Tanzania - River Basin Management and Smallholder Irrigation Improvement Project : environmental assessment (Vol. 5 of 11) : Smallholder irrigation improvement component-Ruanda Majenje irrigation scheme

E968 Volume 5 LNTP7,-,FU3TL7[ TF X7 LI4A MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD-SECURITY RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT AND SMALLHOLDER IRRIGATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (RBMSIIP) SMALLHOLDER IRRIGATION IMPROVEMENT COMPONENT RUANDA MAJENJE IRRIGATION SCHEME ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT DRAFT REPORT November 2003 Eni,vironniental ai ;-ces Consultanuc Consultiig environnmental cmnser-ation, naturai resources managen it armd capacity building FILE COPY _~~~~~~9 I  Table of contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ..................................................................I TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................ 11 LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES, MAPS AND DIGITAL ELEVATION MODELS .......................................................................................................................................V LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............... ......................................... VI EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................... VII 1. BACKGROUND ........................................................1I 1.1 INTRODUCTION .........................................................1 1.2 UNDERSTANDING OF THE STUDY ........................................................1 1.2.1 Objective of the Study .............................................I 1.3 STRATEGIC APPROACH .........................................................2 1.3.! Ecosystem Approach ......................................................... 2 1.3.2 Farming Svstem Approach .........................................................2 1.3.3 Participatory Approach .......................... ................................2 1.4 METHODOLOGY ..........................................................4 1.4.1 Consultation ........................................................4 1.4.2 Analytical Tools ..........................................................4 1.5 LIMITATIONS .........................................................5 2. BASELINE OF THE IRRIGATION SCHEME AREA ..................................6 2.1 THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT .........................................................6 2.1.1 Location .........................................................6 2.1.2 Histoiy of schenee .........................................................8 2.1.3 Land use, ownership and acquisition pattern ........................................8 2.2 BIOPHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT ........................................................ 10 2.2.1 Climnatic Data ................................................. 10 2.2.2 W ater R esources ........................................................ 11 2.2.3 Soil ...................................................... 13 2.2.4 Biodiversity at the schemeze ........................................................ 16 2.3 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT .................................................... 16 2.3.1 Population ............................................... 16 2.3.2 Occupations ........................................................ 17 2.3.3 Existingfacilities near the irrigation schemne . ..................................... 19 2.3.4 Extension Services ......................................................... 19 2.4 DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENT SENSITIVE AREAS OF SPECIAL/UNIQUE SCIENTIFIC AND/CULTUREAL VALUE ........ .................. 20 3. DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES AND STAKEHOLDERS ................ 21 3.1 SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF THE USANGU WETLAND AND ITS CATCHMENT ...................................................... 21 3.2 WATER USERS ASSOCIATIONS ...................................................... 21 3.3 STAKEHOLDER'S ROLE ...................................................... 22 3.3.1 Identified stakeholders ........................ .............................. 22 I  3.3 STAKEHOLDER'S ROLE .................... ................................... 22 3.3.1 Identified stakeholders ....................................................... 22 3.3.2 Analysis of stakeholders ....................................................... 22 3.3.3 Involvement of stakeholders in environmental audit and implementation of ESMP ................................................. 22 3.3.4 Ensuring inicorporation of concerni of stakeholders in ESMP ............. 23 4. COMPLIANCE WITH TANZANIA'S POLICIES, LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND WITH WORLD BANK'S SAFE GUARD POLICIES.... 24 4.1 NATIONAL POLICIES ................ ....................................... 24 4.1.1 National Environment Policy of 1997 .24 4.1.2 Agriculture Policy 1997 .24 4.1.3 Land Policy of 1995 .24 4.1.4 Water Policy of 2002 .25 4.1.5 Forest Policy of 1998 .25 4.1.6 Wildlife Policy of 1998 .25 4.1.7 Energy Policy of 2002 (Draft) .25 4.2 LEGAL FRAMEWORK ....................... 