Assessment of the preference of smallholders'

farmers on the adoption of irrigation techniques

and soil conservation interventions in the Kikuletwa

Catchment of Pangani River Basin, Tanzania.

By: Magreth Fadhili Mziray

Supervisors: Prof. Pieter van der Zaag

Dr. Marloes Mul

External examiner: Dr. Abraham Mehari Haile

Smallholder System Innovations in Integrated Watershed ManagementSmallholder System Innovations in Integrated Watershed Management

Outlines

Introduction

Problem statement

Objective and Research Questions

Methodology

Data analysis

Results and discussion

Conclusion and recommendations

1. Kikuletwa Catchment

Location, size and population

•The Kikuletwa River catchment is a part ofPangani river basin located in the NorthWest of Pangani River Basin. Itsoriginate from the streams of Mt. Meru andMt. Kilimanjaro. It covers an area of about6930 km2 with a population of approx 1.7million people which is about 50% of allthe people residing in the (Pangani RiverBasin 3.7M).

•Pangani basin covers 43, 650 km2, 5%in Kenya and remainder in Tanzania.

Climate•High altitude slopes of Mt. Meru and Mt.Kilimanjaro receive rainfall 2000 –2500mm/a. Lower parts, rainfall ranges300 – 600mm/a.

2. Problem statement

About 80% of Pangani River Basin’s population relies on agriculture,

using traditional methods for SWC. For example, PBWO identified more

than 2000 traditional furrows within the basin, and their irrigation

efficiency among them are often as low as 15% (IUCN, 2007). About

80% of water is lost from the point of abstraction to the destination point

of which high percentage may not be recovered or reused. Yield

production is also low. This therefore, results in low soil and water

productivity. This implies also less water available for other users

especially downstream including the environment.

Many studies / research have provided SWC techniques that have

shown positive results in the water use efficiency, soil conservation and

improved in crop yields. (Kosgei et al., 2007; Kahinda et al., 2007;

Mupangwa et al., 2006; Rockström et al., 2002). However, the majority of

the farmers continue to practise these traditional practices.

3. Objective and research questions

Objective: The main objective is to assess and understand the preferencesof smallholder farmers to improved irrigation technologies and soil conservationinterventions that lead to increased soil and water productivity and environmentalsustainability in the river basin.

Research questions1. What irrigation techniques and soil conservation interventions are promoted for

improved water productivity and environmental sustainability in Pangani River Basin?

2. a) What techniques do farmers use to conserve soil and water in their farms?

b) What are the main reasons for smallholder farmers not to adopt technologies that lead to improved soil and water productivity of the entire river basin?

3. What are the preferences and the willingness of the smallholder farmers to adopt irrigation techniques and soil conservation interventions in the river basin?

4. What are the socio economic factors influence the preferences of smallholder farmer's in choosing irrigation and soil conservation interventions?

4. Methodology

Choice experiment: Choice experimentation is a technique in

which individuals choose their most preferred resource use option from a

range of alternatives with different attributes and levels by using a choice

card.

Steps.

Selection of attributes and levels for designing choice cards.

- Different visits to NGOs and government departments

- Secondary data

Designing choice cards using SPSS model

Data collection and processing

Analysis

Attributes and levels for irrigation techniques and soil

conservation interventions used for designing choice cards

Attribute Level

Irrigation type Micro drip, Micro sprinkler ,

Improved furrow

Financing level 40%,50%,80%

Provider Microfinance, NGO

Contract (years) 3,6

Attribute Level

Terracing and gully erosion Grass strip, Fanya juu, Soil and

stone bunds

Tree planting and agroforestry Mixed farming, Hedging

Subsidy 50%,80%

Provider Government, NGO

Table 1: Attributes and levels for irrigation techniques

Table 2: Attribute and levels for soil conservation interventions

Example of choice card

Attributes/

Levels Choice 1 Choice 2 Choice 3 Choice 4 Status quo

Irrigation type

Improved furrow Sprinkler Improved furrowMicro drip

Financing level 40% 50% 50% 40%

Provider Microfinance Microfinance NGOs Microfinance

Contract period

(years) 6 3 6 6

Note: 'Status quo' refers to the ‘no change’ alternative, i.e. maintaining the existing utility of the

current practice and receiving no compensation.

Data Collection

Upstream Downstream

- Weruweru ward in

Kilimanjaro and Sakila

village in Arusha

-Mbuguni ward in

Arusha region

-2 choice sets were

used - Hilly terrain

-1 choice set. Low land

suited for irrigation only

Note: Sakila village where the soil

conservation interventions data

observations were discarded because the

enumerators didn’t undertake the survey

correctly.

Map showing upstream and downstream catchment surveyed villages

Table3: Summary for locations of the interview

Ward Village Total

number/village

Number of

interview for

each village

Total Choice Card

Mbuguni

Msitu wa mbogo 1500 54

104Irrigation

measure

Kikuletwa 1000 50

Weruweru

Tella-Lyamungo 1500 47

97

Irrigation and

Soil

conservationNarum-Orori 1300 50

Total 5,300 201 201

Data analysis

NLOGIT model:

• Statistical model for distribution and interpretation of the

utility functions for the survey.

• The analysis based on the followings:

Characteristics of the smallholders farmers for upstream, downstream and

catchment level.

Preferences of smallholders farmers on irrigation technologies and soil

conservation interventions.

Principal socio economic factors.

