Challenges of optimal implementation of formal water rights systems for irrigation in the Great Ruaha River Catchment in Tanzania

agricultural water management 95 (2008) 1067–1078

available at www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agwat

Challenges of optimal implementation of formal water rights systems for irrigation in the Great Ruaha River Catchment in Tanzania Kossa R.M. Rajabu a,*, Henry F. Mahoo b a b

World Wide Fund for Nature-Tanzania Program Office (WWF-TPO), P.O. Box 3178, Chuo Kikuu, Morogoro, Tanzania Soil Water Management Research Group (SWMRG), Sokoine University of Agriculture, P.O. Box 3003, Chuo Kikuu, Morogoro, Tanzania

article info

abstract

Article history:

In many countries around the world, increasing attention is being directed to the need to

Received 25 January 2007

improve water rights systems. This paper is based on a recent study undertaken to

Accepted 4 April 2008

investigate challenges facing optimal implementation of formal water rights systems for

Published on line 19 May 2008

irrigation purposes in the Great Ruaha River Catchment in Tanzania. The study integrated social survey, hydrologic, water abstraction and water use data, and Geographical Informa-

Keywords:

tion System techniques. The results showed that all the canals studied, except one,

Over-abstraction

abstracted water throughout the year, provided there was water in the rivers irrespective

Water management

of the conditions spelt out in their formal water rights. The formal water rights were also

Water right grant

found to be problematic as the quantities to be abstracted were much higher compared to

Water use permit

the actual water requirements and the actual river flows. This resulted in over-abstraction

Water users’ fees

of water and increased water shortages for downstream users. The study concludes that although formal water rights are meant to control and regulate the use of water, they are also subject to abuse if not managed and monitored closely. The basin authorities in Tanzania therefore need to be equipped adequately and collaborate more closely with local water users in order to attain high levels of supervision and monitoring essential for optimal implementation of formal water rights systems. # 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1.

Introduction

Freshwater is a finite resource and is imperative for sustainable development, economic growth, food production, human health, local livelihoods, and the well-being of ecosystems. Yet with increasing populations, industrialization, environmental degradation, agricultural intensification, rising per capita water use and other social and economic transformations, there is scarcity and competition for water, even in countries and regions where water may seem abundant (Bruns et al., 2005). As water becomes scarcer and access more often contested, societies pursue better rules for coordinating water

use and settling conflicts. In most countries where water is scarce or costly to access, systems of rights for water use have evolved through customary norms and practices or though bodies of law and regulations (or both) (Sampath, 1992). Internationally, there is growing understanding that formal water rights are important and that lack of effective formal water rights systems creates major problems for the management of increasingly scarce water supplies. Consequently, many countries are establishing, or improving, laws that define water rights and the institutions to administer them. Water rights concern who should be able to take how much water, when, where and for what purpose. They may be

* Corresponding author. Mob.: +255 754 642967; fax: +255 26 2700621. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (Kossa R.M. Rajabu), [email protected] (H.F. Mahoo). 0378-3774/$ – see front matter # 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2008.04.002

1068

agricultural water management 95 (2008) 1067–1078

informal, based on customary patterns that are embedded in local practice, or formally framed in legal laws (Bruns and Meinzen-Dick, 2000). However, for the purpose of this paper, water right is defined as ‘‘formal authorisation to use a certain amount of water for a designated purpose, including certain privileges, restrictions, and obligations’’ (Beccar et al., 2002; Department of Ecology’s Water Resources Program (DEWRP), 2005).

1.1. Background to water resources management in Tanzania Tanzania faces perceived (and sometimes real) water scarcity problems at local levels despite the fact that on average Tanzania has abundant water resources (estimated at about 2700 m3/capita/year) (Norwegian Consulting Engineers and Planners (NORPLAN), 2000; Mutayoba et al., 2001) to meet most of its present needs. About one-third of Tanzania is arid or semi arid, with rainfall below 800 mm. Another third lies in highland areas with precipitation in excess of 1000 mm. New opportunities in agriculture, greater demand for water for irrigation and hydropower and the long dry season (June to October) result in low river flows and seasonal scarcity (The World Bank, 1996). This has resulted in conflicts between the hydropower and irrigation sectors, irrigation and livestock sectors and between upstream and downstream water users within the irrigation sector. According to the World Bank (1996) water resources management in Tanzania is hampered by past uncoordinated planning for water use, weak policy and legal framework, inadequate water resources data, inefficient water use, poor operational capabilities, and financial constraints. Past inadequate frameworks for tackling cross-sectoral water issues severely constrained sustainable water resource management. Tanzania also lacks the economic resources to harness water and to overcome the extreme temporal and spatial variability in rainfall and surface flow. Surface waters in Tanzania appear to be over apportioned, while groundwater potential is not fully utilized. Tanzania adopted a River Basin Management Approach for water resource management in the 1980s when the country was divided into nine river basins for water resources administration. Among them is the Rufiji River Basin, which was established in 1993. The main activities of the Basin Water Offices include: (a) regulating, monitoring and policing of water use in the Basin, (b) issuing of formal water rights, (c) facilitating and assisting in the formation of water users associations, (d) billing and collection of water users’ fees, (e) awareness creation of water users regarding water resources management, and (e) monitoring and control of water pollution.

1.1.1.

Water policy in Tanzania

In 1971, the government of Tanzania launched the 20 years rural water supply program (1971–1991) intended to provide safe and potable water to all of the rural population within a distance of 400 m from each household. When it was realized that the set target would not be feasible, the Government started the process of reviewing the water policy in 1986. In an effort to improve the overall development and management of water resources, and with the aim of achieving another

ambitious goal of providing water within easy reach (400 m or less) to all by the year 2002, the first National Water Policy was launched in 1991. This policy focussed, among other things, on cost sharing and beneficiary participation in planning, construction, operation and maintenance of community based domestic water supply systems. However, the 1991 National Water Policy did not adequately address a number of important points relating to water management, allocation and pollution control. Furthermore, since the launch of the 1991 National Water Policy, many changes took place in the sector with major emphasis on active participation of communities, private sector and local governments as the role of central government in services provision diminished. In 1993 the then Ministry of Water, Energy and Minerals initiated a review of the water and sanitation sectors to identify constraints, plan interventions to facilitate sector progress, improve access to information to assist future planning and seek the commitment of External Support Agencies (ESAs) and Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) to support specific initiatives. The review came up with the findings that the policy did not adequately address crosssectoral interests in water, watershed management or sustainable river basin management. These weaknesses in the water policy, coupled with population growth, institutional and financial constraints, and poor operational infrastructure posed monumental problems in water resources management. Furthermore, the ministry undertook, in 1994/ 95, a Rapid Water Resource Assessment (RWRA) (URT, 1995) with a view to having a quick identification of resource availability, resource use and the priority issues to be addressed in each of the major river basins. Major issues and recommendations from RWRA included the need to: (1) review the 1991 water policy so as to address adequately river basin management; (2) strengthen water resources assessments both in their quantity and quality as well as monitoring of aquatic ecosystems; (3) improve water rights administration and pollution control; (4) improve cross-sectoral planning; and (5) introduce a participatory approach of stakeholders in river basin management. As envisioned in the Water Sector and Sanitation Review and detailed in the Rapid Water Resources Assessment, a comprehensive water resources management strategy was deemed necessary to foster sustainable water resources development and management. In July 2002, a revised National Water Policy (NAWAPO) (URT, 2002a) was put in place. The main objective of the NAWAPO is to develop a comprehensive framework for sustainable development and management of the nation’s water resources, in which an effective legal and institutional framework for its implementation will be put in place. The NAWAPO embodies the principles of decentralisation and subsidiarity of water supply management whereby this should be devolved to the lowest appropriate level. The NAWAPO further states that all water abstractions and effluent discharges into water bodies should be subjected to a ‘‘water use permit’’ or ‘‘discharge permit’’ to be issued for a specific duration and beneficial water use.

