Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tcld20

Download by: [INASP - Tanzania] Date: 21 June 2016, At: 07:46

Climate and Development

ISSN: 1756-5529 (Print) 1756-5537 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tcld20

Smallholder farmers in the Great Ruaha River sub-Basin of Tanzania: coping or adapting to rainfallvariability?

Noah M. Pauline, Coleen Vogel, Stefan Grab & Emma T. Liwenga

To cite this article: Noah M. Pauline, Coleen Vogel, Stefan Grab & Emma T. Liwenga (2016):Smallholder farmers in the Great Ruaha River sub-Basin of Tanzania: coping or adapting torainfall variability?, Climate and Development, DOI: 10.1080/17565529.2016.1184607

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2016.1184607

Published online: 21 Jun 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Smallholder farmers in the Great Ruaha River sub-Basin of Tanzania: coping or adapting torainfall variability?

Noah M. Paulinea,b*, Coleen Vogelc, Stefan Grabb and Emma T. Liwengaa

aInstitute of Resources Assessment, University of Dar es Salaam, P.O Box 35097, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania; bSchool of Geography,Archaeology & Environmental Studies, University of the Witwatersrand, P/Bag 3 WITS 2050, Johannesburg, South Africa; cGlobalChange Sustainability Research Institute and School of Animal, Plant and Environmental Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, 1 JanSmuts Avenue, Braamfontein 2000, Johannesburg, South Africa

(Received 12 February 2015; accepted 18 April 2016)

Climate change and variability are pervasive contemporary realities inAfrica. In this paper, we investigate climate stressors (i.e.rainfall patterns and drought) that have occurred in the Great Ruaha River sub-Basin (GRRB), Tanzania. By making use of amixed-methods approach, including both quantitative and qualitative data collection, we demonstrate that changes in rainfallpattern experienced by rural farmers in the GRRB have increased since the 1990s, as have limiting factors constrainingsustainable response options. By interrogating data from focus group discussions with smallholder farmers, householdquestionnaire surveys, and records from government institutions, we show that sustainable livelihoods in this area are alsobeing compromised by non-climatic stresses such as a lack of coordinated crop markets and poor access to loans,inadequate weather forecast information, and poor irrigation infrastructure and varying climate. As a consequence ofclimatic stresses, resources utilization, diversification of farming methods, and broader structural and development concerns,smallholder farmers have responded with corresponding changes in coping and adaptation strategies. Smallholder farmersare more frequently resorting to shorter term coping strategies rather than longer term adaptation, and are thus still heavilyreliant on social, economic, and policy support to improve both their shorter term coping and longer term adaptive capacity.

Keywords: coping strategies; adaptive capacity; climate variability; climate change; Tanzania

1. Introduction

There is increasing evidence that climate change and varia-bility are pervasive realities that strongly impact develop-ment on the African continent (Boko et al., 2007; Nianget al., 2014). According to climate data available since1950, evidence suggests that the magnitude and frequencyof some extreme weather (e.g. strong winds, excessiverains, and prolonged droughts) and climate events haschanged on the continent during at least the last century(IPCC, 2012, 2013; Shongwe, Van Oldenborgh, & VanDen Hurk, 2011). Future precipitation projections fromCMIP-3 and CMIP-5 models, for example, furthersuggest that towards the end of the twenty-first century,eastern Africa (the broader area for this paper) will experi-ence wetter rainy seasons (IPCC, 2012, 2013). The Africancontinent is also considered to be particularly vulnerable tosuch events, a situation aggravated by the interaction of‘multiple stresses’ occurring at various levels, togetherwith a low adaptive capacity (Boko et al., 2007; Ludi,Jones, & Levine, 2012; Niang et al., 2014). Food, water,and health security may be compromised by changes in

climate in both the short-term and longer term (e.g.Niang et al., 2014).

The agricultural sector in Tanzania (the focus of thispaper) is already suffering the adverse impacts of climatestresses. Poor rainfall distribution (patchiness), periods ofdrought, intra- and inter-seasonal dry spells, delayedonset of the rain seasons, and poor water managementhave been amplifying the problem of soil moisture stress(Paavola, 2003; Tilya & Mhita, 2006) and associatedknock-on effects. Such climatic stresses, it has beenargued, may have placed between 20% and 30% of the Tan-zanian population living in semi-arid areas at risk of poorharvests (DFID, 2001). For example, more than 33% of dis-asters in Tanzania over the last ca. 100-year period weredrought related (Hatibu, Mahoo, & Kajiru, 2000; Morriset al., 2003). Empirical analysis shows that Tanzania hasrecorded 37 occurrences of drought between 1872 and1990 (United Republic of Tanzania, 1998), and in 2006,a major drought triggered serious food and power crisesin the country. In some cases droughts are followed byfloods, or aggravated by other stresses including land

© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

*Corresponding author. Email: makulanoah@yahoo.com

Climate and Development, 2016http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2016.1184607

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

INA

SP -

Tan

zani

a] a

t 07:

46 2

1 Ju

ne 2

016

degradation and health-related stresses (e.g. Niang et al.,2014; Thomas et al., 2004; Tonang, Kangalawe, &Yanda, 2010). Such complex, synchronous risk environ-ments (Holloway et al., 2013) have increased the vulner-ability of smallholder farmers to such stresses.

In this paper our aim is to: (1) outline the biophysicalcontext facing smallholder farmers in the Great RuahaRiver sub-Basin (GRRB), by examining rainfall trends,both spatially and temporally; (2) interrogate the impactsthat farmers face in a potentially ever-changing climatic/environmental context; and (3) examine the notions ofcoping and/or adaptation within changing circumstances.We explore the current context in which small-scalefarmers operate and then interrogate how such local reali-ties are being influenced, if at all, by climate stresses.Specifically, we examine the role that a multiple suite ofstresses play in exacerbating responses to rainfall variabil-ity. In an attempt to answer such themes, and better under-stand the context and causes of vulnerability of smallholderfarmers to climatic stresses, we explore notions of copingand adaptation to climate stresses in the GRRB, Tanzania.In doing so, we test the challenge presented by Vincentet al. (2013, p. 203), namely that:

determining whether or not the observed strategies areexamples of coping or adaptation, is dependent on the par-ticular context in which they were observed, and alsorequires a consideration of the scale of interest. As aresult, it is not possible to universally state that any oneresponse would be an adaptation in any context.

By interacting with smallholder farmers growing awide range of crops, from cereals and vegetables to cashcrops, we seek to understand what drives differential vul-nerability among smallholder farmers, and then examinethe cohort of strategies smallholder farmers use in responseto climate stresses over time, including barriers andenablers to climate change adaptation in Sub-SaharanAfrica (Shackleton, Ziervogel, Sallu, Gill, & Tschakert,2015).

