Community-Based Natural Resource Management

Stocktaking Exercise in Tanzania

Tanzania Natural Resource Forum

Acknowledgements

This CBNRM stocktaking report is part of the regional initiative under the Southern Africa CBNRM

(SACF) forum. This CBNRM stocktaking exercise in Tanzania was financially supported by 1/ WWF-

Coastal East Africa Global Initiative (CEAI) grant funding and; 2/ by WWF-Namibia with USAID grant.

The preparation of this report benefited from a great deal of advice and guidance from the SACF

secretariat in Zambia, WWF-CEAI and WWF-Namibia.

Much gratitude goes to the team of consultants (Baruani Mshale, Laura Tarimo, and Faustine Ninga)

who conducted this study and experts who participated in interviews during the exercise. Much

inspiration of the modality and coverage of this exercise came from SACF member countries CBNRM

stocktaking presentations meeting held in Johannesburg, South Africa in November 2011. A number

of stakeholders and TNRF’s working group members have also provided their insights during the

validation workshop of initial findings presented in Dar-es-Salaam on 6th September 2012. We are

also grateful for financial support provided by the Forest Governance Learning Group (FGLG) to

enable some of the Tanzania Forestry Working Group (TFWG) members attend the validation

workshop.

The report has also benefited from critical insights from a number of experts and in particular Dr.

Razack Lokina (University of Dar-es-Salaam), Patricia Skyer (WWF-Namibia) and Dr. Simon Anstey

(WWF-CEAI).

“The printing of this report is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International

Development (USAID). The contents are the responsibility of Tanzania Natural Resource Forum and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or

the United States Government.”

Lists of Tables and Figures i

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

Background 1

Purpose and Objectives of the Stocktaking Exercise 1

Approach and Methodology 1

A. CBNRM in the Wildlife Sector 1

Policy and legislative environment supporting CBNRM in wildlife sector 1

Community Based Conservation Programs in Tanzania 2

Challenges facing implementation of CBC in Tanzania 3

Lessons learnt and best practices 3

Recommendations 3

B. CBNRM in Forestry Sector 4

Policy and legislative environment supporting CBNRM in forestry sector 4

Forestry CBNRM models in Tanzania 4

Joint Forest Management (JFM) and Community Based Forest Management (CBFM) Coverage 4