1.1.2.

Water legislation in Tanzania

Water regulation in Tanzania involves laws that focus on resource management, supply within the country and inter-

agricultural water management 95 (2008) 1067–1078

national treaties (DFID, 1999). This paper only deals with resource management. Formal water law was introduced to Tanzania (then Tanganyika) by colonial settlers in the early 1990s, and the 1923 Water Ordinance marked the start of statutory water law (Van Koppen et al., 2004). Thereafter, several ordinances were adopted. In 1948 the colonial powers vested absolute water authority in the colonial rulers. The Water Ordinance of 1948, Cap 257 (Governor of Tanganyika (GvoT), 1948), stipulated that the entire property in water within the Territory was vested in the Governor, in trust for His Majesty as Administering Authority for Tanganyika. Other Ordinances adopted before independence include the Water Ordinance, Cap 410 of 1959 (GvoT, 1959). After independence in 1961, the Government of Tanganyika inherited this Ordinance and its provisions. The colonial situation was not changed by the post-colonial state. The provisions vesting all natural resources in the state were retained in statute books. What changed was that they were then vested in the President as a trustee of all the citizens of Tanzania. Water resource management is currently governed by the Water Utilization (Control and Regulation) Act of 1974 (URT, 1974) as amended in 1981, 1989, 1997 and 1999. The amendment in 1981 established the Central Water Board (CWB) and Basin Water Boards (BWB), and the posts of Principal Water Officer and Basin Water Officers (BWO). The Principal Act, as amended, declares that all water is vested in the United Republic of Tanzania, sets conditions on the use of water and authorizes the Principal Water Officer, with statutory authority, to be responsible for setting policy and allocation of water rights at a ‘‘national’’ level. For designated river basins with their own water officer, these responsibilities are delegated to the BWO. The Central Water Board advises the Principal Water Officer whereas Basin Water Boards advise the Basin Water Officers. The Written Laws (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act No.17 of 1989 and the Water Utilization (Miscellaneous) Act No. 8 of 1997 increased penalties for defaulters, especially polluters. Amendment Act No. 8 of 1997 also widened participation of private sector and individuals in water resources management. Members of the CWB and BWB are drawn from the public sector, private sector, women and Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs), instead of exclusively from the public sector. The Water Laws (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act No. 1 of 1999 facilitated private sector participation in the water supply and sewerage. In addition to the statutory legislation, there are customary laws, which have existed in parallel, and international law in respect of trans-boundary waters. In order to realize the objectives of water resources management, the principal Act also includes a set of ‘‘economic water users’ fees’’. The fees were set forth in Subsidiary Legislation introduced vide Government Notice No. 347 of 1994. According to the Principal Act water users’ fees are divided as follows: (i) domestic and livestock, (ii) fish farming, (iii) irrigation, (iv) power royalty, (v) industrial, (vi) mining and (vii) commercial. Fees were expected to deter overuse and wastage of water and coupled with formal water rights help to reduce conflicts and generate income to sustain water regulation, conservation and monitoring activities by Basin Water Offices. According to the Water Utilization Regulations of 2002 (URT, 2002b), annual fees for small-scale irrigation were set at a

1069

flat rate of Tshs. 35,000.00 (USD 28) for all abstractions less than 3.7 l/s and Tshs. 35.00 (USD 0.028) per 1000 m3 for abstractions equal to or above 3.7 l/s. The economic water users’ fees were lastly revised through the Water Utilization (General) (Amendment) Regulations of 2002.

1.1.3.

Formal water rights in Tanzania

The advent of colonialism in Tanzania witnessed the appropriation of natural resources from the people as the resources were placed under the colonial state. The people were thus alienated from the natural resources that they once owned. They were now required to have permits and licences to access and use the natural resources. As such, formal water rights were established in Tanzania during the colonial period in order to regulate and control the use of water. Registration to obtain a water right was stipulated in the 1923 Water Ordinance and every revision thereafter. With each subsequent revision, registered rights under any previous Water Ordinance were continued in one form or another. After independence in 1961, the government of Tanganyika inherited this Ordinance and sustained the water right system. The Water Utilization (Control and Regulation) Act No. 42 of 1974, with its subsequent amendments in 1981, 1989, 1997 and 1999 and regulations issued in 1975, 1994, 1997 and 2002 further intensified the water right system. The Act gives the right of access to all the citizens of Tanzania, but people cannot have private ownership of water sources. In order to safeguard and regulate access to water, the Act requires any person who intends to divert, dam, store, abstract or use water to obtain a formal water right. Under the legislation, the Ministry of Water and Irrigation grants formal water rights for each withdrawal of water for use in domestic, industrial, hydropower, livestock, irrigation and mining activities. This is done through a fairly lengthy procedure of application via Basin Water Offices. The effectiveness of water resource management and the application of the legal framework, depend on the quality of water rights administration. In the past 15 years, majority of people’s access to and use of water in Tanzania was regulated mainly according to customary laws and norms and to some extent by village by-laws (SMUWC, 2001a; Maganga, 2003; Maganga et al., 2004). Customary water laws refer to set of rules and norms practiced by a community over a long period of time and most often are not codified. These laws provide for a set of rights and duties to be observed by certain community and against outsiders. Various communities in Tanzania have a long history of practicing certain customary laws for management of water resources. Even in the advent of colonial invasion, customary water law continued to exist in parallel with statutory law. Traditional/customary water rights practiced by rural communities ensured sustainability of water resources although some communities have customary laws that bestowed them with ownership rights that exclude outsiders. Both formal and customary (or informal) water rights are currently in use in Tanzania. At the national level, water management is predominantly governed by the formal institutions, mainly policies, acts, legislations and related organisations that are judiciously established in accordance with the formal provisions. At the basin level, there is a mix of formal and informal arrangements, but the formal predominates, partly due to the fact that informal

1070

agricultural water management 95 (2008) 1067–1078

arrangements are often still quite localized and do not encompass the whole basin as yet. At the catchment and sub catchment levels, informal institutions and arrangements gain more strength. Formal water rights are embodied in official certificates and normally relate to access to water quantities measured volumetrically (in cubic metres) or by a flow rate (e.g. l/s). Informal rights are based on customary arrangements and social norms and are embedded in local practice. Customary rights relate to access to water described by an approximate share (proportion) of the available water (e.g. ‘‘about one-half of what is present in the stream’’), in terms of shifts or according to hours of water availability at an intake during rotational irrigation schedules. Customary rights are usually not static, but evolve in response to the prevailing local conditions, and are mostly used to allocate water within the irrigation canals or furrows (intra canal water rights).