2. Diverse meanings: coping or adaptation?

The narrative adopted to explore a particular climate-related story is usually imbued with a range of meanings,assumptions, and biases (Leach, Scoones, & Stirling,2010). The concept of coping strategies to climate variabil-ity and change, for example, has been interpreted in variousways by different scholars writing on agriculture. Davies(1996), for example, defines coping strategies as short-term measures employed by a farmer in response to foodshortages during a poor crop yield season. Similarly, Ellis(1998) defined coping strategies as measures taken inresponse to a decline in normal sources of food for survival.To cope with changes, farmers usually make use of assets to

respond to a food shortage crisis (Adams, Cekan, & Sauer-born, 1998; Vincent et al., 2013). Several studies havehighlighted specific climate-related coping strategiesincluding temporary migration, receiving food aid andselling of household assets (e.g. Kangalawe, 2012; Kanga-lawe, Mwakalila, & Masolwa, 2011; Mongi, Majule, &Lyimo, 2010; Paavola, 2008; Phillips, 2007; Yanda &Mubaya, 2011). In contrast, adapting to climate changeentails ‘adjustments in ecological, social, or economicsystems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuliand their effects or impacts’ (Smit et al., 2001, p. 879 inO’Brien, et al., 2012, p. 669). It is also, in some cases,characterized by adjusting the entire system in a sustainablemanner rather than dealing with a few components of thesystem that are affected, and usually address longer termchange as opposed to only short-term change (Schipper,2007). Thus, for adaptation to be effective, there needs tobe some flexibility in the livelihood system that providesresources, such as food and income to farmers (Schipper,2007).

Systemic adaptation can be categorized into incremen-tal and transformational adaptation process types. Incre-mental adaptations are characterized by extendingpreviously used actions to reduce losses or enhance gainsprovided by climatic stresses. Transformational adaptationsinvolve the adoption of new actions, sometimes at a largerscale or magnitude than those of previous actions, andwhich ultimately transform systems, places, or shiftlocations (Kates, Travis, & Wilbanks, 2012; O’Brien,2012). In addition, concepts such as transformative, trans-gressive, and incremental adaptation have recently beensuggested to be associated with systemic adaptation(Howden et al., 2007; Stafford Smith, Horrocks, Harvey,& Hamilton, 2011). Much recent focus is thus calling atten-tion to clarity on terms used and also on trying to findclimate resilient pathways (Leach et al., 2010).

Agrawal (2010, p. 82) presented a different categoriz-ation of adaptation strategies, whereby the basic adaptationstrategies in the context of climate change can be linked tothe following five analytical risk management categories:

. ‘Mobility: the distribution of risk across space

. Storage: the distribution of risk across time

. Diversification: the distribution of risk across assetclasses

. Communal pooling: the distribution of risk acrosshouseholds

. Market exchange: the purchase and sale of risk viacontracts’.

The five-fold classification of adaptation strategies pre-sented above can be applied to both coping and adaptationbecause both are responses to climatic stresses (Agrawal,2010; Vincent et al., 2013). This classification, however,usually diminishes the distinction between coping and

2 N.M. Pauline et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

INA

SP -

Tan

zani

a] a

t 07:

46 2

1 Ju

ne 2

016

adaptation, which we argue depends on the duration (short-term or longer term) of effects produced on adaptivecapacity. The distinction between coping and adaptationalso breaks down when climatic extreme events happenrepeatedly (Agrawal, 2010; Campbell, 1990; Young &Jaspars, 1995). Repetitive responses, some based on pastbehaviour, often come face-to-face with the possibility ofnew risks and challenges of an event, many determinedby the magnitude of the event and the underlying vulner-ability and exposure. The neat distinctions betweencoping, adaptation, and resilience remain unclear.

It is also important to note that some of the adaptationstrategies may lead to maladaptation practices (Vincentet al., 2013). For example, the use of motor pump irrigationpractices to grow vegetables, tomatoes, and onions in theGRRB may be an adaptation, but if removing water fromthe river adversely affects others downstream, then at alarger scale, and in the long term, this strategy is a maladapta-tion. Moreover, adaptation can be affected by differentfactors that may become enablers or barriers to adaptation(for an extensive review see Shackleton et al., 2015). Theseinclude access to crop markets, financial capital, inputs,and climate services (Bradshaw, Dolan, & Smit, 2004;Deressa, Hassan, Ringler, Alemu, & Yesuf, 2009; Hassan& Nhemachena, 2008; Kurukulasuriya & Mendelsohn,2008;Mertz,Mbow, Reenberg, &Diouf, 2009; Nhemachena& Hassan, 2007).

There is thus a broad sweep of issues that are linked todisentangling practices and responses to climate stresses.Usually these issues are treated, however, in a very super-ficial manner, and with such ‘surface’ treatment, a host ofthe more nuanced practices and behaviours are misinter-preted often at the expense of farmers’ livelihoods. Apaucity of detailed, context-specific case studies is alsomissing for many African countries including Tanzania.In a detailed review of 64 studies on barriers and limitsto adaptation, Shackleton et al. (2015) found only threethat made reference to Tanzania (Bunce, Rosendo, &Brown, 2010; Paavola, 2008; Slegers, 2008). By under-taking detailed assessments of both the physical andsocial dynamics underpinning vulnerability to climatestresses, and then exploring possible opportunities andlimitations facing farmers as they try to either cope orindeed consider long-term adaptation, we hope toenhance current knowledge on this critical element ofclimate change responses.

Given this vast but mixed literature on coping andadaptation, in this paper, coping will be classified asshort-term responses to a crisis (e.g. Vincent et al., 2013),and adaptation as long-term responses. We have usedthe two terms and approaches to investigate and probewhat smallholder farmers are doing in rural areas ofTanzania. A mixed-methods approach has enabled theidentification and role played by both biophysicalchange and social dimensions of change, that in turn

either enable or constrain responses to climate changeand variability.

3. Methodology

3.1. The study area

The GRRB (34°–36°E; 6°–9°S) is located in south-westernTanzania and covers 83,979 km2 (Figure 1). It is a sub-basin of the Rufiji River Basin (177,000 km2), which isthe largest basin in Tanzania, occupying 25% of thecountries’ land area. The GRRB is divided into three dis-tinct river systems: the Great Ruaha, the Little Ruaha,and Kisigo (Figure 1) (SMUWC, 2001). Semi-arid con-ditions (average of 500 mm) prevail in the area north ofthe sub-basin, but mean annual rainfall increases south-wards, with up to 1800 mm on mountain slopes. Therainy season lasts from mid-November to May, with a ten-dency for the dry season to set in earlier in the GRRB thanother sub-basins (Figure 1) (SMUWC, 2001).

The major water consumers include the hydropowerplants, commercial and subsistence agriculturalists, andrural and urban communities. One village was purposivelyselected from each of the three agro-ecological areas in theGRRB (based on the major crops grown) and on availableinformation from past studies (e.g. Birch-Thomsen, Frederik-sen, & Sano, 2001), thereby enabling comparative assess-ments that build on existing knowledge. The threeagro-ecological areas provide a useful range in land-useand crop types from which to address issues such as thecauses and contexts of differential vulnerability, perceptionsand experiences, coping and adaptation strategies to climaticstresses, and different livelihood activities.

