139
6
A satellite image study has been made of forest change in the Kondoa-Irangi
Hills and of four other sites of the REDD pilot projects, including in nearby control areas, over the period 2008–2018. No significant forest changes was found
(Munsterhjelm 2019). Hence, this REDD project seems not to have achieved its
aims of climate mitigation nor poverty reduction. Nevertheless, the main actors
behind the project have presented the project as a particularly successful case, with
an emphasis on the agricultural component. In 2012, the project was highlighted in
several pages in a booklet about ongoing Norwegian development assistance to
Tanzania (Royal Norwegian Embassy in Dar es Salaam 2012). Under the heading
‘Increasing food production to reduce emissions’, the embassy claimed that the
training of smallholding farmers resulted in an eight-fold increase of maize production without increasing the farmland. Later, on their webpage, the embassy
asserted that the project had resulted in food security and economic improvements
(Royal Norwegian Embassy in Dar es Salaam 2014).
Both the Norwegian Embassy and AWF have repeated these claims in written
presentations and in interviews with us. Large increases in maize yields in particular have been claimed, although the claims have ranged from three to eight-fold
increases. AWF also claimed that 1600 farmers annually adopted the agricultural
approach that they introduced with the project.
This win-win narrative has striking similarities to other win-win narratives
about environment and development that we present in other chapters. The producers of this win-win narrative consist primarily of the actors behind the project,
which are AWF and Norway. The message is that the whole globe benefits from the
project’s contribution to reducing global warming, and that people in the area benefit through poverty reduction. This narrative about a specific project can be seen
as feeding into, as well as possibly drawing from, the win-win discourse about
REDD in general.
We found that there is a lack of documentation to support the claims of the
large increases in yields and the widespread transition to new farming methods.
When we asked AWF about such documentation, they told us to ask the Norwegian
embassy, and when we asked the embassy, they said we should ask AWF. The
claims of six- or eight-fold increases of yields is far from realistic. In an area as dry
as this, even a tripling of yields would be impossible without irrigation.
There were many problems with the implementation of the agricultural component of this project, such as poor organization, and limited training and follow-up
of the farmers. Input factors were delivered too late to be available in the beginning
of the growth season, and there was disappointment among the demonstration
farmers because they received support for only one agricultural season.
Moreover, only parts of what was presented as results of REDD could actually be attributed to this project, because similar support to agricultural modernization in the same area and the same period also came from other sources, in
particular the EU, the US and the Tanzanian government. The overlapping funding makes it impossible to isolate the effects of the REDD project. Besides, the
funding by the three donors has only had limited effects on agricultural modernization overall.
6.4 · The Case of a REDD Project in Tanzania
6
A satellite image study has been made of forest change in the Kondoa-Irangi
Hills and of four other sites of the REDD pilot projects, including in nearby control areas, over the period 2008–2018. No significant forest changes was found
(Munsterhjelm 2019). Hence, this REDD project seems not to have achieved its
aims of climate mitigation nor poverty reduction. Nevertheless, the main actors
behind the project have presented the project as a particularly successful case, with
an emphasis on the agricultural component. In 2012, the project was highlighted in
several pages in a booklet about ongoing Norwegian development assistance to
Tanzania (Royal Norwegian Embassy in Dar es Salaam 2012). Under the heading
‘Increasing food production to reduce emissions’, the embassy claimed that the
training of smallholding farmers resulted in an eight-fold increase of maize production without increasing the farmland. Later, on their webpage, the embassy
asserted that the project had resulted in food security and economic improvements
(Royal Norwegian Embassy in Dar es Salaam 2014).
Both the Norwegian Embassy and AWF have repeated these claims in written
presentations and in interviews with us. Large increases in maize yields in particular have been claimed, although the claims have ranged from three to eight-fold
increases. AWF also claimed that 1600 farmers annually adopted the agricultural
approach that they introduced with the project.
This win-win narrative has striking similarities to other win-win narratives
about environment and development that we present in other chapters. The producers of this win-win narrative consist primarily of the actors behind the project,
which are AWF and Norway. The message is that the whole globe benefits from the
project’s contribution to reducing global warming, and that people in the area benefit through poverty reduction. This narrative about a specific project can be seen
as feeding into, as well as possibly drawing from, the win-win discourse about
REDD in general.
We found that there is a lack of documentation to support the claims of the
large increases in yields and the widespread transition to new farming methods.
When we asked AWF about such documentation, they told us to ask the Norwegian
embassy, and when we asked the embassy, they said we should ask AWF. The
claims of six- or eight-fold increases of yields is far from realistic. In an area as dry
as this, even a tripling of yields would be impossible without irrigation.
There were many problems with the implementation of the agricultural component of this project, such as poor organization, and limited training and follow-up
of the farmers. Input factors were delivered too late to be available in the beginning
of the growth season, and there was disappointment among the demonstration
farmers because they received support for only one agricultural season.
Moreover, only parts of what was presented as results of REDD could actually be attributed to this project, because similar support to agricultural modernization in the same area and the same period also came from other sources, in
particular the EU, the US and the Tanzanian government. The overlapping funding makes it impossible to isolate the effects of the REDD project. Besides, the
funding by the three donors has only had limited effects on agricultural modernization overall.
6.4 · The Case of a REDD Project in Tanzania