1.1.4. Water rights in the Upper Great Ruaha River Catchment (UGRRC) Formal legislation is becoming increasingly important and water users are trying to get formal water rights because current water resources laws do not have provisions for recognition of customary laws and practices. In 2001, Rufiji River Basin, which was established in 1993, opened a suboffice at Rujewa to deal with water resources management in the UGRRC. Although irrigated agriculture was widely practised during that time, most of the traditional irrigation schemes had no formal water rights. Therefore, the Rufiji Basin Water Office (RBWO) carried out awareness creation and sensitizations campaigns in order to enhance understanding of water users and other stakeholders on various aspects of water resources management, including granting of formal water rights. Existing water users were obliged to register and formalise their customary water abstraction rights into formal water rights and pay economic water users’ fees. Consequently, an informal ‘grace period’ of 5 years was given to existing water users to register and ‘formalise’ their water abstractions. New water users were required to apply for formal water rights in order to be allowed to use the water. However, despite widespread use of formal water rights to control and regulate water use, downstream water users still continue to suffer from water shortages, especially during the dry season. It is due to these facts that a study was undertaken in the UGRRC to investigate challenges facing optimal implementation of formal water rights systems for irrigation purposes.

characteristics. The upper zone (1400–2500 m above sea level) is semi-humid to humid, highly populated and has high rainfall, deep soils and intensive agricultural production. In this zone, both rain-fed and irrigated agriculture is practised. The rainfall pattern and the type of soils allow for crop cultivation all year around. The intermediate (middle) Zone (1160–1400 m above sea level) is characterized by a high concentration of traditional as well as improved irrigation systems. Dry season irrigated agriculture is an important means of livelihood. Therefore, this is an area of high competitive water demand and hence persistent water conflicts. The lower zone (1000–1160 m above sea level) is semi-arid with alluvial soils; low population density and a high concentration of livestock particularly cattle. There are acute water shortages for domestic uses, especially during the dry season. The Great Ruaha River is the main river draining the whole of the catchment. Other important rivers include Mbarali, Ndembera, Kimani, Chimala and Mkoji. Surface water is the main source of water for both agricultural and domestic purposes. Ground water use is confined to domestic use only. As is the case in most of sub Saharan Africa, livelihoods of the majority of people in the Great Ruaha River Catchment (GRRC) are largely dependent on agriculture. However, the area is characterized by high variability, uncertainty, poor and uneven distribution of rainfall during the crop-growing seasons (SMUWC, 2001a; Rajabu et al., 2005). Despite the fact that the rainfall regime in UGRRC is unimodal with a single rainy season, the onset and duration of the rains vary from zone to zone. Whereas the rainy season for the Upper Zone (highlands) runs from October to May, the rainy season for the Middle and Lower (the plains) zones runs between November

2. Area descriptions, methods and material studied 2.1.

Area descriptions

The Upper Great Ruaha River Catchment is located in southwest Tanzania between latitudes 78410 S and 98250 S and longitudes 338400 E and 358400 E (Fig. 1). It has an area of 17,168 km2 and a population of 480,000 people, according to the 2002 national population census (TNW, 2003). The catchment can be divided into three major agro-ecological zones which have different

Fig. 1 – Location of the UGRRC within the Rufiji River Basin in Tanzania.

agricultural water management 95 (2008) 1067–1078

and April. There are also great disparities in rainfall between agro-ecological zones whereby the highlands receive the highest rainfall. For example, the mean annual rainfall at Makete Bomani (in the highland) is 1584 mm. The annual rainfall decreases towards the plains to about 617 mm at Mbarali Irrigation Scheme (in the lower zone). The mean annual areal rainfall over the UGRRC is 959 mm. The rainfall amounts as well as the onset of the rainy season vary considerably from year to year (average annual coefficient of variation (CV) is 24%). This variation often has a detrimental effect on crop production, especially in the drier areas. As a strategy to cope with the uncertainty and poor distribution of rainfall during the crop-growing season, the local farming systems in the GRRC have constructed diversions to abstract water from rivers for supplementary irrigation in order to minimize risks of crop failure. There are three types of irrigation schemes in UGRRC. These are: (i) Traditional systems, which comprise village irrigation, based on the diversion of perennial or seasonal flows, used mainly for the production of rice, vegetables and other relatively high value crops. These are self-sustaining systems initiated, financed, developed and owned by the farmers themselves, without any external assistance. (ii) Improved traditional systems, which comprise of schemes that have received government or donor assisted interventions to improve the headworks and water control structures. (iii) Modern schemes that comprise large-scale farms (such as Kapunga, Mbarali and Madibira Rice Farms). Irrigation schemes if properly managed provide sustainable increases in small farmer productivity and income, addressing rural poverty alleviation and environmental management objectives. However, most of the traditional irrigation schemes are using ‘‘run of the river’’ techniques (The World Bank, 1996) and on-farm water management is through traditional furrows or small basins. These schemes use traditional diversion structures, which are temporary in nature, needing to be rebuilt each year. They are built of wooden poles, rocks, gunny bags, clay soils and stones. Their principal disadvantage is that they are frequently damaged by large floods and need considerable input of labour for rebuilding. It is also difficult to control water abstractions from rivers. Traditional schemes do not have drainage systems or structures (e.g. gates) to control and regulate the amount of water being abstracted. Irrigation efficiency was low (15–20%) (The World Bank, 1996), access to water is uneven and water availability at the tail-end of the canals is often uncertain. German missionaries first introduced irrigation to the UGRRC in the early 19th century. However, the most rapid expansion of the irrigated area probably occurred in the 1980s. During that time there was also a proliferation of informal irrigation as well as a trend to improve or develop new modern irrigation infrastructures, particularly in the upper and middle zones. For example, in the mid 1980s and early 1990s, 2000 ha were developed during the Usangu Village Irrigation Project. In 1990 Kapunga Rice Irrigation Project (3000 ha), Kapunga smallholder scheme (800 ha) as well as Chimala smallholder scheme (3000 ha) was also developed. In 1997, infrastructure

