Next Article in Journal
Seeding Pattern Impact at Crop Density Establishment and Grain Yield of Maize
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of Tillage Intensity, Cover Crop Species and Cover Crop Biomass on N-Fluxes, Weeds and Oat Yields in an Organic Field Experiment in Germany
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Sustainable Future of Carbon Farming with Virginia Fanpetals, a Carbon-Negative Species
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Crops
Volume 2
Issue 4
10.3390/crops2040034
crops-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Challenges Facing Leaders in Transforming Small-Scale Irrigation Farming in Usa River Ward, Arumeru District, Northern Tanzania

by
Eliningaya J. Kweka
1,2,3,*,
Casmir F. Kitula
1,
Elias E. Mbuti
1 and
David Wanani
1,4
1
Institute of Accountancy Arusha, Directorate of Postgraduate, Njiro Hill, Arusha P.O. Box 2798, Tanzania
2
Department of Medical Parasitology and Entomology, Catholic University of Health and Allied Sciences, Mwanza P.O. Box 1464, Tanzania
3
Pesticides Bioefficacy Unit Tanzania Plant Health and Pesticides Authority, Arusha P.O. Box 3024, Tanzania
4
Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies, University of Arusha, Usa-River, Arusha P.O. Box 7, Tanzania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Crops 2022, 2(4), 476-488; https://doi.org/10.3390/crops2040034
Submission received: 14 October 2022 / Revised: 14 November 2022 / Accepted: 16 November 2022 / Published: 13 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Economic Sustainability of Crop Farming Systems)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The low agricultural productivity of key crops and food insecurity continue to be a problem in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), and Tanzania in particular. The growing population and climate change further increase the food shortage. Irrigation has been strategized to reduce poverty and food insecurity, and improve the livelihoods of communities in African countries, and in particular Tanzania. Transformational leadership for small-scale irrigation is urgently needed to attain the planned agenda for irrigation schemes. This study assessed the challenges of leadership in leading and transforming small-scale irrigation schemes. The questionnaires were distributed to leaders of the agriculture sector in four strata (agriculture extension officer (25), AMCOS leaders (6), agriculture engineers (2), irrigation committee (9)) with a total of 42 leaders as participants. A total of 118 farmers were interviewed from four irrigation canals (Ngollo (32), Ngarasero I (32), Ngarasero II (33), and Abisinia (21)) in the Usa River ward. The study found that the challenges of leaders in leading the transformation of small-scale farming for success were commitment of leaders, market chain, pest control mechanisms, irrigation extension service, planning, technological transformation and adoption, mobilization of farmers and professionals, monitoring and evaluation, knowledge of irrigation, and agro-input supply. This study shows that leaders’ transformation skills can play a great role in poverty reduction in small-scale irrigation in the Usa River ward. Therefore, leaders in the study area should play the role of transformational leadership effectively in managing small-scale irrigation by practicing a participatory approach to farmers problem-solving.

1. Introduction

In sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), agriculture is considered the key to economic development in most countries, including Tanzania. In the history of SSA, agriculture has played a vital role in the employment of more than 80% of the population and remained the highest contributor to the gross domestic product (GDP). Agriculture in Tanzania is widely rain-fed and the irrigation practiced is merely traditional irrigation [1,2]. The development of the irrigation system in most of the areas in Tanzania is still at a lower scale than was expected since the inception of small-scale traditional irrigation in 1935 [3,4].
In Tanzania, there has been massive development of policies and programs aimed at accelerating the growth of the agriculture sector in irrigation to achieve the target impact on food security, income generation, and reliable employment for the youth population [5,6,7,8]. The government of Tanzania is scaling up the irrigation programme from small-scale to large irrigation farms to ensure food security, raw materials for industries, and foreign currency generation from exports [9,10]. The development of sustainable agricultural irrigation growth in Tanzania has a number of hurdles facing farmers, hindering the growth of the sector [11,12,13].
The irrigation sector has faced a number of problems such as poor response to technology adoption, market access, leadership, persistent use of traditional schemes, and low levels of access to agro-inputs for farmers when they are needed [14,15,16,17]. In most of the areas practicing small-scale agriculture, agricultural input provisions such as the fertilizer, frequent training, pesticides, improved seeds, and small-scale irrigation have shown high yields and increases in food security in Asian and Latin American countries [17,18,19].
In Tanzania, agricultural sector reforms have taken a new shape with the formulation of new strategies including recruitment of agricultural extension officers countrywide, and capacitating them with the transport to reach farmers [20]. Also, there is a new agenda called the 10/30 agenda, which is detailed on transforming agriculture traditional practices into business models. The Tanzania national agriculture reform agenda and development goals have often increased agricultural productivity as a proper way to ensure national food security. However, in the past two decades, there was no progress witnessed in productivity (though rain variation was considered to be the factor) [21,22,23]. Despite the large area of arable land, Tanzania has not produced enough irrigation schemes comparatively to neighboring countries. Since 2011, the irrigated rice production average yield in Tanzania has been 2.0 metric tons/hectare [24], which is less than rice production in Kenya of 4 metric tons/hectare [25] and 6.7 metric tons/hectare for China [26].
For the first time since independence in 1961, the government of Tanzania has set aside a budget worth TZS 927,000,000,000 (USD 396,162,081.04) for the Ministry of Agriculture for the financial year 2022/2023. Most of the funds have been channeled into seed production, irrigation, and agro-inputs supply (fertilizer and pesticides) subsidies [27]. Despite all these efforts, small-scale irrigation farming is still not producing to the expected rates. Currently, small-scale irrigation is not achieving the expected production for food security, regardless of the availability of stable surface water.
This study investigated the leadership challenges in leading small-scale irrigation transformation in Usa River ward, Arumeru District in northern Tanzania.

