Kilimo Kwanza

Monday 8 February, 2010 kilimokwanza@guardian.co.tz

Pg

8

World Bank opposes mechanisation in TZ

6000 years ago, the ancient farmers of Egypt produced rich harvests from the desert by irrigating it with waters of the River Nile that starts from Lake Victoria. Today, most of the farmers in modern Tanzania, a country criss-crossed by rivers and has several deep lakes in addition to a lot of underground water, have to rely on the mercy of the skies to water their plants and livestock. Unlike the ancient men who made mud dams to retain excess water from the seasonal floods that served as rain, most Tanzanian farmers look on and let all the rain water flow away. The primitive Egyptian farmers used the crude technology of the shadoof to draw water from the canals and deliver it to places farther away in the gardens where grain, fruit and livestock products were produced...

Pg

4

The Guardian KILIMO KWANZA

EDITORIAL

2

Monday 8 February, 2010

inside

Kilimo Kwanza: Setting the record straight

When Kilimo Kwanza was launched at the beginning of August last year, not everybody was immediately enthusiastic. Coming as it did when the Agricultural Sector Development Programme (ASDP) was already underway, some wondered whether...

To mechanise or not to mechanise?

A

senior World Bank official in the region has voiced strong opposition to the mechanization drive in Tanzania’s agricultural sector. The reasoning behind this position is that mechanization would reduce employment in the countryside and therefore entrench rural poverty.

It would be easy to let this argument pass as academic had it beenmade by a person from another institution. But the World Bank occupies a central position among the country’s development partners. Their views are taken seriously by other development partners, and this is likely to complicate the government’s negotiations for assistance with other donors in its agricultural modernisation drive.

But before even worrying about sending conflicting signals to the development partners, it is quite unhealthy for the government and the Bank to hold directly contradicting positions on such a fundamental matter. The government has just thrown all its energy and Shs50 billion into a project to ease the importation of tractors and power tillers. It is also starting to invest seri-

ous monies into introducing smarter, automated irrigation systems and start doing away with the ancient hand dug canals that are not only wasteful but also contribute to the spread of disease.

Does mechanization of agriculture create unemployment? There are several important points to consider here.

First, how many investors are likely to prefer hiring huge labour gangs instead of using modern machinery? The government is not about to establish plantations to employ thousands of workers and it cannot determine the labour – capital mix for private investors.

Secondly, mechanization brings about quality, not just increased output. We cannot talk of competitiveness while farmers are using crude tools.

Thirdly and more directly about employment: mechanization of agriculture may lead to increased employment and not the other way round. A farmer using his power tiller or a hired tractor can open up more acres of land in a short time and require more hands to tend the larger farm than if he had spent months hand tilling one or two hectares. More people would be required for maintenance of the farms, handling harvest and post-harvest ac-

tivities and eventually, working in the value addition activities that would become inevitable with increased output.

It is imperative for government to re-sell its mechanization drive to the Bank for a number of reasons. Not least is the need for the two institutions to read from the same page while talking to the multiplicity of other donors.

And it would be wasteful if government chose to proceed in the jungle of multilateral finance while at loggerheads with an important player there.

Furthermore, unnecessary friction between Bank and State would affect other funding programmes.

The two institutions should be talking about establishing the most rational way to fund mechanisation, how to improve the quality of the manpower that would be spending less time tilling with the hand hoe and how to make the most of the yields accruing from the increasingly productive farmlands.

Wallace Mauggo Editor

Relying on unreliable rain, till when?

3

Sh40bn flows into the canals, but a lot more still needed

4

A statistic most people are now familiar with is that Tanzania has 44 million hectares of arable land that is suitable for agriculture. Of the 44 million hectares, only 10 million hectares are being used or more aptly, are being underutilized.

The government has set aside more than 40billion shillings for putting up infrastructure for irrigation in a bid to curb food shortages

W

hen Kilimo Kwanza was launched at the beginning of August last year, not everybody was immediately enthusiastic. Coming as it did when the Agricultural Sector Development Programme (ASDP) was already underway, some wondered whether it was not duplication in a situation where development resources are scarce.

Tanzania’s development partners mid – October secured audience with government officials who were led by the Chief Secretary Phillemon Luhanjo (pictured) during a workshop held under the auspices of Tanzania National Business Council, and frankly expressed their concerns for which they sought clarification before they could commit their governments, ultimately their tax payers, to support the initiative. Other stakeholders including members of TNBC and NGOs also participated in the discussions.

Luhanjo’s team answered most of the donors’ concerns, and the October 16th meeting left a clearer picture of the new initiative. Chief Secretary Luhanjo in particular stressed the special nature of Kilimo Kwanza being a Public – Private sector partnership.