1071

construction for Madibira Smallholder Rice Project (3000 ha) was completed. Between 2000 and 2005, 11 other irrigation schemes with a total irrigated area of 1700 ha were improved. As a result of these projects, the area under rice irrigation in the UGRRC increased from about 19,018 in 1980 to 46,000 ha in 2005. Improvement of intakes is also accompanied by increase in the command area and hence irrigation schemes with improved intakes always apply for modification of their formal water rights to accommodate increased water requirements. Therefore, since the 1980s the total abstraction capacity of the intakes has steadily risen and more importantly, the ability to abstract water during the dry season has increased. While improved intakes are desired to control water abstractions and reduce unnecessary water losses through leakages at the intakes, selfish farmers can also abuse the intakes and over-abstract water. The improved intakes have thus reduced the reliability and supply of water to downstream users, and consequently have increased conflicts among water users in the basin. Results of other studies carried out in UGRRC (Rajabu, 2007a; Rajabu et al., 2005) also showed that UGRRC was facing water scarcity problems during the dry season due to a number of issues, which are central to water and ecosystem management. The issues include: (a) high spatial and temporal variability of rainfall; (b) significant declining trend of rainfall in the plains (Rajabu, 2007b) resulting into growing water scarcity; (c) intensification of agriculture and overexploitation of water for irrigation that posed a threat to the sustainability of agricultural systems in UGRRC; (d) and inefficiency and wastage in water use. Increased irrigation activities in the upstream areas had aggravated water scarcity problems in the middle and down stream areas.

2.2.

Research approaches and methods

This study utilized social survey, hydrologic, water abstraction pattern, water use, as well as water rights data. Secondary data and information were obtained from various databases, reports, and other publications. Data on water rights were collected from the Rufiji Basin Water Office (RBWO) database. In order to obtain correct information on the particulars of the granted formal water rights for the UGRRC, the available hard copies of the formal water right grants were scrutinised and relevant information extracted. The information extracted included water right volumes, periods of abstractions, intended use of the water, location of the abstraction point, water source, and the irrigated area. A participatory approach was also used in this research. This involved informal discussions with key informants, site visits and transect walks in and around the study area. Key informants included, among others, village leaders, extension officers and other people who are knowledgeable in water resource availability and use in their villages. Information on perceptions and attitudes concerning water rights and primary issues governing present water allocation and use were collected during focus group discussions. Hand-held Magellan ProMARK X-CM Global Positioning System (GPS) receivers were used in differential mode to map irrigated areas. The control unit was left at a control point with known coordinates and the rover unit was used to record data

1072

agricultural water management 95 (2008) 1067–1078

Table 1 – Description of irrigation schemes studied S. no.

Scheme name

Type of intake

Water source

Water rights (m3/s) Wet season

Dry season

1

Ipatagwa I

Improved

Ipatagwa R.

1.000 (November–May)

2

Ipatagwa II (Mkoji canal) Luanda Majenje

Improved

Mkoji R.

0.300 (November–May)

Improved

Lwanyo R.

0.180 (December–May)

Traditional

Mswiswi R.

0.360 (December–June)

5

Kongolo Mswiswi Inyala (B)

Improved

Mlowo R.

0.180 (May–August)

6 7

Moto Mbaya Iyawaya

Improved Improved

Mlowo R. Uta R.

8

Habadaa

Traditional

9 10 11

Kimani Igomelo Hassan Mullar

Improved Improved Traditional

Habadaa Spring Kimani R. Mbarali R. Mbarali R.

3 4

a b c d

542b

Remarks/Zone

Irrigationd (Middle) Irrigationd (Middle)

371a

Irrigationd (Middle)

180

Irrigationd (Middle)

60

Dry season (Upper)

1.200 Not available

0.025 (September– November) 0.300 Not available

600 30

Not available

Not available

22c

Irrigationd (Middle) Dry season, domestic (Upper) Dry season (Upper)

7.998 0.200 0.113

0.093 0.100 0.113

500 500a No data

0.040 (June– November)

Rice Irrigation (Middle) Irrigationd(Upper) Irrigationa, fishponds (Middle)

Source: Mbeya Zonal Irrigation Unit – Master Plan, 2003. Source: Smallholder Irrigation Improvement Project (SIIP). Obtained by GPS mapping. Implies both rice and dry season irrigation.

by walking along the boundaries of irrigated areas. Computation of irrigated areas was done with the help of ArcView GIS 3.3 computer program. Crop water requirements values obtained during previous studies (Soil Water Management Research Group (SWMRG), 2003) were used, together with cultivated areas found during the survey to determine crop water use under supplementary and full irrigation. Additional gauging points were established in rivers (upstream and downstream of irrigation schemes) and in water abstraction canals to collect daily flow data for two consecutive years. Discharge measurements were undertaken using current meters in the gauged rivers and canals in order to establish rating equations that were used to convert water levels into discharges. Spot discharge measurements were also undertaken in ungauged rivers at least twice a month during the dry season for two consecutive years in order to estimate available surface water resource during the dry season. Selection of irrigation schemes (Table 1) that were studied was based on the criteria that: (1) there is easy accessibility of the gauged points throughout the year; (2) both wet and dry season irrigated agriculture are represented; (3) traditional as well as improved traditional intakes are studied; and (4) irrigation canals are selected from the upstream and mid stream of the respective rivers.

3.

0.100 (June– October)

Developed areaa (ha)

Results

3.1. Challenges of implementing formal water rights systems Having a policy or a law is one thing and proper implementation of the same is something else. This is true for the implementation of formal water rights systems in Tanzania.

Many people in Tanzania, like in other developing countries still believe that water is God-given and people who stay close to the water have the right to use it in any way they deem appropriate. As a result of this attitude and changes in water use, implementation of formal water rights poses many challenges.

3.1.1. rights

A fairly lengthy procedure for obtaining formal water

Section 15 of the Water Utilization Act No. 42 enacted in 1974 and the regulations set up in 1997 under section 38 (2) of the Act has put in place a procedure to be followed before formal water rights are granted (Box 1) However, this procedure can

Box 1. Procedure for granting formal water rights in Tanzania A person who requires to be a water user applies to the appropriate Basin Water Officer (BWO) through an application form. The form is then submitted to the BWO together with an appropriate application fee (current fee is USD 32). The BWO acknowledges receipt of the application forms and the application fee in writing and enters the application in a register and opens a file of it. The BWO requests for information on the said application from people and experts who can provide information regarding the matters pertaining to the nature of application. Some of the people who are most commonly contacted are:

