 10,891,000 549 19,800 3.4(3)

4: Sprinkler Irrigation(1) 23,972,000 1,008 23,800 N/A(9)

5: Drip Irrigation(2) 15,946,000 1,008 15,800 N/A

Kisegese: Kisegese 1 and 2 Blocks

2: Improved Rainfed 4,723,000 2,766 1,700 8.0(4)

3: Basin Irrigation 22,520,000 2,766 8,100 11.7(5)

4: Sprinkler Irrigation – Center Pivot 22,176,000 2,095 10,600 N/A

4: Sprinkler Irrigation – Solid Set 75,078,000 2,766 27,100 N/A

Udagaji

2: Improved Rainfed 705,000 70 10,100 -2.0

3: Basin Irrigation 1,840,000 70 26,300 1.4(6)

4: Sprinkler Irrigation – Solid Set 5,975,000 230 26,000 N/A

5: Drip Irrigation 5,544,000 280 19,800 21.0(7)

Mgugwe

2: Improved Rainfed 3,471,000 1,280 2,700 9.1(8)


4: Sprinkler Irrigation – Solid Set 34,114,000 1,280 26,700 N/A

Mpanga

2: Improved Rainfed 35,920,000 8,799 4,100 5.1

3: Basin Irrigation 125,850,000 8,799 14,300 4.5


4: Sprinkler Irrigation – Solid Set 303,925,000 8,799 34,500 N/A (1) Includes solid set sprinkler and drip irrigation. (2) Includes cost of basin irrigation option and incremental cost for developing 459 ha of drip in addition

to 549 ha of basin. (3) Even after meeting all the scheme’s recurrent costs, net margins increase by approximately USD

560/ha compared with Scenario 1. (4) Scenario 2 would not generate sufficient yields to provide farmers with a positive net income. (5) After meeting all the scheme’s recurrent costs, net margins increase by approximately USD 630/ha

compared with Scenario 1. Scenario 3 would provide a positive net income for farmers, and EIRR is just below the USAID threshold of 12 percent.

(6) Even after meeting all the scheme’s recurrent costs, net margins increase by approximately USD 550/ha compared with Scenario 1.

(7) Preliminary estimate based on data from USAID’s Tanzanian Agricultural Productivity Project, assuming one crop of tomatoes.

(8) Has negative net margins for farmers. (9) Not assessed in the economic analysis.


5 FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT

The following section presents the outcome of the feasibility study for the four areas, with recommended options proposed for further development. The recommendations are based on EIRRs that exceed 12 percent or with a reasonable possibility of exceeding 12 percent with further engineering refinements (see Table 4.1). These include:

Kisegese 1 and 2 blocks: Basin Irrigation (2,766 ha)

Udagaji: Drip Irrigation (280 ha)

Although there is undoubtedly potential for agricultural development within the Kilombero Valley, the parameters applied for basin irrigation of rice and or maize mean that the potential is limited. Only two blocks within the Kisegese scheme are sufficiently attractive to warrant further investigation for development using basin irrigation for rice and maize. Udagaji has been identified for drip irrigation to utilize the natural pressure available from the Udagaji River as it descends from the escarpment.

Other schemes and/or scenarios may well prove viable if reviewed under different parameters than those considered in this study. With a focus on different crops and a secure electricity supply to overcome substantial energy costs, both sprinkler and drip schemes may prove economically viable. Large-scale implementation of sprinkler irrigation is technically feasible and lends itself to rapid commercial implementation, but is less attractive to smallholder utilization. On the other hand, phased development of coordinated small-scale drip schemes (each less than 100 ha), sharing common primary infrastructure (weir, supply canals, drains, and flood protection embankments), would merit more consideration and would be more appropriate for smallholder use. However, such schemes will require sustained support from either GoT or some element of commercial investment (e.g., agro-processors).