Ibohora village has 385 households and a population of708 residents. The main socio-economic activities includeagriculture, livestock keeping, and small businesses. Thevillage is composed of both large-scale and small-scale irri-gators (commercial rice farming). The large-scale irrigatoris an investor who owns an average of 3000 ha (MbaraliRice Farm), while small-scale irrigators own an averageof 800 ha which is sub-divided among owners. Ikuvalavillage has 301 households and a population of 1205 resi-dents, among them 261 households are male headed and40 households are female headed. The main socio-econ-omic activities include agriculture (rain-fed), livestockkeeping and small business enterprises (i.e. shops, sellingtomatoes and sunflower, tea rooms and local bars sellingUlanzi). Ruaha Mbuyuni is a growing business centre com-pared to Ibohora and Ikuvala villages. The village, at thetime of the research, comprised just over 300 households.Recently, the village has experienced accelerated popu-lation increases due to immigration of people fromnearby villages in search of irrigation water, small business,and job opportunities. The main socio-economic activitiesare agriculture (both irrigated and rain-fed), livestock

Climate and Development 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

INA

SP -

Tan

zani

a] a

t 07:

46 2

1 Ju

ne 2

016

keeping, and small businesses (i.e. shops, selling onionsand tomatoes, hotel, tea rooms, and local bars) (Table 1).

3.2. Data collection

Secondary data sources for this investigation includeddocumentation from locally available sources in the study

area (e.g. village register books and district socio-economicprofiles); government agencies such as the TanzaniaMeteorological Agency (TMA) and the National Archiveof Tanzania. Daily rainfall data (1960–2012) for Igawaand Iringa meteorological stations were obtained from theTMA. These two stations were selected based on avail-ability of long rainfall records and their close proximity

Table 1. Main characteristics of the three villages.

Main characteristics

VillageAltitude(m a.s.l)

Average rainfall(mm/a)

Main crops

Type of farmingFoodcrops Cash crops

RuahaMbuyuni

550 350–500 Rice,maize

Onions, rice Mainly irrigated farming (both canal and motorized pumps)

Ikuvala 1444 500–1000 Maize Tomatoes,sunflower

Rain-fed farming in uplands; valley bottom farming on hiredland in neighbouring villages

Ibohora 1050 450–650 Rice,maize

Rice, tomatoes Both rain-fed and irrigated, but mostly irrigated farming of rice(gravity through canals and using motorized pumps)

Figure 1. Map showing the GRRB.

4 N.M. Pauline et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

INA

SP -

Tan

zani

a] a

t 07:

46 2

1 Ju

ne 2

016

to the study villages. Rainfall trends for Igawa meteorolo-gical station are thus used for Ibohora village (∼10 kmdistant), and those for Iringa meteorological station areused for Ikuvala and Ruaha Mbuyuni villages (∼40 kmand ∼80 km distant, respectively) (Figure 1).

More richly informative socio-cultural and socio-econ-omic data were sourced from key informant interviews withvillage and district officials, household surveys, and focusgroup discussions (FGDs). The village and district officialsprovided profiles of the villages and districts, includingdemographic data, climate, and agricultural activities.Household heads were selected for the household survey,while village register books containing the names of allhouseholds were used to select households for interviews.The study placed emphasis on the random selection ofsample units to avoid bias. Ninety households wereselected for the questionnaire survey (i.e. 30 householdsper village). For key informant interviews and FGDs, pur-posive sampling was used to ensure that particularlyknowledgeable people were selected for group interviews.Several FDGs, each comprising 12 household heads,were undertaken. Interviews and FGDs were communi-cated in Kiswahili, which is widely spoken in the studyarea; thus all data collection tools were translated intoKiswahili.

3.3. Data processing and analysis

Data from questionnaire surveys were coded and processedusing Statistical Package for Social Science version 16.Content analysis was used to analyse qualitative datafrom FDGs and key informant interviews. Quality controlfor missing climate data was performed where necessary,following Mutai (2000). INSTAT™ software was used toestablish rainfall variability with respect to the drought/wetness indices of rain seasons from the 1960s to 2012(Stern & Knock, 1998). Such analyses help determine poss-ible impacts associated with the timing of the rain seasons,as also to establish whether there has been any change inseasonal rainfall patterns over time. The standardized pre-cipitation index (SPI) was computed to determine dry andwet years. In this paper, the focus is on rainfall variabilityover several years. We firstly describe the climate contextin which the farmers operate, followed then by a detailedinvestigation of the range of additional ‘multiple’ stressesaggravating vulnerability to such climate risks, threatsand where relevant, opportunities.

3.4. Determining drought events using the SPI

The SPI developed by McKee, Doesken, and Kleist (1993)was used to determine dry and wet years. The monthsselected for this study were those within the rain season,namely October/November to April/May. McKee et al.(1993) defined the criteria for a ‘drought event’ and

classified the SPI to define the various drought intensities(Table 2). Thus, each drought event is characterized witha duration defined by its beginning and end, and its inten-sity during the period when the event commences. TheSPI is defined theoretically as the sub-areas under anormal (Gaussian) probability distribution function. It hasmany advantages over other drought indices, whichrequire more than two variables. The SPI considers onlytwo parameters, the arithmetic mean and the standarddeviation.

4. Observed climate change and variability

The number of years that exhibited different dry and wetcategories for the pre-defined SPI values from Igawameteorological station were identified and plotted. Conse-quently, four severe (1964/1965, 1993/1994, 1996/1997,and 2002/2003) and two extreme (2005/2006 and 2011/2012) drought periods are identified. Seven of the ninesevere/extreme droughts occurred during the last twodecades (1990−2010). The SPI results indicate four moder-ate drought periods in 1974/1975, 1976/1977, 1992/1993,and 1999/2000; and two extreme (1968/1969 and 2001/2002) and five severe (1972/1973, 1978/1979, 1982/1983, 1986/1987, and 2010/2011) wet periods (Figure 2).Results indicate a greater number of major wet periodsbefore 1987 and an increasing frequency (0.1 events/decade) of drought events between the 1960s and 2012.

Five moderate (1969/1970, 1985/1986, 1991/1992,1996/1997, and 1998/1999), two severe (1999/2000 and2005/2006), and two extreme (2009/2010 and 2010/2011)drought periods are identified for Iringa (Figure 3). Eightof the nine major droughts have occurred between 1985and 2012. Conversely, two extreme (1967/1968 and1997/1998) and one severe (1962/1963) wet period arerecorded for this middle reach of the sub-basin. Droughtevents are increasing at a rate of 0.2 events/decade, gener-ally, with the middle and lower sections of the GRRB beingsusceptible to moderate droughts, and with occasionalsevere and extreme droughts.

5. Farming practices in response to rainfallvariability stress

Given the recorded changes in rainfall and drought fre-quency/severity, there have been a variety of responsesby farmers in the area. As indicated, knowing the natureof responses is important, particularly if one is trying tolink responses to either policy development, disaster riskreduction, and/or to better assess effectiveness of humani-tarian interventions. Responses presented in this sectionresult from climatic stressors related explicitly to rainfallvariability or drought as established in the previous section.

Most farmers from Ruaha Mbuyuni (60.6%) andIkuvala (78.8%), for example, practice mulching to

Climate and Development 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

INA

SP -

Tan

zani

a] a

t 07:

46 2

1 Ju

ne 2

016

conserve moisture during droughts, whereas only a smallpercentage of Ibohora residents (24.2%) use mulching.Intercropping in one portion of land (usually irrigatedgardens of up to 1 acre) is the response strategy used bymost farmers from Ruaha Mbuyuni (69.7%) and just overhalf of farmers (51.5%) from Ibohora village. A relativelysmall percentage of farmers (42.4%) from Ikuvala practiseintercropping during drought periods (Figure 4). Thismight be due to the fact that few residents of Ikuvalavillage have access to irrigation farming, where intercrop-ping practices on irrigated gardens are more favourable.

