TANZANIA – CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT IN THE
GREAT RUAHA CASE #121
Analysis of existing river basin management frameworks, multi-user perspectives and
competition for water resources in the Great Ruaha River Basin, Tanzania.
ABSTRACT
Description
This case study describes different responses to growing water scarcity in the dry season in the
Usangu Plains, a catchment of the Great Ruaha River in South-West Tanzania. The analysis –
based on results of two DFID (Department for International Development) projects, SMUWC
(Sustainable Management of the Usangu Wetlands and its Catchment) and RIPARWIN
(Raising Irrigation Productivity and Releasing Water for Intersectoral Needs) – incorporates a
critical examination of the appropriateness of newly established river basin management
structures to the problems and issues found.
The Great Ruaha River is of national importance in terms of the utilisation of its water for
significant rice production, maintaining a RAMSAR wetland site, meeting the ecological needs
of the Ruaha National Park and the generation of hydro-electric power. Thus six main water
resource users from upstream to downstream can be differentiated here:
· Rainfed farmers and domestic water users in the high catchment;
· Irrigators in the plains at the base of the escarpment;
· Domestic users and rainfed maize cultivators in the plains;
· Pastoralists and fishermen and women in the central wetland;
· Wildlife and tourists in the Ruaha National Park that surrounds the riverine reach;
· The Mtera/Kidatu hydropower schemes.
During the early nineties, a series of zero flows in this previously perennial river alerted the
authorities to hydrological and environmental change in the Usangu Plains in the Upper Ruaha
Basin. The research projects, in collaboration with the Ministry of Water and Livestock
Development and other partners, examined the causes of the drying up of the river and
proposed solutions.
Lessons learned
Several lessons are provided by this case study:
· The critical role and benefits of long-term, large-scale, interdisciplinary research;
· The difficulty in addressing entrenched views of ‘normal professionalism’ (a term used to
describe a rather inflexible discipline-focussed approach) or the powerful local elite that
result in maldistribution of water or inappropriate natural resource management;
· The need for local water development solutions to manage basin-level water scarcity.
Importance for IWRM
A key conclusion is that managers of IWRM should continuously review and enrich the
knowledge base, perceptions and processes of hydrological and system change in river basins
with the aim of refining ‘an appropriate institutional response’. In other words, we should not
be satisfied with what appears to be an integrated water resources management approach, but
critically unpack its components and identify modes of IWRM that are fully cognisant of the
science, issues and responses at stake, and therefore deliver effective tailored solutions.
Main tools used
B1.3 River basin organisations;
B2.2 IWRM capacity in water professionals;
C1.2 Water resources assessment;
C6.2 Regulations for water quantity.
Tanzania – Critical Analysis of River Basin Management in the Great Ruaha, Case #121 1
MAIN TEXT
1 Background and problems
The background to the issues is best described via the rationale for the project “Sustainable
Management of the Usangu Wetland and its Catchment” (SMUWC) which resulted from
national and local concerns about the management of water and other natural resources in the
Usangu Basin in Southern Tanzania (see Figure 1). In particular, national power shortages in
the mid nineties were attributed to low flows to the Mtera/Kidatu hydropower schemes from the
Ruaha River. A reduction in low flows in the Great Ruaha, where it passes through the Ruaha
National Park, was also noted. There has now been a succession of years in which the river in
the park has dried up completely during the dry season, and for increasing periods. An increase
in competition for water was noted in Usangu itself, leading to conflict and sometimes violence.
Concern was also expressed that the wetlands in the project area were diminishing and were
becoming degraded, and that a valuable natural asset was being lost.
The Usangu Basin, or Upper Ruaha Basin, covers an area of 21,500 km2 and forms the
headwaters of the Great Ruaha River, itself forming a major sub-basin of the Rufiji River.
Usangu may be broadly divided into the central plain and a surrounding higher catchment. On
average, the plain receives 600-800 mm annual rainfall, and the high catchment up to 1500 mm.
Most of the rain falls in one season from mid-November to May.