The feasibility designs are based on the best available information at the time of conducting the studies and have used the most appropriate analyses and parameters for the elements being proposed. Further refinement of the designs will help reduce uncertainties currently covered by the 20 percent construction contingency, in particular:

Land leveling, following completion of detailed soil survey and further refinement of design to optimize basin sizes

Canal and weir design, following site investigation

Drainage design, following analysis of site-specific data

Flood protection requirements based on material suitability and impacts to surrounding areas

Implementing the proposed Kisegese and Udagaji irrigation schemes will reduce river flows, but average flows in the rivers would remain above the recommended environmental flow levels. The EFA flow recommendations are meant to be used as a guide for resource allocation by the Rufiji Basin Water Board (RBWB) and do not necessarily need to be met at all times. The natural condition, without the proposed irrigation abstractions, have river flows below the maintenance and drought flow recommendations from time to time. This means that periodic drops below the EFA flow recommendations are not necessarily detrimental to the ecosystem and will occur even in a healthy river with no additional demand (irrigation or otherwise).


The decision about whether to implement any of the irrigation schemes will need to balance the need for irrigation with the potential risks to the ecology of each river basin. Negotiations between stakeholders who would benefit from irrigation and stakeholders who benefit from existing ecosystem services provided by river flows may result in an outcome that would support development of irrigation. This negotiation process is also an opportunity for evaluating a number of design modifications, operational changes, and compensation mechanisms to seek a more balanced outcome for all affected stakeholders.

Irrigation schemes are not designed to withdraw the maximum abstraction at all times. The scheme would typically expect to manage projected shortfalls in available water as part of any standard management strategy. Scheme managers would regularly monitor rainfall to make any necessary reductions in cropping areas or change crop types to cope with reduced streamflow. The water allocation permit should define what constitutes a dry year, based on the EFA, and mandate the abstraction reductions.

5.1 Kisegese

The proposed scheme at Kisegese takes water from a weir across the Ruipa River just north of Kisegese River for 2,766 ha of basin-irrigated rice and maize. The lands irrigated are in two blocks (Kisegese 1 and 2), one on the left bank of the river, surrounding Kisegese Village, covering 1,440 ha, and the second on the right bank of the river south of Londo Village, covering 1,326 ha. Both blocks are irrigated from a single main canal that offtakes from the left side of the weir, supplies Block 1, and then crosses under the Ruipa River in a siphon to irrigate Block 2. The scheme layout is shown in Figure 5.1.

Eighty-three percent of Block 1 contains clay-rich soils suitable for double cropping of basin-irrigated rice. The remainder of Block 1 and all of Block 2 have soils suitable for a wet season crop of rice followed by a dry season crop of maize.

Financial gains to farmers from basin irrigation would be substantial. Even after meeting all of the scheme’s recurrent costs, the net margins increase by approximately USD 630/ha compared with Scenario 1.

Implementation activities to support a basin irrigation scheme at Kisegese blocks 1 and 2 (e.g., preparatory work, detailed design, operational support) are estimated to be around 17 percent of the construction cost, or an additional USD 3,870,000. While only an indicative cost at this level, it illustrates the significant investment that will be required beyond the capital infrastructure costs.


Figure 5.1: Proposed 2,766-ha Basin Irrigation Scheme for Kisegese 1 and 2 Blocks


5.2 Udagaji

The Udagaji River flows off the escarpment in a steep and well-defined valley, very close to the Ifakara-Mlimba Road and village of Udagaji. The flood-free lands around Udagaji are too steep for basin development and consist of sandy clay loams. The Udagaji River has a small catchment area and correspondingly small yield of water for irrigation development. Development of basin irrigation on the lower flood-prone lands was discounted due to high cost.

Udagaji, however, offers a unique opportunity to develop a small-scale drip scheme using naturally pressurized water, thus, avoiding the considerable expense associated with pumping to pressurize the system. The irrigated area can be maximized by the use of drip irrigation for which the steep slopes and loam-textured soils are not a limitation. The proposed layout for the 280-ha drip scheme is shown in Figure 5.2.