Challenges in implementing Participatory Forest Management 5

Lessons learnt from PFM implementation 5

Recommendations from stakeholders to improve PFM implementation 5

C. CBNRM in Fisheries Sector 6

Policy and legislative environment supporting CBNRM in fisheries sector 6

CBNRM models in Fisheries Sector 6

Challenges in the implementation of fisheries co-management 7

Lessons and Opportunities in the Fisheries Co-Management 7

Recommendations from stakeholders to improve fisheries co-management 7

D. Establishment of National CBNRM Forum 8

E. Conclusions on the status of CBNRM in Tanzania 8

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 10

1.1 About the Tanzania Natural Resources Forum (TNRF) 10

1.2 Background on Community Based Natural Resources Management (CBNRM) 10

1.3 Background on the need for a Tanzania CBNRM Forum 11

CHAPTER 2: OBJECTIVES, SCOPE AND APPROACH OF STOCKTAKING EXERCISE 12

2.1 Objectives of the stocktaking exercise 12

Table of Contents

2.2 Scope of the stocktaking exercise 12

2.3 Methodology 13

CHAPTER 3: WILDLIFE SUB-SECTOR 14

3.1 Policy and legislative environment supporting Community Wildlife Management 14

3.2 Community Based Conservation Programs in Tanzania 15

3.2.1 Tanzania National Parks (TANAPA) Outreach Program 16

3.2.1.1 Costs of TANAPA’s Outreach Programme 16

3.2.2 Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority 18

3.2.3 Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) 20

3.2.3.1 Costs of establishing and operating WMAs 22

3.2.3.2 Benefits and Challenges of WMAs 23

Benefits 23

Challenges 25

3.3 Linkages between CBWM and broader (national) economic development and poverty

reduction strategies, plans, policies and programs 30

3.4 Linkages between CBWM and broader environmental policies and legislations at the national,

regional and international level 31

CHAPTER 4: FORESTRY SUB-SECTOR 32

4.1 Policy and legislation environment related to Participatory Forest Management in Tanzania

32

4.2 Participatory Forest Management Models 37

4.2.1 Joint Forest Management (JFM) 37

4.2.2 Community-Based Forest Management (CBFM) 37

4.3 PFM Implementation and Coverage in Tanzania Mainland 38

4.3.1 JFM and CBFM Coverage 38

4.3.2 Actors involved in implementation of PFM 40

4.4 Benefits generated and costs incurred under PFM 41

4.5 Additional incentives to forest conservation 46

4.5.1 REDD+ implementation 46

4.5.2 Forest certification schemes 48

4.6 Challenges faced in implementing Participatory Forest Management 49

4.7 Important lessons learnt 51

4.8 Recommendations to implementers and policy makers 52

CHAPTER 5: FISHERIES SUB-SECTOR 54

5.1 The Legislation and Policy Environment on Community Fisheries Management 54

5.2 Collaborative fisheries management in Tanzania 54

5.3 Opportunities in the fisheries sector 55

5.4 Constraints in the implementation of fisheries policy 56

5.5 Recommendation by stakeholders to improve fisheries co-management 56

5.6 Fact sheet about the WWF RUMAKI programme 57

REFERENCES 60

Appendix 1: Districts and Shehias of Zanzibar with CoFMAs 64

Appendix 2: A summary of implementation of CBFM in district across regions in mainland

Tanzania as by 2008 65

Appendix 3: A summary of implementation of JFM in district across regions in mainland Tanzania

as by 2008 66

Appendix 4: Brief Profile of Civil Society Organization piloting REDD+ in Tanzania 67

Appendix 5: List of people interviewed 69

i

Lists of Tables and Figures

Tables

Table 1: Summary of existing community based wildlife management programs in Tanzania ................. 15

Table 2: TANAPA’s Expenditure on communities under the Outreach Programme .................................. 16

Table 3: Summary of implementation status of WMAs in Tanzania .......................................................... 20

Table 4: Earnings to selected WMAs and villages in 2009 .......................................................................... 24

Table 5: Link between CBWM and broad economic development ............................................................ 30

Table 6: Overview of Forest Area covered and number of villages participating in PFM (CBFM and

JFM) in mainland Tanzania .......................................................................................................................... 38

Table 7:Overview of CBFM and JFM coverage in Mainland Tanzania (Extracted from URT, 2008) ........... 39

Table 9:Overview of management costs and benefits for high biodiversity JFM forests as perceived

by stakeholders at different levels (URT, 2009) .......................................................................................... 42

Table 10:Test payments made by JGI (to Village Council), TFCG/MJUMITA (Individual payments) and

TATEDO REDD+ Projects (to Ngitili Groups) ............................................................................................... 48

Table 11: Fact Sheet About WWF: RUMAKI Project ................................................................................... 57

Figures

Figure 1: Spending on community projects, and in anti-poaching (Source TANAPA records, 2010) ......... 18

Figure 2: Growth in WMAs and AAs around the country (Source: Wildlife Division) ................................ 22

Figure 3: Revenues from Tourist Hunting by WMA 2006-10 (Source: Wildlife Division) ........................... 25

Figure 4: Benefit sharing structure in WMAs for earnings from photographic tourism ............................ 28

Figure 5: Benefit sharing structure in WMAs for earnings from hunting tourism ...................................... 28

Figure 6: Coverage of CBFM and JFM in different Forest Types (Source: URT 2008) ................................. 40

ii

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

AAs Authorized Associations AIDS Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome ARKFor Advancing REDD+ in the Kolo Hills Forests AWF African Wildlife Foundation BMUs Beach Management Units BTC Belgium Technical Cooperation CBC Community Based Conservation CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CBFM Community-Based Forest Management CBNRM Community Based Natural Resource Management CBO Community Based Organization CBWM Community Based Wildlife Management CCGs Community Conservation Groups CCIAM Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation and Mitigation CCS Community Conservation Service CDM Clean Development Mechanisms CFM Collaborative Fisheries Management CFMG Community Forest Management Group CFRs Community Forest Reserves CoFMA Community Forestry Management Agreement DANIDA Danish International Development Agency DFiD Department for International Development DHA Dannish Hunter Association EAME Eastern African Marine Eco-region EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EUCAMP East Usambara Conservation and Management Programme FADs Fish Aggregating Devices FAO Food and Agricultural Organization FBD Forest and Beekeeping Division FOPIS Forest Policy Implementation Support FSC Forest Stewardship Council FZS Frankfurt Zoological Society GEF Global Environmental Facility GHGs Green House Gases GIM Governance, Incentives and Monitoring GTZ Gesellschaftfür Technische Zusammenarbeit HADO Hifadhi Ardhi Dodoma HASHI Hifadhi Ardhi Shinyanga HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus IRA Institute of Resource Assessment IRC Improved Revenue Collection IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature IULUCC Impacts of Urban Land Use and Climate Change JCBNP Jozani-Chwaka Bay National Park JFM Joint Forest Management JFMAs Joint Forest Management Agreements JGI Jane Goodall Institute-Tanzania JMAs Joint Management Agreements JUKUMU Jumuiya ya Kuhifadhi Maliasili Ukutu