Six water resource users are differentiated:
· Rainfed farmers and domestic water users in the high catchment;
· Irrigators on the plains at the base of the escarpment (see Figure 2);
· Domestic water users and rainfed maize cultivators on the plains;
· Pastoralists and fishermen and women in the central wetland;
· Wildlife and tourists in the Ruaha National Park that surrounds the riverine reach;
· The Mtera/Kidatu Hydro Electric Power (HEP) stations of the Tanzania Electricity Supply
Corporation (TANESCO).
Below the HEP stations, the river has no further significant user, and after joining the
Kilombero River, it flows perennially to the sea with practically no depletive use.
There are five perennial rivers and a large number of seasonal streams draining from the high
catchment. Surface flows, rather than groundwater, are used for domestic and agricultural
purposes because there is less groundwater and it is more difficult to determine its location.
Most irrigation is located on the upper parts of the plains and consists of a number of different
types of farms including large-scale, state-owned ‘farms’; traditional smallholder; improved
smallholder, and smallholder peripheral to the state farms. The total irrigated area ranges from
20,000 to 40,000 ha depending on annual rainfall. The large state farms are Kapunga (3000
ha), Mbarali (3200 ha), and Madibira (3000 ha).
Downstream of the irrigated areas, drainage discharges into smaller streams and swamps
located towards the tail of the alluvial fans. Some streams reach the Ruaha River, the main
channel supplying the wetland. Beyond the alluvial fans, the plain consists of savannah,
woodlands and seasonal wetlands, and at the deepest point, a perennial wetland. At the end of
the perennial wetland, there is a rock bar. When the water level in the perennial wetland is low,
no water leaves the wetland. As the water level rises, water spills over the lip into the Great
Ruaha River. Although the swamp is a maze of channels and lagoons, many of which are at
different levels, it can be represented conceptually as a simple reservoir with a fixed spillway.
After leaving the wetland, the Great Ruaha River is joined by a number of ephemeral rivers as it
flows through the Ruaha National Park. Downstream, the Great Ruaha and a number of other
rivers discharge into the Mtera Reservoir. Besides having an 80 MW generating capacity of its
own, the Mtera Reservoir also acts as a regulating reservoir for the larger 204 MW Kidatu
hydropower scheme further downstream.
Mbarali District is the largest district in the basin, covering 54% of the area. Other districts in
the project area are Iringa Rural, Mufindi, Njombe and Makete in Iringa Region, and Mbeya
Rural and Chunya in Mbeya Region.
Tanzania – Critical Analysis of River Basin Management in the Great Ruaha, Case #121 2
Figure 1: Location of the Usangu Plains or Upper Ruaha Basin as a sub-catchment of the
Rufuji Basin in Southern Tanzania
2 Decisions and actions taken
In the Usangu Plains, essentially three key river basin programmes have been devised and
implemented under the Ministry of Water and Livestock Development (MoWL) within the last
five years. These are:
1) The Rufiji Basin Water Office (RBWO).
Basin Water Offices represent the new basin structure that the MoWL is gradually
implementing nation-wide, with the Rufuji, the Pangani and Lake Victoria as the first pilot
basins. A sub-office for the Usangu Plains in Rujewa, Mbarali District, was opened in
2001. The main activity of this sub-office is the issuing of water allocations.
2) The River Basin Management and Smallholder Irrigation Improvement Project
(RBMSIIP).
This project started in 1996 and is funded via a World Bank loan. The aims are:
(i) To strengthen the government’s capacity to manage water resources and address
water-related environmental concerns both at the national level, and in the Rufiji
and Pangani Basins (the river basin management (RBM) component under the
MoWL);
(ii) To improve the irrigation efficiency of selected traditional smallholder irrigation
schemes in these two basins principally by the construction of concrete weirs and
intake structures with control gates (the SIIP component under the Ministry of
Agriculture and Food Security).
Tanzania – Critical Analysis of River Basin Management in the Great Ruaha, Case #121 3
In the Usangu Plains, the RBM component is funding the sub-office of the Rufiji Basin
Water Office. Also, two concrete intake structures have been constructed in streams shared
by a number of traditional irrigation schemes under the SIIP component of the project.
