Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
and/or imprisonment. These conflicts are a microcosm of a much larger and
pervasive dilemma at the national level that has yet to be adequately addressed
(HAKIARDHI 2009). Whether and how livestock-keepers will benefit from
investments in the OG scheme and agricultural investments in SAGCOT, and
in Tanzania more generally, is thus an important question. The establishment
of the Wami-Mbiki Wildlife Management Area whose borders pass near Lungo,
and MSE's recent acquisition of a new, 30,000-hectare land concession from
the government, may aggravate conflicts over land and water in future. The
anticipated deforestation and need for irrigation that the new MSE concession
will require raises issues of rights to adaptation resources such as land and
water, and indicates that there is potential for OG schemes to contribute to
maladaptation at community and landscape levels (Barnett and O'Neill
2010). Rather than suggesting that OG schemes reduce social, economic or
environmental inequalities in participating communities in either the short or
the long term the findings suggest that greater efforts are needed to empower
marginalized groups, and to lower the entry costs to enable poorer households
to participate in OG schemes. Since equity is fundamentally a development
concern, stronger state involvement is needed to ensure that the benefits of OG
schemes are equitably distributed and that access to and control over land and
water resources are governed in a transparent, sustainable and equitable manner.
Conclusions
The research presented in this chapter shows that agricultural investments
that link large- and small-scale farmers can enhance the adaptive capacities
of smallholder farmers and communities in various ways: by contributing to
household income diversification, stability and flexibility; by enhancing access
to technologies, inputs, training and skills that widen farmers' production
choices; by investing in physical infrastructure that enhances community and
household access to healthcare services, education and markets; and by helping
to build social capital and cooperative ties between farmers, and strengthening
their ability to lobby collectively for their interests and rights. The investments
made by KPL and MSE have also attracted financing and initiatives from the
government and from third parties. The spillover effects have been broadly
beneficial for rural households and communities. Tellingly, non-OG farmers
who were interviewed, including lower-income households, expressed their
desire to participate, indicating that farmers perceive that there are welfare
benefits to be gained from participating in OG schemes.
However, the evidence does not suggest that participation in OG schemes
directly lowers smallholder farmers' production or marketing risks. This
suggests that smallholder farmers may participate in OG schemes for reasons
that have less to do with risk management, and more to do with the ancillary
benefits available under the schemes. Neither do the findings show that the
OG schemes serve to reduce social, economic or environmental inequalities
Search WWH ::
Custom Search