iii

JVFMC Joint Village Forest Management Committee LAFRs Local Authority Forest Reserves LAMP Land Management Programme LGRP Local Government Reform Programme LVEMP Lake Victoria Environment Management Program MACEMP Marine & Coastal Environment Management Program MCDI Mpingo Conservation and Development Initiative TSH Tanzanian Shilling MEA Multilateral Environmental Agreement MEMA Matumizi Endelevu ya Misitu ya Asili) MFA Ministry of Finance MJUMITA Mtandao wa Jamiiya Usimamizi wa Misitu Tanzania (Tanzania Network of

Community Forest Managers). MKUKUTA Mpango wa Kukuza na Kuondoa Umaskini Tanzania (National Strategy for Growth

and Poverty Reduction) MKURABITA Mpango wa Kurasimisha Rasilimali na Biashara za Wanyonge Tanzania MKUZA Mpango wa Kupunguza Umasikini Zanzibar MNRT Ministry of Natural Resources & Tourism NCA Ngorongoro Conservation Area NCAA Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority NCMC National Carbon Monitoring Centre NEMC National Environment Management Council NFBKP National Forest and Beekeeping Programmes NFP-CUSP National Forest Programme Coordination Support Unit Project NFR National Forest Reserve NGOs Non-Government Organizations NORAD Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation NRM Natural Resource Management NRTF National REDD+ Task Force PES Payments for Environmental Services PFM Participatory Forest Management PFR Private Forest Reserves PPP Private-Public Partnership REDD Reduce Emission from Deforestation and forest Degradation REMP Rufiji Environment Management Project RUMAKI Rufiji-Mafia-Kilwa SACF Southern Africa CBRM Forum SADC Southern Africa Development Cooperation SCIP Support for Community Initiated Projects SFBM Sustainable Forest and Bee resources Management SIDA Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency TAFORI Tanzania Forestry Research Institute TANAPA Tanzania National Parks Authority TASAF Tanzania Social Action Fund TATEDO Tanzania Traditional Energy Development Organization TAWIRI Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute TCO Tanzania Country Office TFCG Tanzania Forest Conservation Group TFCMP Tanzania Forest Conservation and Management Project TNRF Tanzania Natural Resources Forum TWGs Technical Working Groups

iv

TWPF Tanzania Wildlife Protection Fund TWPF Tanzania Wildlife Protection Fund UN United Nations UNDP United Nations Development Program UNEP United Nations Environment Programme UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization UNFCCC United National Framework Convention on Climate Change URT United Republic of Tanzania USAID United States Agency for International Development VICOBAs Village savings & credit groups VLFRs Village Land Forest Reserves VNRC Village Natural Resource Committee WCS Wildlife Conservation Society WCST Wildlife Conservation Society of Tanzania WMAs Wildlife Management Areas WMS WamiMbiki Society WSRTF Wildlife Sector Review Task Force WUAs Water User Associations WWF World-Wide Fund for nature WWF-CEAI WWF – Coastal East Africa Initiative ZPPC Zanzibar Permanent Planning Commission

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background

The Tanzania Natural Resource Forum (TNRF) has embarked on a process to establish a series of

dialogues on CBNRM. The aim of this initiative is to provide a platform for multi-stakeholder

exchange of information, sharing experiences and agreeing on a common course for the success of

CBNRM in the country. The platform will disseminate information on CBNRM successes, challenges

and areas needing more focus in the natural resource sector, thereby promoting learning and

providing opportunities to influence CBNRM practice and policy in ways that can lead to success. It is

against this background that TNRF undertook a national stocktaking exercise on CBNRM (see

attached terms of reference). This initiative is also part of the regional Southern Africa CBNRM

Forum (SACF) of which TNRF is a focal point for Tanzania.

Purpose and Objectives of the Stocktaking Exercise

This stocktaking exercise intends to establish the current situation of CBNRM implementation in

Tanzania, taking stock of the legislative and policy environment, champions of CBNRM projects on

the ground, benefits attained, challenges faced and how they are addressed, and important lessons

learned so far. This understanding is aimed at informing the dialogues and identifying the entry

points for improved collaboration and coordination among and between stakeholders involved in

CBNRM implementation in the country, including with the government, private sector, civil society

organizations, academia and local communities.