2. Transformational Leadership and Agriculture

The transformational leadership style gained attention in the past thirty years since its inception. There are four main dimensions in transformational leadership theory that describe leaders behavior [28]. These four dimensions are (i) influence of a leader, whose charismatic behavior inspires the followers to build trust and, hence, share the mission of their leaders; (ii) inspirational motivation is the ability to formulate clear goals to share, a compelling vision that motivates the followers and promotes their expectations; (iii) the intellectual stimulation is the ability to motivate followers in questioning assumptions and proactively look for their solutions; and (iv) the individualized consideration in which leader identifies, understands, and addresses the followers developmental needs and attends to them in a timely fashion.
The permeative focus on the transformational leadership style looks more well-founded on its effects on follower’s behavior and attitudes [29] and across cultures [30,31]. Due to these well-established factors, there has been a need to make clear the limits and means through which transformational leaders foster motivated followers’ work outcomes, which has added attention in the leadership literature [32]. The previous findings set boundaries and mechanisms with which transformational leaders enhanced followers’ performance and achievements [33,34,35,36,37].
To date, studies have shown great success in crystalizing the means through which the transformers can motivate and impact followers to perform beyond expectations. The previous findings by Avolio and others show that leaders pay attention to the underlying psychological processes, mechanisms, and conditions that the transformational leaders use to motivate their followers to high level of achievements and performance [32].
The previous studies conducted identified transformational leadership [38,39,40] in particular, and leader–follower interactions at the micro-level [41,42], as an important parameter in leadership performance, which also increase innovation. Nevertheless, the findings connecting transformational leadership and followers performance are shown to have inconsistencies [38,43]. Another theoretical approach explains that there are more mediators who link transformational leadership to innovative behavior. However, it is more important to identify the potential moderators to further provide a knowledge for better understanding of why not all followers are motivated to innovate, but also the conditions necessary for such an effect. The investigation to understand the challenges facing leaders in leading small-scale irrigation to attain production transformation is of the upmost importance, as previous findings show that transformational context has a great impact on followers’ behavioral change [41,44,45]. The transformational leader guides the followers to work towards the mission, vision, and sustainability of the irrigation schemes performance [46]. The sustainability of irrigation schemes needs followers who have been well-mentored and inspired by leaders for high productivity.

3. Method and Material

3.1. Study Area Description

The study area is located at the footstep of the slopes of Mount Meru in Arumeru District, Usa River ward. The study area is comprised of four main irrigation canals, namely, the Ngarasero 1, Ngarasero 2, Ngollo, and Abisian canals. Each canal serves about 200 registered small-scale irrigation farmers. The mainly irrigated crop is paddy, but maize, beans, and horticulture are also produced. The main ethnic groups on the area include the Meru, Chagga, and Pare, with minorities such as Iraqw and Sonjo. They also practice zero grazing and poultry keeping. The data collection sites during the study are shown in Figure 1, where questionnaires were given to leaders (Meru district council and agriculture marketing cooperative society (AMCOS) office) and interviews were conducted with farmers (in the Abisinia, Ngarasero I, Ngarasero II, and Ngollo schemes).

3.2. Study Population

The study used the population of government employee leaders who coordinated or supervised the irrigation activities in Meru District. These were agriculture extension officers, irrigation engineers, agriculture marketing cooperative society (AMCOS) leaders, and the irrigation committee members, who numbered 42 in total. The farmers involved in this study were 118 out 130 expected, who were obtained from the sample size calculation using the equation N = n/((n + 1)(e)2) (Figure 2); where N is the total number of individuals to be involved in the study, n = number of people involved in small-scale irrigation, and e = significant level (0.05).

3.3. Research Approach

The leader’s groups were provided with the questionnaires to rank the main four area of concern on what are the challenges in leading the SSI in Usa River ward. These generated quantitative data. On the other hand, similar objectives with open-ended questions were used to interview the farmers who were visited either at home or on the field. These interviews generated qualitative data.

3.4. Data Analysis

The quantitative data were entered in an Excel sheet and transformed to SPSS version 26 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). The data were analyzed using Kruskal–Wallis test, the non-parametric version of ANOVA as data were not normally distributed. The p-value was considered when the p-value was lower than 5%. For the qualitative data, the data were pooled and presented in narrations. The Figure 2 map was prepared with ESRI ArcGIS Pro 3.0 and the map datasets from OpenStreetMap, ESRI Living Atlas, and field survey results.

3.5. Ethical Issues

This study was given ethical approval from the directorate of postgraduate studies at IAA (Ref. No. MBA-LG/0002/2021). The access to farmers at Usa River ward was granted by the Arumeru district executive director (Ref. No. N10/5vol VII/198). Each farmer provided written consent and was informed that participation in the study was voluntary.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Response Rate and Demographic Data of Respondents

A total of 172 questionnaires were dispensed. Out of those, 42 (24.4%) were given to leaders through the heads of sections in each stratum. The response rate of leaders was 100% from each stratum (Table 1). It was planned to interview 130 farmers, with an equal number of respondents of 35 farmers from each canal. The farmer’s response was 90.7% (Table 1). Some farmers dropped from the study as the participation was voluntary. The demographic data of leaders show that 59.5% are males (Table 2), while for farmers, the demography shows that 64.4% are males (Table 2). In the education category, most leaders (42.9%) have diplomas, while the majority of the farmers (84.7%) have primary education (Table 2). The majority of responsive leaders (45.2%) are in the age bracket of 31–40, while 36.4% of farmers are above 50 years of age. In experience, the majority of leaders have experience of 4 to 10 years, while farmers have over 15 years of experience.