Ruaha Mbuyuni and Ibohora villages have access toirrigation water and practise garden irrigation farming,

which favours intercropping. Both drought-tolerant andless drought-tolerant crops are mixed; these includemaize, sunflower, vegetables, and legumes. However, fewfarmers from Ikuvala village practise intercropping inupland farms, or those who hire irrigable land from neigh-bouring villages. Although this method has been used formany years, it has become more intensively used duringrecent decades, with the aim of reducing risk of cropfailures.

Many farmers from Ibohora village (54.5%), but lessthan 50% of farmers from Ruaha Mbuyuni (27.3%)and Ikuvala (36.4%) villages, practise mono-cropping(Figure 4). The difference between villages may be dueto the fact that farmers from Ibohora engage predominantlyin large-scale rice farming, which is a mono-croppingfarming practice in nature. Large-scale commercialfarming of rice and maize, for example, is under a mono-cropping system in all villages. Mono-cropping reducesthe risk of diseases and pests between crops, and thus is afavoured technique for large-scale farming.

Less than half the farmers from all villages (27.3% fromIbohora; 39.4% from Ruaha Mbuyuni; 27.3% fromIkuvala) use pump irrigation (Figure 4). Findings indicatethat a relatively higher percentage of farmers from RuahaMbuyuni practise irrigation farming using motorizedpumps. This has been a common practice in this village,

Table 2. Drought/wet categories defined for SPI values.

SPI values Drought and wet category

0 to −0.99 Mild drought−1.00 to −1.49 Moderate drought−1.50 to −1.99 Severe drought≤−2.0 Extreme drought1.00–1.49 Moderately wet1.50–1.99 Severely wet2.00 and above Extremely wet

Source: McKee et al. (1993).

Figure 2. The standardized precipitation index (SPI) for Igawa meteorological station.

6 N.M. Pauline et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

INA

SP -

Tan

zani

a] a

t 07:

46 2

1 Ju

ne 2

016

especially in commercial onion and vegetable farming.Some commercial farmers in Ibohora have been adoptingthis irrigation method due to access to irrigation waterand the emerging tomato and vegetable business. Somefarmers resort to collective hiring of pumps so as to poolresources together. Farmers who do not own a pump orcannot afford to hire a pump acknowledged that this irriga-tion method is a reliable climate response strategy that canenhance their ability to respond to climatic stresses.

A relatively small proportion of smallholder farmers(18.2% from Ibohora; 12.1% from Ruaha Mbuyuni;6.1% from Ikuvala) are using drought-tolerant seeds andcrop varieties. In addition, only few farmers from thestudy villages (3.0% from Ibohora; 24.2% from RuahaMbuyuni; 12.1% from Ikuvala) have changed theirfarming methods over time. Yet, several farming methodshave been adopted by a few farmers in the study villages;these include: (a) chemical weed control (practisedmostly by onion farmers in Ruaha Mbuyuni 36.4%); (b)tied ridging (practised mostly in Ikuvala village to copewith erosion on slopes: 42.4%); (c) using crop residues toconserve moisture and fertilize the land; (d) fallowing;and (e) ripping (Figure 4). It thus seems that farmers,with the exception of a few, are generally reluctant toadjust traditional farming methods or introduce new cropvarieties, in response to climatic stressors and/or gradualclimate change.

6. Response strategies used during food shortages

Farmers are not responding to rainfall and drought stressalone; rather, they are also responding to a series ofimpacts that co-occur with climate stress. Farmers havebeen adopting different measures so as to sustain theirfamilies, particularly during times of scarcity. Althoughfew farmers (21% from Ibohora; 9% from RuahaMbuyuni; and 16% from Ikuvala) reported having had toreduce the number of meals per day in response to foodshortages, a relatively high percentage of residents inIkuvala (16%) and Ibohora (21%) villages do practisethis strategy (Figure 5). Residents from Ruaha Mbuyunirely on other options to deal with food shortages due to ahigh diversity of activities in this village; these includesmall businesses, employment opportunities, access tofinancial loans, and availability of irrigation water through-out the year.

Farmers reported during group meetings that copingstrategies such as eating fewer meals and reducing theamount of food eaten per day were used by poor house-holds only. They chose these strategies due to the factthat they had no other options and few savings, thusforcing them to conserve the little they had, a survival strat-egy leading up to the next harvest.

Few farmers respond by selling livestock during timesof food shortage (Figure 5). A relatively high percentage ofthem are from Ikuvala (14%), compared to Ibohora (6%)

Figure 3. The SPI for Iringa meteorological station.

Climate and Development 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

INA

SP -

Tan

zani

a] a

t 07:

46 2

1 Ju

ne 2

016

and Ruaha Mbuyuni (7%), which have a lower proportionof farmers using this strategy. Farmers reported that salesdepend on the nature of the need, and they start byselling small-scale livestock before selling cattle, whichare a prized possession and indicator of personal wealth.

Other reactive response measures include seeking dailywork for cash outside farms (18% from Ibohora; 9% fromRuaha Mbuyuni; and 21% from Ikuvala), working on otherpeople’s farms for food (16% from Ibohora; 9% fromRuaha Mbuyuni; and 16% from Ikuvala), and seekingfood aid (16% from Ibohora; 9% from Ruaha Mbuyuni;and 11% from Ikuvala). Extreme measures used by somefarmers include selling firewood, selling of householdassets, eating food that is normally not eaten (e.g. wildfood), renting out land for cash, borrowing food, borrowingcash to buy food, migrating, and withdrawing childrenfrom school (Figure 5).

Migration is viewed as both a response to stress and acoping strategy used by smallholder farmers in all villages.Farmers from Ibohora and Ikuvala villages reported thatboth temporary and permanent out-migration is usuallymore prevalent during droughts, while residents in RuahaMbuyuni village experience more in-migration because ofattractions from the onion business, many ‘stop-over’ res-taurants, and small business opportunities brought by thedemand created by a more mobile population. Ikuvala vil-lagers reported temporary rural–rural migration, wherebysome inhabitants migrate to nearby villages seeking irrig-able land. Mostly men (youth in particular) migrate tonearby urban centres in search of casual work and smallbusiness opportunities. Some married men were reported

to migrate temporarily during droughts and most of themdo not remit back to their villages, and hence leave theburden of taking care of the family to women. Mostyouths were reported to migrate permanently and settle innearby urban centres, thereby reducing the labour forcerequired by their rural households. Few householdsreported receiving remittances from their children livingin urban centres. This is contrary to what has been observedpreviously in South Africa (Ziervogel & Taylor, 2008) andMexico (Eakin, 2005), where young people migrate to findvarious employment opportunities in cities and remitresources back to their villages.

There is a difference, however, between migration inthe study area and that occurring in other parts of Africa.In the study area, migration is a short-term response to a cli-matic disaster, but in western and southern Africa (e.g.Mertz et al., 2009; Mutekwa, 2009; Reid & Vogel, 2006)migration is regarded as a longer term strategy that provideslivelihoods to rural people, regardless of the climatic con-ditions. Therefore, this phenomenon is becoming morewidespread in Africa as a coping strategy.