Mr. Luhanjo explained that programmes related to agriculture (like Vision 2025, MKUKUTA and the ASDP) lacked some necessary ingredients to give a big push to agriculture in terms of technology advancement and productivity, which is why the sector has in the past 10 years has only registered an average 4% annual growth, which is too low to eradicate poverty in Tanzania; hence the emphasis on the private sector under the Kilimo Kwanza initiative.

It was impressed on the development partners that the key deliverables of Kilimo Kwanza include increased use of irrigation, increased mechanization, improved seeds, increased use of fertilizer and establishment of an agricultural bank.

Anticipated results include improved food security through increased output and value addition through growth of agri-processing industries.

Donor’s concern

World Bank opposed to mechanisation in TZ

6

At a time when government is calling for modernization of the agricultural sector, the World Bank has expressed strong reservations against subsidizing farmers to mechanise their operations.

To deal with any possible lingering doubts, President Jakaya Mrisho Kikwete used the occasion of the New Year Sherry Party he hosted on January 8, 2010 for heads of diplomatic missions in Tanzania at State House, to set the record straight. The President explained the complimentary relation between Kilimo Kwanza and ASDP: Below is a summary of the donor’s October concerns and the president’s January 8th clarification: What does Kilimo Kwanza mean?

The donors had been wondering what the whole new initiative was, about and the purpose for formulating and introducing it at this point in time.

8

The Guardian KILIMO KWANZA

Monday 8 February, 2010

What about ASDP? Donors wanted to know where the introduction of Kilimo Kwanza leaves the Agriculture Sector Development Programme which they are more familiar with. They needed to know the difference, relationship or linkages between Kilimo Kwanza and ASDP and

POLICY

Kilimo Kwanza: Setting the record straight

3

redistribution of land? If so, what will be their role?

Private Sector: Is the private sector really playing enough role in the promotion and implementation of Kilimo Kwanza? Are there deliberate steps being taken by the government to ensure that the private sector plays a significant role in Kilimo Kwanza?

Local governments: Are the local government units sufficiently prepared and equipped to play their role in implementing Kilimo Kwanza?

President’s clarification:

which takes higher priority. They also wanted to know which of these two initiatives is wider, which encompasses the other?

Priorities. What are the implications of making Kilimo Kwanza the top policy priority on the other government priority sectors like health and trade?

And what is the order of priorities within Kilimo Kwanza itself? Is the implementation of Kilimo Kwanza following a specific, logical sequence and if so, which is it?

Coordination: What is being done to establish the linkages between Kilimo Kwanza and The National Strategy for Growth And Poverty Reduction (MKUKUTA) and the Zanzibar Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty (MKUZA)?

Broader perspective: How is Kilimo Kwanza envisaged to fit into the plans and activities of regional economic groupings to which Tanzania belongs especially the East African Community and SADC? And more specifically, how does Kilimo Kwanza fit in with the Comprehensive African Agriculture

Development Programme (CAADP) strategy? Climate change: How have the implications of climate change been built into the Kilimo Kwanza strategy?

Older inititatives: How is Kilimo Kwanza different from previous strategies like Kilimo cha Kufa na Kupona, Siasa ni Kilimo or Kilimo ni mti wa Mgongo?

What are the new innovations in Kilimo Kwanza that were not in these previous initiatives? And what lessons have been drawn from the previous strategies that led to their lack of success, that Kilimo Kwanza is addressing differently?

Consultations: Why were the most important stakeholders, ie the small scale farmers, not involved in the formulation of the Klimo Kwanza strategy? How is this anomaly being addressed? Why weren’t development partners and other important stakeholders like the civil society involved in the formulation of the Kilimo Kwanza?

Reaching out: What is the communication strategy to ensure that Kilimo Kwanza information reaches

the majority stake holders ie the small scale farmers?

Finance: How is Kilimo Kwanza to be financed, with the government and the development partners already committed to financing agriculture sector programmes especially ASDP? And exactly or approximately when is the Agriculture Bank planned under Kilimo Kwanza being opened? How will the above bank operate and how will it relate to the existing banking systems?

How much groundwork has been done to identify funding for the more expensive components of Kilimo Kwanza like irrigation projects? Kilimo Kwanza being a public/ private sector partnership, how is its funding going to be shared between the government and private sector?

Land issues: How is the land redistribution proposed under Kilimo Kwanza be carried out? What safeguards are being put in place to ensure the redistribution will be equitable and to prevent land conflicts? Will the village committees have any role in the

At the dinner with the heads of missions, President diplomatic Kikwete assured the donor community that the policy of Kilimo Kwanza has no conflict with the Agricultural Sector Development Programme (ASDP) and thus request for the support from donors and various stakeholders.