4.2. Commitment of Leaders

The findings on leaders commitment in this study show that the lack of leaders’ commitments has a rank of median value of 3, which is under the category of undecided (Table 3). This shows that the lack of commitment in leadership discourages small-scale irrigation transformation progress. The statistical analysis shows that the response of leaders from different strata is similar, with no significant difference among them (χ2 = 2.29, df = 4, p = 0.515). According to 64 (54.2%) farmers interviewed (source: farmers from Ngarasero I and Ngarasero II interviewed on 12–13 July 2022), leaders have a problem of commitment to SSI transformation, they always winding with the windfall activities, and they do not put a great emphasis on small-scale irrigation challenges from farmers to enhance the transformation of SSI. Also, leaders are considered as not facilitating the access to seeds, fertilizer, and pesticides, or the repair of water canals on time. In addition, they do not negotiate for the irrigation water costs per acre, as they are too high to meet (TZS 55,000 for members and TZS 75,000 for non-members). This is similar to a previous study that assesses the technologies adoption in agriculture improvements, which found that leaders are a major component in facilitating or hindering the acceptance of technology by farmers [14,17]. The data from the document review show that leaders in small-scale irrigation do not have a strategy to subsidize agro-inputs (fertilizer, seeds, and pesticides) and make them available upon farmers’ needs. The agro-inputs seem to be out of reach for many farmers when they are in high demand, due to high prices in free markets where the regulation of prices is not controlled by the government [47]. Elsewhere, it is found that farmers are claiming the costs of agro-inputs provided by micro-finances have high interests when paid, hence, making agriculture in irrigation system unsustainable, as there is no adequate financial support or soft loans access [14,17].

4.3. Market Chain

The study demonstrates that the lack of reliable access to a market chain for small-scale irrigation crops is a profitability and productivity barrier, and affects opportunities in small-scale irrigation schemes in the Usa River ward (Table 3). The data analysis output shows that there is no significant difference in responses among leaders on market chain access for small-scale irrigation famers crops (χ2 = 3.02, df = 3, p = 0.389). This means that the access to profitable markets for farmers crops is limited. However, they express the thought that they have to sell the harvested crops quickly after harvest at a cheap price to pay the debts of those who lend them agro-inputs (fertilizer, seed, and pesticides), which is hampering their success. This study has similar findings to previous studies on rice trading in Tanzania and Zimbabwe, which found t several barriers impacting on price and potential customers accessibility [48,49,50]. The main hindrance to market access was reported previously as imported rice having lower prices than the locally produced rice [51,52,53]. The price difference are a decisive factor for the traders and end-users in purchasing the foreign-produced rice from different international markets. Due to high costs on transporting locally produced rice, the imported rice seems, cheaper regardless of tariffs imposed by the government of Tanzania [53,54].

4.4. Pest Control Mechanism

In this study, the lack of supply of pest control (pesticides, fungicides, and herbicides) is found to have the median value of 4, which means that is under the category of agree (Table 3), showing that there is crisis in the availability of pest control pesticides. The statistical analysis in pest control mechanism shows that there is no significant difference among leaders in response to pest control mechanisms available (χ2 = 1.38, F = 3, p = 0.710). This shows that, collectively, leaders agree to have pest control management in SSI farms. From this result, it is understood that the lack of supply of pesticides for small-scale irrigation is the challenge for leaders in the Usa River ward in leading small-scale irrigation productivity.
The 118 farmers who responded to interviews said that the absence of alternative solutions for pesticide sources loses them productivity, with a high loss during any pest infestation (source: farmers interviewed in Ngollo, Ngarasero I and II, and Abisinia canal on 9 July 2022). They also state that a major bottleneck for small-scale irrigation in the Usa River ward is lack of leadership on making decisions on pesticide access when they are highly needed for insect and pest control. This is similar to previous studies in Tanzania, which found that a lack of pesticides on time leads to great loss of crop harvest [17,55]. The lack of transformational leaders, according to farmers, makes it difficult for famers to effectively alleviate the challenge that leads to poverty. This is similar to studies conducted on the relationship of transformational leadership with natural performance on agribusiness [56]. This study shows that transformational leadership is a required skill among leaders to revolutionize the small-scale irrigation into a profitable agriculture system for the community.