agricultural water management 95 (2008) 1067–1078

District Executive Director (on current and customary rights); District Administrative Secretary (on any issues of concern, such as conflicts); and the District Agricultural and Livestock Development Officer (for estimation of water requirements and technical agricultural report). In most large water use projects the applicant is asked to submit an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Study Report to the Basin Water Board. The BWO then submits the application to the Principal Water Officer for information and for announcement in the Government Gazette. The application will also be displayed at the District Commissioner’s office of the district in which the right, if granted, will be exercised. The process of publishing the application in order to receive objections (if any) from the wider public is scheduled to take 40 days. After the BWO has received the requested information, and if there are no objections from the relevant parties, the application will be taken to the Basin Water Board for discussion. The Board will advise the BWO on steps to take. The BWO then offers a Provisional Water Right Grant to last for a year. The Provisional Grant allows the applicant to start construction work. In case of users who already have an intake that encompasses a ‘‘basic’’ structure, but is able (if operated properly) of allowing some water to flow down the river and drainage water to be safely returned to the river, the Provisional Grant allows them to undertake improvements of the irrigation infrastructures as well as to abstract water. If the works are not completed in the prescribed time the applicant will ask for an extension of time. After completion, the works are inspected by the relevant BWO. If the works are satisfactory, the Basin Water Officer issues a Final Water Right Grant. If any of the consulted experts or others from the public object, the applicant is asked to respond in writing. After evaluating the objections and the applicant responses, the BWO asks the parties to appear in person and make their case. If an agreement is reached, the application is forwarded to the Basin Water Board (BWB) for approval. If the BWO fails to secure such an agreement, both the applicant and the objector(s) make their case to the BWB members under oath. The BWB makes a decision to grant/deny based on a majority rule. If any of the parties are not satisfied by the Board’s decision, they have the right to appeal to the Minster for Water, whose decision is final and binding.

1073

take as long as 3 years to obtain a formal right (Table 2) due to the bureaucratic procedure put in place by the Water Ministry. The intent of the procedure is to ensure the BWO obtains inputs from other governmental institutions and the public at large before granting a water right. The delay results from three factors: (1) consulted governmental institutions do not respond within 40 days; (2) Inadequate staffing of the BWO in order to track and follow up on responses from consulted institutions; and (3) the BWB meets only twice a year and can only approve about 40 formal water rights per year out of 46 applications received annually (average of 2002–2005). Furthermore, there are also many formal water rights applications dating before 2002 which have not yet been decided. Therefore, the first challenge facing basin authorities is to ensure timely granting of formal water rights. A fast track process needs to be initiated to speed up the issuing of formal water rights. Otherwise, water right applicants would hesitate to undertake improvements of their irrigation infrastructures until they know the fate of their applications. Improvement of intakes is necessary for fostering improved water management. It is also very difficult for the applicants to solicit funds from funding agencies to improve their infrastructures without having a Provisional Water Right Grant that specifies the kind of improvements that need to be undertaken. For example, development partners who provide funds for implementation of District Agricultural Development Plans require irrigation schemes to have formal water rights before they can be assisted to improve their irrigation infrastructures. Likewise, all the fifteen schemes improved during the World Bank funded River Basin Management and Smallholder Irrigation Improvement Project (RBMSIIP) were required to formalise their water rights during the implementation of the project. Currently, as an interim solution to those who have applied for and are waiting to be granted with formal water rights, the Rufiji Basin Water Office provides an ‘‘official letter’’ acknowledging receipt of the application forms and the application fee in writing. Therefore, although water right applications are not yet a right, based on this letter, the RBWO informally recognizes the concerned users as formal (to differentiate them with those who have not even applied for formal water rights).

3.1.2. Mismatch between particulars of and conditions implied in formal water rights and the reality 3.1.2.1. Non-adherence to conditions spelt in the water rights. According to the law, applicants are only allowed to start abstracting water after having been granted with a Final Grant (under special circumstances, Provisional Grant holders can also be allowed to abstract water). However, the situation is different in practice. Because of the delays in obtaining a formal water right and taking into consideration the informal ‘grace period’ of 5 years given to traditional irrigation schemes to formalise their water uses, these schemes continue to abstract water just after submitting their application forms. The reason for this is that they still need to irrigate their fields while waiting for formalisation of their water abstraction intakes. However, even after obtaining Provisional Water Right Grants, traditional schemes rarely undertake and finish construction works and as such most of these schemes

1074

agricultural water management 95 (2008) 1067–1078

Table 2 – Formal water rights application status of some applicants in the Upper Great Ruaha River Catchment as of June 2005 Water right application number RBWO219 RBWO260 RBWO261 RBWO271 RBWO287 RBWO322 RBWO329 RBWO349 RBWO350 RBWO359 RBWO364 RBWO453

Name of applicant

Application year

Chapakazi Irrigators Association Umoja wa Watumia Maji Inyala A Umoja wa Watumia Maji Inyala B Imezu village Irrigation Scheme Umoja wa Umwagiliaji Lyahamile Kikundi cha Umwagiliaji Nguvu Moja Isongwa Mfereji wa kati – Azimio Umwagiliaji mfereji wa Majojoro – Azimio Umwagiliaji Mkombozi – Igurusi Mkombozi Idunda Mfereji wa Muungano – Igurusi

2000 2001 2001 2001 2002 2002 2002 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003

Granting year Being 2004 2004 Being Being Being Being Being Being Being Being Being

processed

processed processed processed processed processed processed processed processed processed

Remarks Abstracts water Provisional water right Provisional water right Abstracts water Abstracts water Abstracts water Abstracts water Abstracts water Abstracts water Abstracts water Abstracts water Abstracts water

Source: RBWO Water right archives and site visits

continue to operate with ‘expired’ Provisional Water Right Grants for many years. For the case of new irrigation schemes, abstraction of water usually starts after they obtain Provisional Water Right Grants and have completed part of the construction works. However, these applicants rarely finish the construction works such that in most of these schemes water controlling, regulating and measuring structures that are necessary for proper water control are missing. Investigation of the formal water rights in the UGRRC (Mbarali and Mbeya (Rural) districts only) as of June 2005 showed that whereas Final Water Right Grants accounted for only 19% of all formal water rights issued or applied for, Provisional Water Right Grants and Applications accounted for 33.5% and 47%, respectively. The second challenge facing basin authorities is thus to ensure that all Provisional Water Rights grant holders complete the required construction works. The abstraction period and the amount of water allowed to be abstracted are clearly indicated in the formal water rights issued. However, the study of water abstraction patterns has shown that all the canals studied, except one, abstracted water throughout the year, provided there was water in the rivers. This was contrary to the conditions spelt out in their formal water rights which require them to abstract water during certain specified months. Unfortunately though, there are about 150 intake structures in the UGRRC, scattered over a large area, which makes it difficult for the under-staffed basin water office to make timely and close follow-ups to ensure that water rights conditions are adhered to. Therefore, the third challenge facing basin authorities is to ensure that formal water rights holders comply with conditions spelt in their water rights.