25 4.2.1 Environment Legislation .26 4.2.2 NEMCAct no.19 of 1983 .26 4.2.3 Land Act no.4 anid Village Land Act no. 5 of 1999 .26 4.2.4 Wildlife Act 1974 (with amendments of 1978) .26 4.2.5 WaterActs of 1974 .27 4.2.6 ForestAct 1974 .27 4.2.7 The Town and Country Planning Ordinance, Cap 378 of 1956 . 27 4.2.8 Local Government Act (District and Urban Authorities) Acts of 198227 4.2.9 Land Use Planning Commission Act of 1984 .27 4.2.10 The Land Acquisitions Act of 1967 .28 4.2.11 By-Laws .28 4.3 NATIONAL STRATEGIES ............................................................. 28 4.3.1 Government Development Vision 2025 ............................................... 28 4.3.2 Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) of 2000 ............................ 28 4.3.3 Rural Sector Developnment Strategy (RDS) of 2000 ............................ 29 4.3.4 Agricultural Sector Development Strategy (ASDS) of 2001 ................ 29 4.4 COMPLIANCE WITH WORLD BANK SAFEGUARD POLICIES ..... 29 5. TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES USED IN ASSESSING AND ANALYZING ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS ................................................... 31 5.1 INTRODUCTION ................... ............................................ 31 5.2 IMPACT ASSESSMENT ..................................... .......................... 31 6. CONSULTATIONS WITH COMMUNITY AND FARMERS ......... ........... 32 6.1 INTRODUCTION ................... ............................................ 32 6.2 MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL ISSUES IDENTIFIED BY STAKEHOLDERS ............................................................... 32 7. IDENTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS ................... 34 7.1 INTRODUCTION .................. ............................................. 34 7.2 UPSTREAM AND DOWNSTREAM IMPACTS ....................................... 34 7.2.1 Demographic trend (population changes) . .......................................... 34 7.2.2 Hydrological regimne ............................................................ ... 35 iii  7.2.3 Catchment degradation .......................................... 35 7.2.4 Water quality on downstream users .......................................... 36 7.2.5 Socio economic impacts on downstreamn users .................................... 37 7.3 IRRIGATION SCHEME LEVEL IMPACTS ........................................... 37 7.3.1 Soil quality .37 7.3.2 Water quality .38 7.3.3 Stagnant water .39 7.3.4 Waterborne diseases .39 7.3.5 Socio-economic: positive and negative impacts of villages within the scheme 40 8. IDENTIFICATION OF MITIGATION MEASURES .41 8.1 INTRODUCTION .41 8.2 UPSTREAM AND DOWNSTREAM .41 8.2.1 Environmental Management ..41 8.2.2 Enhancement of social economic activities . .42 8.3 IRRIGATION SCHEME LEVEL .42 8.3.1 Environmental management ..42 8.3.2 Improving water quality ..42 8.3.3 Enhancement ofsocio-economic condition . .42 8.3.4 Improving health situation ..43 8.3.5 Revisiting engineering designs and/or construction stages .. 43 9. ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN .44 (ESMP) ....................................................... 44 9.1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................... 44 9.2 OBJECTIVES ....................................................... 44 9.3 SUMMARY OF MAJOR ENIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND ................ 45 IDENTIFIED MITIGATION MEASURES ....................................................... 45 MITIGATION MEASURES ............. .......................................... 45 Positive impacts in general ..................................................... 46 9.4 DESCRIPTION OF ELEMENTS OF MONITORING PROGRAM . 46 9.5 INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY .52 9.6 INPUTS REQUIREMENTS AND EXPECTED OUTPUTS .52 9.7 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE FOR MITIGATION MEASURES ... 53 10. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .55 10.1 CONCLUSION ......................... 55 10.1.1 General conclusion ........................ 55 10.1.2 Specific conclusions ........................ 55 10.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ......................... 56 REFERENCES ......................... 58 iv  I~ t Table of contents ii I  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The team wishes to acknowledge with thanks the contributions of various staff members of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security's Directorate of Irrigation and Technical Services, during the different stages of the preparation of this report: the Project Coordinator of Smallholder Irrigation Improvement Project, Mr. M asija, the H ead of Environmental Unit Cell, Mr. S imukanga, and other staff. The team also extends its appreciation to the District Officers, in particularly the irrigation technicians who are in charge of the eight schemes, at Arumeru, Moshi Rural, Simanijiro, Korogwe, Iringa Rural and Mbarali Districts. Thanks also go to the scheme m anagement committees, farmers and other stakeholders of the eight schemes and the community members who actively participated in the discussions and helped to provide information that was very useful during the preparation of the Environmental Audit. The team appreciates to more than 50 people who participated in data collection and analysis, especially the facilitators, research assistants, enumerators, water and soil staff, data analysts, etc. Last but not least, our appreciations go to ERC's internal staffs who directly or indirectly contributed with enthusiasm to the EA reports.  