4.5. Irrigation Extension Service

This study finds that the irrigation extension services have a median value rank of 4, which means that they are under the category of agree (Table 3). The statistical analysis of the response shows that there is no statistical difference among the leaders’ strata (χ2 = 1.15 F = 3, p = 0.765). This means that the extension services offered in the Usa River ward are not satisfactory to farmer’s needs, or among leaders either. The key informant interviewed expresses that there is insufficient water-saving technology, and they have a problem of using improved seeds that are not accessible. As there are no permanent constructed canals, only the traditional canals, this causes high water loss and leads to conflicts due to water scarcity (source: farmers from Ngarasero I and Ngarasero II interviewed on 12–13 July 2022). The extension services in plant diseases are not adequate, and farmers diagnosis by themselves, which are obstacles to productivity, income, and food security. Similar studies conducted previously show that appropriate extension services to farmers decreases pests and improves food productivity and security when leaders play their role well [17,57,58,59]. The extension services are an invaluable service to help farmers to adapt to improved practices and technologies [14,59,60,61,62]. Technology adoption among small-scale irrigation farmers (mostly rainwater harvest) is of paramount importance for services to be delivered by extension officers among small-scale irrigation farmers, in order to ensure water availability and increase productivity for food security. The adoption of rain-water harvest technologies has influenced irrigation productivity in Kenya [63], Rwanda [64], and in Nzega, Tanzania [65], while in South Africa, there was household income increase due to the adoption of water-harvesting technologies [66,67].
The leadership attitudes in small-scale irrigation play a major role in motivating productivity when all other factors are constant. Currently, the irrigation budget in Tanzania for financial year 2022/2023 has been increased to TZS 362,000,000,000 (USD 154,828,193.00), which is 38.9% of the total Ministry of Agriculture budget [27]. The sixty-five interviewed farmers emphasize that leaders lack the ability to expand and improve the small-scale irrigation due to the very limited resources provided by the government (source: farmers from Ngarasero I and Ngarasero II interviewed on 12–13 July 2022). The lack of transformational leadership skills among leaders handicaps their performance in leading small-scale irrigation schemes to success. In previous studies conducted elsewhere in small-scale irrigation, it is revealed that leaders with both formal and informal skills in irrigation allow their followers to perform better, hence, increased productivity and food security [68,69]. Whatever little inputs are received are careful handled and used, as both farmers and leaders are involved in the planning and implementation of the programs [68,69]. The programs conceived together by leaders and farmers based on end-user needs allow both farmers and leaders to be creative and innovative for SSI success, as previously shown in other studies [70]. The other studies findings show that the use of natural resources (water) and the traditional canal monitored well by farmers reduces water loss and facilitates high productivity [71].
The other findings of this study show that there is no shared vision between farmers and leaders in different strata, which make development programs harder to implement. There is a significant difference among leaders on how they perceive the vision-sharing between leaders and farmers in all four strata (χ2 = 11.55, F = 3, p = 0.009). This shows that there is no vision-sharing among leaders and followers. When there is shared vision between leaders and followers, the working environment becomes good, while innovation and productivity increase when everybody is motivated [72,73]. A leader is referred to as the best influencer for the success and team effectiveness of farmers in the SSI [73]. This gives the best practice of transformational leading through vision-sharing and team goal commitment, which influences the transformation and mind-set of followers [74].

4.6. Planning

According to the findings of this study, the median value of planning for leaders in leading the small-scale irrigation in the Usa River ward is found to be 2, which ranks as disagree (Table 3). The findings among leaders of different strata have no statistical difference (χ2 = 3.65, F = 3, p = 0.301). This finding indicates that leaders in Usa River small-scale irrigation and agriculture extension officers are good in planning and budgeting, but worse at implementing the plan. They express that planning without implementation is useless, therefore, they have a problem of implementing the plan due to resource scarcity. Previous studies conducted in other areas on the impact of planning on small-scale irrigation success show that proper planning of land size, previous adaptation experience, and credit access are positively associated with income generation and the stability of small-scale irrigations [75,76].
These results show that leaders working on solving farmers problems hampering small-scale irrigation will increase the ability to produce and adapt to the new positive measures, as found in other sites where leaders planning and resources where matched [58,75,76]. Leaders enhancing the availability and quality of agriculture extension education, extension services, and finance could be valuable in encouraging further farm adaptation in small-scale irrigation [75]. The small-scale irrigation leadership is all about motivating followers and implementing the plans agreed with all available resources. The farmers in small-scale irrigation in Usa River ward find that technology transformation is a challenge for them (Table 3), because the costs of technologies are not affordable. In addition, the spare parts are not available on demand when machines break down, and technical knowledge on tool repair is also a challenge for small-scale irrigation farmers (source: 65 farmers from Ngarasero I and Ngarasero II interviewed on 12–13 July 2022). The water-harvesting technologies are highly in demand as a long-term conflict-solving strategy among farmers during the dry season. Previous studies elsewhere show that the inclusion of technologies such as rain-water harvest increases the productivity in irrigation schemes during off-field rain-fed seasons [77]. It is worth calling farmers together to organize for small technologies that are affordable to start with in profitable irrigation, and perfect their usage before adopting mega-technologies.
The findings of this study reveal that the mobilization of farmers and agriculture professionals is very low (Table 3). Also, the statistical analysis shows that there is no significant difference among the leaders from all strata in response (χ2 = 6.03, F = 3, p = 0.110). These findings indicate that leaders in the Usa River ward have a challenge in mobilizing the community involved in small-scale irrigation. The farmers interviewed express that there is a poor mobilization mechanism in the Usa River ward (source: the 65 farmers from Ngarasero I and Ngarasero II interviewed on 12–13 July 2022). Different studies in Asia, Africa, and Latin America show that the indigenous irrigation systems, when managed well by water users who design, build, operate, and maintain the structures of small-scale systems, participate in all project stages successes and achieve the main goals well [78]. There is a problem in integrating different tasks at the same time and mobilizing the community. Most of the time, activities are accomplished in piece-meals, not in an organized manner that helps to mobilize society morale for small-scale irrigation performance. Monitoring and evaluation of programs are vital activities; in this study, the monitoring and evaluation is found to be very low/weak in the Usa River ward.
The findings show that leaders in Usa River ward have a challenge in monitoring and evaluation, as they failed even to decide if they agree or disagree if there is no strong monitory and evaluation of the small-scale irrigation programme (Table 3). The statistical analysis shows that there is no significant difference among leaders in all strata in their response to monitoring and evaluating small-scale irrigation programs (χ2 = 1.37, F = 3, p = 0.712). The sixty-five farmers interviewed also commented that leaders have no regular and strong monitoring and evaluation method. Farmers express that they have a lot of unsolved problems (source: the 65 farmers from Ngarasero I and Ngarasero II interviewed on 12–13 July 2022). Other studies show that for small-scale irrigation to take off and become profitable, monitoring and evaluation should be well executed. Based on this fact, providing farmers with information management, technical capacity, and know-how among government and non-government institutions at national, regional, zonal, and ward levels on planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation viewpoints related to irrigation management is a very important aspect to bring the expected result [79,80,81,82]. The studies conducted in Nigeria irrigation schemes show that the mandatory monitoring and evaluation of the schemes progress contribute to farm yield increase, and operational costs are found to be within the budgeted resources [79]. This shows that the effective monitoring and evaluation of the plans and resources allocated increases the performance of irrigation systems, and cause both leaders and farmers to be held responsible.

