Neither modern nor traditional: Farmer-led irrigation development in Kilimanjaro Region, Tanzania
Neither modern nor traditional: Farmer-led irrigation development in Kilimanjaro Region, Tanzania
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.11.018
复制
发表时间：
2019-04-01
影响因子：
6.9
通讯作者：
Veldwisch, Gert Jan
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
de Bont, Chris;Komakech, Hans C.;Veldwisch, Gert Jan
关于什么样的灌溉，大型或小型，现代或传统，最有助于粮食安全和农村发展的辩论继续影响全球南方的灌溉政策和发展。在坦桑尼亚，“现代”和“传统”灌溉类别主导着灌溉政策，并影响着干预措施。在本文中，我们将探讨这些概念真正需要在坦桑尼亚的情况下，他们如何涉及到农民主导的地下水灌溉发展的情况下，在Kahe病房，基利曼哈罗地区。在我们的分析中，我们依赖于2016年为期三个月的定性实地调查、家庭问卷、政策文件等二级数据以及2014-2015年的绘图结果。在2000年代初，Kahe的小农户开始开发地下水。这导致了一种新的、差异化的景观，不同形式的农业生产共存。同一套地下水灌溉技术促进了不同阶层农民的出现，从从事自给农业的农民到从事资本主义农业的农民。投入水平和与市场的融合程度各不相同，作物选择也是如此。因此，一些农场效仿政府提倡的商业化农业的“现代”理想，而另一些则没有，或者程度较低。我们还发现，国家政策的灌溉话语不一定在地方一级重复，在那里的干预措施是强烈驱动的优先级的基础上冲突和资金。我们的结论是，传统和现代灌溉的政策概念不公正的实际灌溉发展的复杂性，在Kahe的情况下，混淆其对农村发展和粮食安全的贡献。我们认为，一个单一的灌溉技术不会导致单一的农业生产模式，灌溉政策和干预措施应考虑到灌溉者之间的差异。(C)2018作者爱思唯尔有限公司出版
The debate around what kind of irrigation, large- or small-scale, modern or traditional, best contributes to food security and rural development continues to shape irrigation policies and development in the Global South. In Tanzania, the irrigation categories of 'modern' and 'traditional' are dominating irrigation policies and are shaping interventions. In this paper, we explore what these concepts really entail in the Tanzanian context and how they relate to a case of farmer-led groundwater irrigation development in Kahe ward, Kilimanjaro Region. For our analysis, we rely on three months of qualitative fieldwork in 2016, a household questionnaire, secondary data such as policy documents and the results of a mapping exercise in 2014-2015. In the early 2000s, smallholders in Kahe started developing groundwater. This has led to a new, differentiated landscape in which different forms of agricultural production co-exist. The same set of groundwater irrigation technologies has facilitated the emergence of different classes of farmers, ranging from those engaging with subsistence farming to those doing capitalist farming. The level of inputs and integration with markets vary, as does crop choice. As such, some farms emulate the 'modern' ideal of commercial farming promoted by the government, while others do not, or to a lesser extent. We also find that national policy discourses on irrigation are not necessarily repeated at the local level, where interventions are strongly driven by prioritization based on conflict and funding. We conclude that the policy concepts of traditional and modern irrigation do not do justice to the complexity of actual irrigation development in the Kahe case, and obfuscate its contribution to rural development and food security. We argue that a single irrigation technology does not lead to a single agricultural mode of production, and that irrigation policies and interventions should take into account the differentiation among irrigators. (C) 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.