List of Tables, Figures, Maps and Digital Elevation Models Tables Table 2.1: Number of farms per household Table 2.2 Sive of farm per household Table 2.3 Summary of climatic parameters at Igawa meteorological station Table 2.4 Dependable flow of Luanyo River Table 2.5 Distance to the domestic water points Table 2.6 Soil data Table 2.7 Population characteristic (by sex) Table 2.8 Immigration pattern Table 2.9 House hold income generating activities Table 2.10 Percentage of household owned Table 2.11 Percentage of households owned goats Table 2.12 Types of energy resources available Table 2.13: Availability of village extension services Table 2.14: Extension officer availability Table 7.1: Summary of key environmental and socialUimpacts for Kambi ya Tanga Table 7.2: Populations data in Ruanda Majenje area Table 7.3: Population data for Chamoto village Table 7.4: Results of water quality tests at upstream and downstream Table 7.5: Results of soil test Table 7.6: Results of water quality at irrigation level Table 7.7: Common diseases and treatment (Iguiusi Dispensary) Table 9. 1: Environmental and social impacts mnitigation measures Table 9.2: Monitoring Plan Table 9.3: The Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) Table 9.4: Implementation plan time schedule Figures Figure 1.1 Basic Approach to the Study Figure 2.1 Land acquisition Figure 2.2 Distance to domestic water points Figure 2.3: Household animal ownership Maps Map 2.1: Ruanda Majenje iiTigation scheme: Location map Map 2.2: Map of analysed water sample locations Map 7.1: Ruanda Majenje catchments area land use/vegetation maps Map 7.2: Map of analysed soil sample locations Digital Elevation Models DEM 2.1: Ruanda Majenje digital elevation model, 2D view DEM 2.2 Ruanda Majenje digital elevation model, 3D view v  List of Abbreviations GoT Government of Tanzania MAFS Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security RBMSIIP River Basin Management and Smallholder liTigation Improvement Project SIIC Smallholder Irrigation Improvement Component) SEA Scheme Environmental Assessment EA Environmental Audit ECU Environmental Cell Unit PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal NIDP National IrTigation Development Plan IEE Initial Environmental Examination ZIO Zonal Irrigation Office DED District Executive Director SPSS Statistical Package for Social Science MWL Ministry of Water and Livestock Development UCLAS University College of Lands and Architectural Studies GIS Geographical Information System TMA Tanzania Meteorological Agency SIA Scheme Improvement Assessment SMUWC Sustainable Management of the Usangu Wetland and its Catchment DED District Executive, Director AGM Annual General Meeting DALDO District Agricultural and Livestock Development Officer WEO Ward Executive Officers VEO Village Executive Officers ALP Agricultural and Livestock Policy EIA Environmental Impact Assessment NEMC National Environment Management Council WMA Wildlife Management Areas NLUC National Land Use Commission LDC Less Developed Country PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper RDS Rural Sector Development Strategy ASDS Agricultural Sector Development Strategy ESMP Environmental and Social Management Plan vi  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Government of Tanzania (GoT) through the Ministry of AgricultLre and Food Security (MAFS) has taken various initiatives to improve agricultural sector in the country. One of these initiatives is undertaking the River Basin Management and Smallholder Irrigation Improvement Project (RBMSIIP); in context with which, is the Smallholder Irrigation Improvement Component (SIIC). Among others, the need to undertake the RBMSIIP arose out of a nation-wide realisation that the ecosystems of country's river basins (especially those of the Rufiji and the Pangani Rivers) are not being properly managed, leading to extensive environmental degradation and loss of potentialities of these vital ecosystems. Moreover, it was also realised that in view of the above-mentioned loss of potentiality, smallholder traditional irrigation schemes are the worst affected; hence the need arose to undertake also the SIIC. Support to smallholder traditional irrigation improvement and rehabilitation is, therefore, one of the major components of this RBMSIIP programme. The SIIC component focuses on improving management of water resources and crop husbandry practices in existing smallholder irrigation schemes. This can be achieved, among others, through improvement of natural resources, land and water, during implementation of the rehabilitation and upgrading of irrigation schemes.) SIIC is geared at improvement of water management in smallholder irrigation schemes to ensure sustainable use of land and water resources and ultimately yield increase with minimal environmental degradation. Under the auspices of the SIIC both the Scheme Environmental Assessment (SEA) as well as the Environmental Audit (EA) were carried out for the Rwanda-Majenje Irrigation Scheme. Among