Data processing
Plate 4.1: Rice trials Plate 4.2: Maize trials
4.4 Primary research results
4.4.1 Qualitative results
4.4.1.1 Questionnaires, Focus Groups and Surveys
Results from the baseline survey are summarized below for both Maswa district and WPLL. The results show the following elements of the current extent of rainwater harvesting, in the study area:
a) A substantial number of households (HHs) are already using RWH systems especially for crop production. For example, the macro-catchment RWH system that includes the excavated bunded basins (majaluba) for rice production is practiced by an estimated 28,000 HHs in Maswa District.
b) Rainwater harvesting is practised for crop production and for domestic water supply by more than 60% of the households. Rainwater harvesting for livestock water needs is practiced by less than 40% of the households.
c) In-situ RWH systems are predominant in the study areas. A percentage of households in Maswa and Same Districts also practice at least one type of catchment system. Only about one quarter or fewer HHs practice macro-catchment systems with storage.
d) It is estimated that current farm sizes treated with RWH range from 0.6 to 1 ha per HH. This is small and there is scope for expansion of area under RWH per HH.
e) It is difficult to estimate the number of livestock benefiting from RWH. This is because the true numbers of livestock owned are rarely revealed. However, rough estimates show that more than 24,000, 6,000 and 4,000 livestock units are benefiting from RWH in Maswa, Mwanga and Same districts, respectively.
f) Most of those using macro-catchment RWH systems have adopted the technology since the 1990s. There has been a doubling in the adoption of most of the RWH techniques in the ten-year period between 1990 and 2000. Maswa district has seen the most rapid expansion in RWH especially in relation to excavated bunded basins (majaluba) for the production of paddy rice.
g) Maize yield in RWH systems is between 1.3 and 3.2 t/ha compared to the potential of 5 t/ha. The rice yields are currently 3.2 t/ha compared to a potential of 6 t/ha.
Much of the information obtained from the questionnaires and focus groups has brought about the production of a database that has been developed in Microsoft Access. The fields of interest for the database are those that were being investigated through the questionnaires and surveys, primarily focusing on what rainwater harvesting and nutrient management techniques are currently in place.
4.4.1.2 GIS
Figure 4.7 below illustrates one of the GIS maps that were developed during this research (Ludovic, 2003). It highlights the cropping practices as well as local infrastructure such as local roads and access to water resources.
Figure 4.7: GIS map highlighting local infrastructure. (Ludovic, 2003)
These maps introduce a visual tool that can be incorporated into decision support systems or used as stand alone maps that can be used to highlight scenarios.
4.4.1.3 PRA (Participatory Rural Appraisal)
Table 4. below highlights one of these tables that were produced for the different groups of stakeholders, outlining the influence of the different criteria for wealth ranking.
Groups
Criteria Rich Middle Poor
Housing Built with bricks/block, roofed with iron sheets with glass windows
Well furnished
Built with bricks and roofed with iron sheets
Land Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable
Livestock Own more than 10 heads of cattle More than 15 goat
Less than 15 goat
Less than 9 heads of cattle
Only chicken Food security Never experience hunger Sufficient Food insecure – can
take single meal a day
Business enterprises
Run large shops and guest houses Own gypsum mine and engaged in gypsum trading
Engaged in petty business
Not engaged in business Clothes: Wear expensive clothes Self sufficient Poor clothing
Remittances Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable
Farm implements
Either owns or can pay for tractor services in farm operations
Own/ use none Own none
Access to social services
Afford costs of primary education and health service Can lend small credit (up to 10,000 TAS)
Member of local networks Can borrow and lend small credit
Do not belong to any formal local network Wage labour Hire labour for farm operations Occasionally hire labour for
farm operations
Depend on casual work/usually sell labour to others
Proportion 20% 70% 10%
Table 4.14: Ranking criteria. Characteristics of wealth groups as perceived by elder male agro-pastoralists in Makanya village. (Information provided by Kajiru and Msangi, 2002)
Table 4.15 illustrates the response of a female agropastoralist in the Makanya village to the same questions/criteria as listed in Table 4.8. Differences can be observed. The criteria have subsequently been used for determining wealth classifications and to show how stakeholders’ perceptions differ.