Approach and Methodology

This exercise adopted participatory approaches to ensure that stakeholders’ views are well

presented and that stakeholders feel a sense of ownership with this document. Participatory

approaches included one-on-one interviews, small group interviews, e-mail and phone exchanges,

and a participatory stakeholder workshop to validate the draft findings.

The specific tasks in conducting this stocktaking exercise included:

Development of an inception report detailing the methodology and approach for undertaking this stock-taking exercise

Desk survey of relevant documentation on CBNRM in the country and in other southern African countries

Interviews with relevant stakeholders including the public (relevant government ministries, departments and agencies), private sector (hunting and logging companies, etc.), civil society organizations, development partners), academia (review of publications, consultancy reports and consultations with relevant researchers)

A. CBNRM in the Wildlife Sector

Policy and legislative environment supporting CBNRM in wildlife sector

In the 1980s the Tanzanian government started to initiate community-based conservation

approaches as an alternative to the centralized wildlife management policies, which had previously

2

been ineffective in conserving wildlife. The move came after a realization that government did not

have adequate capacity to manage wildlife on village lands or general lands outside National Parks

on its own, and that communities needed to be involved in wildlife conservation initiatives in those

areas. Wildlife authorities, such as the Tanzania National Parks Authority (TANAPA) and the

Ngorongoro Conservation Area (NCA) Authority started to allocate funds to programs providing

social services to communities with the hope of receiving their cooperation in conservation efforts.

In 1998, a new Wildlife Policy was launched that marked a departure in the wildlife conservation

discourse. For the first time, the policy recognized and made provisions for community based

conservation (CBC) approaches. The following were the main objectives of the 1998 policy:

To conserve areas with great biological diversity which are representative of the major habitats of Tanzania;

To promote involvement of local communities in wildlife conservation in and outside protected networks;

To integrate wildlife conservation with rural development;

To ensure that wildlife conservation competes with other forms of land use; and

To enhance recognition of intrinsic value of wildlife to the rural people. (URT, 2007)

The new policy became the basis for change in the government’s approach to wildlife conservation.

A significant result following the launch of the 1998 policy was the formation of special Wildlife

Management Areas (WMAs) within village lands. WMAs were created as a new category of

protected area, where villages would be responsible for managing the resources in those areas in

collaboration with wildlife authorities.

Regulations for the implementation of the WMAs were issued in December 2002, which were

revised in 2007. The Regulations allowed communities to become corporate entities to participate

and benefit from wildlife utilization in WMAs. The Regulations also outlined the process that the

communities must follow in order to qualify for being granted wildlife user rights. In 2009, a new

Wildlife Conservation Act introduced the WMA as a new category of protected areas, established

under Sect 31 of the Act.

Community Based Conservation Programs in Tanzania

From this stocktaking exercise, and considering a broad spectrum of levels of engagement (from low

to high), three community based conservation programs can be identified in Tanzania:

Tanzania National Parks (TANAPA) Outreach Programme: This model involves provision of social services by the authorities while local communities support conservation through community policing and intelligence to counter illegal activities such as poaching. To enhance community participation, authorities conduct conservation education and awareness campaigns to the local communities.

Ngorongoro Conservation Area (NCA): NCA is unique in Tanzania as a multiple land use initiative with its own Ordinance (1959). NCA is a UNESCO cultural Heritage Site and a Man and Biosphere Reserve, making it an area of international significance. Management is by the Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority (NCAA) through a regularly updated General Management Plan. A share of the income generated through tourism revenues collected by NCAA is used to promote community development within NCA, through the community

3

development department and the Pastoralist Council of NCA. Outreach programs are conducted in neighbouring areas.

Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) under the Wildlife Division: The WMA model has more clearly articulated goal of engaging communities in wildlife management than the other two models. Under this arrangement, communities are required to allocate part of their land for wildlife management, and village game scouts are engaged to carry out patrols, and to ensure no illegal activities such as tree cutting are conducted in those areas.