Outline designs and cost estimates were prepared for the drip irrigation proposal and high-level economic assessments performed to establish whether further work is warranted. For this initial assessment, it was assumed one crop of tomatoes would be grown per year as a realistic representation of long-term possibilities. Gross margins, at TSH 23 million/ha, are much higher than the typical TSH 1 million/ha for basin-irrigated rice and maize. Net margins are also high at TSH 19 million/ha.

5.3 Mpanga

The FS identified a number of significant limitations on implementation of an irrigation scheme in the Mpanga study area. The most significant of these limitations is the poor economic performance. Basin irrigation (Scenario 3) costs USD 14,300 per hectare and yields an EIRR of 4.5 percent. Given this, basin irrigation at Mpanga is not recommended for additional evaluation.

The potential of sprinkler irrigation was reviewed at Mpanga. The soils and landform are more appropriate for this irrigation method, and there are potentially viable agricultural crops that could warrant more detailed economic assessment of these scenarios. As the focus has been on basin-irrigated rice, these assessments have not been carried out under this feasibility study.

5.4 Mgugwe

The most significant limitation at Mgugwe is the lack of suitable soils for basin irrigation, making this scenario not feasible.

Center pivot sprinkler irrigation at Mgugwe should not proceed. The high recurrent costs associated with center pivot irrigation would result in a reduction in farmers’ incomes. The EIRR of Scenario 4 (sprinkler irrigation) is negative. Scenario 2 (improved rainfed) has an EIRR of 9.1 percent, but at this stage has only been very approximately costed. Net margins are also negative under Scenario 2.


Figure 5.2: Proposed 280-ha Drip Irrigation Scheme for Udagaji


6 CONCLUSIONS

6.1 Overarching Findings

The principal study findings are summarized as follows:

Soils in the study areas are variable, with only 11 percent of the 53,344 ha studied having a clay content sufficient for basin-irrigated rice. An additional 22 percent of the area has soils that are suitable for irrigation of maize.

The majority of land within the study areas is cultivated as rainfed rice, with attendant risks due to flooding. Farmers do not invest in improved practices given that risk. The rural road infrastructure is poor, and transport costs to and from the field are high. The current situation shows that farmers make little or no net return on their rainfed agriculture.

Irrigated areas were adjusted to make use of the available water resources (80 percent reliable river flows) after reserving a provisional amount for environmental flows in advance of the full EFA.

It is predicted that, on average, basin irrigation would maintain adequate environmental flows in the scheme rivers to meet ecosystem needs. However, natural variability in flows may cause periods of lower than normal flow to occur in the rivers from time to time, and this poses an increased risk of environmental degradation in drier years. The greatest risks are likely to occur from September through February, which coincides with peak irrigation demand. Management intervention to adjust water abstractions based on observed rainfall data would reduce risks to ecological functions but would increase the management complexity of the irrigation scheme.

Potential environmental issues were raised in USAID’s draft programmatic EA. No significant environmental constraints were identified during this FS that cannot be addressed during detailed design.

The current land tenure situation is inadequate at present to move forward with any land transfer. Not all villages have CVLs or land use plans. CCROs are not yet issued, and they are not a widely recognized form of collateral for access to capital.

A 2-ha irrigated plot at Kisegese will provide 62 percent of the basic needs poverty line. Although this does not move a five-member family above the poverty line, it will significantly improve their income over the current rainfed situation or even the improved rainfed scenario where net incomes are negative in both. A 3-ha plot would be required at Kisegese for a family of five to cover the basic needs as defined by the national poverty line. This is generally the case in all study areas.

It is not evident that a family of five can farm a 2-ha plot to its maximum productivity without additional support. Access to extension advice, improved seeds, finance, labor, and materials are all key components to implement improved agricultural practices to realize the yields required.

Focus group discussions and key informant interviews revealed that farmers are keen that projects are implemented. In general, farmers and villagers are suspicious about commercial involvement and concerned about land being appropriated by GoT for commercial use.

In the absence of a Kilombero Valley master plan, the proposed schemes offer a way to manage localized development in a responsible, incremental


manner, with proper controls and due process to reduce negative impacts of uncontrolled development in the area.