Groups
Criteria Rich Middle Poor
Housing Built with bricks/block, roofed with iron sheets with glass windows
Well furnished.
Built with bricks and roofed with iron sheets
Livestock Own more than 5-30 heads of cattle
More than 20 goats
Less than 6 goats
Less than 4 heads of cattle
Own 1-5 goats 1-3 heads of cattle Food security Never experience hunger Sufficient Food insecure Business
enterprises
Run large shops, hotels and guest houses;
Own gypsum mines and engaged in gypsum trading
Engaged in petty business
Not engaged in petty business Clothes: Wear expensive clothes Self sufficient Poor clothing Farm
implements
Hire tractors for farm operations Use none Use none Access to social
Can lend small credit (up to 10,000 TAS)
Member of local networks Can borrow and lend small credit (1000-10000)
Not member of social networks Wage labour Hire labour for farm operations Occasionally hire labour for
farm operations
Live on casual work/sell labour to others
Proportion 20% 50% 30%
Table 4.15: Ranking criteria. Characteristics of wealth groups as perceived by elder female agro-pastoralists in Makanya village. (Information provided by Kajiru and Msangi, 2002)
Many tables were developed for the different stakeholders within the villages. It was necessary to condense and distil out the most important information from these tables to formulate a single table (Table 4.16) that gives details of the criteria used by local people for wealth ranking and details that can be used when determining which level the stakeholder perceives themselves to fall under.
Rich Middle Poor
Housing
Built with bricks, roofed with iron sheets with glass windows. Well furnished.
Built with bricks and roofed with iron sheets
Poorly finished Not well furnished
Built with poles mud and thatched with grass
Livestock Own more than 10 heads of cattle, more than 15 goats
Less than 15 goats
Less than 9 heads of cattle Only chicken
Food security Never experience hunger Sufficient Food insecure - take single meal a day
Business enterprises
E.G. run large shops and guest houses.
Own gypsum mine and engaged in gypsum trading
Engaged in petty business Not engaged in business Clothes: Wear expensive clothes Self sufficient Poor clothing
Farm
inputs Cannot afford farm inputs
Self-confidence Self confident Can lend small credit (up to 10,000 TAS)
Member of local networks Can borrow and lend small credit
Do not belong to any formal local network
Wage labour Hire labour for farm operations
Spouse/marriage Rich spouse Often not married Often not married
Ability to pay
bride price No problems Can afford with few difficulties
Sons marry late or remain single due to lack of bride price
Daughters get married as teenagers (< 15 year)
Table 4.16: Socio-Economic factors used to determine the level of wealth of farmers.
(Information provided by Kajiru and Msangi, 2002)
These criteria can be used by the extension officers when determining the wealth classification of individuals, which is subsequently fed into the DSS.
The above criteria for identifying the poor included a combination of material and non- material assets. The reasons why these criteria were used are described below alongside additional observational information that was recorded by the SUA team while collating the information.
Material criteria for wealth determination
Housing: The quality of a house where one lives in was an important factor for determining wealth status. However, in pastoralist groups, living in a standard house was not perceived as important. Most pastoralists live in very poor houses, but they might own modern rental houses in nearby townships. Quality of houses varied from poor i.e. those made up of mud and poles and thatched with grass commonly found in WPLL and those made of poles and mud only common in Maswa. There were moderately good houses made of poles and mud, or unburned bricks and roofed with iron sheets, these were common in both WPLL and Maswa. Modern houses mentioned were those made of bricks or blocks and roofed with iron sheets. These are well plastered, sometimes with glass windows and fully furnished.
Livestock: Livestock is an important factor for determining wealth status of an individual in both target areas. Livestock is easily converted into other forms of assets like cash, food and farm implements. The most referred one were cattle. Cattle are a traditional symbol for wealth in Sukuma, Maasai and Pare communities. In all cases, livestock play important social functions as paying bride price and source of secondary products (eg milk, meat), which are sources of nutrients and income to households. However, the number of heads one should own for being recognised as well-off varied with specific groups and geographical areas. Pastoralists in Mwembe village consider individuals with more than 10 heads of cattle as rich while poor person posses none. In Makanya and Bukangilija villages rich pastoralists own more than 100 heads of cattle and poor possess none. For agropastoralists in Makanya a person is considered rich when he/she possesses not less than 10 heads of cattle.
Youth in Mwembe reported that for them a rich person should own at least 2 heads of dairy cattle or 7 heads of indigenous cattle. Female household heads in Isulilo (in Maswa district) regarded individuals with more than 10 heads of cattle as rich.
Land: Ownership of land for different enterprises was an important factor in wealth ranking. Land could be used for crop production and grazing. Both quantity and quality of land are important indicators of wealth status. Quantity and quality of land for crop enterprises varied with proximity to water source. For example in Mwembe village in the WPLL having a farm plot near the stream qualifies one as wealthy.
Amount of land needed by different socio-economic groups to classify one as rich or poor varied substantially. Pastoralists in both WPLL and Maswa classified a person with a minimum of 50 acres of grazing land as rich. On the other hand, farmers regarded a person with 5 acres of cropland as rich in WPLL compared to 10 acres for Maswa district.
Food security: Food self-sufficiency emerged to be an important factor for wealth ranking in all social-economic groups consulted. Those who were considered well-off had plenty of food (stock lasting for one year or more) while the poor had stock that could last for 1 - 4 months after harvest. The amount of food was found positively related with land/farm holdings that an individual own or manage.
Business enterprises: Engagement in business enterprises plays a substantial role in improving economic well being. It supplements income from agricultural and livestock production activities. Businesses mentioned varied from mining and trading of gypsum and small-scale food processing like foods vending locally known as mama nitilie in WPLL. In Maswa district major business enterprises were grain milling and grain trading and mama nitilie as well.
Clothes: Ability to afford cost of clothes appeared to be important in determining wealth status. Poor people wear poor clothes and sometimes their children could go naked while the well-off people afford expensive clothes.
Remittances: In some cases, for example women agropastoralists in Mwembe village, it was pointed out that remittance was an important factor to determine economic well being of women. This could be sought from sons and daughters who have good jobs.
Farm implements: In Maswa district implements like ox carts, ox ploughs and ox weeders are important in classifying one into a wealthy status. Holders of these implements could manage relatively large farms and do farm operations timely thus realising higher yields compared to their counterparts. Sometimes these implements could be leased/ rented out for money directly.
Non- material criteria for determining wealth status
Access to social services: Ability to afford costs associated with social services like education and health services signified individuals wealth status. Wealthier people could pay for primary education and medical services for their families. Children from poor families do not attend school for some periods of the year due to lack of either fees, or other associated costs. The poor sometimes depend on traditional healers, as they do not afford for medical services.
Access to farm inputs: The ability to afford farm input indicates whether one is economically poor or well-off.
Marital Status: Women in Mwembe village in WPLL mentioned that being married was important for one's economic well being. This is especially the case when a husband comes from a rich family and is responsible for family well being. Men, however did not concur with this conclusion.
Self-confidence: This was perceived as an important factor and was highly linked to leadership capacity. Individuals in middle wealth group were considered to be good in this respect and are the ones who take leadership positions more frequently. Self-confidence gives individuals power to make their own decisions or influence decisions of others.
Begging: Dependence on food aid and begging were tendencies that indicated one's level of poverty. However, there are differences in things normally begged for by poor men and women. Poor women tend to beg for food and clothes while men beg for cash and brew.
Membership to local networks: This was found to be important in both target areas and to most of the socio-economic groups. The networks composed of neighbours, families and friends. Benefits of being a member to these networks included assistance in a form of labour, gifts and credit.
Wage labour: Engagement in casual works (vibarua) determined one's wealth status.
Casual labourers do not have enough time to work in their own fields and found themselves getting little yield every season. According to farmers from Bukangilija village, some poor men do get credit in a form of food and money from rich people well in advance of the rain season with an agreement that they would pay by casual works. Sometimes poor people could easily lose their farms to the rich upon failure to pay back the credit.
Ability to pay bride price: In both target areas, ability to pay for bride price indicates individual wealth status. Male youth from well-off families get married in time where as those from poor families do get married late or sometimes remained unmarried.
Close to this, women in Mwembe (in WPLL) reported that daughters from poor families often get married at teen age (below 15 years).
Using these criteria the communities were stratified into three wealth groups, the rich group, the middle group and the poor. These are also the criteria that are used within the DSS.