5. Conclusions and Recommendations for Small-Scale Irrigations

5.1. Conclusions

The findings of this study show that installation of transformational leadership skills for small-scale irrigation leaders can maximize yields, improve household income, and employment for youth. Implementation of transformational leadership skills in small-scale irrigation creates awareness, commitment, responsibilities, and accountability for both leaders and followers as they both plan, execute, and involve themselves in the decision-making process. The adoption of rain water seems to be a solution to farmers conflicts due to water shortage in the dry season.

5.2. Recommendations

This study lays out with a number of recommendations to all four strata of leaders (agricultural extension officer, AMCOS leaders, irrigation engineers, and the irrigation committee) involved in the Usa River ward small-scale irrigation to transform the irrigation practices and increase productivity. The study recommends the following: (i) there should be a seasonal and constant irrigation calendar to avoid conflict among farmers; (ii) quality pesticides and fertilizers should be available for the farmers before irrigation season; (iii) pest control mechanisms, plant disease, and pests are the major challenges for small-scale irrigation development. Therefore, the leaders of the Usa River small-scale irrigation scheme should work and coordinate their challenge in collaboration with other institutions such as the Tanzania Agriculture Research Institution and the Tanzania Plant Health and Pesticides Authority; and (iv) further studies are recommended for the challenges facing leaders on leading small-scale irrigation schemes.

Author Contributions

E.J.K., C.F.K., E.E.M. and D.W. conceived and designed the study. E.J.K. wrote the first draft of the manuscript, review, with inputs and revisions by C.F.K., E.E.M. and D.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The manuscript was funded by a research scholarship granted to E.J.K. as part of his MBA-leadership and governance student research fund granted by Tanzania Plant Health and Pesticides Authority.

