SUCCESS STORIES FROM THE FUNDED PROJECT OF SUPPORTING COMMUNITY BASED ADAPTATION INITIATIVEWS TO COPE WITH THE ADVERSE EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN THREE DIVISIONS OF PAWAGA, KALENGA AND ISIMANI IN IRINGA RURAL DISTRICT OF IRINGA REGION OF TANZANIA/ EAS AFRICA.

By Stadear Gustaph

On behalf of the Children Care Development Organization (CCDO) management, we are very happy indeed with the supported fund from the United Nations Development Programmes (UNDP) which helped us a lot to reach the entire communities of 21 villages making MBOMIPA (Matumizi Bora ya Maliasili Idodi na Pawaga) which are Mapogolo, Tungamalenga, Kitisi,Idodi, Magombwe, Kisango,Isele, Kinyika, Malinzanga, Mahuninga, Makifu, Mafuruto, Luganga, Ilolompya,Itunundu,Mbolimboli,Nyamahana, Magozi, Mkombilenga,Kimande and Mbuyuni villages) Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) of Ruaha landscapes in Iringa District of Iringa Region.

The funded fund helped us to train our local communities by introducing a new technology of system of rice intensification (SRI) which helps them to cope with the climate change adaptation and mitigation for climate change, since the SRI is a way of harmonizing the elements of soil-water-plant-sunlight to allow the plant to achieve its fullest potential of production, often hidden when inappropriate techniques are used. In practical terms, it’s a method of producing rice using fewer seeds, less water and fertilizer, cost-saving labor practices, and well-aerated soil rich in organic material. In sum, SRI is achieving more with less.

This is because, CCDO understands that enhancing water availability through adaptation technologies for sustainable water use along Great Ruaha River and management is therefore a key strategy for increasing agricultural productivity and securing food security along Pawaga, Kalenga, Isimani and Idodi divisions which are highly affected more by the shortages of rainfall and food availability. The area is also affected by drought. SRI reduces the demand for water in agricultural production and also the use of agrochemical inputs, it has begin environmental impacts. By raising the agronomic and economic productivity of land, labour, water and capital all at the same time, it enables farmers to produce more with less, by mobilizing the services and benefits of soil biota. While not exactly a ‘free lunch’ (see listing of costs and constraints below), it points the way to greater sustainability of agricultural production in general, and of production intensification. Producing more outputs with less inputs is unique and uniquely appropriate for sustainability.

 Discussions with members from 21 MBOMIPA WMAs along Ruaha landscapes it was revealed that there is an interest in promoting SRI at Pawaga and Idodi areas where rice are mainly cultivated as their commercial and food crop. The main argument is that SRI uses less water, less seeds and increases productivity. Weeding can also become easier if the rice is planted in rows

However, others actors like the WCS (Wildlife Conservation Society), SPANEST Project and Iringa District Council are sceptical about SRI and whether it is relevant at all to farmers in all districts of Iringa Region who do not have the capacity to adopt such technologies. The reason for this scepticism is related to the additional labour needed to practice SRI and the poor conditions of the irrigation schemes. Again, WCS agrees with the principle that intermittent flooding is a good practice for irrigated land. CCDO project was worked with the entire rice value chain in along MBOMIPA WMAs, is of the view that besides factors related to production, warehousing, credit and marketing should also be taken into consideration in order to improve overall rice production in the MBOMIPA WMAs so as to discourage water sources destruction around Great Ruaha River and other related wildlife trafficking, poaching elephant ivory, deforestation and bad behavior of allocating their human faeces to water sources areas.

During the project implementation, most of interviewed participants shown their interest to promote the technology of system of rice intensification (SRI) with the reasons that:

(i) SRI as adaptation measures to climate change: The system of rice intensification is considered to be a suitable rice cultivation methodology to adapt to the changing climate as it requires less water compared to the conventional paddy rice system. According to Jain et al., (2013) a water saving of 36 % was observed with SRI, and SRI increased the water productivity by 45 % compared to conventional flooded transplanted rice. Other studies also show that SRI can lower irrigation water consumption by 25 % and in some cases reduce fuel consumption used for pumping water by almost 30 litre per hectare (Siopongco et al., 2013).

 For example, in Kenya, the average yield under SRI management increased by 1.6 t/ha (33 %), seed requirements reduced by 87 % and water savings increased by 28 %. SRI required 30 % more labour for weeding than flooded rice in the first season, but this was reduced to 15 % in the second season when push weeders were made available to farmers. The results showed that SRI gave a benefit–cost ratio of 1.76 and 1.88 in the first and second seasons, respectively, compared to 1.3 and 1.35 for flooded paddy. Moreover, the results indicated that SRI practices of planting younger seedlings, with wider spacing and intermittent irrigation, leads to increased rice yields with a concomitant rise in the income accruing to farmers (Ndiiri et al., 2013).

In Gambia, SRI management practices with recommended fertilizer application produced a grain yield of 7.6 ton/ha. Computation of production costs showed that SRI production (not needing heavy application of fertilizer) was cost effective (Ceesay, 2011). Therefore, one of the reasons for practicing flooding as in paddy rice production is to control weeds. In the Sahel, a study has shown that an average of 27 % (ranging from 18 to 46 %) less water was applied to SRI than required for continuous flooding in RMP, resulting in consistently higher water productivity under SRI. However, when in Gambia, SRI management practices with recommended fertilizer application produced a grain yield of 7.6 ton/ha. Computation of production costs showed that SRI production (not needing heavy application of fertilizer) was cost effective (Ceesay, 2011).

(ii) SRI as mitigation measures to climate change: One of the benefits of SRI is mitigating methane emissions. This is because continuous flooding is prohibited in SRI and fields are instead irrigated through alternate wetting and drying (Uprety et al., 2012). Methanogenic bacteria that thrive well in paddy rice fields, produce methane anaerobically. Flooded rice fields are the second largest anthropogenic source of methane emissions after ruminant livestock. SRI can reduce methane emissions by up to 50 % owing to the periodic aeration of soil that inhibits methane-producing bacteria. In the revised IPCC methodology (IPCC, 2006), “multiple aeration,” to which SRI corresponds, is presumed to reduce methane emissions by 48 % compared with continuous flooding of rice fields (FAO, 2010). Other studies showed that SRI technology could reduce methane production by approximately 60 % (Uprety et al., 2012).

On the other hand, N2O emissions could increase under water saving techniques (like SRI) because of increased nitrification and denitrification processes, with soil conditions constantly changing between anaerobic and aerobic and related changes in redox potentials (Zheng-Qin et al, 2007; Sharma et al., 2008). Jain et al. (2013) have reported a higher (23 %) N2O emission from SRI than from paddy rice. However, data on N2O emissions from irrigated rice under different water management regimes are limited. There is a trade-off between adaptation and mitigation measures of CH4 and N2O emissions from rice soils. In other words, CSA practices like SRI/AWD that reduce CH4 emissions may increase emission of N2O from rice soils (Jain et al., 2013).

 Furthermore, SRI has often been a subject of discussion amongst the scientific community with regard to its potential to increase yield and reduce GHG emissions and climate change mitigation. For example, McDonald et al. (2008) reviewed different publications where SRI was compared to recommended management practice and found that SRI yields were not higher than under RMP. This publication has spurred considerable debate (McDonald et al., 2008; Uphoff et al., 2008). However, we find this discussion rather theoretical and not very relevant to the conditions in Tanzania, as most lowland rice is cultivated under poor management conditions. Any approach that will improve growth conditions will therefore increase yields.

Furthermore, there is a great potential for increasing the production of rice in 21 MBOMIPA WMAs in Ruaha landscapes. Many of the constraints on rice production are similar for the other regions producing rice in Tanzania. Common problems are low quality of seeds, lack of access to inputs, poorly functioning irrigation schemes, poor soil fertility management, weed infestation, low yields and low technical capacity. When System of Rice Intensification (SRI) was compared to traditional rice cultivation more than a doubling of yield is often found. However, these yield increases in the ongoing schemes are not necessarily only attributable to the SRI principles, but rather because of improved management practices like improved seed and better fertilization and weed control. The current socio-economic conditions for intensifying rice are also not very favourable as there is limited access to credit, limited availability of fertilizer, fluctuating prices and poor market access.

 Major obstacles to SRI introduction are the poor condition of the irrigation schemes; lack of good quality seeds and fertilizers, hand-pushed rotary weeders, lack of technical capacity on SRI, lack of proper levelling of the fields, lack of assured marketing, and instability of rice prices. Since the major purpose of this training to the 21 MBOMIPA WMAs was to show that how rice can be produced differently. Like any other business, profit making underpins the rice growing activity. In other terms, it is about making the rice farming a business which generates substantial incomes, and the SRI has good prospects for the small farmers of Pawaga and Idodi who produce rice as their major cash and food crops for their livelihoods improvements, as it aims to improve their production and make them earn more money.

 One major reason given by farmers and other people who do not adopt the SRI is the great amount of work it requires. Any change demands a lot of work and more efforts arising from the more attention and arrangements involved. In any case, the SRI requirements are not to be seen only in terms of physical investments but also a behaviour change towards. Farmers should, in the long term, consider that SRI requires less work but will make you richer.

In furthermore, the CCDO in increasing awareness and understanding on the broader concept of climate change through village level meetings, identify and support conservation of water sources, establish woodland management on sustainable basis, promote wider use of indigenous knowledge in addressing the impacts of climate change, and empower women, youths and school children on sustainable development through supporting conservation projects for demonstration we introduced also the idea of system of rice intensification (SRI) to the communities of Pawaga and Idodi in which we transformed their mindsets from old rice agricultural practices that are using flood water to less rice agricultural system which is using less water and with more yields. Six principles of SRI were well defined and elaborated to all WMAs in Pawaga and Idodi rice valleys and such principles are as follows:

1)    Seedlings get transplanted at a much younger age

2)    Only single seedlings, instead of a handful of seedlings get planted in each hill

3)    Plants are spaced wider apart and in a square pattern

4)    Increased use of organic fertilizer to enhance soil fertility

5)    Intermittent water application to increase wet and dry soil conditions, instead of continuous flood irrigation

6)    Rotary weeding to control weeds and promote soil erosion

While the issue of rice growing techniques ( land preparation –preparation of soil, ploughing, watering and putting to mud the plot, leveling of the plot, applying organic fertilizer, transplanting of the seedlings, irrigation; setting up the nursery- preparation of the seedbed, preparation of seeds, sowing, watering the nursery, fertilization ,and rotary weeding was well addressed to the communities.

The major reasons of introducing the systems of rice intensification as an agenda of supporting community based adaptation initiatives to cope with the adverse effects of climate change in 21 MBOMIPA WMAs was due to the truth that Kilimo Kwanza (Agriculture first) is an important policy document of the Ministry of Agriculture for the promotion of agriculture in Tanzania. The policy document focuses on the modernization of agriculture in Tanzania. One key issue is the creation of an enabling environment for investments in agriculture in Tanzania. Furthermore, Kilimo Kwanza focuses on improving the supply of good quality seeds and fertilisers. The plan identifies rice as one of the key crops for agricultural development. The National Food Reserve Agency will have a role in stabilizing prices of important agricultural commodities, and there is no particular policy to promote SRI in Tanzania, but in general, there is a positive opinion about SRI in the Ministry of Agriculture.

Despite the advantages associated with SRI, there are challenges related to technological, institutional, and financial and policy issues. Nearly 90 % of the farmers in Tanzania are smallholders and produce for own household consumption. One of the challenges is to transplant young seedlings in 25x25 cm grids within 20 minutes after uprooting. In a situation where the seedbed is distant from the rice field, it is sometimes a challenge for the seedlings to be transplanted within this short period. In addition, the seeds are vulnerable to rodents and other pests and therefore integrated pest management is necessary during the rice growing period. With respect to irrigation water requirement, SRI requires less water, but the water has to be available at regular intervals (every 5 to 7 days). SRI therefore requires complete control of irrigation which is not the case in most Tanzanian irrigation schemes (Katambara et al., 2013). Another complication is that if water is not available when the seedlings are ready for transplanting (8-12 days after sowing), then farmers will have to wait.

Another challenge is to organize the farmers within a particular irrigation scheme, and make them follow a uniform planting calendar; use of improved variety and use of proper fertilization Farmers attached to irrigation schemes will irrigate their rice when water is available. Introduction of SRI will be a challenge in cases of water shortage as the non-SRI farmers are likely to use most of the available water unless there are some agreements in the irrigation scheme. It is easier to introduce SRI if all the farmers in the scheme agree to practice intermittent flooding.

Organic manure is not easily available because the animals are not stall-fed. Weeds appear to be a critical problem in rice production, and we observed traditional rice fields overgrown with weeds. Weeding in the traditional fields is done by hand, but weeding is difficult because the plants are not planted in rows. Use of mechanical weeding is feasible if the rice is planted in rows.

The following were the main challenges identified during the meetings with key stakeholders in 21 MBOMIPA WMAs around Ruaha landscapes of Iringa Rural District;

1)    Input supply- Most farmers do not have access to improved rice varieties and fertilizers. Farmers in some selected areas get two bags of fertilizer at a subsidized rate of 75 % (one bag of urea and one bag of DAP). This quantity is not sufficient for most farmers. They may need at least two bags of urea in the present conditions.

2)    Poor conditions of irrigation schemes. Most rice in 21 MBOMIPA WMAs is upland rice, and lowland rice under irrigation is grown under poor management condition. Water is not well regulated in the irrigation channels and the rice fields are not well levelled.

3)    Lack of training on the various principles of SRI. Issues that was covered included land levelling, water management, nursery method, transplanting, fertilization and weeding.

4)    Lack of organization skills amongst farmers within the irrigation schemes. Key issues are agreements on water management, marketing of products and purchase of equipment. Conflict over water occurs in irrigation schemes.

5)    Lack of credit support to smallholders in the WMAs is also a limiting factor in the rice value chain. The credit schemes are less interested in providing loans to the farmers this year because of the low rice prices.

6)    Price policy. Price variation in rice has made investment in rice production more risky. The Common External Tariff (CET) of the East

7)    Policy challenges/weak enforcement of policies and poor investments. It appears that implementation of polices is a greater challenge than the policy itself. In Tanzania there is a focus on private public partnership and there are examples where such partnerships are working (KPL).

8)    Weak extension services. SRI is a knowledge intensive system, and it will be a challenge to upgrade the competence of the rice farmers across the country.

The funded project by the UNDP contributed a lot to the promotion of appropriate technologies to mitigate climate change and such technologies included the development and transfer of conservation agriculture production systems for small-holder farmers through horticultural cover crops, environmental conservation education awareness creation, drip irrigation, fog harvesting, rainwater harvesting, soil management technology, conservation tillage technology, integrated nutrient management, sustainable crop management, ecological pest management, seed and grain storage, sustainable livestock management, sustainable farming systems, agro-forestry, capacity building and stakeholders organization through training community based agricultural extension agents that provide rural people with the access to knowledge and information they need to increase productivity and sustainability of their production systems and improve their quality of life and livelihoods, creating a space for public debate and institutional coordination, training rural extension agents, knowledge refresher courses, and technical support and evaluation, farmer field schools which looked to enforce the understanding of farmers about the ecological processes that affected the production of their crops and animals through conducting field learning exercises such as field observations, simple experiments and group analysis. The knowledge gained from these activities enabled participants to make their own locally-specific decisions about crop management practices.                                                                                                                         

Since the CCDO manage to transfer wide experience and knowledge to all communities and also we trained trainers of facilitators of the farmer field schools in a range of skills and attitudes that were not part of their initial training. Extension personnel have typically been trained in technology transfer rather than adult education and participatory learning since farmer field schools require facilitators to have abilities in developing understanding of the participants of agro-ecological processes, but not through lecturing on these processes, but through facilitating the farmers in discovery exercises to find out and understand these processes. Subsequently management options are defined through the integration of local knowledge of the farmers and ecological knowledge gained thought the forest farmer schools.

Likewise, the CCDO introduced the appropriate technologies to mitigate climate change around Isimani, Pawaga and Kalenga divisions through forest user groups formation because in many communities of Tanzania, forest governance has remained a centralized and top-down process. Policies ignore the role of forests in tribal livelihoods and cultures, violating the overlapping laws protecting the rights of these communities. Premises and procedures for identifying and defining forests are poor, resulting in land use conflicts, unclear boundaries, legal disputes and inappropriate management objectives for lands wrongly classified as “forest:. Forest User Groups (FUGs) represented one mechanism for decentralizing forest management and increasing community-based responsibility and authority.

FUGs were based on the three principles of participation, collective action and long-term sustainability. They were formed through democratic processes whereby local residents are elected as community representatives to work as an autonomous body alongside existing government authorities to manage forest resources and to articulate the needs and priorities of local people. FUG members was received training in resource management and participate in multi-stakeholder forest management mechanisms, developed land use plans in line with national forest laws and regulations in Which Ms Godliva Mvanda – Senior Environmental District Officer of Iringa District Council who helped a lot in assisting the succession of this project to achieve its desired objectives of strengthening the capacity of farmers and pastoralists in coping with the adverse effects of climate change and addressing drivers of deforestation and forest degradation through community-based interventions, and undertake forest patrols and awareness-raising with the aim of curbing illegal activities.

WE SAY THANK UNDP FOR FUNDING THIS PROJECT