others, both the assessment and the audit were based on the Initial Environmental Assessments (IEE) studies carried out by the Environmental Cell Unit (ECU) of the Irrigation Section of the MAFS. This report presents the findings of the study. The objective of the study were identifying changes that have taken place before/after scheme improvement, assessing and quantifying thereto environmental and social impacts, also duly preparing an environmental and social management plan as well as developing an environmental and social management monitoring system. According to the ToR the expected outputs of this study are two in one interrelated reports i.e. covering both Environmental Audit (EA) as well as Scheme Environmental Assessment (SEA), analysing e.g. socio-economic, socio-cultural and engineering factors in order to provide quantitative information. Furthermore, the report incorporates an assessment of compliance of the scheme's improvement to the Tanzanian policy and legislation framework, as well as the World Bank's relevant environmental safe guard policies (especially on OP 4.01). Different methodologies were employed, including the following: * Desk review of recommended documents * Questioinaire administration to key stakeholders * Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) At different stages of the study the following approaches and analytical tools were applied * Participatory data collection * Key informant interview * Trend analysis * Geographical information system Describing the location of the scheme, the study found that the Rwanda-Majenje irrigation scheme lies relatively in up-stream areas of the Usangu plains about 54 Km East of Mbeya municipality It is located at a minor township of Igurusi along the TANZAM highway. Its coordinates are latitude 08 48' South and longitude 330 50' East, and is at an altitude of about 1200m above mean sea level. The following villages are direct beneficiaries of the scheme: Ruanda, Mjimwema, Majenje, Jipemoyo, Chamuto, Jangwani, and Amkeni. vii  Villages around the Rwanda -Majenje irrigation scheme has a population of 3225 people. The main ethnic groups around the scheme area are Wanyakyusa, Wasangu, Wawanji, Wabena and other smaller groups. The majority of these are agriculturalists. Few are livestock keepers. The land use in the adjacent villages of Rwanda-Majenje is mainly irrigation as well as rain-fed cultivation and grazing. The Rwanda - Majenje scheme abstracts water from Luanyo River. It is a tributary of Mambi River. The Luanyo River has no ganging station. Therefore during the design stage, dependable flow of information was transferred from a nearby station on Chimala River (at a place called Chitekelo). According the estimated mean and dependable flows of the Luanyo River at the intake of the Ruanda- Majenje scheme varies from the highest (at 0.70, 0.68) cumecs in the wet months of March and April, respectively, to the lowest (at 0.07, 0.06, 0.05 and 0.12) cumecs in dry months of August, Sept, Oct, Nov, and Dec respectively. Water abstractions by upstream users for domestic purposes, irrigation and livestock are likely to impact on the quality and quantity of water available to the scheme. Poor farming practices, especially cultivation of crops close to the riverbanks, is increasing silt load in the river and causing siltation of the irrigation structures. The availability of good domestic water supply, coupled with good sanitation at Rwanda- Majenje will considerably reduce downstream water pollution from domestic uses. Drained water from the scheme area is likely to be contaminated from activities carried out in the scheme area, including application of agro-chemicals, and sharing irrigation water with livestock. The on-farm activities will thus form the main source of pollution downstream. Conflicts over water use have been recorded in the study area, especially in the dry season when river flows are at the lowest. In the past say 10 years, fuel wood was obtained in the nearby forests. Deforestation for firewood. openings of new farms and uncontrolled wild fires have led to a significant decrease in forest areas. With ilTigation structures in place, coupled with improvement and prospects for higher income earnings from irrigated agriculture, there is greater loyalty to the leadership of Water Associations. The following are some of the positive effects: * Strengthened existing Water Users Association. * Temporal employmeent opportunities were created during the construction phase. * Some farmers have attended on farm training and exchange visits to other areas to share experience with other farmers as well as leaming new skills. * The project has brought about improvement in water availability distribution and management. * Crop production has improved a great deal A summary of identified impacts differentiated at up-stream, down-stream and within scheme levels for resulting from Chapter 7 and appropriate mitigation measures are summarized in the Environmental and Social Management Plan as follows: ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES Quantifiable up-stream impacts: Category: Environmental Management viii  Demographic trend (population changes) * Watershed management Hydrological regime * Embarking on soil and water Catchment degradation conservation and environmental protection