6.2 Factors Critical for Scheme Viability and Sustainability

The challenges to successful and sustainable implementation are substantial but not insurmountable. They would require a committed engagement from GoT (likely with donor support) to address the issues identified below:

Kilombero Valley master plan – The area lacks a coherent master plan to sustainably guide its development. This would be a systematic and phased approach to providing ancillary infrastructure, such as transport, electricity, roads, and warehouses, all of which are a prerequisite for any sustainable irrigation investment. A master plan would frame the district’s agricultural development objectives within a broader framework of complementary and mutually supportive activities.

Environmental flows – Negotiation is advised to reconcile the differences between stakeholder objectives incorporated in the EFA recommendations and the trade-offs required to achieve the benefits of the proposed extra water use (i.e., irrigated agriculture). Although the specific trade-offs, as a degree of ecosystem and related service degradation, are not known, stakeholders (including the RBWB) can voice their opinions about allowing for ecosystem and related service degradation in return for development of the irrigation schemes. However, this negotiation must be handled carefully to ensure that equal weight is given to those both benefiting from and impacted by the proposed irrigation schemes. This negotiation process also would be an opportunity for evaluating a number of design modifications, operational changes, and compensation mechanisms to seek a more balanced outcome for all affected stakeholders

Land tenure and investment – Land tenure issues remain unclear, pointing to the need to improve and streamline government systems, institutions and processes that create excessive land regulations, legal labyrinths, and complicated registration procedures that reduce people’s access to land titles and resource use. The introduction of large irrigation schemes will create greater urgency to clarify land ownership issues in order to avoid potential conflict over land. It will be important to have a clear and well-defined policy on the handing-over of irrigation schemes to farmers.

The GoT should prioritize and address land tenure issues in order to provide a secure environment to encourage investment in agriculture (either commercially or by individual farmers). A clear, consistent, transparent, and unified direction from the GoT will be needed to define the relationship between smallholders and any potential commercial entity, so that farmers and commercial entities are not discouraged to invest. Credit facilities geared toward smallholder farmers, with appropriate security collateral requirements, are critical to the operation of the schemes and for allowing farmers to invest in their holdings.

Food security and integrated rural development – The issue of food security is a concern in an area that is vulnerable to climatic instability and where traditional rainfed farming can create risks for stable and predictable production. The challenge will be for key stakeholders to ensure that education, health and social services are improved in parallel to ensure that the irrigation schemes are designed as drivers of agricultural growth and development.


Strengthening agricultural linkages and local economic development – With the introduction of irrigation there is potential to improve the economic life of people in the project sites through the creation of more economic linkages. None of this will happen, however, unless the irrigation schemes are designed and implemented within a broader integrated rural development planning process that creates an enabling environment for all of these linkages to occur. It will be critical for the project to engage with public-private partnership initiatives to increase public and private investments in infrastructure in these rural areas, including roads, waterways and transport systems, storage and market facilities, livestock facilities, affordable housing, water supply and sanitation services, electrification facilities, and information and communications networks.

Capacity development – The introduction of irrigation schemes by itself will not bring about a significant change in the improvement of the livelihoods of farmers. It will be of paramount importance to ensure that farmers are equipped with the requisite knowledge and skills to undertake critical management and operational roles to ensure that community-based irrigation systems are successful. The current skills deficit will have to be addressed by the GoT in a more systematic way, with the support of donors and the private sector, if they hope to achieve their stated agricultural development outcomes.

Building collaborative management systems – The ability of local communities in the project areas to work cooperatively and to understand and put into practice collaborative governance systems to operate the schemes will be critical to the success of the schemes. This will require transparent and accountable leadership from the National Irrigation Commission (NIC) and at district, ward and village levels. GoT will need to provide clarity and consistency around land tenure issues; clear audience-specific communication to ensure that communities understand the complexity of irrigation management, operations and maintenance; capacity development initiatives that upskill and empower men and women farmers to operate the schemes effectively; and a strong and effective monitoring system that tracks scheme management performance and provides accurate feedback loops to managers and decision-makers. A participatory irrigation management period is important to be part of the handing over agreement of any irrigation scheme.