7. Adapting or merely responding and coping withrainfall variability stress?

Shifts and changes in rainfall have occurred in the studyarea since the 1960s. Determining the extent to whichvariability has occurred and how this may be linked toclimate change in the various sub-regions of this studyremains difficult to determine, particularly given theabsence of high-quality and long-term sub-regional

Figure 4. Farming methods used during climate-induced droughts.

8 N.M. Pauline et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

INA

SP -

Tan

zani

a] a

t 07:

46 2

1 Ju

ne 2

016

climate data. Notwithstanding these impediments, somenoteworthy changes in rainfall patterns emerge.

Two broad categories of responses to climate stresseshave been observed by farmers in the GRRB – theseinclude farming practices and strategies used in responseto a food crisis. The types and nature of responsesdepend on the biophysical context of the area. Findingsclearly show that most of the response strategies used bysmallholder farmers during food shortages can be regardedas merely coping strategies. This is due to the fact that thesestrategies are used as once-off efforts to address a givenfood crisis, rather than a continued ongoing practice;these strategies are thus not planned to address any antici-pated climate stress and are reactive. Strategies includereducing the number of meals and amount of food con-sumed each day, selling livestock, seeking daily work forcash outside farms, seeking food aid, selling of householdassets, and migration. There is a difference, however,between the pull-factors of migration in the current studyarea, with those in other regions. In the GRRB, migrationis primarily a short-term response to a climatic (and associ-ated local economic/sustainability) disaster, but in westernand southern Africa (e.g. Mertz et al., 2009; Mutekwa,2009; Reid & Vogel, 2006) migration is usually considered

a longer term strategy to improve rural livelihoods, regard-less of the climatic conditions.

The variety of coping strategies discussed for theGRRB are also identified to solve short-term problems inother Sub-Saharan African regions, as also in developingregions of Central America (Eakin, 2005; Mertz et al.,2010). As reported here, Kennedy (1992) and Jaspars andYoung (1995) similarly discuss households in NorthDarfur (Sudan) having to reduce the number of meals perday so as to make food stocks last until the next harvest.The depletion of household assets is among the mostimportant coping strategies used during food shortages innorth-western Tanzania (World Bank, 2004). Reducedfood consumption and selling of household assets are see-mingly widespread strategies used in response to harvestfailure throughout much of East Africa (e.g. Kinsey,Burger, & Gunning, 1998; Kochar, 1995; Niimi, Thai, &Reilly, 2009), and implies that response measures to foodshortages by smallholder farmers depend first on accessto resources locally available, and second, on otheroptions elsewhere. To this end, most farming methods pre-sented in Section 5 are employed autonomously by individ-ual farmers due to available resources to that farmer,including mulching, irrigation farming, and intercropping.

Figure 5. Response strategies used during food shortages during the past 40 years.

Climate and Development 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

INA

SP -

Tan

zani

a] a

t 07:

46 2

1 Ju

ne 2

016

Apart from diversification of farming methods, enga-ging in off-farm livelihood activities is categorized asanother option that farmers refer to. The off-farm activi-ties include small business enterprises (i.e. shops, restau-rants, selling local brew), building houses for renting inurban centres, and food and cash crop businesses. Diver-sification to non-farm activities include brick and (theenvironmentally controversial) charcoal-making, casuallabour, and carpentry; these are seemingly becomingwidespread strategies in many parts of Sub-SaharanAfrica (Bushesha, Lee-Thorp, & Hopkinson, 2009; Gbe-tibouo, 2009; Liwenga, Kangalawe, Lyimo, & Majule,2008; Majule, 2008; Paavola, 2006; World Bank,2009). During the 2002/2003 drought in Mozambique,households diversified into business enterprises such askiosks and shops (Eriksen & Silva, 2009). Such activi-ties, however, were not very viable during the prolongeddrought and had all but ended by 2003. This was simi-larly the case in Ibohora village where farmers reportedthat the sustainability of small businesses depends onthe purchasing power of local households. During pro-longed droughts, households tend to limit expenditureso as to meet their food needs, thus jeopardizing the via-bility of kiosks which sell various (unessential)commodities.

A host of non-climatic stresses undermine the capacityto respond to periods of climate stress. Limited access toagricultural inputs is reported to be the main hinderingfactor. The high price of fertilizers in addition to reducedsoil fertility and inadequate irrigation water are also ident-ified as obstacles causing reduced crop yields in the GRRB.The coping capacity in the shorter term and the longer termadaptive capacity of Africa’s farmers is thus impacted bymultiple factors, including access to resources (e.g. Adger& Vincent, 2005; Brooks, Adger, & Kelly, 2005; Ellis &Mdoe, 2003; Grothmann & Patt, 2005; Thornton et al.,2006). In particular, the adaptive capacity of smallholderfarmers can be constrained by both climatic and non-cli-matic stresses (Fazey et al., 2010; O’Brien, Eriksen,Nygaard, & Schjolden, 2007; Stringer, Mkwambisi,Dougill, & Dyer, 2010).

Most adaptation strategies (i.e. farming methods)require financial capital while coping strategies dependmostly on locally available resources including personallabour. Farmers have recognized this as a barrier to adap-tation. Considering that a large percentage of farmers arepoor and receive minimal government support in the adap-tation process, most of them have been resorting to copingmore frequently than adapting, thus undermining theiradaptive capacity to projected impacts of climate change.It is important, therefore, to differentiate between responsesthat are predicated on coping and those on adaptationstrategies so as to determine where potential for more incre-mental and transformative adaptation exits and where it canbe enhanced (Vincent et al., 2013).

Responses to food shortage associated with extreme cli-matic stresses in the GRRB are reactive, and thus essen-tially short-term coping strategies. However, farmingmethods can be proactive with some becoming entrenchedin the farming practices of farmers and arguably becomelonger term adaptation strategies.

Clustering farmer responses into discrete strategies, aseither ‘coping’ or ‘adapting’, needs to be cautioned. Precar-ious livelihoods of households, particularly during periodsof food shortages, may be impacted by coping strategiesemployed by farmers in the study area. Poor households,for example, spend most of the growing season workingon other people’s farms and engaging in off-farm activitiesso as to sustain their families. Consequently, there is a highrisk of chronic food shortage among the majority of farmersin all the study villages if concerted efforts are not made tosupport poor farmers with strategies in preparation foranticipated (projected) future climate changes. Factorsthat could improve longer term responses to climatic stres-ses include access to affordable agricultural implementsand inputs, irrigation infrastructure (both gravity/canaland motorized pumps), tapping into groundwater/boreholesfor villages away from rivers, access to small loans, andmarket development.

In this assessment, it is found that smallholder farmersacross the GRRB rely mostly on short-term coping strat-egies in response to climatic stresses. In fact, most of theresponse strategies to climatic stresses across the Africancontinent are often reactive and short term, and autono-mously carried out at the household level (Berrang-Ford,Ford, & Paterson, 2011; Niang et al., 2014; Vermuelen,Dossou, Macqueen, Walubengo, & Nangoma, 2008;Vincent et al., 2013; Ziervogel, Taylor, Hachigonta, &Hoffmaister, 2008). Moreover, a range of barriers havebeen found to aggravate the adaptation process at thelocal level due to a lack of government support throughinvestment, subsidies, and enabling policies from nationalto local scales (Niang et al., 2014). Such practices thatshow a more nuanced understanding of coping and adap-tation to climate stresses have important implications forany interventions that may be designed to assist farmers.The lack of financial assets, the critical role of irrigationwater and the lack of information and an appropriate insti-tutional context to live with climate risks are important con-siderations for the region.