program in up-stream areas * Strengthening and/or establishment of local based mechanism for resolution of conflicts * Strengthening local based mechanism to prohibit up-stream human settlements and/or human activities Downstream impacts from irrigation Category: Environmental Management: Water use conflicts * Establishing effective water Increased incidences of waterbome diseases management system, Change of water quality on downstream users Category: Enhancement of social- economic activities: * Promoting irrigation agriculture as a potentially useful socio-economic activity Category: Improving health situation * Promoting awareness on waterbome diseases, as well as HIV/AIDS, * Improving availability of health, water and sanitation services. Irrigation level impacts Category: Environmental Management - Soil quality * Promoting /providing training on - Reduced water quality appropriate irrigation practices, e.g. on - Stagnant water proper uses of water resources, IPM, - Increased incidences of waterborne diseases ISMP, etc. * Establishing enforcement mechanisms on abstraction rights * Enforcement of regulations e.g. for prohibition of cultivation too near the course of the river * Improving water quality Category: Enhancement of social- economic activities: * Promoting irrigation agriculture as a potentially useful socio-economic activity for all age groups and gender Category: Improving health situation * Promoting awareness on waterbome diseases, as well as HIV/AIDS, * Improving availability of health, water and sanitation services Category: Revisiting engineering designs and/or construction stages * Establishing modalities for rehabilitation of destroyed tertiary canal structures ix  The monitoring program comprises the following attributes: water quality, groundwater, soil conservation, biodiversity, crop diseases, afforestation, socio-economic and health indicators. Additionally, the environmental audit main conclusions and recommendations are the followings: In conclusion it was found that the location of the scheme has both positive and negative aspects. The scheme provides many opportunities that it facilitates and encourages irrigation practices, hence enhancing the sustainability of the scheme. On the other hand, because of being near a rapidly growing minor township of Igurusi poses a possible threat of detracting people from practicing irrigation. A possible negative influence is one such as availability of poor soil fertility which would require capital-intensive interventions. One of the main recommendations is most of the identified mitigation measures are related with local community-based effective structural organization. This means therefore that local government authorities themselves, with financial and technical assistance of funded projects, e.g. RBMSIIP, NGOs and CBOs, can implement most of the measures. x  1. BACKGROUND 1.1 INTRODUCTION The Goverrunent of Tanzania, through the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security (MAFS), has undertaken various initiatives to imnprove the agriculture sector in the country. One of these initiatives is the River Basin Management and Smallholder liTigation Improvement Project (RBMSIIP). The Smallholder Irrigation Improvement Component (SIIC) is included within the scope of RBMSIIP. RBMSIIP was developed in response to a water shortage crisis prevalent in many parts of the country. Water demands often exceed available resources; this is especially true in the Pangani and Rufiji basins. Support to smallholder traditional irrigation improvement and rehabilitation is one of the major components of this project. SIIC focuses on improving the management of water resources and crop husbandry practices in existing smallholder irrigation schemes. This is achieved through, among other things, the improvement of natural resources (land and water) during implementation of the rehabilitation and upgrading of irrigation schemes. The SIIC undertaking supports the objectives of the National Irrigation Development Plan (NIDP) which was formulated and adopted in 1994. The plan includes a management and decision-making framework that is based on the comprehensive ranking of schemes within each management unit (river or drainage basin). Under NIDP the order of priority for irrigation development is as follows: * Improvement/rehabilitation of Traditional Smallholder liTigation Schemes; * Water Harvesting Technology; * Opening of New Smallholder Schemes; * Large Scale Irrigation Schemes for Private Sector. SIIC focuses on the improvement of water management in smallholder irrigation schemes to ensure the sustainable use of land and water resources. Ultimately, SIIC aims to facilitate increases in crop yields while minimizing environmental degradation. According to World Bank guidelines, the irrigation schemes in the Rufiji and Pangani basins are classified as Category B. Under this category, no major adverse environmental impacts are permitted and mitigation measures must be incorporated into the scheme design, implementation and operation. Under the auspices of the SIIC, a feasibility study was carried out that resulted in the preparation of the Project Implementation Plan for 1996/97 - 2001/02. This plan, produced in October 1996, contains an assessment of environmental issues together with proposed environmental mitigation