Challenges facing implementation of CBC in Tanzania

In some cases, costs for operation exceeds benefits accrued, e.g. Enduimet Community Based Organization (CBO) earns less than $50,000 from tourism but has annual operational costs approaching $100,000

There is lack of diversified income earning opportunities from wildlife areas in community lands, such as beekeeping and carbon credits trading

Lack of human and technical capacities to enable effective CBWM needs development, e.g. management, business and tour guiding skills

Lack of understanding laws and regulations by the community members and local leaders

Lessons learnt and best practices

Differing levels of devolvement of responsibility for managing wildlife resources to communities on the basis of decision making ability and implementation of conservation and business development strategies as key to success, and revenue sharing. WMAs offer considerable devolution of power to manage resources compared to other CBC models (e.g. TANAPA Outreach Program)

High cost is relation to implementing and operationalizing CBC models e.g. the operational cost for WMAs can go over $100,000 a year.

Despite the fact that community based conservation (CBC) initiatives in Tanzania are still in development, there are important lessons that can be drawn from the experiences of communities implementing CBC over the past two decades.

CBC cannot be effectively realized if communities do not realize tangible benefits to create incentives to participate and manage natural resources.

Other support will also be needed to local communities in terms of trainings on accounting and record keeping skills, infrastructure and facilities to enable effective implementation of CBC.

Recommendations

Implementation recommendations: o Need for effective monitoring and evaluation tools and coordination amongst

institutions so that the economic and conservation impact of CBWM initiatives can be accurately measured.

o There is need for improved budgeting and transparent accounting practices at all levels to ensure effective WMA

Policy recommendation:

Need for a streamlined policy to guide CBWM overall implementation in Tanzania

Existing laws and regulations relating to land use in ‘wildlife areas’ need clarification e.g. to define which activities are allowed and for which activities, and to whom does the wildlife area belong to, can communities ‘opt out’?

4

B. CBNRM in Forestry Sector

Policy and legislative environment supporting CBNRM in forestry sector

Important legal reforms that have created an enabling environment for participation of local

communities in management of land and forest resources in Tanzania include, the development of

the National Land Policy (URT, 1995); approval of National Forestry Policy (1998); formulation of the

Land Act (1999) and Village Land Act (1999); enactment of the Forest Act (2002) and Forest

Regulations (2004); as well as development of Participatory Forest Management (PFM) Guidelines in

Mainland Tanzania.

PFM has been adopted as an official strategy in Tanzania to allow for wide participation of

stakeholders in forest resource management. PFM has three main policy objectives:

improved forest quality, through sustainable management objectives;

improved livelihoods through increased forest revenue and secure supply of subsistence forest products; and

improved forest governance at district and village levels through effective and accountable resource management institutions (URT, 2003).

PFM is based on the premise that forests can be better managed under close involvement of forest users in decisions regarding appropriate management plans, rules and obligations pertaining to the resources (Ostrom, 1999). Two major forms of PFM are being implemented in Tanzania: Joint Forest Management (JFM) and Community-Based Forest Management (CBFM).

Forestry CBNRM models in Tanzania

In Tanzania, CBNRM under the forestry sector is practiced through Participatory Forestry

Management (PFM) that complies of CBFM and JFM:

Under CBFM model, local communities have legal rights to establish either Private Forest Reserves or village forest reserves (Village Land Forest Reserves and Community Forest Reserves) as classified by the Forest Act (2002). The CBFM approach empowers the community to become both managers and owners of the forest. The communities elect village institutions to play the role of management and operations regarding production and or protection of the forest.

Under JFM model, local communities become co-managers of forests on land that has been set aside (reserved land) by government as part of either Local Authority or National Forest Reserves. The communities may also be co-managers when forests involve private owners other than the government. The communities and other party (government or private sector) share jointly the responsibilities of management and the authority to make decisions, such as with forest protection and regulations pertaining to costs and benefits from the resource.

Joint Forest Management (JFM) and Community Based Forest Management (CBFM) Coverage

As a result of implementation of PFM, the size of forest area managed by communities has grown considerably since the 1990s (Blomley and Ramadhani, 2007). By 2009, approximately 14.3 million hectares of forests were within gazetted Forest Reserves either under National Forest Reserves, Local Authority Forest Reserves, Village Land Forest Reserves, or Private and Community Forest Reserves for both production and protection purposes (URT, 2009). Additional 2.5 million hectares of forests were proposed to be Forest Reserves as well. Available data on PFM, e.g. from the late

5

1990s, indicates an increase in adoption and spread of both CBFM and JFM across Tanzania. The total forest area under PFM has increased from 348,550 ha in 1999 to 4,122,500 ha in 2008 with number of villages involved in PFM increasing from 555 to 2328 respectively. Furthermore, by 2008 the number of declared and gazetted forests under CBFM had reached 331 in

63 districts, with a total of 64 declared and gazetted Village Land Forest Reserves mostly in Iringa

Region. Of 863 villages where JFM activities are implemented, only 155 villages have signed the Joint

Management Agreements.