8. Conclusion

In this paper, we have examined the vulnerability andresponses of smallholder farmers to rainfall variability inthe GRRB of south-western Tanzania. By interrogatinghow farmers are living with climate risks, a morenuanced and informed perspective of response strategiesincluding coping and adaptation is obtained. Such infor-mation can help in devising more appropriate and informed

10 N.M. Pauline et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

INA

SP -

Tan

zani

a] a

t 07:

46 2

1 Ju

ne 2

016

policies and practices towards sustainable development ofsubsistence farmers in Tanzania and Sub-Saharan Africain general.

The observed shifts in rainfall indices of above- orbelow-average rainfall, in addition to an increased fre-quency of droughts in the region, are demonstrated to bea real risk to farmers. Impacts related to droughts andexcessive wetness usually impair the normal growthpattern of crops grown in the region and increase the riskof food shortages in particular. Farmers have been usinga variety of strategies to respond to such impacts; theseinclude the use of short-term responses during foodshortages, diversification of farming methods and liveli-hood sources.

Achieving sustainable livelihoods is further com-pounded by non-climatic stresses such as a lack of coordi-nated crop markets and poor access to loans, inadequateweather forecast information, and a lack of irrigation infra-structure. Smallholder farmer responses to climatic stresseshave changed over time, and new coping strategies areusually adopted in response to specific stresses. Thesecoping strategies (e.g. selling own labour for cash orfood, reducing the number of meals eaten per day and tem-porary migration) are normally successful because theyonly require locally available resources. Longer term andmore sustained strategies (e.g. diversification of farmingmethods) normally receive ‘little’ traction due to the factthat they require insertions of capital or external support.

Notwithstanding climatic stresses that have increasedsince the 1990s, and limited ability to adapt to suchchange, smallholder farmers are trying to cope with suchchange. In a few cases they are building a range ofcoping strategies that can be developed into longer termadaptation strategies, but these activities are often con-strained by non-climatic barriers. There is thus a need fora greater understanding of the local context (in terms ofclimate variables such as rainfall and temperature, togetherwith various socio-political, socio-economic, and socio-cultural factors) to enhance or constrain risk choices andresponses. Ultimately, patterns of behaviour are the keyfor future interventions and climate change action. Inter-ventions designed to enhance capacity of such smallholderfarmers should thus be based on a shared understanding ofwhat matters and how decisions are made, and be gearedtowards co-producing ideas that enable journeys on sus-tainable pathways of change.

AcknowledgementsWe thank all project partners, field assistants, and smallholderfarmers for their participation and contribution to this work.

Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

FundingThis paper is based on a broader capacity building project titled‘Impacts of climate change on water resources and agriculture –and adaptation strategies in Tanzania (CLIVET)’ funded by theDanish International Development Agency (DANIDA).

ReferencesAdams, A., Cekan, J., & Sauerborn, R. (1998). Towards a concep-

tual framework of adaptation measures and perceptions ofclimate change in the Nile Basin of Ethiopia. InternationalFood International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)Discussion Paper No. 00500. Washington, DC: IFPRI.

Adger, W. N., & Vincent, K. (2005). Uncertainty in adaptivecapacity and the importance of scale. Comptes RendusGeoscience, 337, 399–410.

Agrawal, A. (2010). Local institutions and adaptation to climatechange. In R. Mearns & A. Norton (Eds.), Social dimensionsof climate: Equity and vulnerability in a warming world (pp.173–197). Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Berrang-Ford, L., Ford, J. D., & Paterson, J. (2011). Are we adapt-ing to climate change? Global Environmental Change, 21,25–33.

Birch-Thomsen, T., Frederiksen, P., & Sano, H. (2001). A liveli-hood perspective on natural resource management andenvironmental change in semiarid Tanzania. EconomicGeography, 77, 41–66.

Boko, M., Niang, I., Nyong, A., Vogel, C., Githeko, A., Medany,M.,…Yanda, P. (2007). Africa. In M. L., Parry, O. F.,Canziani, J. P., Palutikof, P. J., van der Linden, & C. E.Hanson, (eds.), Climate change (2007): Impacts, adaptationand vulnerability. Contribution of working group ii to thefourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel onclimate change (pp. 433–467). Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Bradshaw, B., Dolan, H., & Smit, B. (2004). Farm-level adap-tation to climatic variability and change: Crop diversificationin the Canadian Prairies. Climatic Change, 67, 119–141.

Brooks, N., Adger, W. N., & Kelly, P. M. (2005). The determi-nants of vulnerability and adaptive capacity at the nationallevel and the implications for adaptation. GlobalEnvironmental Change, 15, 151–163.

Bunce, M., Rosendo, S., & Brown, K. (2010). Perceptions ofclimate change, multiple stresses and livelihoods on marginalAfrican coasts. Environmental Development andSustainability, 12, 407–440.

Bushesha, M., Lee-Thorp, J., & Hopkinson, P. (2009).Subsistence farmers’ responses to climate variability andchange in Kyela, Tanzania. IOP Conference Series: Earthand Environmental Science 6. doi:10.1088/1755-1307/6/4/342016

Campbell, D. (1990). Strategies for coping with severe food def-icits in rural Africa: A review of the literature. Food andFoodways, 4, 143–162.

Davies, S. (1996). Adaptable livelihoods: Coping with food inse-curity in the Malian Sahel. Houndmills, Basingstoke[England: Macmillan Press].

Deressa, T. T., Hassan, R. M., Ringler, C., Alemu, T., & Yesuf, M.(2009). Determinants of farmers’ choice of adaptationmethods to climate change in the Nile Basin of Ethiopia.Global Environmental Change, 19, 248–255.

DFID. (2001). Strategy for Research on Renewable NaturalResources. Technical Report for the DFID’s NaturalResources Systems Programme – Semi Arid Systems.

Climate and Development 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

INA

SP -

Tan

zani

a] a

t 07:

46 2

1 Ju

ne 2

016

Eakin, H. (2005). Institutional change, climatic risk, and rural vul-nerability: Cases from central Mexico. World Development,33, 1923–38.

Ellis, F. (1998). Household strategies and rural livelihood diversi-fication. The Journal of Development Studies, 35, 1–38.

Ellis, F., & Mdoe, N. (2003). Livelihoods and rural povertyreduction in Tanzania. World Development, 31, 1367–1384.

Eriksen, S., & Silva, J. A. (2009). The vulnerability context of asavannah area in Mozambique: Household drought copingstrategies and responses to economic change.Environmental Science & Policy, 12, 33–52.

Fazey, I., Gamarra, J. G. P., Fischer, J., Reed, M. S., Stringer, L.C., & Christie, M. (2010). Adaptation strategies for reducingvulnerability to future environmental change. Frontiers inEcology and the Environment, 8, 414–422.