3. The “Sustainable Management of the Usangu Wetland and its Catchment” (SMUWC).
SMUWC ran from 1998 to 2002. The direct client of this DFID-funded project was the
MoWL (Rufiji Basin Water Office). The project also worked closely with the district
administrators of the project area, as well as with the Ministry of Agriculture and Food
Security. SMUWC intended to investigate the nature and causes of hydrological changes,
and to assist the Government of Tanzania and key stakeholders (both local and national) in
the development of a sustainable natural resource management strategy. Ultimately, it
expected to contribute to the maintenance and improvement of rural livelihoods. It had four
main outputs:
i) Understand the hydrological behaviour and water quality functions of the Usangu
wetlands and their catchments;
ii) Assessment of the land resource utilisation, biodiversity and environmental
impacts of management options in the Usangu wetlands and their catchments;
iii) Assessment of causes of conflict, community management options and
institutional process relating to the natural resources of the Usangu Wetlands and
their catchments;
iv) Increase local capacity (at different levels and in different institutions) to develop
and implement an integrated natural resource management strategy, i.e. assist
Rufuji Basin Water Office (RBWO) and provide policy guidance for the World
Bank River Basin Management and Smallholder Irrigation Improvement Project
(RBMSIIP).
In partnership with the World Bank project, SMUWC contributed to the drafting of a national
water policy, strengthening of basin management institutions and the rehabilitation and
upgrading of the hydrometric network. In addition there were a number of specialist studies,
the outcomes of which were shared. These included: groundwater assessment, catchment
degradation and conservation studies, surveys of water use and water rights, participatory basin
management, and water quality and environmental pollution monitoring. In partnership with
the Rufiji Basin Water Office, SMUWC initiated a canal closure programme, designed to
ensure that there was less water abstraction from three key rivers feeding the wetland. To this
end, negotiations with three main state farms reduced their water allocations during the dry
season to distribute just enough water for domestic uses.
To a lesser extent, the DFID/IWMI (International Water Management Institute)-funded
‘Raising Irrigation Productivity And Releasing Water for Intersectoral Needs’ project aims to
continue to study the role of irrigation efficiency and productivity in releasing water for
intersectoral needs. The main partners in this collaborative research are Sokoine University of
Agriculture, the Overseas Development Group of the University of East Anglia, and the
International Water Management Institute.
Besides these programmes, the Mbarali District Local Government, with the support of the
Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ruaha National Park, pursues far-reaching land use
measures to control livestock on the plains (so-called “Botswanisation”). These actions aim to
conserve the Usangu Wetland and return to a perennially-flowing Great Ruaha. For example,
in 2000, the area between the permanent wetland and the Ruaha National Park was defined as
the Usangu Game Reserve. This implies that, formally, all human activity is prohibited. Also, in
March 2001 the Tanzanian Prime Minister (probably galvanised by WWF Tanzania) declared
to the Rio+10 Summit in London that the river should return to year-round flow by 2010. Since
2001 in the permanent wetland, major force has been applied to oust pastoralists and poor
fishing families.
In addition, other possible projects are being formulated that seek to support the return of a
perennially flowing Ruaha.
Tanzania – Critical Analysis of River Basin Management in the Great Ruaha, Case #121 4
Figure 2: Location of irrigated lands within the Usangu Plains
Yellow area: irrigated lands; Green area: seasonal wetlands; Blue area: permanent wetlands
3 Outcomes
This section critically describes three important outcomes of the above actions.
Contested Water Resources Assessment
SMUWC and the Ministry of Water and Livestock developed a hydrological model and a
monitoring programme that suggested multiple causes of the changes in the Ruaha and wetland
flow regimes. The model tested results of “what if” scenarios, such as the canal closure
programme designed to ensure that dry season flows were untapped by major irrigation users.
In addition, by undertaking monthly spot measurements in key locations throughout the plains,
SMUWC pinpointed the exact losses of water.