measures. Under World Bank advisement, the Environmental Cell Unit (ECU) of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security conducted an Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) of the irrigation schemes. The IEEs were u sed a s t he b asis for t he S cheme I mprovement A ssessment Studies. T he c onsultants, i n collaboration with ECU, have been charged to conduct environmental audits in seven Category B sites: Ruanda Majenje, Igomelo, Mangalali, Nyamahana, Soko, Kambi ya Tanga, and Mahenge. An additional site, Lemkuna, only required the development of an Environmental and Social Management Plan. This report is focused on presenting the findings of the environmental audit that was conducted for the Ruanda Majenje Irrigation Scheme. This report draws heavily on intensive field observations by the study team. Discussions were held with farmers and other local people, village and district officials, and project staff. A review of various existing documents was also conducted in the preparation of this report. 1.2 UNDERSTANDING OF THE STUDY 1.2.1 Objective of the Study The objective of the study is to get a better understanding of the present environmental conditions and relevant i mpact a reas ( environmental a udit) within t he s cheme. I ncreased a wareness will a llow for  improved monitoring of both negative and positive changes over time and will assist in the formulation of more effective mitigation measures. The environmental audit will also be the basis for the preparation of an environmental and social management plan and monitoring system. Specifically, the study will undertake the following: * Assess and quantify baseline environmental and social conditions * Assess and quantify environmental and social impacts * Conduct environmental audits in order to comply with existing Government of Tanzania and World Bank environmental and safeguard policies. * Prepare an environmental and social management plan. * Develop an environmental and social management and monitoring system. * Conduct public consultations. 1.3 STRATEGIC APPROACH The consultant's environmental audit of the Ruanda Majenje irrigation scheme was characterized by three a pproaches: e cosystem, farmin7g system and p articipatolo. The basic a pproach oft he stuidy i s illustrated in Figure 1-1. 1.3.1 Ecosystem Approach In view of the fact that the project activities are wholly based in a rural area, potential conflicts between the project and the environment are likely to arise. Thus, issues pertaining to the use of natural resources (e.g. livestock grazing, agriculture, irrigation, water source protection, agro-forestry, etc.) have to be studied. In applying the ecosystem approach, the consultant not only focused on the Ruanda Majenje irrigation scheme but also on all the ecosystems upstream and down stream that impact the environmental and social characteristics of the area. To accomplish this, the study sought an understanding of all activities taking place within the irrigation scheme's water catchment area. River pollution, sedimentation, flash floods, deforestation, destabilization of riverbanks, erosion, salinity, land degradation, and waterbome diseases (among others) are all contributing to degradation of the catchment area. In suggesting mitigation measures, sustainable practices for the use of water and land resources must be adopted to prevent and control environmental and social problems. 1.3.2 Farming System Approach On the irrigation scheme level, a farming system approach was used to describe and analyse environmental and socio-economic conditions. Issues related to soil contamination, water pollution, the use and dangers of pesticides and fertilizers, health, and others have been identified. It is clear that the irrigation activities will transform village life and the whole farming system in the Ruanda Majenje area. The success of the proposed mitigating measures will, therefore, depend on community involvement, improvement of the socio-economic situation, capacity building, and proper upgrading, maintenance and operation of the irrigation infrastructure. The latter should take into account the local environment as well as the prevailing institutional, economic and social conditions. 1.3.3 Participatory Approach A participatory approach was adopted in preparation for the environmental audit. This entailed seeking information/experience from stakeholders (i.e. farmers, district and regional officers, RBMSIIP and other institutions who have been involved in the project). In order to ensure effective participation and cooperation it was necessary to inform stakeholders prior to the audit of the environmental and socio- economic problems to be addressed. Their inputs have contributed to the development of more realistic and appropriate mitigation measures. 2  BASIC APPROACH TO THE STUDY Figure 1.1 Environment &EviromeWate qualty,si oi ooi IEE of eight schemesic Imoacts~~~~~~at t Ecosystelm 9 Moarntng system IF ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~-~~~~~ / C~~~~~~onsultations, 4 pstrea Dwsra On-fr ( Focus groups, ) I I _F_- ' (Socio-economic )(socio-economic f) mf/r Mitigation Measures ! Environmental & Social Management Plan- 3  1.4 METHODOLOGY The methodology follows Tanzanian policy and legislation and the World Bank's policies on environmental assessment (OP 4.0 and related policies and guidance documents). Available reference documents were reviewed for purposes of identifying pertinent environmental and social issues. Information was obtained on the Ruanda Majenje irrigation scheme before and after construction as well as during operation. Several meetings were held with SIIP project staff. In particular, the ECU team, which was involved in the Scheme Environmental Assessment, was consulted to discuss background and potential issues. Subsequently, a ten-day field mission was conducted in A ugust by the study team and members of E CU. The team w as u sed to: I) complete further fieldwork at various sites in the Ruanda Majenje irrigation scheme, 2) collect additional information, 3) work with the irrigation scheme management team, and 4) to liaise with the various stakeholders including the district officials. During the field visits, the Public Consultation and Disclosure Plan for disseminating the results of the Draft Environmental Audit were developed with the ECU staff. 1.4.1 Consultation Public c onsultations took p lace i n two phases. The first p hase took p lace during the E nvironmental Audit (EA) preparation process. This initial stage allowed for the identification of the key environmental issues and involved the gathering of information on stakeholder concerns and views of potential environmental and social impacts. During the secondly phase, consultations allowed stakeholders to review findings and give their comments. 1.4.2 Analytical Tools The following methodologies were applied in the process of the study: * Participatoiy data collection * Key informant interviews * Socio-economic and environmental analysis * Trend analysis of river flow and rainfall * Water and soil quality analysis * Geographical information systems (GIS) Participatory Data Collection Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) involves problem analysis, ranking, proposal planning, role assigning and timing. The role playing consisted of a facilitator who played the role of an advisor on the d ifferent matters raised d uring the workshop ( those which the team was not i nformed a bout o r aware of). In the final analysis, a Logical Framework Approach workshop (also known as ZOPP) produced the Environmental Action Plan for the irrigation scheme. Key Informant Interview In addition to group discussions, information was also obtained from key informants. These were generally staff from the Zonal Irrigation Office (ZIO), the District Executive Director (DED), farmers of the Ruanda Majenje scheme, village officials (including village leaders), and others (agriculture and irrigation officers who are residents in the community). Any inconsistent information was cross- checked to ensure accuracy. Various officials conducted the crosschecking of information while members of the study team facilitated the group discussions. Socio-economic and Environment A total of 106 household questionnaires (sample size) have been administered using the random sampling method. This represents. Percent of households of the study area (upstream, down stream and scheme level) 80 percent (80 questionnaires) of selected sample size has been administered at Majenje village (scheme level), where as 10 percent (10 questionnaires) has been administered at Majenje village (upstream village) and 10 percent (10 questionnaires) has been administered at Chamoto village (downstream village). 4  Quantitative data relating to the socio-economic and environmental conditions of the scheme was collected and analysed using Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) software. Trend Analysis of River Flow and Rainfall An investigation was conducted upstream and downstream on rivers that feed the scheme. Both statistical and visual interpretations of variability analysis were applied. To further reveal any existence of severe abstraction or flow regime changes, variability analysis was done month-to-month. Any possible causes for the change in the flow regime were quantified. In this regard, annuual rainfall variability for stations in or around the study area was noted. Three approaches were followed to tackle the impacts problem: ! Visual interpretation - Understanding and interpreting the annual time series and percent deviation time series from the annual mean. * Testing randomness on the annual and monthly time series data - This test indicates that if the null hypothesis tested for randomness is accepted, no flow regime change prevails in the record; otherwise, it shows the flow regime is changed or there is a likely impact on the river upstream or downstream. * Testing of breaks - At times a break or jump may be observed in the time series of flow. If, for example, a huge volume of water is suddenly diverted to an irrigation area, segments before and after the diversion can have different means. Subsequent sections provide scheme level variability analysis and intelpretation of the results for both flow and rainfall. The flow and rainfall data were collected from various sources. Rainfall data were collected partly from Tanzania Meteorology Agency (TMA) and partly from the Ministry of Water and Livestock Development (MWL). Flow data were partly collected from the Ministry of Water and Livestock (MWL) and partly from previous reports. Water and Soil Analysis Water and soil samples were analysed at the laboratory of the Department of Environmental Engineering, University College of Lands and Architectural Studies (UCLAS) and Mlingano Soil Laboratory. Procedures and analysis were done according to the Intemational Standards of Water and Soil Analysis. Geographical Information System (GIS) Overlay maps and GIS were used to analyse sensitive/significant/relevant features of the irrigation scheme area. Attributes and features that were mapped and analysed included: water bodies, land use, patterns, vegetation cover, and cultural structures. The technique involved the physical overlaying of individual topographic maps to provide a composite picture of the overall environmental and social situation. Using ArcView 3. 