Community participation is considered critical for the sustainability of irrigation schemes, especially when used both as a means and as an end. Community participation, defined as engaging users  of  schemes  in  the  decision-making processes for the planning and implementation of irrigation projects, is critical for the sustainability of irrigation schemes (Yami, 2013). However, community participation is  likely  to lead to long term sustainability of development projects if it is used both as a means and as an end (Komalawati, 2008).

According to Komalawati (2008), when used as a means community participation is used only as a tool to achieve project sustainability by developing the sense of ownership of the people concerned. On the other hand, community participation as an end is an active and dynamic form of participation that leads to an increasing role of local people at every development activity (Howllett and Nagu, 2001;  Russell et al., 2008; Mwakila, 2008).

Irrigation, as Kayandabila (2013) points out, plays a very important role in mitigating vagaries of weather due to climate change. In the right environment and with correct practices irrigation provides more yield than rain-fed agriculture (Tekana and Oladele, 2014). According to Svendsen et al. (2009), it stands out strongly among other productivity-improving capital investments and technological inputs (fertilizer, advanced seed delivery systems, post-harvest processing facilities, and access to markets) because of its role in stabilizing yields in the face of climatic variability, which has increased notably in recent times. However, reports show that the irrigation sector’s contribution to agricultural output is relatively small (Lebdi, 2016).

According to Lebdi (2016), Africa could irrigate 42.5 million hectares, based on available land and water resources. However, although the irrigated area has nearly doubled to 13.6 million ha (from 7.4 million ha in 1960s), in 2006 African countries irrigated just 5.4% of their cultivated land, compared with a global average of around 20% and almost 40% in Asia. Geographical coverage is also skewed since a large proportion of irrigated land is concentrated in five countries, namely South Africa, Egypt, Madagascar, Morocco and Sudan.

Irrigation development is currently very prominent in Tanzania’s major agricultural and poverty reduction policies and strategies, and cited as one of the key strategies for achieving food security and agricultural growth (Oates et al., 2017). However, the development of Tanzania’s irrigation potential is still modest. According to reports (URT, 2009), it is indicated that irrigation potential is estimated to be 29.4 million hectares (2.3 million hectares of high potential, 4.8 million hectares medium potential and 22.3 million hectares of low potential).  Yet, only 450,392 (1.53%) is used. Furthermore, only 5% of households use irrigation facilities.

Description of the study area

As shown in Figure 1, the research on which this paper is based was conducted in Geita District, one of the 5 districts of Geita Region. According to its 2013 Socio-Economic Profile (GDC, 2013), the district covers 5,702 km² of which 4,652 km² is dry land and the remaining 1,050 km² is covered by Lake Victoria. The district is made up by 4 administrative divisions, 35 wards and 146 villages. It is located on the shores of Lake Victoria, lying between 2° 28^′ and 3° 28^′ South and 32° to 32° 45^′ East.

The main economic activity for more than 90% of the population in Geita District is agriculture. The district’s location makes access to rice markets of the neighbouring countries of Uganda and Kenya more convenient. All these factors combine to create a high demand for rice which is one of the most important staple cereals next to maize. Therefore, searching for ways to make the rice irrigation schemes sustainable in this district was considered to be important.

Research design, sampling and sampling techniques

The study adopted a cross-sectional research design, but during the study period there was shortage of time to perform the activity as planned. The design is cost-effective and allows one to collect the required data in a relatively short period of time. According to Bailey (1998), the design involves collection of data on more than one case, at a single point in time and is typically associated with both quantitative and qualitative research.

According to Bailey (1998), the minimum sample or sub sample for a research in which statistical data analysis is to be done is thirty  (30) cases. Therefore, the study covered a sample of 120 respondents from three villages with 40 respondents from each village. To obtain the sample a combinations of different sampling techniques, that is purposive sampling and simple random sampling.

Data collection

The researcher used both qualitative and quantitative method of data  collection.  A combination of the methods was suitable for this type of research because they helped in soliciting full, in-depth accounts of the levels of participation of the project beneficiaries in the target communities. As observed by Tagarirofa and Chazovachii (2010), this complementary usage of the methods helps in the acquisition of comprehensive data about the variables under investigation.

Quantitative methods were used to measure variables that were linked to the research problem in the study area. The rationale behind using qualitative methods, in addition to quantitative methods, was to increase understanding of the dynamics, opinions and perceptions of people in the study area about the effectiveness of their participation in implementation of the irrigation projects.

Data analysis

Descriptive analysis was used to analyse quantitative data. Quantitative data from the questionnaire were collected, edited, summarised, coded and thereafter analysed by using the statistical package for social sciences (SPSS). SPSS was used to generate descriptive statistics which included frequencies and percentages. Analysis of the qualitative data was done through content analysis.

One of the objectives of the research on which this paper is based was to assess the nature of community participation in the irrigation projects in Geita district, Tanzania. This was achieved by focusing on community participation by stages of a project, the understanding of community participation and participation by gender.

Participation by project stages

The results (Table  1),  show  that  with  the  exception  of contributing resources (56.7%) community participation is generally limited (<50%) in various project project stages. This finding is in conformity with other recent studies such as a study by Mbevi (2016). This is a very important finding as far as the projects’ sustainability is concerned because as some other studies, for example Masya (2016) demonstrates, in some cases the importance of community participation tend to be underestimated. According to Mbevi, the findings from the study indicated that communities have not fully participated in project cycle especially in monitoring and evaluation, training, resource contribution and decision making. According to Masya (2016) only water availability, technology used in irrigation systems, institutional and financial factors are considered to have a significant influence on success of irrigation projects. However, other recent studies, for example (Oduor et al., 2018) reveal that farmer participation in project control has significant influence on sustainability of smallholder irrigation schemes.

Beneficiaries’ understanding of community participation

The findings show that community participation in the projects was generally inadequate. This is indicated by a small percentage of respondents who reported participating (<50% in all aspects except participation by contributing resources to the project); a relatively large percentage (27.5%) of respondents who reported understanding participation as contributing in terms of manpower or cash and a limited use of participatory techniques (mainly relying on O&OD only) as reported in key informant interviews. In the light of ‘community participation as a means versus community participation as an end’ this means that community participation was used more as a means than an end.

Therefore, in view of the finding that community participation in the projects was inadequate; this paper recommends that there should be concerted efforts to sensitise and mobilise the community members to participate in all aspects of the projects from problem identification to implementation. Participation should be enhanced by applying more innovative participatory approaches like PRA in addition to O&OD. Local government officials should be trained on the use of participatory approaches with a focus on participation as a means and participation as an end. Community members should be facilitated to understand deeply the meaning of participation and their roles in participatory processes. Provision of gender education to local government officials and community leaders should be strengthened. Regular monitoring of the projects should be undertaken to identify gaps in participation and act on the situation accordingly.

The authors have not declared any conflict of interests.