Data Availability Statement

All data presented in results and discussion are available upon request from corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors highly appreciate the help given by Arumeru district agriculture leaders, AMCOS leaders, and farmers. Field assistants who interviewed farmers for questionnaires, namely, Grace Jayombo, Irene Ruta, Faustine Hosea, and Rehema Abdallah, are fondly appreciated. TPRI is acknowledged for financial support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Sarr, M.; Ayele, M.B.; Kimani, M.E.; Ruhinduka, R. Who benefits from climate-friendly agriculture? The marginal returns to a rainfed system of rice intensification in Tanzania. World Dev. 2021, 138, 105160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Rosegrant, M.W.; Cai, X.; Cline, S.A.; Nakagawa, N. The Role of Rainfed Agriculture in the Future of Global Food Production; International Food Policy Research Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  3. de Bont, C. The continuous quest for control by african irrigation planners in the face of farmer-led irrigation development: The case of the Lower Moshi Area, Tanzania (1935–2017). Water Altern. 2018, 11, 893–915. [Google Scholar]
  4. de Bont, C.; Komakech, H.C.; Veldwisch, G.J. Neither modern nor traditional: Farmer-led irrigation development in Kilimanjaro Region, Tanzania. World Dev. 2019, 116, 15–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. de Bont, C. Modernisation and Farmer-Led Irrigation Development in Africa: A Study of State-Farmer Interactions in Tanzania. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Human Geography, Stockholm University , Stockholm, Sweden, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  6. Diagne, A.; Amovin-Assagba, E.; Futakuchi, K.; Wopereis, M.C. Estimation of cultivated area, number of farming households and yield for major rice-growing environments in Africa. Realiz. Afr. Rice Promise 2013, 35–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Savary, S.; Akter, S.; Almekinders, C.; Harris, J.; Korsten, L.; Rötter, R.; Waddington, S.; Watson, D. Mapping disruption and resilience mechanisms in food systems. Food Secur. 2020, 12, 695–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Barrett, C.B.; Reardon, T.; Swinnen, J.; Zilberman, D. Agri-food value chain revolutions in low-and middle-income countries. J. Econ. Lit. 2020, 58, 1–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Coulson, A. Tanzania: A Political Economy; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  10. Bernstein, H. Class Dynamics of Agrarian Change; Kumarian Press: Boulder, CO, USA, 2010; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
  11. Salami, A.; Kamara, A.B.; Brixiova, Z. Smallholder Agriculture in East Africa: Trends, Constraints and Opportunities; African Development Bank Tunis: Tunis, Tunisia, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  12. Zhang, C.-H.; Benjamin, W.A.; Miao, W. The contribution of cooperative irrigation scheme to poverty reduction in Tanzania. J. Integr. Agric. 2021, 20, 953–963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. De Fraiture, C.; Giordano, M. Small private irrigation: A thriving but overlooked sector. Agric. Water Manag. 2014, 131, 167–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Gebul, M.A. Trend, status, and challenges of irrigation development in Ethiopia—A review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Mohie El Din, M.O.; Moussa, A.M. Water management in Egypt for facing the future challenges. J. Adv. Res. 2016, 7, 403–412. [Google Scholar]
  16. Mpandeli, S.; Maponya, P. Constraints and challenges facing the small scale farmers in Limpopo Province, South Africa. J. Agric. Sci. 2014, 6, 135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Jha, S.; Kaechele, H.; Lana, M.; Amjath-Babu, T.; Sieber, S. Exploring farmers’ perceptions of agricultural technologies: A case study from Tanzania. Sustainability 2020, 12, 998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Pingali, P.L. Green revolution: Impacts, limits, and the path ahead. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, 12302–12308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Kijima, Y.; Ito, Y.; Otsuka, K. Assessing the impact of training on lowland rice productivity in an African setting: Evidence from Uganda. World Dev. 2012, 40, 1610–1618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Mujeyi, K.; Mutodi, K. Policy Research Report; Zimbabwe Farmers Union (ZFU): Harare, Zimbabwe, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  21. Mkonda, M.Y.; He, X. Are rainfall and temperature really changing? Farmer’s perceptions, meteorological data, and policy implications in the Tanzanian semi-arid zone. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Mkonda, M.Y.; He, X. Yields of the major food crops: Implications to food security and policy in Tanzania’s semi-arid agro-ecological zone. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Mkonda, M.Y.; He, X. Conservation agriculture in Tanzania. Sustain. Agric. Rev. 2017, 22, 309–324. [Google Scholar]
  24. Mtaki, B. Tanzania—United Republic of Grain and Feed Annual 2019 Tanzania Corn, Wheat and Rice Report; Grain Agriculture Information Nertwork: Dar-es-salaam, Tanzania, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  25. Gitonga, K. Kenya Grain and Feed Annual Kenya Imports of Corn, Wheat, and Rice Expected to Surge; Grain Agriculture information Nertwork: Nairobi, Kenya, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  26. Kim, G. China—Peoples Republic of Grain and Feed Annual Grain Prices Reflect Political Risks—Outweighing Animal Disease Impacts; Agriculture Information Global Network Location: China, 2019. Available online: https://apps.fas.usda.gov/newgainapi/api/report/downloadreportbyfilename?filename=Grain%20and%20Feed%20Annual_Beijing_China%20-%20Peoples%20Republic%20of_4-17-2019.pdf (accessed on 4 October 2022).
  27. Parliament, T. Ministry of Agriculture Budget. Parliarment of Tanzania, Dododma, Tanzania. Available online: https://www.parliament.go.tz/uploads/budgetspeeches/1652785759-document%20(9).pdf (accessed on 4 October 2022).
  28. Bass, B.M.; Bass Bernard, M. Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations; The Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1985. [Google Scholar]
  29. Judge, T.A.; Piccolo, R.F. Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. J. Appl. Psychol. 2004, 89, 755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  30. Walumbwa, F.O.; Lawler, J.J.; Avolio, B.J. Leadership, individual differences, and work-related attitudes: A cross-culture investigation. Appl. Psychol. 2007, 56, 212–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kirkman, B.L.; Chen, G.; Farh, J.-L.; Chen, Z.X.; Lowe, K.B. Individual power distance orientation and follower reactions to transformational leaders: A cross-level, cross-cultural examination. Acad. Manag. J. 2009, 52, 744–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Avolio, B.J.; Walumbwa, F.O.; Weber, T.J. Leadership: Current theories, research, and future directions. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2009, 60, 421–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Piccolo, R.F.; Colquitt, J.A. Transformational leadership and job behaviors: The mediating role of core job characteristics. Acad. Manag. J. 2006, 49, 327–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Schaubroeck, J.; Lam, S.S.; Cha, S.E. Embracing transformational leadership: Team values and the impact of leader behavior on team performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 2007, 92, 1020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Walumbwa, F.O.; Avolio, B.J.; Zhu, W. How transformational leadership weaves its influence on individual job performance: The role of identification and efficacy beliefs. Pers. Psychol. 2008, 61, 793–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Hartnell, C.A.; Walumbwa, F.O. Transformational leadership and organizational culture. Handb. Organ. Cult. Clim. 2011, 2, 112–121. [Google Scholar]