3.1.2.2. Mismatch between granted water rights and actual water requirements. Formal water rights for irrigation use, which are required to be issued basing on long-term, mean flows and irrigated areas, are in some cases, based on potential irrigation command areas (not developed irrigation areas). When just a portion of the potential area is developed due to financial limitations, the Provisional Water Right Grant is not adjusted promptly to match with the developed area. Furthermore, not all the developed area is cultivated each year because of unreliable rainfall and hence river flows. Worse still, many

formal water right applicants are content to have the Provisional Water Right Grant and therefore do not complete the required works in order to get the final grant. Given the manpower shortages facing basin authorities, the basins thus do not undertake final inspection of the works (because they are not yet completed!) and the water demand sites in order to adjust the Final Water Right Grant accordingly. As such, in most of the schemes, the volumes of water granted in the formal water rights are much higher than the actual water requirements. Therefore, the fourth challenge facing basin authorities is to ensure that formal water rights match with water requirements. Comparison of water righted volumes and abstracted volumes (Fig. 2) illustrate the challenge. Fig. 2 shows that with the exception of Igomelo and Hassan Mullar schemes (relatively small schemes located in a large perennial river – Mbarali River), all other schemes abstracted less annual volumes of water than permitted in the formal water rights. The under-utilization of the formal water rights is due to a number of reasons such as higher granted water rights volumes than the actual water requirements (already discussed in Section 3.1.2.2) and/or low stream flows (discussed in Section 3.1.2.3)). The relationship between water rights, the amounts of water diverted from the sources and water requirements was investigated for Kongolo Mswiswi, Luanda Majenje and Habadaa irrigation schemes. The results (Table 3) showed that the abstraction rates were 0.9 l/s/ha for Habadaa (in the upper zone) and 1.8 and 4.3 l/s/ha (average of 2003 and 2004 dry seasons) for Kongolo Mswiswi and Luanda Majenje irrigation schemes respectively (in the middle zone). Considering maize as a representative crop (it is a major dry season crop grown extensively in all the schemes with an average growing period of 120 days), the above abstraction rates translate to 962, 1903 and 4419 mm of water respectively. These values are higher than the gross crop water requirements for maize, which have been estimated at 435 and 521 mm for the upper and middle zones, respectively (SWMRG, 2003). Thus, the upper zone irrigation scheme abstracted 962 mm of water instead of 435 mm (twice as much), whereas middle zone schemes abstracted an average of 3161 mm of water instead of 521 mm (6 times more) required to grow the same maize crop during the dry season.

1075

agricultural water management 95 (2008) 1067–1078

Fig. 2 – Comparison of the abstracted water to that spelt in the water right.

For the case of water abstraction for irrigated rice, Kongolo Mswiswi and Luanda Majenje schemes abstracted an average of 3476 mm instead of 1742 (twice as much), which is normally taken as the gross water requirement for rice in the UGRRC (SMUWC, 2001b; Raising Irrigation Productivity and Releasing Water for Inter-sectoral Needs (RIPARWIN), 2005). Therefore, although the annual volumes of water abstracted by Luanda Majenje and Kongolo Mswiswi schemes were less than the volumes spelt out in their formal water rights (Fig. 2), there was still abstraction of more water than was needed for the size of areas and type of crops cultivated. In the absence of well functioning drainage systems, much of the excess water abstracted is lost through evapotranspiration. The observed over-abstraction is due to the prevailing water use practices or low water users’ fees. Irrigators in traditional smallholder irrigation schemes usually pay an average of Tshs 1000.00 (USD 0.8) per person per annum as annual water users’ fees. The fees are collected by the schemes’ Water Users Associations or Irrigation Committees, as the case may be, on behalf of RBWO. In most of the traditional irrigation schemes in the UGRRC, all irrigators pay equal amounts of water users’ fees per annum, irrespective of the location of the field (at the head, middle or tail of the canal), or the actual amount of water consumed. The annual water use fees paid by irrigators are

meant to service economic water users’ fees charged to the scheme by Rufiji Basin Water Office as well as to cater for operational and maintenance costs of the irrigation system as determined during the members meeting. The average gross margin for a farmer who harvests 2 tons of rice per hectare is Tshs. 100,000.00 (USD 80) (Rajabu and Mahoo, 2006). Thus, the annual water users’ fee (USD 0.8) seems to be relatively low as compared to the income generated from the use of water.

3.1.2.3. Mismatch between granted water rights and water availability in rivers. In some river systems the water quantities stipulated in the formal water rights are higher than the available water in the rivers, especially during the dry season and during dry years. This is clearly shown in Table 4 where the total granted wet season water amounts exceeded the available river flows in Kimani, Ipatagwa, Mlowo, Mswiswi, and Lwanyo rivers. Likewise, the granted dry season water amounts also exceeded the available river flows for Mbarali, Kimani, Mswiswi, Mlowo, Lwanyo, Gwiri, and Mwambalizi rivers. It is worth noting that this analysis has been done by considering only the Final and Provisional Water Right Grants. If water right applications, which are yet to be decided by the basin authorities (but whose applicants also abstract water), were also considered, it is highly probable that the formal water

Table 3 – Relationship between amounts of water abstracted and water requirements Scheme name

Year

Period of abstraction Wet season

Habadaa Kongolo Mswiswi Kongolo Mswiswi Luanda Majenje Luanda Majenje a

2004 2003 2004 2003/2004 2003 2004 2003/2004

Dry season July–November July–November July–November

December–June July–November July–November December–June

Mean daily abstraction (l/s)a 8.9 71.8 84.7 110.1 41.5 63.2 154.7

Cropped area (ha) 20.3 41.0 44.2 45.7 11.1 13.3 36.0

(maize) (maize) (maize) (rice) (maize) (maize) (rice)

Hydrob Depth Actual water module used requirement (l/s/ha) (mm) (mm) 0.9 1.8

962 1903

435 521

2.4 4.3

2497 4419

1742 521

4.3

4455

1742

Obtained by summing mean daily abstractions and dividing by the total number of days in the period. Recommended hydro module for rice is 1.68 l/s/ha and recommended depths of water for maize are 435 mm for Habadaa and 521 mm for Kongolo Mswiswi and Luanda Majenje schemes.

b

1076

agricultural water management 95 (2008) 1067–1078

Table 4 – Relationship between granted water rights and river flows (2003/04 river flows) River name

Wet season flows (l/s) Dec-April (151 days)

Wet season water right (l/s) Dec-April

Dry season flows (l/s) May-Nov (214 days)

Dry season water right (l/s) May-Nov

Mean daily flows (l/s) 2003/04

Mbarali Kimani Ipatagwa Mkoji Mswiswi Mlowo Lwanyo Lunwa Meta Gwiri Mambi Mwambalizi

13 962 6042 631 354 1270 1141 741 1769 No data No data No data No data

9135 10 007 1000 300 4768 1630 1580 798 No data No data No data No data

3605 1534 405 97 433 509 205 535 101 100 272 67

5624 2932 357 86 1653 695 460 138 5 818 25 72

7875 3329 499 203 782 766 436 1049 No data No data No data No data

rights would have exceeded the available river flows in almost all rivers. The river flows used in the analysis comprise the 2003 and 2004 daily flow data. The reason for this mismatch is that most of the water rights, which are supposed to be issued basing on long-term mean river flows, are actually issued basing on a few discharge measurements done on a particular river. These few discharge measurements, mostly done during the wet season, tend to overestimate the available water resources and do not represent the long-term mean flows, let alone the current river flows. Similar findings were reported by Faraji and Masenza (1992). They noted that under the prevailing formal water rights system, the amounts of water issued was more than the total available flow in the rivers, such that formal water right owners do not get authorised amounts during the dry season. The above situation is not fair as rights mean little unless there are ways to enforce them when they are infringed. The overall consequences of these challenges are that formal water rights have failed to control and regulate water use such that some rivers, which were once perennial, dry up in upstream areas during the dry season, downstream water users suffer more from water shortages and some subcatchments (e.g. Mkoji) are now seasonally closed contributing zero flows to the Great Ruaha River during the dry season. The fifth challenge facing optimal implementation of formal water rights systems in the UGRRC is thus to match formal water rights with available river flows.