Challenges in implementing Participatory Forest Management

Delayed signing of the Joint Management Agreements (JMAs)

Cost-benefit sharing mechanisms under JFM not operational

Insufficient and unsustainable funding of PFM activities

Inadequate staff/human resources

Unclear and undefined boundaries of ‘general land’

Participation of players other than the community

Realizing real and substantial economic benefits from PFM

Poverty among participating community

Lessons learnt from PFM implementation

Tanzania has been considered as one of the successful countries in Africa implementing PFM - as

promoted through both CBFM and JFM. Some lessons from PFM implementation that have been

learnt thus far include:

Effective governance and enforcement is important for attaining PFM objectives of improved forest quality, improved livelihoods, and improved forest governance despite the presence of a well-described CBFM or JFM structure.

Community members are willing to participate in PFM activities if awareness raising campaigns are put at the forefront of operations and at early stages of PFM.

Lack of landscape or ecosystem level approaches to implement PFM activities has led to displacement (leakage) of degradation of forests in areas not covered by PFM.

Important gaps in the legislation regarding the ratio and mechanism for sharing forest management benefits under JFM have meant that many Joint Management Agreements have stalled and have not been signed by government, frustrating local efforts to manage these forest resources sustainably.

Traditional forest management system such as ngitili, which also addresses community-based forest management, has been effective in enhancing biodiversity conservation.

Recommendations from stakeholders to improve PFM implementation

There are still important issues to be addressed that can improve Participatory Forest Management

implementation in Tanzania. These recommendations include:

Address leakage by implementing PFM within a landscape approach

Finalize cost-benefit sharing arrangements in forests under JFM

Translate opportunities arising in PFM into substantial economic benefits

Facilitate development of clear village boundaries

Improve local incentives for forest and wildlife management through sectoral integration

Allocate sufficient budget to support PFM activities (Make PFM a priority)

Allow flexibility among PFM implementers

6

Need for strong coordination and lessons sharing among PFM implementers

C. CBNRM in Fisheries Sector

Policy and legislative environment supporting CBNRM in fisheries sector

In Tanzania, community participation in fisheries management is supported by three policy and

legislative documents.

The National Fisheries Sector Policy and Strategy Statement of 1997

The Policy provides guidance for promoting sustainable exploitation, utilization and marketing of

fishery resources. The Fisheries Policy initiated a directional change from state centered control to

collaborative fisheries management initiatives.

Fisheries Act No. 22 of 2003 and Fisheries Regulations of 2005

The Act and Regulations have stipulations relating to fisheries co-management including provisions

for establishment of Beach Management Units (Community Based Collaborative Management

Units).

Fisheries Regulations (2005) on Co-management

Specific regulations on fisheries co-management include Regulation 104 on co-management under

Part VIII (General Provisions), and Sub-Regulations (1- 4). In addition, the Fisheries Regulations 2005

have been amended and when approved by the Minister responsible for fisheries management

activities, the amended Regulations will strengthen fisheries collaborative management activities in

the fisheries sector.

CBNRM models in Fisheries Sector

Unlike community involvement in forestry and wildlife management, community involvement in

fisheries resources management in Tanzania is mainly done through collaborative management

arrangements. These are known as Beach Management Units (BMUs) organized spatially either

according to a beach landing sites or coastal villages.

The history of collaborative fisheries management (CFM) dates back to the 1990s when the

government realized the need to involve local communities in fisheries management. These efforts

were followed by the 1997 Fisheries policy that included a clause on co-management under

Objective (8), and in 1998 formal collaborative fish management units called Beach Management

Units (BMUs) were created. BMUs are made up of various stakeholders around water bodies, which

include the local communities. The Lake Victoria Fisheries Organization pioneered co-management

initiatives around Lake Victoria, which were implemented by Lake Victoria Environment

Management Programme (LVEMP) in Phase II and I.

To supplement implementation of collaborative fisheries management, the Fisheries Act, 2003 part

5 section 18 (1) also catered for the establishment of BMUs in all coastal villages. The Fisheries

Regulations of 2009 sets up mechanisms for co-management initiatives implementation. Thus,

Collaborative management in Tanzania is recognized as an agreement between BMUs, District

authorities and the Fisheries Division. Section 133 (10) of the Fisheries Regulations further provides

7

for BMUs to associate with other initiatives to form higher-level co-management structures known

as Collaborative Fisheries Management Areas for the purpose of planning, management and

development.

Challenges in the implementation of fisheries co-management

Un-harmonized Sectoral Policies related to conservation, development, management and utilization of natural resources including fishery resources

The existing administrative setup on the management of fishery resources (Central government and local authorities) is inefficient/ineffective

Lack of effective mechanism that allow local communities to share experience on fisheries management

Weak capacity to enforce Fisheries Legislation including insufficient financial and human resources

Inadequate promotion of value added fish and fishery products to increase income.

Weak mechanism for data collection, processing, analysis and storage hence affecting monitoring in fisheries management

Lack of research based information on performance of fisheries co-management in both marine and fresh waters

Poor mechanism for dissemination of fisheries data and information

Lessons and Opportunities in the Fisheries Co-Management

Several opportunities and lessons exist thus far that stakeholders could tap into for contributing

towards improved fisheries co-management. This includes:

Political will to support sustainable fisheries management

Availability of key stakeholders dealing with sustainable fishery resources

Presence of Development Partners and the private sectors, NGO’s, are among others that support sustainable conservation and development of natural resources

Presence of the Fisheries Act and Legislation that supports co-management

Presence of government institutions that have been empowered to enforce fisheries legislation that supports sustainable conservation and development of natural resources

Presence of capable fishing communities in some areas of the country that have been empowered to enforce fisheries legislation

Recommendations from stakeholders to improve fisheries co-management

The Fisheries Co-Management Guidelines (2009) contain a list of solutions to the challenges for

ensuring sustainable fisheries management through fisheries co-management. Stakeholders

consulted in this exercise underscored these same solutions and stressed that these provide

additional strategies for multi-stakeholder engagement in improving fisheries management in the

country:

Continuous conservation, development, management and utilization of fishery resources in a sustainable manner with support from development partners

Strengthening the collaboration among key stakeholders on the sustainable conservation, development, management and utilization of fisheries resources for the benefit of present and future generations

Establishing an effective mechanism to curb illegal fishing practices, control/regulate fishing capacity and promote alternative livelihood for the coastal communities

8

Continuous training to fisheries staff and fishing communities on natural resources conservation and management, entrepreneurship skills, good leadership and governance, conflict management and cooperation

Promoting and strengthening natural resources community based collaborative management in marine waters

Reviewing and updating Fisheries Policy and Legislation from time to time

D. Establishment of National CBNRM Forum

One of the objectives for the stocktaking exercise was to find whether there is a need for

establishing a national CBNRM forum. Apart from individual interviews during this exercise,

discussions and recommendations were also collected during the validation workshop of the

stocktaking report in September 2012.1 This also included the modality for which the forum might

operate.

In general, stakeholders agreed that TNRF should continue coordinate and convene the national

CBNRM forum. The following recommendations were provided from various stakeholders

throughout the consultation process:

Build on existing forum: Tanzania Natural Resource Forum (TNRF) as a membership-based organization with representatives from civil society organizations, academia, private sector and ordinary citizen already brings a platform for collaboration and sharing of information.

Clear distinction of roles: In situations where it is necessary to establish the proposed forum, there is a need to clearly distinguish the roles of TNRF and that of the proposed CBNRM forum. What different would the proposed CBNRM forum do from what TNRF is currently doing?

Continual financing: The proposed CBNRM forum would be more helpful if financial mechanisms are included that could allow for continuity.

Strong coordination: Under a range of players (e.g. the government, private sectors, civil society organizations, academia, and local communities) involved in a single forum, coordination should be a central point to link all interested parties.

E. Conclusions on the status of CBNRM in Tanzania

The following can be drawn as conclusions on the statues of CBNRM and its approaches in forestry,

fisheries and wildlife sectors in Tanzania:

There are appears to be weak governance especially at the local level in terms of capacity to respond to challenges of management structures such as WMAs, BMUs etc.

There is inadequate recognition on the contribution of CBNRM to national development planning and policy by the Government

No effective devolution of power for all models - BMU, JFM and CCS models. There are appears to be rhetoric power devolution in all models especially in CBFM and WMA models

There are some success stories, although scattered, where benefit sharing mechanisms have been clear and collaborative governance being enhanced

1 For details on stakeholders opinions on the need to engage in CBNRM and structures of the National Forum, see www.tnrf.org/files/CBNRM_workshop_report.pdf

9

For CBNRM to be effectively realized communities need to be genuinely involved in decision-making process on the amount of resources they contribute, and the proportion of earnings they receive from their contribution. However, a number of evidence has shown this not to be the case especially with varying degree of power to local communities

Support will still be needed to CBCs initiatives in form of training, infrastructure and facilities to enable them to implement CBC effectively

In many cases, success stories under fisheries have been noted in terms of increased fish catch, fish sizes, decreased use of illegal fishing gears. But this is only within the participating communities.