These assessments challenged the original assumptions that the wetland shrinking and the zero
flows in the Ruaha were mainly due to overgrazing and excessive consumption of water by
livestock and a reduced ability of the wetland to act as a ‘sponge’ holding back water for later
release into the Ruaha. The studies also refuted the strongly held belief that climate change and
deforestation had caused a reduction in the baseflows of rivers flowing off the escarpment.
Thus, the presence of an estimated 40-50 cumecs abstraction capacity from a total of 100-130
intakes on the plains was shown to play a more important role in dry and wet season
hydrological change than climate change or deforestation. Yet the probable major cause of the
electricity cuts in the Mtera/Kidatu hydropower plants was not water shortages in the Upper
Ruaha (irrigation in Usangu uses 25-35% of the Great Ruaha, itself a proportion of the inflows
into Mtera) but, rather, mismanagement of the drawdown curve and excessive releases to
maximise electricity generation. In addition, the analysis showed how evaporation from rivers
flowing onto the plains and feeding wetlands results in significant natural water losses. This
factor makes outflow from the Usangu wetland highly sensitive to abstraction during the dry
Tanzania – Critical Analysis of River Basin Management in the Great Ruaha, Case #121 5
season when natural river flows are already diminished. Thus, below a certain threshold of
about 6 to 7 cumecs entering the wetland, effectively no flow leaves the area.
Yet powerful downstream stakeholders contested these results in order to protect and even
expand their existing land and water use and practices, blaming poor farmers upstream in the
basin of overuse, thereby expecting them to release water. The electricity corporation continues
to maintain that upstream irrigation reduces water inflows. Ruaha National Park’s interest
groups continue to seek dry season compensation flows. Similarly, in the case of the Usangu
wetland, political expediency regarding the hydrological analysis ‘allows’ the Mbarali District
Government to actively seek the removal of vulnerable fishermen and women and pastoralists
whose livelihoods depend on the wetland. The Government argues that these users degrade the
wetland by having too many livestock (another analysis that is contested).
Contested Water Allocations
The Rufiji Basin Water Office has been charged with the introduction of water allocations and
fees at all irrigation intakes on the Plains and has records of approximately 300 irrigation users.
These allocations are flow rate based (e.g. 0.6 cumecs), and focus on wet season rice – though
allocations are generally halved for the dry season. Interestingly, few irrigators interviewed by
the SMUWC team had ever met an RBWO officer and irrigators rarely knew if their association
or co-operative possessed a traditional or formal RBWO water right.
While the water allocations promoted widely by the RBWO appear elegant (a simple flow rate)
and may have worked in other countries, they may not be appropriate in Usangu. This is for a
number of reasons.
In some cases, the allocations are simply water duties (command area multiplied by 2.0
l/sec/ha) without being reconciled with available water or downstream needs, in which case
such water is not effectively available. In other cases, allocations are not determined in a
transparent way; they are not related to the command area or crop water requirements, but
appear to be based on traditional rights, de facto rights, whatever is available during the peak
flow period, or on unexplained reasons. In addition, because rivers change dramatically from
wet to dry seasons, and from wet to dry years, the Usangu approach of fixed allocations only
works for 'statistically mean' flows. In dry years, the allocation is greater than the available
water, legitimising the abstraction of water until the river is left dry. Conversely, for wet years,
the allocation is less than the water available, and probably less than the actual abstracted
amount, because intake gates are surcharged with high flows.
Relating water use to allocation is problematic, as it is unlikely that water will ever be metered
or monitored and so farmers may take more than they have been allocated. Furthermore, with a
fixed payment for their allocation, farmers may be inclined to use more water than necessary.
RBWO resources – for staff and transport to monitor water use – are restricted and are unlikely
to increase, and access during the rainy season is difficult. Fees are rarely paid to the RBWO
and so do not augment the finances required to manage water. It therefore appears that the
RBWO’s intent to fund itself through the collection of fees is highly unlikely. In summary, the
water allocations appear to be so poorly attuned to the situation that they are at the very least
having no effect, or worse, may be undermining the very outcomes they purport to achieve.
Contested Intake Structures
The pursuance of an irrigation intake upgrading programme by the World Bank project utilising
irrigation-focussed engineering procedures is another case of mixed and unintended outcomes.
Whilst this is supposed to raise irrigation efficiency, under close examination, the provision of
concrete weirs and intake works shows that reliance on intakes alone does not, and cannot, raise
irrigation efficiency to the levels expected by RBMSIIP (from 15% to 40%).
Secondly, such a programme, conceived as it is, is counter to a river basin perspective.
Evidence indicates that the modernisation of indigenous traditional smallholder schemes does
Tanzania – Critical Analysis of River Basin Management in the Great Ruaha, Case #121 6
not necessarily result in improved water control, greater equity and reduced user conflict.
Indeed, such programmes may aggravate these issues by not sufficiently understanding the
complex situation. The concrete intakes reduce downstream compensation flows through the
weir and enable upstream farmers to abstract water throughout the year. Thus, while the intake
farmers are pleased to see less labour and time needed to maintain their intake, the downstream
irrigators are deprived of water – acutely so during dry seasons and periods.
4 Lessons learned
The need for large-scale, long-term interdisciplinary research
This case study reveals the critical role and benefits that long-term, large-scale, interdisciplinary
science, in partnership with key stakeholders, has in identifying complex factors underlying
environmental and hydrological change. Yet more detailed hydrological studies are required,
particularly covering two more dry seasons – the critical period of the year – to isolate with
sufficient certainty the relative effects of drivers on hydrological and environmental change.
Another issue that urgently requires careful empirical analysis is the assumption that irrigation
efficiency can be raised considerably and that the generated water savings can be delivered to
‘more needy’ non-agricultural sectors. The efficiency of irrigation may already be high, and
savings unlikely to be forthcoming. Furthermore, even if possible, the outcome of transferred
water is not guaranteed because of the social costs involved and because local irrigators may
recapture 'spare' water.
Hydrological and irrigation research should be complemented by participatory socio-economic
research on the role of water on people’s livelihoods, and on formal and informal water
management institutions. A close examination of issues such as local arrangements of water
allocation on rivers where water is under competition from several users and of the de facto
consequences of formal water rights may considerably reorient current directions of basin-level
water management by the Ministry of Water and Livestock.
Challenging entrenched normal professionalism
Despite attempts, it has proved difficult to address the effects of ‘normal water science
professionalism’ that results in the maldistribution of water during the dry season. The
hallmark of normal professionalism is that which inflexibly pursues conventional, over-
simplified or mono-disciplinary interpretations of policy. In other words, the interventions on
water allocations and intake infrastructure improvements, as mentioned above, initially
appeared to be technically correct, but were then inadequately tailored and refined by formal
river basin institutions to the local situation and conditions.
Understanding the role of the powerful elite
Related to the previous point are lessons gained from the role of the local, regional and national
elite in decision-making and effecting change, although this does not fit with the mainstream
notion that advocates local level user participation. It is clear that the statement by the
Tanzanian Prime Minister in March 2001 to the Rio+10 Summit in London that the river should
return to year-round flow by 2010 has ensured a surprising level of support for the canal closure
programme at the District level. Also, the defining of the Usangu Game Reserve allows District
officers to justify the forced removal of vulnerable fishermen and women and pastoralists.
Equally, it has proved difficult to communicate fully with electricity corporation officials in
ways that promote a more open understanding of why Mtera/Kidatu reservoirs became exposed
to shortfalls of recharging inflows. This too allows TANESCO to claim a priority need of
Ruaha waters. Similarly, SMUWC found that the delivery of messages of conditional and
multiple causes of environmental change was only successful through its ‘project champion’
working amongst high-level stakeholders within Dar es Salaam.
Tanzania – Critical Analysis of River Basin Management in the Great Ruaha, Case #121 7
The need for local water development solutions in managing basin-level
water scarcity
Last but not least, a major lesson learned is that the Upper Ruaha Basin is still an open basin in
the sense that physical water resources are still available, but need to be harnessed for human
use. Therefore, downstream water scarcity can be solved locally by developing locally available
untapped water resources, such as boreholes or stock dams in the Ruaha National Park or by
improving the water management of the electricity-generating reservoirs. Even in the Usangu
Plains, water scarcity during the dry season does not preclude further expansion of water use for
irrigation during the wet season through new infrastructure development. The construction of
more storage capacity or groundwater development could mitigate dry-season water scarcity
especially for domestic users. From a livelihoods’ perspective, such local water development is
certainly a more desirable solution for basin-level water scarcity than the originally proposed
reallocation of water from poor to powerful water users (see Figure 3).
Figure 3: Schematic representation of local water development versus basin water reallocation
approaches to IWRM.
Replicability/relevance in other areas or situations
The applicability of these lessons to other river basins depends on the configuration of rivers
within those basins – on socio-economic aspects, institutions dealing with the rivers, and
hydrology and environmental issues. For example, in Tanzania, these lessons apply to the
Pangani River Basin which is the focus of similar Ministry of Water and Livestock projects. It
might be possible to apply lessons in other Sub-Saharan rivers with comparable characteristics,
such as a contrasting wet and dry season hydrology. For example, the Kafue sub-basin of the
Zambezi would appear to be a possibility. Internationally, cases with contested hydrological
interpretations and those requiring inter-disciplinary, multi-faceted solutions could draw on the
lessons outlined here.
Tanzania – Critical Analysis of River Basin Management in the Great Ruaha, Case #121 8
5 References
In the first instance please see reports and information held on the SMUWC website:
www.usangu.org. Acknowledgments are given to the SMUWC team particularly Tom Franks,
Mary Gillingham, Geoff King, Julie Thomas, Nick Mandeville, Lawrence Mbuya, Peter Baur,
Paul Devitt, Alistair Graham, Jeremy Berkoff, Stan Western and Tom Boyd.
Baur, P, Mandeville, N, Lankford, B and Boake, R. 2000. Upstream/downstream competition
for water in the Usangu Basin, Tanzania. In, Proceedings of the British Hydrological
Symposium, Seventh National Hydrology Symposium, University of Newcastle 6-8, September
2000. BHS National Hydrology Symposium Series.
Franks, T and Lankford, B. 2002. Managing Water in the Usangu Basin, Tanzania. Paper
Accepted for question 51.1 Montreal ICID Congress, Montreal, Canada, 2002.
Hazelwood, A & Livingstone, I. 1978. The development potential of the Usangu plains of
Tanzania, Commonwealth Fund for Technical Cooperation, The Commonwealth Secretariat.
Lankford, B. A. 2001, Red Routes On Blue Rivers: Strategic Water Management for the Ruaha
River Basin, Tanzania. Water Resources Development, Vol 17, No.3: 427-444.
Lankford, B. A. 2001. Sustainable Utilisation of Water Resources - a non-equilibrium
approach: Informed by the Usangu Plains, Tanzania. In, Proceedings of the 1st National
Irrigation Conference, Morogoro, Tanzania, 20th to 22nd March, 2001. Funded by
DANIDA/JICA. Department of Irrigation, Ministry of Agriculture, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Lankford, B. A and Gillingham, P. 2001. The Impacts of Irrigation Improvement Programmes.
In, Proceedings of the 1st National Irrigation Conference, Morogoro, Tanzania, 20th to 22nd
March, 2001. Funded by DANIDA/JICA. Department of Irrigation, Ministry of Agriculture,
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Lankford, B. A and Franks, T. 2000. The Sustainable Co-Existence Of Wetlands And Rice
Irrigation - A Case Study From Tanzania. The Environment and Development Journal, Vol. 9,
No. 2, 119-137.
6 Contacts
For further information, please contact:
· Bruce Lankford, School of Development Studies, University of East Anglia, UK,
[email protected]
· Nuhu Hatibu and Henry Mahoo, Soil Water Management Research Group, Sokoine
University of Agriculture, Tanzania, [email protected]
· The RIPARWIN team, Igurusi, Mbarali District, [email protected]
· Barbara van Koppen and Hervé Levite, International Water Management Institute,
Africa Regional Office [email protected], [email protected]
Tanzania – Critical Analysis of River Basin Management in the Great Ruaha, Case #121 9
