Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
sugarcane farmers in Lungo, farmers rejected outright the idea of block farming.
They explained that it would not be feasible in their area, due to the scattered
location of sugarcane farms, and differences in soil quality, topography and
farmer management practices, which could bring down overall cane quality
and prices for farmers, should they choose to pool their land. Key informants
indicated that smallholder irrigation schemes would be beneficial to farmers,
but were likely to induce farmers to grow rice, rather than sugarcane, due to its
greater profitability. These observations indicate that while OG schemes may
serve to enhance smallholder farmers' access to technologies, inputs, training
and skills, there is room for improving the top-down manner of training in
some cases, which fails to consider farmers' existing knowledge, experience,
risk management portfolios and production concerns. However, given the
weaknesses and bottlenecks in the existing public agricultural extension system,
OG schemes and the public and private investment that they attract constitute
an important opportunity to build on for enhancing smallholder farmers'
agricultural production and adaptation options.
Infrastructure
Both estates inherited worn-down infrastructure on acquiring them from the
government (Coleman 2011; Mtibwa Sugar Estates Limited 2009; Halcrow
Consulting 1995). KPL was originally demarcated and partially developed
under North Korean-Tanzanian cooperation and lay idle for several decades
before being put into production by KPL in 2008. The owners have invested
in new farming equipment, a state-of-the-art rice mill, and a pilot pivot
irrigation system that enables it to run at full capacity. Both MSE and KPL have
contributed to maintaining roads on the estates, thereby improving accessibility
to farmers' cane fields, and to local markets and public transport. Villages and
towns located near the estates have expanded to provide additional services and
employment to the growing permanent and transient workforces associated
with the OG schemes. Both estates have financed the construction of schools
and health clinics for local populations, and generated opportunities for casual
and permanent employment on the estate. KPL voluntarily pays into a yearly
community development fund that is divided proportionally among the three
villages immediately bordering the farm, according to how much land they
'lost' when the original boundaries of the farm were again put into production
(Kayonko 2011; Coleman 2011). Because the estate was originally demarcated
in the 1980s and was never fully developed, a number of farmers and pastoralists
had moved onto the farm in the ensuing years. The new management took
care when relocating people to compensate farmers and pastoralists with cash
settlements (payment for standing crops) and land, as well as constructing
new homes for those affected by the relocation (Kayonko 2011; Coleman
2011). Investments in the two OG schemes have thus contributed to positive
spillover effects on local economic development. While these investments are
Search WWH ::
Custom Search