  37. Walumbwa, F.O.; Hartnell, C.A. Understanding transformational leadership–employee performance links: The role of relational identification and self-efficacy. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2011, 84, 153–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Pieterse, A.N.; Van Knippenberg, D.; Schippers, M.; Stam, D. Transformational and transactional leadership and innovative behavior: The moderating role of psychological empowerment. J. Organ. Behav. 2010, 31, 609–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Shin, S.J.; Zhou, J. Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity: Evidence from Korea. Acad. Manag. J. 2003, 46, 703–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Gong, Y.; Huang, J.-C.; Farh, J.-L. Employee learning orientation, transformational leadership, and employee creativity: The mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy. Acad. Manag. J. 2009, 52, 765–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Tierney, P.; Farmer, S.M.; Graen, G.B. An examination of leadership and employee creativity: The relevance of traits and relationships. Pers. Psychol. 1999, 52, 591–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kremer, H.; Villamor, I.; Aguinis, H. Innovation leadership: Best-practice recommendations for promoting employee creativity, voice, and knowledge sharing. Bus. Horiz. 2019, 62, 65–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Pieterse, J.N. Development Theory; Sage: London, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  44. George, J.M.; Zhou, J. Understanding when bad moods foster creativity and good ones don’t: The role of context and clarity of feelings. J. Appl. Psychol. 2002, 87, 687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Bani-Melhem, S.; Zeffane, R.; Albaity, M. Determinants of employees’ innovative behavior. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2018, 30, 1601–1620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Li, H.; Sajjad, N.; Wang, Q.; Muhammad Ali, A.; Khaqan, Z.; Amina, S. Influence of transformational leadership on employees’ innovative work behavior in sustainable organizations: Test of mediation and moderation processes. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Barungi, M.; Odokonyero, T. Understanding the Rice Value Chain in Uganda-Opportunities and Challenges to Increased Production; Economic Policy Research Centre Place: Kampala, Uganda, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  48. Sekiya, N.; Oizumi, N.; Kessy, T.T.; Fimbo, K.M.; Tomitaka, M.; Katsura, K.; Araki, H. Importance of market-oriented research for rice production in Tanzania. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2020, 40, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Mdemu, M.V.; Mziray, N.; Bjornlund, H.; Kashaigili, J.J. Barriers to and opportunities for improving productivity and profitability of the Kiwere and Magozi irrigation schemes in Tanzania. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 2017, 33, 725–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Moyo, M.; van Rooyen, A.; Moyo, M.; Chivenge, P.; Bjornlund, H. Irrigation development in Zimbabwe: Understanding productivity barriers and opportunities at Mkoba and Silalatshani irrigation schemes. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 2017, 33, 740–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Minot, N. Staple Food Prices in Tanzania, Paper Prepared for the COMESA Policy Seminar on “Variation in Staple Food Prices: Causes, Consequence, and Policy Options”; Maputo, Mozambique, Markets, Trade, and Institutions Division, International Food Policy Research Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  52. Therkildsen, O. Policy Making and Implementation in Agriculture: Tanzania’s Push for Irrigated Rice; DIIS Working Paper; Danish Institute for International Studies: København, Denmark, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  53. Nzomoi, J.; Anderson, I. The Rice Market in East Africa. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference of the African Association of Agricultural Economists, Hammamet, Tunisia, 22–25 September 2013. [Google Scholar]
  54. Demont, M. Reversing urban bias in African rice markets: A review of 19 National Rice Development Strategies. Glob. Food Secur. 2013, 2, 172–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Greenberg, S.; Jones, G. Nuanced Rhetoric and the Path to Poverty: AGRA, Small-Scale Farmers, and Seed and Soil Fertility in Tanzania; The African Centre for Biosafety: Johannesburg, South Africa, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  56. Jankelová, N.; Joniaková, Z.; Némethová, I.; Blštáková, J. How to Support the Effect of Transformational Leadership on Performance in Agricultural Enterprises. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Monela, A.G. Access to and Adoption of Improved Seeds by Smallholder Farmers in Tanzania: Cases of Maize and Rice Seeds in Mbeya and Morogoro Regions. Master’s Thesis, Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  58. Awulachew, S.B.; Merrey, D.; Kamara, A.; Van Koppen, B.; Penning de Vries, F.; Boelee, E. Experiences and Opportunities for Promoting Small-Scale/Micro Irrigation and Rainwater Harvesting for Food Security in Ethiopia; IWMI: Colombo, Sri Lanka, 2005; Volume 98. [Google Scholar]
  59. Aklilu, N.; Abiy, A.; Kidane, D.; Arkebe, G. Agricultural extension for enhancing productivity and poverty alleviation in small scale irrigation agriculture for sustainable development in Ethiopia. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2016, 11, 171–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Yohannes, D.F.; Ritsema, C.; Solomon, H.; Froebrich, J.; Van Dam, J. Irrigation water management: Farmers’ practices, perceptions and adaptations at Gumselassa irrigation scheme, North Ethiopia. Agric. Water Manag. 2017, 191, 16–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Levidow, L.; Zaccaria, D.; Maia, R.; Vivas, E.; Todorovic, M.; Scardigno, A. Improving water-efficient irrigation: Prospects and difficulties of innovative practices. Agric. Water Manag. 2014, 146, 84–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Lipton, M.; Litchfield, J.; Faurès, J.-M. The effects of irrigation on poverty: A framework for analysis. Water Policy 2003, 5, 413–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Oguge, N.; Oremo, F. Fostering the use of rainwater for off-season small-scale irrigation in arid and semi-arid areas of Kenya. In Rainwater-Smart Agriculture in Arid and Semi-Arid Areas; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 159–174. [Google Scholar]