Kikwete cleared the air on the raised anxiety over the establishment of Kilimo Kwanza as fear had emerged over what has become of the ASDP after its promulgation.

He said the government conceived and rolled out the Agricultural Sector Development Programme (ASDP) for the purpose of identifying the constraints impeding speedy growth and transformation of Tanzania’s agriculture and defining the interventions required to overcome them.

He gave the assurances that ASDP remains intact and continues to be implemented.

The fact that Kilimo Kwanza was envisaged is evident that Tanzania’s agriculture is predominantly in the hands of the smallholder farmers, the peasants. There is limited large-scale agriculture as there is little involvement of the private sector in agriculture and agriculture related activities.

“Last year we discussed this factor under the auspices of the Tanzania National Business Council and agreed to do something to correct the anomaly.

As a result of that historic decision, the Kilimo Kwanza strategy was conceived,” He said Kikwete said Kilimo Kwanza is a strategy to energize efforts being expended by government, peasants and the people of Tanzania as a whole in implementing the ASDP. Clearly, ASDP gives the hope that it is the most appropriate vehicle to transform and modernize agriculture.

It brings into play the involvement of the private sector into farming, in the production or trading in agricultural inputs as well as buying from farmers for direct sales or adding value.

“Let me assure you that, there is no conflict between ASDP and Kilimo Kwanza, instead there is complementarity. May I make a humble appeal to you all to support the Tanzanian private sector in Kilimo Kwanza as well as encourage your private sector to join hands with their Tanzanian counterparts in this regard, “I believe, if properly supported by our government and friends of Tanzania like you it will help in a significant way in the fight against poverty and food insecurity in Tanzania.

After all 80 percent of Tanzanians live in rural areas and depend on agriculture for their livelihood,” President said.

Further, the government on January 2 released guidelines for Kilimo Kwanza implementation to the local governmens.

The Guardian KILIMO KWANZA

4

COVER STORY

Monday 8 February, 2010

Monday 8 February, 2010

The Guardian KILIMO KWANZA

COVER STORY

5

Relying on unreliable rain, till when?

6000 years ago, the ancient farmers of Egypt produced rich harvests from the desert by irrigating it with waters of the River Nile that starts from Lake Victoria. Today, most of the farmers in modern Tanzania, a country criss-crossed by rivers and has several deep lakes in addition to a lot of underground water, have to rely on the mercy of the skies to water their plants and livestock. Unlike the ancient men who made mud dams to retain excess water from the seasonal floods that served as rain, most Tanzanian farmers look on and let all the rain water run away. The primitive Egyptian farmers used the crude technology of the shadoof to draw water from the canals and deliver it to places farther away in the gardens where grain, fruit and livestock products were produced. But many African farmers today watch their crops wither when water is just a short distance away. Are the current efforts to popularize irrigation-fed agriculture going to liberate the Tanzanian farmers from the uncertainty of the skies and save them from the ultimate humiliation of begging for food when the rain delays? Sayuni Kimaro has been taking stock of what has so far been done in this area and look at what remains to be done...

A

statistic most people are now familiar with is that Tanzania has 44 million hectares of arable land that is suitable for agriculture. Of the 44 million hectares, only 10 million hectares are being used or more aptly, are being underutilized. Of the 10 million, less than 2 million hectares are under irrigation of one form or another. For a variety of reasons, Tanzania’s agricultural lands are extremely underutilized and a major cause of this is lack of reliable water supply.

The country has enormous water sources that are hardly tapped, the first of these being rain water. There is enough precipitation to support many times more agricultural activity but this does not happen because the rain water is allowed to flow away instead of being harvested, kept and used systematically.

That typical stereotype African image of a woman picking a pot or jerrican to go and fetch water from a dirty well just minutes after a heavy downpour is true of many countries, Tanzania inclusive.

Yet information on what it takes to build tanks and dams to conserve rain water is available in the country.

To irrigate 2.5 hectares of paddy or upto 5 hectares of fruits and vegetables using rain harvest, what is needed is to trap 30,000 cubic metres of water when it rains.

The second major source of water is underground. Studies have established that there is plenty of accessible water under the ground especially in the regions of Dodoma, Rukwa, Pangani, Arusha, Tanga, Iringa, Mbeya, Lindi and Mtwara. However the use of underground water source for agriculture in the country is almost

zero. Technology for accessing the water, that is drilling usually using a truck-mounted rig plus installing pipes and pumps is considered to be quite expensive.

Over fifteen years ago when the National Irrigation Development plan was being formulated, the cost of a borehole was found to be $8,000, which made recommendation of tapping underground water almost academic for most areas.

The third source of water are the rivers, found all over the country.

These are the most used yet also very underused, and moreover wastefully.

Canals extended from rivers account for most of the 200,000 hectares irrigated in Tanzania.

The reason Tanzanian farmers continue to desperately watch the sky for clouds instead of the ground where they put the seeds is because of the country’s low capacity to access, tap and store water that is in such great abundance.

To break from this state of basic existence, there is a need to determine the most cost effective irrigation technologies suitable for different regions, to improve security of tenure over the land into which one is going to invest their irrigation infrastructure and of course to use better methods and seeds to farm the irrigated land.

The national irrigation development strategy is based on rehabilitating the old, existing irrigation infrastructure, upgrading the irrigation technology and opening many small irrigation schemes suitable for different places all over the country.

Performance The development of irrigated agriculture in Tanzania has in reality been very slow.

Various reports actually indicate poor performance.

The rate of implementation of new

schemes and the operational performance of existing schemes are inadequate as visualized by the Task Force of National Agricultural Policy.

Public sector irrigation development has followed different paths being construction of new irrigated estates for parastatal operations as well as new modern schemes for smallholder occupation and operation.

But the rehabilitation or upgrading of traditional irrigation schemes, like the rate of development of new schemes has been slow, given the lack of resources financial and human, in form of trained irrigation personnel.

If irrigation is to develop meaningfully over the next ten years, the acute shortage of irrigation engineers and technicians has to be urgently addressed.

According to the Principal of Arusha Technical College Dr Richard Masika, demand for the irrigation professionals will be 8,295 personnel by 2020, and programmes to train them both for the public and private sectors have to be stepped up immediately.

These professionals are needed both for expansion but also for overseeing the sustainable exploitation of the drainage system, dominant source of irrigation water.

For example, improved river basin water management safeguards system by ensuring the return flows via the diversion canals to the natural drainage system thereby reducing or avoiding losses from unnaturally water logged areas.

Another reason for poor performance of the irrigation schemes in Tanzania is absence of irrigation investment criteria and lack of a national coordination for irrigation development despite available funding from donor agencies and NGOs. To mitigate the poor performance of irrigation in there should be schemes to spread water harvesting technologies that require minimum technical intervention to say, divert flood peaks from rivers into the fields and back downstream to the natural drainage system.

New smallholder schemes must be designed in such a way as to avoid the pitfalls in the older ones.

Surface irrigation where water is distributed by lined and unlined canals is the predominant method used in the country.

Furrow irrigation is by a denser network of narrow channels dug between the rows of crops. Sprinkler irrigation is used by large scale commercial farmers, and remains uncommon among the smallholders as it requires pumping and has many mechanical, moving parts.

The main constraint to developing irrigation is lack of human and financial resources. There is lack of funds and trained irrigation personnel in the country. There should be a commitment of funds to irrigation sector.

Rain making project flops

So desperate has the government been over inadequate rainfall that it committed large sums of money to import rainmakers from Thailand to set up technologies for enhancing precipitation from the Tanzanian skies.

Sayuni Kimaro traces the history of the short lived venture:

T

he application of rain making technology is not new in Tanzania. It was once used during colonial rule to create artificial rain in tobacco growing areas of Tabora. The purpose however was not to provide water for the plants but it was employed as a means to counter hailstorms which were damaging the crop.

There are also records on experiences at Kongwa of artificial stimulation of rain in 1951 undertaken when the British administration tried to create vast plantations in the then Tanganyika for growing groundnuts (peanuts).

Techniques of producing artificial rain involve manipulating moisture-heavy clouds using methods like injecting them with silver iodide particles.

Artificial rain has been successfully made in China when twenty silver-iodide Missiles were fired into the sky to cause rain to alleviate the prolonged dry spell over Beijing.

But the country that takes the rain making most seriously is Thailand, whose monarch has invested heavily in rain making technology and registered patents for it.

So when Tanzania decided that in needed to make rain in 2006, it approached the Thai government for

help. Prolonged drought had had a heavy toll on Tanzania in 2006. In addition to food shortages the prolonged drought also affected the water levels of the major reservoirs for power generation. This forced Tanzania Electric Supply Company to use high cost thermal generation instead of the normal low cost hydropower generation. At about the same time, fears were mounting that the looming climate change further affect rainfall patterns in the country. According to scientists, rainfall in Tanzania would decrease by 10-15 %.

Members of parliament in Bangkok agreed that their country could help Tanzania stave off the problem of prolonged drought and food shortages by supplying the Royal Thai technology of artificial rain.

It was agreed that the Thai experts would start demonstrations to create rainfall in Mbeya and Iringa regions by March 2008. The project was spearheaded by the then prime minister’s Edward Lowasssa.

The Thai rain makers assured Lowassa that they were capable of causing precipitation in the Usangu valley which is almost turning into a desert, and fill Mtera dam in Iringa to the brim to enable stalled hydro electric power production pick up again.

The rain was to be made focusing on earmarked areas where there were special activities like agriculture and water harvesting for the production of electricity. The first demonstration was set to be carried out in Usangu Basin in Mbeya, Iringa and Dodoma regions. The government spent shs1.5billion in its 2006/2007 budget on the artificial rain-making project which was soon to be abandoned.

The Minister of State in the Prime Minister’s Office (Policy, Coordination and Parliamentary Affairs) Philip Marmo was quoted saying the money mainly for hiring four airplanes, the cost of transporting imported equipment, allowances and transport costs for Thai rainmakers.

He said before the project was cancelled the government had already spent a total of 1.5bn/- as the cost of experiments. The government explained last month that the project was conclusively discontinued due to its prohibitive cost.

The Guardian KILIMO KWANZA

6

South Africa solar tech for TZ irrigation

Government is studying a proposal by a South African technology firm to install solar powered irrigation equipment in Tanzania.

Sources in the Agriculture ministry said the South African solar company – whose identity is being withheld for the moment – has made an “interesting” that Tanzania oficials are taking very seriously. The South Africans are set to start work here as early as this month, February.

The company is set to pilot the project by installing several solar powered pumps in remote villages in parts of the country, one of the consultants on the project, Mr Robert Matiku said.

"Across the region, these foodinsecure populations are predominantly rural, they frequently survive on less than $1 per person per day, and whereas most are engaged in agricultural production as their main livelihood, they still spend 50 to 80 percent of their income on food, and are often net consumers of food," explained Matiku who is also working with Ryangubo Irrigation Farmers Association (RIFA).

Only a tiny fraction (200,000hectares) of the 44 million hectares suitable for agriculture in Tanzania is irrigated.

Farmers rely on the unreliable rainfall to grow their crops and water their livestock.

Matiku explained that the South Africans conceived the idea of setting up in Tanzania after getting information on the website of Ministry of Water and Irrigation and found that the government is now concentrating on irrigation to move the country from rain–fed agriculture.

He added that the solar-powered pumps to be installed are of the easy-to-maintain, battery-free configuration.

According to Matiku the solar equipment will remove the need to wait for the expansion of the electricity supply grid and expense of diesel for powering the pumps.

“Since the country is facing problems of electricity such projects will consume more power, the government should encourage private companies to invest on the irrigation side so as it will be easy to distribute the water without any delay,” he said.

Monday 8 February, 2010

IRRIGATION

Sh40bn flows into the canals, but a lot more still needed

The Deputy Minister for Agriculture, Food Security and Cooperatives David Mathayo briefly explains to Angel Navuri the governments efforts to increase food production through supporting irrigation:

Question: What is the extent of government intervention in improving irrigation-fed agriculture in the country?

Answer: The government has set aside more than 40billion shillings for putting up infrastructure for irrigation in a bid to curb food shortages. Our

The Assistant Director for Irrigation, Engineer Raphael Daluti, explains to Angel Navuri the state of irrigation today and how government is going about ensuring that all farms in the country have sufficient water from different sources: Question: It appears irrigation services are first being taken to areas that that already a lot of water sources instead of those that have

sand of people facing serious food shortage. There is cause for alarm when so many people require emergency relief supplies.

Q: How is Kilimo Kwanza going to address the situation?

A: We are still facing some challenges with the structure of Kilimo Kwanza but we are working on it. It is an important initiative being undertaken to support the agriculture sector and its structure is becoming clearer with time.

Q: What in the meantime happens to the existing irrigation schemes?

A: The programme will ensure that the existing irrigation schemes are rehabilitated and more pumps will be bought so that water is available all the time for the farmers’ use.

country largely depends on rain-fed agriculture, but there was a decrease

acute shortage. What is the logic behind this?

Answer: In general, programmes to take irrigation services have started countrywide but the government seeks to intervene urgently by building water harvest structures in those areas where water sources are not enough and only have erratic rains.

Now building diversion structures (canals) is in high gear in places that have more natural drainage, because building water dams in less drained areas is costly and its coverage is limited. But gradually the government is garnering its resources to cover as much of the country as possible.

Q: What are some of the specific challenges being encountered in spreading irrigation fed agriculture to the country?

A: Awareness is still inadequate.

Lake Victoria areas for instance need more public awareness on irrigation since they have concentrated more in fishing than in irrigation farming.

They would do better to concentrate on irrigation farming so as it can boost food production but the have concentrated more on harvestin fish from the lake.

Q. We are aware of sh40 billion set aside for irrigation. How far will it go in developing irrigation

in harvests last season because of erratic rains, leaving hundreds of thou-

fed agriculture in the country?

A: This money its not enough, this year the ministry budget set aside 17.8bn/- under the National Irrigation Fund, while Prime Minister's Office, the Ministry of Regional Administration and Local Government Authority under the District Irrigation Fund set aside 23bn/- and the District Agriculture Development Plan(DADP) allocated 13.5bn/-.

These are local and donors funds under the Agriculture Sector Development Programme (ASDP).

Q: If these resources cannot go around, where has implementation started so far?

A: The irrigation interventions are already being implemented in the following areas: Kilimanjaro – Arusha, Tanga, Morogoro- Morogoro, Coast and Dar es Salaam, - Mtwara-Mtwara, Lindi and Ruvuma, Mbeya -Iringa, Mbeya and Rukwa –Central zoneDodoma, Manyara, and Singida.

Tabora-Kigoma and Tabora. The regions that are picking up well already are, Mbeya, Iringa Kilimanjaro, Arusha, Ruvuma, Manyara, Kigoma, Tabora. Dams and water harvest techniques are being developed in Manyara, Mbulo and Simanjiro.

Q: Irrigation is already the biggest user of the river waters

Q; How does the programme from Tanzania’s benefit Meteorological Agency?

A: The TMA is supposed to be alerting farmers on the right time to cultivate, to plant, through the ministry. But admittedly, there’s no serious attention paid to this role by TMA. Currently we are just receiving daily weather reports.

and yet it is still underdeveloped.

Is the water then drawn for irrigation being efficiently used?

A: No, not at all, until we adequately promote us of the drip irrigation system. Farmers will then be using the water far more efficiently.

But small farmers are quite slow in picking up this initially expensive system. But it is being well adapted by large-scale farmers as it uses little water and the conflict of water is minimum. Ironically therefore, the large farmers tend to use far less water per unit area while the small farmer uses a lot more water, wastefully in a way.

So far, availability of the drips is limited as the equipment is expensive because it’s being imported. But it could get cheaper when it could be developed and manufactured her for the local market.

Q: It will be many years before all the small-scale farmers switch to drip irrigation. In the meantime what is being done about all that water they are ‘wasting’?

A: We are very particular in setting and enforcing standards for the building of diversion structures, that is lining valleys, and we insist on main secondary canals to reduce water loss.

The problem of water losses worsens when it’s not diverted or if the diversion is not done carefully.

The Guardian KILIMO KWANZA

Monday 8 February, 2010

VIEW POINTS

Persuasion, not pressure will deliver the investors

T

By Lucas Lukumbo

he Agriculture NonState Actors’ Forum (ANSAF) recently strongly suggested that that potential investors coming to Tanzania be given a pre-condition of involving in agriculture directly or by funding it. This is a radical suggestion considering that virtually all countries of the world, rich and poor, are competing for the investors.

It is a widely acknowledged though that Kilimo Kwanza could end up in sheer failure if it excludes private and civil society. After all, it is the concept of a public – private sector partnership that makes Kilimo Kwanza different from previous agricultural development programmes.

In the absence of enough capital being attracted to agriculture, there is an emerging school of thought that licensed investors in all sectors be ‘encouraged’ to make a supplementary investment in agriculture so as to boost food security among others.

Suggestions range from the extreme like ANSAF suggests of compelling investors to devote a certain percentage to agriculture either directly or through an agriculture development fund.

However a more moderate suggestion of encouraging investors to look at agricultural support in communities as a priority area for their corporate responsibility funding.

The Consolidated AgroLtd General Manager Ltd. Paul Antapa says while he does not second direct involvement in agriculture by potential investors, but says they could as well contribute to agriculture by funding the sector.

He said the government could institute an agricultural development fund and compel investors to contribute to the fund. “The fund could help farm-

ers improve their farming and subsequently improve their economic status,” he said.

Antapa noted with concern the deterioration of some roads leading to agriculture potential areas in the country saying that the fund could help build access roads to such areas.

A Development Economist Consultant, Deo Mutalemwa says that the idea of preconditioning investments in Tanzania to large scale agricultural projects sounds great in terms of delivering surpluses of agricultural output, including food to the national consumer.

But Mutalemwa, who has just retired from the Africa Development Bank, says forcing the investors does not allow the principle of investment opportunity costs to play its course.

“A prospective international and even domestic investor who has got savings and investible resources has a range of sector or project opportunities as well as countries to choose from. The ultimate decision is usually based not on humanitarian or philanthropic reasons and ideals but on purely profit motives,” he cautions.

He says the choice of where to invest takes into consideration the potential return of capital as well as the total operating costs.

“This is a simple rule of decision making. It applies to mining as well as to other sectors. It applies equally to existing mining ventures, without forgetting that they have employed expertise in mining and not in running agricultural enterprises,” he says.

He said farming and cattle raising like missionary work, demands deeprooted dedication and not trial- and- error investors who will be eager to runaway at the first incident of drought or crop failure.

“I know it is now common parlance to dismiss hoe farming and to talk of power tillers and tractors, big farmers

and the like. But I stand steadfast in the belief of the African hoe, not for romantic reasons but for its centrality in the culture of our small farmstead practices.

He observed that if one travels to rural and remote Tanzania , one will get convinced that such homesteads would not go away quickly nor will they be easily fed by big farming enterprises. The point is not that we do not need the big farmers, but they have to be promoted by public policy and incentives to make free choices to go into the sector and to be piggybacked on other successful ventures.

The Governance Programme Manager of CONCERN, Audax Rukonge notes that Tanzanian policies are somehow silent on investors and use of land.

He says investors have their own interest and would invest where there is maximum return. “ The issue of corporate social responsibility (CSR) remains an act of benevolence as opposed to being mandatory and legally binding. “ I don't know to what extent the government can ensure the investors

“

The ultimate decision is usually based not on humanitarian or philanthropic reasons and ideals but on purely profit motives

are compelled to abide to this. There is a need to have policies that specifically articulate the role of companies in communities and this can be legally binding, without overlooking the importance of attracting responsible investors.

Thirdly, any serious and responsible company investing in the sector (be it crop production, marketing and agroprocessing) should ensure there is a good link with local initiatives and that the presence of such companies do not in any form strangle or kill the existing and emerging efforts by local communities.

In this way approaches such as contract farming, out-grower schemes and value chain must be embraced in ensuring the investors contribute to developing local industries, strengthening local initiatives.

“I do not see mining companies or any other companies being compelled to set aside a percentage for investing in agricultural related activities.

However as part of their CSR they can provide agricultural equipment such as power tillers, and support construction of irrigation canals or improve feeder roads for better transportation of agricultural produce and inputs,” he said.

Nonetheless, local practitioners and smallholder farmers' groups can benefit from presence of investors in other sectors such as mining, hotels by entering into contractual agreement to supply specific food products such as vegetables, milk meant and other kind of products.

“This way we can ensure some benefit/profit made in Tanzania is retained to benefit more people -smallholder farmers through such arrangements.

Currently there is policy provision for allowing 100 percent “capital flight”.

All the benefit accrued from investing in Tanzania can be reinvested elsewhere without the country and its people benefiting anything.

7

But the ANSAF members who met in Dodoma recently to deliberate on ways to revolutionalise agricultrure in the country through public and private partnership noted with concern that a major problem for joint agricultural plans and implementation at the local level was lack of civil society organizations (CSO) profile.

They noted that District and Livestock Agricultural Development Officers (DALDOs) have little knowledge of organizations working in their areas and there are no requirements to have stakeholder mapping.

CSOs rarely subscribe to district development plans and therefore plan their activities that are not necessarily reflected in district documents, they noted.

“This scenario is contrary to Agricultural Sector Development Programme (ASDP) and district agricultural development plan reporting format where it is mandatory for the district commissioners to report on budget and activities executed by other service providers in the sector,” one of the participants Governance Programme Manager of CONCERN, Audax Rukonge noted.

He gave an example of Masasi district in Mtwara region where he said civil society organizations cover 87 percent of villages in the district undertaking agricultural activities but said only one organization is invited to participate in developing plans from village to district level.

An official of the Tanzania Investment Centre (TIC) said giving investors such a condition would be suicidal to the investment opportunities in the country.

“We are actually trying to find ways of increasing more incentives so that more and more investors could come to Tanzania,” he said preferring not to be named .

Farming as a profession, not a resort for failures

Should a person take up farming after failing to get a “better” job or as a choice picked from different lucrative professions? Can a farmer be someone to envy, a respected member of the community, the person you would wish your daughter to marry?

Why has the steady economic growth that Tanzania has posted over the past few years not yet been reflected in the quality of life of the farmers?

Life for the majority of the village farmers has shown no signs of improvement and they seem to be trapped in a pool of misery and poverty. The im-

mediate causes for this are not a secret; unreliable rainfall, repeated crop failure, inability to meet the rising cost of cultivation, and indebtedness, among other woes. The disappointing state of the farmers’ life has is at the root of the migration to cities and towns. In such a situation, how easily can you convince an ambitious young graduate to become a farmer instead of looking for a job with one of the multinational companies in Dar es Salaam or Arusha?

Many educated young people actually find the whole idea of taking up farming laughable at best, revolting at

From The Ground

Angel Navuri

Email: angelnavuri@yahoo.com

worst.It’s therefore high time to take some deliberate measures that will make farming a lucrative option. The manifold schemes initiated by government should be implemented more sincerely and seriously.

Since independence, agriculture has just been talk, talk and more talk at the policy level.

This time there should be some real action to back the talk if the life of majority of Tanzanians is ever to change for the better.

And these actions should include showing the youth that agriculture can

be profitable, lucrative and respectable.

Simply telling people to grow more crops is not enough.

They have to like doing it, then they will do it well. Leaders at all levels should make a sincere effort to produce more efficient, informed, rational and practical farmers.

Educational institutions of all levels, local governments, civil society, the corporate world and specialized agencies should all embrace the initiative of nurturing a new type of farmer, the ‘professional’ farmer who is the envy of society.

The Guardian KILIMO KWANZA

8

Monday 8 February, 2010

MODERNISATION

World Bank opposed to mechanisation in TZ

A

By Angel Navuri

t a time when government is calling for modernization of the agricultural sector, the World Bank expressed has strong reservations against subsidizing farmers to mechanise their operations.

World Bank Country Director to Tanzania Mr John McIntire told The Guardian Kilimo Kwanza that Tanzania, like any other low wage economy, should not subsidize agricultural mechanization because it distorts job creation incentives.

“If farmers choose to mechanise on their own, with animals or with power tillers or tractors, then that is their decision” said the Country Director in a statement e-mailed to the Guardian.

While he was careful to point out that the World Bank does not have a specific policy that encourages or discourages mechanization, the official went on to emphasise the position that: “Job creation in rural areas is the most effective path out of rural poverty.”

The World Bank’s stance of favouring a labour intensive approach on Tanzanian farmlands is bound to surprise government which has gone out of its way to subsidise agricultural mechanization trough direct injections from the budget and zero tax rating technical farm inputs.

Specific items cited by the World Bank official as being unsuitable for subsidy are the very ones government has of recent been favouring.

In a bid to increase mechanization on the country’s farmlands, the state recently set aside Shs50billion for purchasing tractors, which should trade at a relatively low Sh37 million. Power tillers can likewise be obtained at less than Shs6million apiece.

Besides the central government, local governments have also moved to support the mechanization of their ar-

World Bank Country Director to Tanzania Mr John McIntire. eas. The Urambo District Council for instance last week earmarked shs300 million for the purchase of “more than 50” power tillers for the farmers. The money was part of sh800 million the district realized from cess levied on tobacco in the last season.

Council chairman Adam Malunkwi said the decision to use the

shs300 million for purchasing power tillers was to partly implement the Kilimo kwanza policy and enable farmers cultivate larger areas from which the district administration received cess revenue.

The chairman also revealed that the council will purchase more power tillers as soon as it garners the finan-

cial capability. They are also set to buy a number of medium sized tractors to help farmers work on more land.

By directly injecting cash and lifting taxes off tractor and power tiller purchases, government is trying to raise the mechanical coverage of the farmland, which has been deteriorating over the decades. A mere 8,000

ageing tractors today serve Tanzania, down from 17,000 thirty years ago.

Ministry of Agriculture experts project that the country now needs to urgently import 4,500 tractors and then keep adding another 1,800 annually in order to resuscitate agriculture.

Promoters and supporters of agricultural mechanization Tanzania base on the need to enable small scale farmers produce more by opening up more land and spending more energy on different farm activities than tilling using the hand hoe that is currently taking up most of their time to cultivate small pieces of land.

For example, Kigoma region is an impoverished area where typically, 85 per cent of the people are farmers.

However, most of these farmers typically only grow crops on about two acres because they just have simple hand tools available for cultivating their land. It has been observed many times that these farmers are very hard-working people, but without the means to work smart. Because of their circumstances they find themselves in, they do not have the opportunity to do anything other than practice traditional subsistence agriculture. All their time and energy is spent on growing food for their consumption, sometimes they even fail to grow enough of this especially when the rains fail.

In some years, severe food shortages in Kigoma region have left people hungry and actually starving. This happens in a situation where there is abundant unused fertile land available, much of which is suitable for dry land tropical farming methods.

If tractors are made available to the farmers of Kigoma by hourly or daily hiring or communal ownership, individual households would then be able to open up and manage ten or more acres, from the current two acres they are spend all their time and energy working on to produce food for own consumption. A farmer working his own ten acres is bound to earn more than a labourer depending on a wage.

Email your comments to: kilimokwanza@guardian.co.tz Send messages to: 0716 312725, 0733 312725 0767 312725, 0783 312725