4.

Discussion and conclusions

4.1.

Discussion

Despite the aforementioned challenges, the current formal water rights management system in Tanzania has its strengths and there are opportunities for improving its implementation. Rights are at the heart of any water allocation system and are still needed to regulate water abstractions and reduce or halt over-abstraction of water. There seems to be eagerness among water users in Tanzania to obtain formal water rights, even though they very well understand that having a formal water right will make them pay water users’ fees. Local level water

Remarks

June–November June–November June–November June–November

users are aware now that given the dwindling water supplies, they need to acquire formal water rights in order to: (a) have a legal tool to safeguard their water resource against any infringement; (b) enable them undergo training in proper water management and agronomic practices; (c) enable them obtain financial and technical assistance to improve their irrigation infrastructures; and (d) be able to get help from formal government organs and institutions in solving water conflicts. On the other hand, Basin Water Offices need formal water rights to serve as a benchmark for better control and regulation of water utilization and collection of water users’ fees. The willingness to acquire formal water right permits has undoubtedly positively contributed to the great strides made by the Rufiji Basin Water Office in registering water users. Water right applications increased from 53 in 2002 to 73 in 2004. Since water rights are very important in water management, local level water users and Rufiji Basin Water Office have devised and are employing a number of coping strategies to respond to the challenges, while waiting for the review of formal water rights after the new water legislation has been passed by the Parliament. Some of the coping strategies include: (i) introduction of rotational irrigation schedules during periods of water scarcity; (ii) irrigated area reduction in times of water scarcity and during dry years; (iii) diversification to other economic activities that use less water such as fish farming; and (iv) intensification of auditing and assessment of water availability in rivers and uses in irrigation canals during both the dry and wet seasons. The auditing is followed by the institution of temporary allocations, where necessary. This is usually done when the available water in the respective rivers becomes very low such that formal water right owners do not get their allocated share of water. Representatives of irrigation canal committees or Water Users Associations, as the case may be, with technical backstopping from Rufiji Basin Water Office, meet and agree on how to share the available water through rotational arrangements. In order to address some of the challenges facing implementation of formal water rights in Tanzania, all existing water rights for irrigation should be reviewed to conform to the current irrigated areas, crop water requirements and downstream requirements. The whole concept of ‘rights’ is sometimes misleading to both right holders and non holders, as

agricultural water management 95 (2008) 1067–1078

many people tend to equate water rights with ‘‘ownership’’ of water and the ability to do whatever one wants with it. It is therefore, recommended that water use licenses or permits should be introduced to replace the rights. The water use permits should be short-term, renewable (as, for example, in New Zealand and South Africa) and revocable once a holder fails to meet the conditions spelt in the licence or permit. This may create more opportunity for re-allocation and reduce long-term problems due to speculative acquisition of rights. The duration of the short-term water use permits or licences should be sufficiently enough (for example 5 years) to give adequate security for users to invest in productive and efficient use of the resource. During the review process, rules for the initial allocation of formal water use permits and how new permits would be allocated should be established in close collaboration with and involving local level water users. Since basin authorities lack more detailed local information (for example, how people use water, how farmers currently respond to water shortages, and how they adjust rules to fit local conditions and concepts of equity), there should be more involvement of the local water users in the day-to-day management of water resources. One way of doing this is for basin authorities to only allocate bulk volumes of water to each sub catchment. One water use permit could then be issued to each sub catchment water users’ apex organisation. The sub catchment apex organisation should in turn be responsible for water allocation (with technical advice and assistance from basin authorities) among authorised intakes in the area under their jurisdiction. The apex organisations should be used as agents of Basin Water Offices and be responsible for collecting water users’ fees from the authorised intakes on behalf of Basin Water Offices. A certain percentage of the collected fees should then be paid to apex organisations to enable them undertake their activities efficiently. Since the Ministry of Water and Irrigation in Tanzania is already thinking along these lines, it is hoped that the new water legislation will empower the sub catchment committees to undertake the recommended tasks. The legislation should also provide for introduction of ‘‘fast track’’ methods to clear backlog of water permit applications, whenever they occur. Empowering Basin Water Offices to issues water permits for applicants whose applications attracted no objections and the quantity of water applied for is small could be one way of speeding up the procedure of granting water use permits. There should also be regular auditing and assessment of water availability in rivers and uses in irrigation canals to back up the issued water use permits. Where necessary, basin authorities should implement temporary allocations to the sub catchments during critical periods in both, the dry and wet seasons. By so doing, the awareness of people towards water resource sharing would also be increased. User charges are usually applicable for the use of collective goods in Tanzania. Ideally, the charge should match the cost of supplying the service consumed, so that consumers have an incentive not to over-use the service or abuse it (URT, 1997). Unfortunately though, most environmental resources and services in Tanzania are either undervalued or considered as common property. The same facts apply to water users’ fees in Tanzania, which were found to be relatively low. However, in view of the current methods of charging water users’ fees (paid

1077

annually by irrigation scheme members) and the fact that actual amounts of water abstracted by irrigation schemes are rarely measured, it is highly improbable that increasing water users’ fees will lead to ‘‘wise use’’ of water. Far from being deterred by increased fees, some upstream irrigators might expand their irrigated lands to generate maximum possible income to offset the increased water use costs. Consequently, upstream farmers may abstract more water thereby increasing upstream–downstream water use related conflicts. Furthermore, many irrigators are just beginning to understand the rationale behind formal water use permits and institution of water users’ fees. Increasing the fees now could result in negative attitudes towards their acceptance. Attempts to raise water users’ fees to levels that reflect the true cost of water resources allocation, regulation and monitoring will thus be very unpopular and may attract stiff resistance. Efforts should therefore be intensified to introduce efficient water use technologies, as well as training water users on better water management practices and methods of enhancing productivity of water in agriculture. Increase in water users’ fees should only be considered after these efforts have started to bear fruits. Water rights in Tanzania are currently non-transferable. However, the National Water Policy (URT, 2002a) recommends that trading of water rights, among other measures, should be gradually built into the management system as a means or strategy for demand management and water conservation. However, it is strongly advised here that trading of water rights, if provided for by the new water legislation, should be implemented with great care and caution and after adequate preparations. The preparations should include establishment of strong and effective water management institutions, legislation and infrastructure. Even then, only transfer of formal water rights should initially be built into the management system so that those who under-utilize water could transfer part of their formal water rights to those who need more water. Leasing and other innovative institutional arrangements could provide attractive alternatives to trading of formal water rights. Otherwise, if developing countries (Tanzania inclusive) start by embracing trading of formal water rights, the majority of resource-poor farmers might end up trading all their formal water rights in order to solve pressing problems, as short-term survival (for poor people) usually supersedes long-term investments.