Gbetibouo, G. A. (2009). Understanding farmers’ perceptionsand adaptations to climate change and variability: The caseof the Limpopo Basin, South Africa. IFPRI DiscussionPaper series No. 00849.

Grothmann, T., & Patt, A. (2005). Adaptive capacity and humancognition: The process of individual adaptation to climatechange. Global Environmental Change, 15, 199–213.

Hassan, R., & Nhemachena, C. (2008). Determinants of Africanfarmers’ strategies for adapting to climate change:Multinomial choice analysis. Centre for EnvironmentalEconomics and Policy in Africa (CEEPA), University ofPretoria. African Journal of Agricultural and ResourceEconomics, 2, 1.

Hatibu, N., Mahoo, H. F., & Kajiru, G. J. (2000). The role of RWHin agriculture and natural resource management: From miti-gating drought to preventing floods. In N. Hatibu & H. F.Mahoo (Eds.), Rain water harvesting for natural resourcesmanagement: A planning guide for Tanzania, Nairobi:Technical Hand Book No. 22. RELMA/Sida.

Holloway, A., Chasi, V., de Waal, J., Drimie, S., Fortune, G.,Mafuleka, G.,… Zweig, P. (2013). Humanitarian trends inSouthern Africa: Challenges and opportunities. Regionalinteragency standing committee, Southern Africa. Rome:FAO.

Howden, S. M., Soussana, J. F., Tubiello, F., Chhetri, N., Dunlop,M., & Meinke, H. (2007). Adapting agriculture to climatechange. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,104, 19691–19696.

IPCC. (2012). Managing the risks of extreme events and disastersto advance climate change adaptation. A special report ofworking groups I and II of the intergovernmental panel onclimate change. In C. B., Field, V. Barros, T. F. Stocker, D.Qin, D. J. Dokken, K. L. Ebi, M. D. Mastrandrea, K. J.Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S. K. Allen, M. Tignor, & P. M.Midgley (Eds.) (pp. 582). Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

IPCC. (2013). Summary for policymakers. In T. F. Stocker, D.Qin, G. K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S. K. Allen, J. Boschung, A.Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, & P. M. Midgley (Eds.), Climatechange 2013: The physical science basis. Contribution ofworking group I to the fifth assessment report of the intergo-vernmental panel on climate change. (pp. 1–21). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Jaspars, S., & Young, H. (1995). Malnutrition and poverty in theearly stages of famine: North Darfur, 1988–90. Disasters, 19,198–215.

Kangalawe, R. Y. M. (2012). Food security and health in thesouthern highlands of Tanzania: A multidisciplinary approachto evaluate the impact of climate change and other stress

factors. African Journal of Environmental Science andTechnology, 6, 50–66.

Kangalawe, R. Y. M., Mwakalila, S., & Masolwa, P. (2011).Climate change impacts, local knowledge and coping strat-egies in the great Ruaha river catchment area, Tanzania.Natural Resources, 2, 212–223.

Kates, R. W., Travis, W. R., & Wilbanks, T. J. (2012).Transformational adaptation when incremental adaptationsto climate change are insufficient. Proceedings of theNational Academy of Sciences, 109, 7156–7161. doi:10.1073/pnas.1115521109

Kennedy, E. (1992). The impact of drought on production, con-sumption and nutrition in south-western Kenya. Disasters,16, 9–18.

Kinsey, B., Burger, K., & Gunning, J. W. (1998). Copingwith drought in Zimbabwe: Survey evidence on responsesof rural households to risk. World Development, 26, 89–110.

Kochar, A. (1995). Explaining household vulnerability to idiosyn-cratic income shocks. American Economic Review, 85, 159–164.

Kurukulasuriya, P., & Mendelsohn, R. (2008). A Ricardian analy-sis of the impact of climate change on African cropland.African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 2,1–23.

Leach, M., Scoones, I., & Stirling, A. (2010). Dynamic sustain-abilities: Linking technology, environment and socialjustice. Oxon: Earthscan, Routledge.

Liwenga, E. T., Kangalawe, R. Y. M., Lyimo, J. G., & Majule, A.E. (2008). Climate change/variability and impacts on com-munity livelihoods in Mbozi district, Tanzania. A paper pre-sented at the African Young Scientists Session at the 2008IGBP Conference Cape Town, South Africa during 5-9May 2008.

Ludi, E., Jones, L., & Levine, S. (2012). Changing focus? How totake adaptive capacity seriously. Evidence from Africa showsthat development interventions could do more. ODI BriefingPaper 71. London: Overseas Development Institute (ODI)(p. 4).

Majule, A. E. (2008). Adapting to climate variability and climatechange in Tanzania: A case study, DFID-IDRC ClimateChange Adaptation for Africa (CCAA) Program. RetrievedMarch 24, 2008, from http://www.research4development.info/casestudies.asp? Article ID 50334

McKee, T. B., Doesken, N. J., & Kleist, J. (1993, January 17–22).The relationship of drought frequency and duration to timesteps, preprints. 8th conference on applied climatology,Anaheim, CA (pp. 179–184).

Mertz, O., Mbow, C., Nielsen, J. Ø., Maiga, A., Diallo, D.,Reenberg, A.,…Dabi, D. (2010). Climate factors play alimited role for past adaptation strategies in West Africa.Ecology and Society, 15(4), 25.

Mertz, O., Mbow, C., Reenberg, A., & Diouf, A. (2009). Farmers’perceptions of climate change and agricultural adaptationstrategies in rural Sahel. Environmental Management, 43,804–816.

Mongi, H., Majule, A. E., & Lyimo, J. G. (2010). Vulnerabilityand adaptation of rain fed agriculture to climate change andvariability in semi-arid Tanzania. African Journal ofEnvironmental Science and Technology, 4, 371–381.

Morris, M., Butterworth, J., Lamboll, R., Lazaro, E., Maganga, F.,& Marsland, N. (2003). Understanding household copingstrategies in semi-arid Tanzania. Technical Report for theDFID’s Natural Resources Systems Programme.

12 N.M. Pauline et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

INA

SP -

Tan

zani

a] a

t 07:

46 2

1 Ju

ne 2

016

Mutai, C. (2000). Diagnosis and prediction of East African rain-fall on intra-seasonal to inter-annual time scales (PhDthesis). University of Nairobi, Nairobi.

Mutekwa, V. T. (2009). Climate change impacts and adaptation inthe agricultural sector: The case of smallholder farmers inZimbabwe. Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa,11, 237–256.

Nhemachena, C., & Hassan, R. (2007). Micro-level analysis offarmers’ adaptation to climate change in Southern Africa.IFPRI Discussion Paper 00714. Washington, DC:International Food Policy Research Institute.

Niang, I., Ruppel, O. C., Abdrabo, M. A., Essel, A., Lennard, C.,Padgham, J., & Urquhart, P. (2014). Africa. In V. R. Barros,C. B. Field, D. J. Dokken, M. D. Mastrandrea, K. J. Mach,T. E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K. L. Ebi, Y. O. Estrada, R. C.Genova, B. Girma, E. S. Kissel, A. N. Levy, S.MacCracken, P. R. Mastrandrea, & L. L. White (Eds.),Climate change 2014: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability.Part B: Regional aspects. Contribution of working group II tothe fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel onclimate change (pp. 1199–1265). Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Niimi, Y., Thai, H. P., & Reilly, B. (2009). Determinants of remit-tances: Recent evidence using data on internal migrants inVietnam. Asian Economic Journal, 23, 19–39.