1, analysis was carried out to link spatial and non-spatial data. 1.5 LIMITATIONS Data quantification proved a difficult exercise due to the following reasons: (i) There was insufficient baseline data related to environmental and socio-economic parameters. (ii) Updated meteorological and hydrological data were not available. 5  2. BASELINE OF THE IRRIGATION SCHENIE AREA 2.1 THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 2.1.1 Location The Rwzanda Majenje irrigation scheme is located in Mbarali district. Mbeya region about 54 km to the east of Mbeya Municipality. It lies at a latitude OS 49 Soullt and longitude of 33 50'East. The scheme is situated at an altitude of approximately 1-200mi above sea level. Map 2.1: Rvvanda Majenije irrigation scheme: Location map P ~~~~~~~~~~~ --p Legend: I 2 g /85k ir 0S %, I L| ~~~~~~~~~~~~Background I ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~~~ LI 2nu C_2fJrnonrw Honear 6  DEM 2 1: Ruanda Majenje digital elevationi model. 2D view DOn ta Eleeati ;n Ii-rd el (FE I,2 . . w t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~F- 1 921.4 44 2040 t t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~; - 17; '108M9G, Jr <ft~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A/ R: d .. 1-.1 1201 l 0 44 l-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~A DEM').2 Ruanda Mqieiije digital elevation iiiodel. ',D vi- 80v88  2.1.2 History of scheme In the wake of heavy infestation of desert locusts irTigation activities were initiated in Ruanda Majenje in 1950s to overcome the consequent problem of famine. In May 1997 water right to extract from the Luanyo River was requested by the local community. For several years the Mbeya - Iringa highway traversed near the scheme. However significant impact on the scheme occurred in early 1990s. This is when the alignment of the Mbeya - Iringa highway was moved relatively northwards of the scheme, there by changing the relative positions of human settlements, vis-a-vis distances from the scheme to Igurusi of about 4 km. As the main rapidly growing township of the area Igurusi overshadows all what happen in Ruanda. Indeed shift of road alignment meant that the Ruanda village collapsed because to date most farmers actually reside at Igurusi township, practising petty trading for most of their time, but for some of them also owning farm areas in the scheme. Probably this is the major reason for land hoarding going on in the areas 2.1.3 Land use, ownership and acquisition pattern Land use In the scheme area, land use being practiced is almost exclusively irrigation agriculture. Crops being cultivated include rice, maize, sweet potatoes, horticultural products e.g. tomatoes, onions, vegetables, etc. In down-stream areas, rain fed agriculture takes place parallel with irrigation agriculture, but the former is more widespread than the latter. Moreover in these areas fruit cultivation is also going on e.g. bananas, mangoes etc. By tradition, the people in the area are agro-pastoralists. But livestock numbers are not numerous and they don't seem to cause disturbances. Land ownership and acquisition pattern Field studies show that 38.7% of the interviewed household acquired land by purchase while 26.4% through inheritance 11.3% acquired land by clearing the bush or forest, 12.3% of land belongs to local government authority and the remaining 11.3% used other means to acquire the land With respect to land ownership/ acquisition patterns, about 38.7% acquired land through purchase, compared to 26.4% who acquired through inheritance, 12.3% through village government, 1 1.3.% by bush clearing and the rest;I 1.3 % miscellaneously. This is in tandem with the fact that the first inmmigrants (about 26.4% of population) came into the area as early as before 1950s followed by a twenty -year slow-down in immigration between 1960s to 1980s only to pick up rapidly after that It is therefore apparent that the first immigrants are presently dying away (hence high proportion of inheritances), and at the same time, some heirs decide to sell away (hence rise in purchases). Figure 2.3.2 illustrates various means of acquired land in Ruanda Majenje. More farmers own between one to three farms. Few households, i.e. 5%, own more than four farms while 9% have none. Table 2.1 illustrates the number of farms owned by the household. 8  Figure 2.. 1: Land Acquisitioii Land Aquisition Others Bush clearing 11.3% _MM 11.3% Village government 12.3% Inherited 26.4% Buying 38.7% A mtajority of farmers (about 85%) own tw o or three farms. These Xwith five or more are only 5%