4.2.

Conclusions

Although water rights and water users’ fees are meant to control and regulate the use of water, they are also subject to abuse by selfish farmers and could be a source of misuse and over-abstraction if not implemented and monitored closely. However, proper monitoring of water rights demands high levels of supervision that are not commensurate with resources currently available to most basin authorities in Tanzania. The basin authorities therefore need to be equipped adequately and collaborate more closely with local water users so as to facilitate close and effective management of the available water resource. In order to regulate amounts of water abstracted during critical periods, there should be regular auditing and assessment of water availability in rivers and uses in irrigation

1078

agricultural water management 95 (2008) 1067–1078

canals, followed by implementation of temporary allocations. As a way of addressing challenges facing formal water right management systems, all existing water use permits for irrigation should be reviewed to conform to actual crop water requirements. Water use permits should also be proportional to flows, provide for downstream requirements and preferably be held by water users’ associations or other collective entities. Leasing and other innovative institutional arrangements should be gradually built into the management system as a strategy for demand management and water conservation.

references

Beccar, L., Boelens, R., Hoogendam, P., 2002. Water rights and collective action in community irrigation. In: Boelens, R., Hoogendam, P. (Eds.), Water Right and Empowerment. Koninklijke Van Gorcum, pp. 1–19. Bruns, B.R., Meinzen-Dick, R. (Eds.), 2000. Negotiating Water Rights. International Food Policy Research Institute and Intermediate Technology Publications, London, p. 326. Bruns, B.R., Ringler, C., Meinzen-Dick, R. (Eds.), 2005. Water Rights Reform: Lessons for Institutional Design. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington DC, USA, p. 336. Department of Ecology’s Water Resources Program (DEWRP), 2005. Frequently asked questions. Washington (http:// www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/wr.html) site visited on 1/12/2005. DFID, 1999. Water Law, Water Rights and Water Supply (Africa). Tanzania – study country report. UK Department for International Development (DFID), 27 pp. Faraji, S.A.S., Masenza, I.A., 1992. Hydrological Study for the Usangu Plains with Particular Reference to Flow Entering the Mtera Reservoir and Water Abstractions for Irrigation. Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development, Irrigation Division, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania (unpubl.). Maganga, F.P., 2003. Incorporating customary laws in implementation of IWRM: some insights from Rufiji River Basin, Tanzania. Phys. Chem. Earth, Parts A/B/C 28, 995–1000. Maganga, F., Kiwasila, H., Juma, I., Butterworth, J., 2004. Implications of customary norms and laws for implementing IWRM: finding from Pangani and Rufiji basins, Tanzania. Phys. Chem. Earth, Parts A/B/C 29, 1335–1342. Mutayoba, W., Saidi, F., Hirji, R., 2001. The Development of River Basin Management in Tanzania: Early Experiences and Lessons. (http://wbln0018.worldbank.org) site visited on 23/ 5/2002. Norwegian Consulting Engineers and Planners (NORPLAN), 2000. Review of water resources management policy, legislation and institutional framework. River Basin Modelling. Ministry of Water, United Republic of Tanzania. Rajabu, K.R.M., 2007a. Use and impacts of the river basin game in implementing integrated water resources management in Mkoji sub-catchment in Tanzania. Agric. Water Manag. J. 94 (1–3), 63–72. Rajabu, K.R.M., 2007b. Water availability and use dynamics and the sustainability of water resources management in the

Great Ruaha River Catchment in Tanzania. Thesis for Award of PhD Degree at the Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania, 299 pp. Rajabu, K.R.M., Mahoo, H.F., 2006. Towards optimal administration of water rights for irrigation in the Great Ruaha River Catchment in Tanzania. In: Challenges and Opportunities. Paper presented during the SADC/EU Land and Water Management Scientific Symposium, 20–22 February, 2007, Grand Palm Hotel, Gaborone, Botswana. Rajabu, K.R.M., Mahoo, H.F., Sally, H., Mashauri, D.A., 2005. Water abstraction and use patterns and their implications on downstream river flows: a case study of Mkoji subcatchment in Tanzania. In: Lankford, B., Mahoo, H.F. (Eds.), Proceedings of the East Africa Integrated River Basin Management Conference, 7th–9th March, 2005, ICE Conference Hall, Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania, pp. 233–245. Raising Irrigation Productivity and Releasing Water for Intersectoral Needs (RIPARWIN) Project, 2005. Water Productivity Table for the Great Ruaha River Catchment (unpubl.). Sampath, R.K., 1992. Issues in irrigation pricing in developing countries. World Dev. 20 (7), 967–977. Soil Water Management Research Group, 2003. Comprehensive Assessment of Water Resources of Mkoji Sub-Catchment, its Current Use and Productivity, 115 pp (unpubl.). Sustainable Management of the Usangu Wetland and its Catchments (SMUWC), 2001a. Baseline 2001. (http:// www.usangu.org/) site visited on 23/5/2002. Sustainable Management of the Usangu Wetland and its Catchments (SMUWC), 2001b. Irrigation water management and efficiency. Supporting Report 8. (http:// www.usangu.org/reports/) site visited on 23/5/2002. Tanzania National Website (TNW), 2003. 2002 Population and Housing Census. (http://www.tanzania.go.tz/census/ districts) site visited 24/7/2005. The Governor of Tanganyika (GvoT), 1948. The Water Ordinance of 1948, Cap 257. Government Printers, Dar-es-Salaam. The Governor of Tanganyika (GvoT), 1959. The Water Ordinance of 1959, Cap. 410. Government Printers, Dar-es-Salaam. The World Bank, 1996. Staff Appraisal Report, Tanzania. River Basin Management and Smallholder Irrigation Improvement Project. Report No. 15122-TA. Agriculture and Environment Operations, Eastern Africa Department, Africa Region, Washington. United Republic of Tanzania (URT), 1974. The Water Utilization (Control and Regulation) Act No. 42 of 1974. United Republic of Tanzania, 1995. Rapid Water Resources Assessment Report, vols. 1 and 2. DANIDA/World Bank. United Republic of Tanzania (URT), 1997. National Environmental Policy. Vice President’s Office, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. United Republic of Tanzania (URT) (2002a). National Water Policy. Ministry of Water and Livestock Development, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. United Republic of Tanzania (URT) (2002b). The Water Utilization (General) (Amendment) Regulations, of 2002. Ministry of Water and Livestock Development, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Van Koppen, B., Sokile, C. S., Hatibu, N., Lankford, B. A., Mahoo, H., Yanda, P. Z., 2004. Formal Water Rights in Rural Tanzania: Deepening the Dichotomy? International Water Management Institute Working paper 71.