  64. Ngango, J.; Seungjee, H. Adoption of small-scale irrigation technologies and its impact on land productivity: Evidence from Rwanda. J. Integr. Agric. 2021, 20, 2302–2312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Timothy, S.; Lokina, R.; James Mgale, Y.; Dimoso, P. What matters in adoption of small-scale rain water harvesting technologies at household level? Evidence from Charco-dam users in Nzega, Tanzania. Cogent Food Agric. 2022, 8, 2112429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Mango, N.; Makate, C.; Tamene, L.; Mponela, P.; Ndengu, G. Adoption of small-scale irrigation farming as a climate-smart agriculture practice and its influence on household income in the Chinyanja Triangle, Southern Africa. Land 2018, 7, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Kattel, R.R.; Nepal, M. Rainwater harvesting and rural livelihoods in Nepal. In Climate Change and Community Resilience; Springer: Singapore, 2022; pp. 159–173. [Google Scholar]
  68. Imburgia, L.; Osbahr, H.; Cardey, S.; Momsen, J. Inclusive participation, self-governance, and sustainability Current challenges and opportunities for women in leadership of communal irrigation systems. Environ. Plan. E Nat. Space 2021, 4, 886–914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Hornum, S.T.; Bolwig, S. A functional analysis of the role of input suppliers in an agricultural innovation system: The case of small-scale irrigation in Kenya. Agric. Syst. 2021, 193, 103219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Geijsel, F.; Sleegers, P.; van den Berg, R. Transformational leadership and the implementation of large-scale innovation programs. J. Educ. Adm. 1999, 37, 309–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Naidoo, K.D.; Thamaga-Chitja, J.M.; Shimelis, H.A. Towards sustainable livelihoods through indigenous knowledge and water use security: Insights from small scale irrigation schemes in Limpopo Province. Indilinga Afr. J. Indig. Knowl. Syst. 2013, 12, 301–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Hooper, P.L.; Kaplan, H.S.; Boone, J.L. A theory of leadership in human cooperative groups. J. Theor. Biol. 2010, 265, 633–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Lee, J.; Kim, B.; Chung, J. Leaders Need to Be Led: Complementary Followership through Interchangeable Roles among Leader-Follower Positions. KDI Sch. Pub Policy Manag. Pap. Forthcom. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Chai, D.S.; Hwang, S.J.; Joo, B.-K. Transformational leadership and organizational commitment in teams: The mediating roles of shared vision and team-goal commitment. Perform. Improv. Q. 2017, 30, 137–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Abebe, F.; Zuo, A.; Wheeler, S.A.; Bjornlund, H.; Chilundo, M.; Kissoly, L.; Dube, T. The influences on farmers’ planned and actual farm adaptation decisions: Evidence from small-scale irrigation schemes in South-Eastern Africa. Ecol. Econ. 2022, 202, 107594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Bacha, D.; Namara, R.; Bogale, A.; Tesfaye, A. Impact of small-scale irrigation on household poverty: Empirical evidence from the Ambo district in Ethiopia. Irrig. Drain. 2011, 60, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Balana, B.B.; Bizimana, J.-C.; Richardson, J.W.; Lefore, N.; Adimassu, Z.; Herbst, B.K. Economic and food security effects of small-scale irrigation technologies in northern Ghana. Water Resour. Econ. 2020, 29, 100141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Uphoff, N. Improving International Irrigation Management with Farmer Participation: Getting the Process Right; Routledge: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  79. Ashu, E. The Impact of Small Scale Irrigation on the Income and Food Security Among Small-Scale Farmers in Ethiopia: A Review. Am. J. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2022, 7, 53–59. [Google Scholar]
  80. Kolawole, A. Monitoring and evaluation of Nigeria’s irrigation systems: The case of the Bakolori irrigation project. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 1993, 9, 75–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Krimmel, T. Towards an Institutionalization of Monitoring and Evaluation of Project Impact: The Example of Projects in the Small-Scale Irrigation Sector in West Sumatra, Indonesia; Verlag Josef Margrag: Weikersheim, Germany, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  82. Biswas, A.K. Monitoring and evaluation of an irrigation system. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 1984, 2, 3–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Crops 02 00034 g001 550
Figure 1. The map of the study site showing where the questionnaires were filled by leaders and interviews were conducted with farmers.
Figure 1. The map of the study site showing where the questionnaires were filled by leaders and interviews were conducted with farmers.
Crops 02 00034 g001
Crops 02 00034 g002 550
Figure 2. Sample size derivation flow chart (leaders, N = 42, farmers, N = 130).
Figure 2. Sample size derivation flow chart (leaders, N = 42, farmers, N = 130).
Crops 02 00034 g002
Table
Table 1. Leaders and farmers response to small-scale irrigation leadership challenges.
Table 1. Leaders and farmers response to small-scale irrigation leadership challenges.
StratumDistributedReturned% Response
1Irrigation engineer22100
2Extension field officers2525100
3AMCOS66100
4Irrigation committee99100
5Farmers13011890.7
TOTAL17216093.0
Table
Table 2. Demographic distribution of leaders from different strata in Usa River ward (N = 42).
Table 2. Demographic distribution of leaders from different strata in Usa River ward (N = 42).
Agriculture EngineerAgriculture Extension OfficerIrrigation CommitteeAMCOS
SexMale21184
Female01412
Total22596
Age (years)18–300301
31–4011431
41–501313
>500551
Total22596
Education StatusPrimary 0073
Secondary 0021
Certificate0201
Diploma01701
Degree2600
Masters0000
Above masters0000
Total22596
Work Experience (Years)Less than 3 0021
3 to 40300
4 to 1011332
11 to 151410
More than 150533
TOTAL22596
Table
Table 3. Ranking of leaders’ responses to the challenges facing small-scale irrigation.
Table 3. Ranking of leaders’ responses to the challenges facing small-scale irrigation.
Factor MedianInterpretation
Available market chain 3Undecided
There is no shared vision3Undecided
There is no commitment from leaders3Undecided
Poor quality of irrigation extension service4Agree
Poor attitude and knowledge3Undecided
No technological transformation3Undecided
Religious and traditional barriers2Disagree
No monitoring and evaluation system3Undecided
There is poor planning2Disagree
Leaders are poor at fighting harmful traditions2Disagree
Leaders are poor are mobilizing farmers and professionals3Undecided
Inputs are not available on time4Agree
No integrated pest control mechanism4Agree
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kweka, E.J.; Kitula, C.F.; Mbuti, E.E.; Wanani, D. Challenges Facing Leaders in Transforming Small-Scale Irrigation Farming in Usa River Ward, Arumeru District, Northern Tanzania. Crops 2022, 2, 476-488. https://doi.org/10.3390/crops2040034

AMA Style

Kweka EJ, Kitula CF, Mbuti EE, Wanani D. Challenges Facing Leaders in Transforming Small-Scale Irrigation Farming in Usa River Ward, Arumeru District, Northern Tanzania. Crops. 2022; 2(4):476-488. https://doi.org/10.3390/crops2040034

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kweka, Eliningaya J., Casmir F. Kitula, Elias E. Mbuti, and David Wanani. 2022. "Challenges Facing Leaders in Transforming Small-Scale Irrigation Farming in Usa River Ward, Arumeru District, Northern Tanzania" Crops 2, no. 4: 476-488. https://doi.org/10.3390/crops2040034

APA Style

Kweka, E. J., Kitula, C. F., Mbuti, E. E., & Wanani, D. (2022). Challenges Facing Leaders in Transforming Small-Scale Irrigation Farming in Usa River Ward, Arumeru District, Northern Tanzania. Crops, 2(4), 476-488. https://doi.org/10.3390/crops2040034

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop