72
In addition, there have been a number of initiatives and studies aimed at addressing the adverse impacts of climate change and variability in Tanzania. These include the Inventory of Green House Gases (GHG) emissions; technological and other options for GHG Mitigation; the Assessment of Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change; the Development of the Climate Change National Action Plan and the Adoption of the National Environment Policy (URT 2012b). Other government initiatives concerning responding to climate change and variability include the Preparation of the Initial National Communication to the UNFCC; the Revised National Energy Policy; the National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA) and the Enactment of the Environment Management Act-Cap 1991.
Additional government initiatives to address climate change and variability are the Assessment of Technology Needs Assessment (TNA); the National Clean Development Mechanism Handbook; the National Strategy for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+); Climate Change, Impacts, Adaptation and Mitigation in Tanzania (CCIAM); Climate Change Impacts Assessment-Tanzania and Climate Change Adaptation in Africa (CCAA) (URT 2012b).
Recently, there have been two major climate change and variability farmer-centred outreach programmes conducted between the government of Tanzania and donors in collaboration with higher learning institutions. The projects are aimed at disseminating information and innovations for adaptation of climate change and variability. The projects include the CCAA project, which commenced in 2007 and the CCIAM programme launched on 2009. The CCAA project aimed at imparting innovations and information farmers to enhance their capacity to adapt to climate change and variability. The CCIAM programme focused on Reducing Emissions and Desertification (REDD) in Tanzania. It is evident that Tanzania has engaged in diverse policy initiatives in this area. The current study investigates the role of the CCAA project in the dissemination of information on innovations to mitigate climate change and variability.
3.8 Specific Communication Channels Used in Information Dissemination for
73
person, government leaders, workshop trainings and elders; researchers and extension officers; institutional such as NGOs and government leaders; and media such as radio, Television, newspapers, magazines and brochures.
Access to information on climate change and variability alone does not guarantee its usage in improving agricultural practices. Mengistu (2011) emphasises a pertinent issue in the adaptation to the climate change and variability discourse, which is not only ensuring that farmers have accessed information on climate change and variability, but that they should be assisted to understand and use that information for improving their agricultural activities.
Mengistu suggested that, in order to enhance information sharing and exchange with farmers, elderly and religious leaders should be sensitised on the use of traditional climate forecasts in predicting climatic conditions for decision-making.
Speranza, Kiteme, Ambenje, Wiesmann and Makali (2010), in their study of climate change and variability in semi-arid Kenya used interviews, group discussions and questionnaires for data collection. Their study found that most farmers do not seek climate forecast information for the next season from any source and a minority depended on IK for decision making.
Findings showed that only one third of farmers who had prior information and foreknowledge of drought could utilise it by deploying adaptive measures. The study observed that climate forecast information is mostly being accessed by farmers through radio, newspapers and TV.
The study discovered that most farmers who had information on forthcoming droughts used the information to adapt by planting drought-resistant crops and seeds, planting early- maturing crops, saving money and not selling grain.
Agwaru, Matsiko and Delve (2004) assessed approaches used to disseminate research information to farmers in Tororo, Uganda. The study used face-to-face and group interviews to collect data. The study revealed that the channels for information transfer to farmers were trained extension providers, who spread information through practical training sessions.
Information sharing with farmers was based on group discussions and field demonstrations.
Mutekwa (2009) researched climate change and variability impacts and adaptation by farmers in Zimbabwe. He discovered that researchers and academics who were supposed to be sources of information to ensure that adaptation strategies are well packaged and disseminated to farmers, had limited awareness of the nature and magnitude of climate change and variability.
74
Coles and Scott (2009) studied vulnerability and adaptation to climate change and variability in the USA. They found that farmers unlike, their counterparts in developing countries, did not have the problem of access to information on climate for farm decision making, but rather had a problem of using the information to enhance their adaptive capacity. Farmers read the seasonal climate forecast out of curiosity and did not make use of it. Thus, notwithstanding the prospect of information dissemination and access and use through sharing information on adaptation, many farmers and ranchers around the world do not use information on climate change and variability in their farm managerial strategies (Hansen, 2002; Hill and Mjelde, 2002; Hansen, Challinor, Ines, Wheeler, and Moron 2006). Coles and Scott’s (2009) study on farmers’ vulnerability and adaptation to climate change in the USA showed that information on climate is being disseminated and accessed by farmers’ through workshops, visiting individuals at home, receiving phone calls, office visits, distributing newsletters by mail or e- mail and providing information on the Internet. The study found that other farmers exchange information through chance encounters in public places, or while visiting friends and neighbours.
Mensah-Fosu, Vleck and Manschadi (2010) studied farmers’ perceptions of adaptation to climate change in the Sekyedumase district in Ghana. They observed that farmers’ adaptation was low and the problem could be linked with inadequate information given to farmers on adapting to climate change and variability. This observation, according to Mensah-Fosu, Vleck and Manschadi (2010) was attributed mostly to inadequate numbers of extension personnel, who also lacked knowledge on adaptation of climate change and variability in the district.
Sturdy, Jewitt and Lorentz (2008) in their study on the innovation adoption process through farmer-driven experimentation observed that collaboration between information and knowledge providers and users was critical in ensuring farmers’ adaptation to new innovations. However, their study found that identifying and working with the stakeholders such as researchers, extension officers, NGOs, local organisations and farmers’ associations was a challenge which needed a considerable investment of time and resources. In spite of the situation, their participation created crucial platforms for gaining knowledge on livelihood practices, adaptation, vulnerability, attitude towards risks and community assets and thus formed a basis for designing innovations which met the needs and priorities of farmers.
75
Ziervogel and Downing (2004) studied the role of networks stakeholders in improving seasonal climate forecasts in Lesotho. The study used interviews and workshops to solicit data. The authors reasoned that for new scientific information and knowledge to reach an extensive audience, it should be disseminated across networks diversely, to create awareness and effective usage. The authors highlighted the importance of understanding networks as crucial in identifying the barriers and opportunities stakeholders meet in the course of information sharing of disseminated forecast information. The role of networks in enhancing the flow of information to farmers has been stressed by Rogers’ (2003) Diffusion of Innovations model, which explains the role of networks in spreading information for adoption by farmers.
Notwithstanding the importance of networks in disseminating information to farmers, the study by Agwu, Ekwueme and Anyanwu (2008) found that in Enugu state farmers’ there was no farm association. Such associations are vital for the exchange and sharing of information by farmers. Most farmers relied on information from other farmers as a source of agricultural information. Although the 2008 study indicated that many farmers had a radio and believed that radio was a useful source of information for improved agricultural innovations, most did not listen to the farmers’ radio programme. The study by Ziervogel and Downing (2004) found out that in order to ensure effective adaptation in existing development channels, information on climate change and variability should be readily accepted. Their study thus stressed the use of information and communication channels such as workshops which provide higher feedback mechanisms for stakeholders who are involved in preparing and disseminating information on climate change and variability for adaptation. The effectiveness of workshops as channels for government extension officers and the mass media for information exchange has also been highlighted in the studies of Phillips and Orlove (2004) and Patt, Ogallo and Hellmuth (2008).
Feder and Savastano’s (2006) study on the role of opinion leaders in the diffusion of new knowledge on IPM in Indonesia found that opinion leaders were more effective in transmitting knowledge to farmers to enhance adoption than other channels. Leaders’ social acceptance and superiority was a great determining factor in enhancing farmer’s adoption of an innovation. The role of opinion leaders as highlighted in the Diffusion of Innovations theoretical framework as an essential component in enhancing information dissemination to farmers. However, the authors in the 2006 study explain that in order for opinion leaders to
76
disseminate information effectively, they should not be excessively superior socially to other farmers, as this would create a social gap as a result of differences between the two stakeholders in terms of communication and information exchange. Thus the information and knowledge would not reach the intended audience.
Roncoli’s (2006), who used ethnographic and participatory approaches to research farmers’
responses to climate predictions. She observed that researchers have been able to examine innovations introduced to farmers’ through participatory means, as a result they are able to understand farmers’ communication trends. The study noted that extension officers, NGOs, farmer representatives, village leaders and researchers were major channels of information dissemination and access to farmers. The author raised the issue that inadequate resources prevented farmers’ from accessing and using the information disseminated and communicated through extension services and media. Thus, in many developing countries, although many farmers’ are willing to access information but are unable to do so because of the difficulties they face. Some of these difficulties are a lack of electrification and inadequate cash for farmers to purchase batteries might hinder their usage. In contrast, Roncoli’s (2006) findings, Mukhopadhyay (1994:99) in his study on adaptation to agricultural technology in West Bengal, India, found that although farmers had access to information on seed varieties, a farmers’ decision to adopt the new agricultural technology High Yield Varieties (HYV) depended on discounted returns per unit cost and the added risk or uncertainty that HYVs entailed, compared with traditional varieties.
Although various studies in agricultural information access and use have shown that farmers rely on person to person-sources-of information, Orlove and Kabugo’s (2005) Ugandan study on signs used by farmers’ to predict climate and non-climate events found that there had been a paradigm shift. These authors found farmers discussed climate change and variability issues in conversations among themselves and in farmers’ groups. Farmers’ preference for interpersonal exchange of information, however, remained. The roles of farmer groups in information transfer, exchange, adoption of an innovation and knowledge acquisition have also been highlighted by Munyua and Stilwell (2009).
77