5.Results: 5.1: Table 3: Characteristics of the surveyed smallholders farmers

Sample size 201 97 104

Whole Catchment Upstream Downstream

Age classification (%) Below 30 (years) 4.5 6.19 2.88

30-50 (years) 56.2 43.3 68.27

Above 50 (years) 39.3 50.1 28.89

Gender (%)Female 16.9 14.4 19.2

Male 83.1 85.6 80.8

Income (Tshs/Month)Mean

103,000 95,000 110,000

Minimum20,000 20,000 15,000

Maximum925,000 400,000 925,000

Family size (No) Mean5.6 5.6 5.6

Minimum1 2 1

Maximum11 11 10

Farm size (ha) Mean3.1 2.3 3.8

Minimum0.3 0.5 0.3

Maximum 50 14 50

Education (%) Literate 89.5 90.7 88.5

Illiterate 10.5 9.3 11.5

Land ownership (%) 98100 96.15

Attributes / levels Coefficient of utility function

Variables

Whole catchment Upstream Downstream

Drip -0.63 -0.87 -0.44

Sprinkler -0.30 -0.13 -0.39

Alternate Furrow (AF) 1.11 1.82 0.52

Microfinance 0.27 0.72 -0.02

NGO -0.10 0.09 -0.29

Finance -0.003 0.01 -0.01

Contract 0.19 0.05 0.33

ASC* -0.17 -0.81 0.31

Statistics

R2 (McFadden) 0.25 0.37 0.27

Log likelihood -1089 -391 -617

No. of Observations 804 388 416

Table 4: Choice model results for Irrigation technologies

*ASC is Alternative Specific Constant which represents the status quo option

5.2 : Choice model results

Table 5: Choice model results for Soil conservation interventions

Attributes / levels Coefficient of utility function

Variables

Fanya juu -0.38

Grass strip 1.11

Soil and stone bunds (SSB) -0.43

Mixed farming 0.39

Hedging -0.09

Subsidy 0.02

NGO 0.08

Government 0.22

ASC -0.30

Statistics

R2 (McFadden) 0.25

Log likelihood -464

No. of Observations 388

5.3 Socio economic factors

Table 6: Irrigation techniques and socio economic characteristics

Attributes /

levels

Coefficient of utility function

Variables Family size (No) Farm Size (Ha) Income (Tz Shillings / Month)

< = 4 > 4 < 3 >= 3 < 1 > = 1

Drip -0.70 -0.60 -0.74 -0.44 -0.65 -0.60

Sprinkler -0.14 -0.37 -0.37 -0.19 -0.41 -0.17

Alternative

Furrow 1.11 1.11 1.40 0.72 1.13 1.07

Microfinance 0.31 0.26 0.35 0.19 0.27 0.27

NGO -0.04 -1.11 -0.06 -0.11 -0.20 0.03

Finance -0.01 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.00 -0.01

CONTRACT 0.16 0.21 0.16 0.24 0.21 0.18

ASC* -0.27 -0.14 -0.29 0.09 -0.07 -0.30

Number for

each group 63 138 123 78 115 86

Statistics R2

(McFadden) 0.24 0.27 0.20 0.21 0.27 0.24

Log likeli hood -350 -735 -627 -441 -614 -473

No. of

Observations 252 552 492 312 460 344

Table 7: Soil conservation interventions and socio economic characteristics

Attributes /

levels Coefficient of utility function

Variables Family size (No) Farm Size (Ha) Income** (Tz Shillings /

Month)

All class < 5 >= 5 < =2 > 2 < 1 >= 1

Fanya juu -0.38 -0.19 -0.48 -0.35 -0.43 -0.25 -0.42

Grass strip 1.11 0.94 1.20 1.16 1.02 1.32 0.91

Soil and stone

bunds -0.43 -0.66 -0.33 -0.61 -0.12 -0.97 0.32

Mixed farming 0.39 0.14 0.51 0.40 0.37 0.28 0.67

Hedging -0.09 -0.05 -0.12 -0.20 0.10 -0.18 0.15

Subsidy 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02

NGO 0.08 -0.27 0.23 -0.03 0.24 -0.07 0.43

Government 0.22 0.36 0.16 0.22 0.23 0.17 0.38

ASC -0.30 -0.09 -0.40 -0.20 -0.47 -0.10 -0.81

Number for

different

groups 97 29 68 66 31 63 34

Statistics R2 (McFadden)

0.254 0.23 0.28 0.28 0.22 0.29 0.25

Log likelihood

-464.428 -143 -316 -305 -156 -285 -163

No. of

Observations 388 116 272 264 124 252 136

Challenges

The expansive areas of the survey chosen with key stakeholders.

The enumerator required training and supervision which was not

adequate because of time limitations.

6. Conclusion

Irrigation

98% of the surveyed farmers are currently implementing traditional furrow

irrigation.

The study found that the farmers willing to adopt improved irrigation

technologies that provided them with higher utility or welfare than the ones they

are currently using i.e. traditional furrow irrigation.

The alternate furrow irrigation was found to be the preferred technology for

catchment, upstream catchment as well as the downstream.

Soil conservation interventions

97 smallholders in the upstream catchment were also surveyed:

Terraces: grass strip

Agroforestry: mixed farming and hedging

Cont..Socio economic analysis of key factors:

No change on the overall preference:

However, there is a slightly improvement in the utility of sprinkler

irrigation for larger farm size and higher income classes which

resulted in a lower utility for alternate furrow irrigation. Similarly,

hedging, an agroforesty technique showed positive utility for the larger

farm sizes and higher income classes in the soil conservation

interventions.

Recommendations

Education for smallholder farmers of the Kikuletwa catchment (pilot

farms & role plays that demonstrates explicitly the benefits of Irrigation

technologies and SWC interventions to the farmers and entire basin)

More research on improving furrow irrigation systems

Limited research

It’s the preferred technology

The finding of the preferences of the smallholders' farmers should be

taken into consideration by policy makers and implementation agencies

including Government bodies on the successful uptake of interventions

in the river basin.

THANK YOU