O’Brien, K. (2012). Global environmental change II: From adap-tation to deliberate transformation. Progress in HumanGeography, 36, 667–676.

O’Brien, K., Eriksen, S., Nygaard, L. P., & Schjolden, A.(2007). Why different interpretations of vulnerabilitymatters in climate change discourses. Climate Policy, 7,73–88.

Paavola, J. (2003). Livelihoods, vulnerability and adaptation toclimate change in the Morogoro Region, Tanzania. WorkingPaper EDM, 04–12. Norwich: Centre for Social andEconomic Research on the Global Environment, Universityof East Anglia.

Paavola, J. (2006). Livelihoods, vulnerability and adaptation toclimate change in the Morogoro Region of Tanzania.Working Paper (pp. 8–12). Centre for Social and EconomicResearch on the Global Environment (CSERGE),University of East Anglia..

Paavola, J. (2008). Livelihoods, vulnerability and adaptation toclimate change in Morogoro, Tanzania. EnvironmentalScience and Policy, 11, 642–654.

Phillips, E. L. (2007). How do households in Niger maintain theirlivelihoods after a production shock? A comparative study ofcoping strategies used by two Nigerien villages, A thesis pre-sented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of CornellUniversity in partial fulfilment of the requirements for thedegree of master of professional studies in InternationalAgriculture and Rural Development.

Reid, P., & Vogel, C. (2006). Living and responding to multiplestressors in South Africa. Glimpses from KwaZulu-Natal.Global Environmental Change, 16, 195–206.

Schipper, E. L. (2007). Climate change adaptation anddevelopment: Exploring the Linkages. Tyndall Centre forClimate Change Research Working Paper 107. Norwich:School of Environmental Sciences University of East Angliaand Bangkok: South East Asia START Regional Centre.

Shackleton, S., Ziervogel, G., Sallu, S., Gill, T., & Tschakert, P.(2015). Why is socially just climate change adaptation insub-Saharan Africa so challenging? A review of barriersidentified from empirical cases. Wiley InterdisciplinaryReviews: Climate Change, 6, 321–344.

Shongwe, M. E., Van Oldenborgh, J. G., & Van Den Hurk, B.(2011). Projected changes in mean and extreme precipitationin Africa under global warming. Part II: Journal of Climate,24, 3718–3733.

Slegers, M. W. F. (2008). If only it would rain: Farmers’ percep-tion of rainfall and drought in semi-arid central Tanzania.Journal of Arid Environments, 72, 2106–2123.

Smit, B., Pilifosova, O., Burton, I., Challenger, B., Huq, S., Klein,R. J. T., & Yohe, G. (2001). Adaptation to climate change inthe context of sustainable development and equity. In J. J.McCarthy, O. F. Canziani, N.A. Leary, D. J. Dokken, & K.S. White (Eds.), Climate change 2001: Impacts, adaptationand vulnerability, contribution of working group II to thethird assessment report of the intergovernmental panel onclimate change (pp. 877–912). Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

SMUWC. (2001). Baseline report, Annex 1 of the final report ofthe Sustainable Management of the Usangu Wetland and itsCatchment (SMUWC) project, Phase 1. Mbeya Region:Directorate of Water Resources, Ministry of Water,Government of Tanzania, the SMUWC Project (p. 145).

Stafford Smith, M., Horrocks, L., Harvey, A., & Hamilton, C.(2011). Rethinking adaptation for a 4°C world.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, A, 369,196–216.

Stern, R., & Knock, J. (1998). INSTAT climatic guide. Reading,UK: Statistical Service Centre, University of Reading (285pp).

Stringer, L. C., Mkwambisi, D. D., Dougill, A. J., & Dyer, J. C.(2010). Adaptation to climate change and desertification:Perspectives from national policy and autonomous practicein Malawi. Climate and Development, 2, 145–160.

Thomas, C. D., Cameron, A., Green, R. E., Bakkenes, M.,Beaumont, L. J., Collingham, Y. C.,…Co-authors. (2004).Extinction from climate change. Nature, 427, 145–148.

Thornton, P. K., Jones, P. G., Owiyo, T. M., Kruska, R. L., Herero,M., Kristjanson, P.,…Bekele, N. (2006). Mapping climatevulnerability and poverty in Africa. Report to the departmentfor international development. Nairobi: ILRI (p. 200).

Tilya, F. F., & Mhita, M. S. (2006). Frequency of wet and dryspells in Tanzania. A paper presented at the InternationalWorkshop on Climate and Land Degradation, LamgandoConference Hall, Impala Hotel, ARUSHA, TanzaniaUNFCCC (2008). Definition of Climate Change.Retrieved November 21, 2008, from http://unfccc.int.Pp. 11–15

Tonang, H. E. Z., Kangalawe, R. Y. M., & Yanda, P. Z. (2010).Predicting and mapping malaria under climate change scen-arios: The potential redistribution of malaria vectors inAfrica predicting and mapping malaria under climatechange scenarios: The potential redistribution of malariavectors in Africa. Malaria Journal, 9, 111. doi:10.1186/1475-2875-9-111

United Republic of Tanzania. (1998). Smallholder developmentproject for marginal areas (SDPMA): General overview of per-formance of irrigation component. Dar es Salaam: Ministry ofAgriculture and Cooperatives, Irrigation Department.

Vermuelen, S., Dossou, K., Macqueen, D., Walubengo, D., &Nangoma, E. (2008). Spring back: Climate resilience atAfrica’s grassroots. Sustainable development opinion.London: International Institute for Environment andDevelopment (IIED) (p. 2).

Vincent, K., Cull, T., Chanika, D., Hamazakaza, P., Joubert, A.,Macome, E., & Mutonhodza-Davies, C. (2013). Farmers’responses to climate variability and change in southern

Climate and Development 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

INA

SP -

Tan

zani

a] a

t 07:

46 2

1 Ju

ne 2

016

Africa – is it coping or adaptation? Climate and Development,5, 194–205.

World Bank. (2004). Rural income dynamics in Kagera region,Tanzania. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: Economic and SocialResearch Foundation.

World Bank. (2009). Climate change: Likely impacts on Africancrops, livestock & farm types. Washington, DC: Author.

Yanda, P. Z., & Mubaya, C. P. (2011). Managing a changingclimate in Africa: Local level vulnerabilities and adaptationexperiences. Dar es Salaam: Mkuki na Nyota.

Young, H., & Jaspars, S. (1995). Nutrition matters: People,food and famine. London: Intermediate TechnologyPublications.

Ziervogel, G., & Taylor, A. (2008). Feeling stressed: Integratingclimate adaptation with other priorities in South Africa.Environment, 50, 33–41.

Ziervogel, G., Taylor, A., Hachigonta, S., & Hoffmaister, J.(2008). Climate adaptation in Southern Africa: Addressingthe needs of vulnerable communities. Stockholm:Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) (p. 56).

14 N.M. Pauline et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

INA

SP -

Tan

zani

a] a

t 07:

46 2

1 Ju

ne 2

016