Sensitization, awareness raising and strategic communications – Most farmers are poorly informed about national agricultural and development legislation, policies and regulatory systems, including major growth and development initiatives such as the Southern Agricultural Growth Corridor of Tanzania (SAGCOT). Family and smallholder farmers should be significantly involved in the dissemination of information about these policies and strategies so that they are able to contextualize potential irrigation interventions within this broader framework.

A sustained outreach and communications program will be required throughout the implementation phase to inform farmers on all plans and processes, and solicit feedback from them. Attention should be given to:

o Sensitization and establishment of a culture that recognizes the need and value of paying service fees to the IO and shifts to a more commercially minded, self-reliant mindset that utilizes best agronomic practices. Farmers must be fully aware of potential benefits and their obligations.


o Sustainability depends fundamentally on whether farmers are confident they can realize economic gains from irrigation. Any project must recognize and acknowledge the risks farmers are expected to absorb (e.g., capital investment, fees, assumptions of yield returns, reliability of scheme management for service delivery) and have mechanisms in place to mitigate those risks.

o Education of all stakeholders on relevant legislation will instill confidence that a framework is available, provide transparency for the process, and inform all parties on roles and responsibilities.

Youth employment – The project areas have substantial numbers of young men and women, many of whom are under- or unemployed. Large numbers of these young people are also poorly educated and have limited farming, entrepreneurial or artisanal skills. The GoT will need to take a strong leadership role in convening donor, private sector and civil society actors in a targeted and concerted effort to equip young people with the requisite skills and capacities that will enable them to participate in and benefit from irrigated farming and associated economic activities.

Gender equality and women’s empowerment – Active promotion of gender equality and women’s empowerment considerations during the design and implementation phases of the proposed irrigation schemes could serve to shift prevailing gender norms and practices and ensure that women are more actively engaged in decision-making processes at all levels of the process. It will be important to ensure that each step in the development of the irrigation scheme has a strong focus on promoting gender equality and women’s empowerment. The planning, design and construction processes must systematically include women in decision-making in order to design effective gender-responsive approaches for water management in agriculture.

6.3 Next Steps

In consultation with local stakeholders, the GoT should select scheme(s) to pursue for implementation and identify committed funding sources to address all phases of implementation (i.e., design, construction, and operation).

A realistic plan to address the broader constraints identified above should be developed before funding is committed. The political will and financial resources must be in place to establish the prerequisite conditions upon which a sustainable irrigation scheme can be built.

An incremental, phased implementation approach should be developed to learn from previous experiences and establish conditions to realize economic potential.

Preliminary activities could be undertaken to further refine the initial assessment of the proposed schemes to strengthen the case for proceeding with implementation. Additional activities might include:

o Environmental – By undertaking a scheme-specific EA to supplement the existing draft programmatic EA, environmental issues can be explored in greater detail, including impacts on wildlife (and the wildlife corridor) and downstream water users/needs.

o Land tenure – Further work would involve clarifying the situation with respect to the few larger land holdings within the Kisegese irrigated area; determining potential compensation mechanisms for households affected


by the scheme infrastructure as well as for land within the scheme that would not be cultivated (e.g., access roads); and developing mechanisms for allocating irrigated land from existing rainfed land.

o Scheme management – With a focused scheme under consideration, more detailed work can be undertaken to define a suitable management structure in consultation with farmers.

With stakeholder commitment, the detailed design phase should proceed, consisting of:

o Development of an implementation program identifying funding streams, supporting activities, and responsible parties

o Assessment of opportunities for value addition in the Kilombero Valley

o Completion of detailed land studies and engineering designs, considering optimizations to improve economic case

ANNEX N: ECONOMICS

FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR KISEGESE IRRIGATION SCHEME

Technical Assistance to Support the Development of Irrigation and Rural Roads Infrastructure Project (IRRIP2)

U.S. Agency for International Development

686 Old Bagamoyo Road, Msasani P.O. Box 9130 Dar es Salaam

Tanzania

executive summary feasibility study of kilombero valley

Documents