CBFM appears to be more progressive than JFM in terms of decision making and rights given to local communities to manage forests resources

In some cases, some interventions have been short-term and unsustainable (often donor driven); consumptive and non-consumptive

Under wildlife no ownership powers to communities (wildlife user rights) and wildlife remains state owned and decision making has been only to some degree to local communities

CBNRM in forestry and wildlife sectors have been well researched and documented compared to fisheries sector

10

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 About the Tanzania Natural Resources Forum (TNRF)

The Tanzania Natural Resource Forum (TNRF) is a network organization registered in 2006 as a Non-

Governmental Organization. It aims to achieve improved natural resource governance for

sustainable rural livelihoods and better conservation outcomes. TNRF bridges the gap between

people’s local natural resource management needs and practices, and national natural resource

management priorities, policies, laws and programs. As a network organization, it brings together

members to change policy and practice in the natural resource sector for the better by:

Building and sharing a knowledge base of practice; and,

Strengthening citizen voice and skills for improved natural resource governance.

TNRF supports its members by improving communication, sharing information, promoting

collaboration and strengthening collective action. It remains flexible so it can effectively respond to

emerging natural resource issues in Tanzania, while at the same time TNRF has identified key

strategic areas of engagement where it seeks to bring about positive change. TNRF facilitates

platforms to strengthen dialogue and information sharing and to enable advocacy and strengthen

citizens voices. It promotes community based natural resource management (CBNRM) as the focus

for strengthening voices and power in the forestry, rangelands, wildlife and fisheries sectors. TNRF

has also identified land and investment as a serious challenge, and facilitates a multi-stakeholder

dialogue that will address these potential areas of natural resource conflict and sustainable

development across the country. Finally, it weaves climate change into all of its programs and work

to raise awareness and communicate about the challenges and threats (and opportunities) of

climate change to Tanzania.

TNRF has a growing membership of more than 3,800 people and organizations, supporting

professional staff, and a steering committee drawn from the membership.

1.2 Background on Community Based Natural Resources Management (CBNRM)

CBNRM as a conservation and rural development approach emerged in the early 1990s in Tanzania

and most of sub-Saharan African countries following a conservation paradigm shift from state-

centric top-down conservation approaches to democratic decentralization and participatory bottom-

up conservation and rural development approaches. Many factors contributed to the conservation

paradigm shift and emergence of CBNRM approaches, including: a clear failure by the poor newly

independent African states including Tanzania to halt rampant wildlife poaching and massive

deforestation in the 1970s; increased pressure by the national and international NGOs such as IUCN,

WWF and AWF to participate in natural resources management claiming to be better equipped with

resources (manpower, finances and technical capacity) than the newly independent African states.

CBNRM aimed to confer natural resources management rights and powers to local rural

communities in managing resources found in their areas with the assumption that these

communities had long term and vested interests in the sustainable utilization of these resources as

well as time-tried and tested institutions for their management. The underlying premise was that,

local communities are likely to be better managers of the resources since their livelihoods almost

entirely depend on the resources.

11

As an approach, CBNRM started being implemented in the wildlife sector and soon spread to other

sectors including forestry, water resources, rangelands and fisheries. In Tanzania, CBNRM models

include the Community Conservation and Outreach services (CCS) under TANAPA; the Community

Based Conservation (CBC) later Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) approach under the Wildlife

Division (WD); the participatory forest management (PFM) approaches which is categorized into

Joint Forest Management (JFM) and Community Based Forest Management (CBFM) models;

fisheries co-management approaches such as Beach Management Units (BMUs); water user

associations (WUAs) in the water sector including wetlands; communal rangeland and village land

management through village land use plans, among others. In general CBNRM has rapidly expanded

in numbers and geographic coverage over the last 20 years. Several and important policy and

legislation reforms have taken place with the aim of creating an enabling policy and legislation

environment for effective CBNRM implementation at the national level. Public, private and civil

society stakeholders are actively working in close collaboration with local communities in CBNRM

implementation in various parts of the country covering all the relevant natural resources sub-

sectors. However, the natural resource sector continues to be plagues by loss of resources, un-

controlled exploitation, lack of accountability, corruption and poor management. It appears that

government lacks the capacity needed to control collusion between the interests exploiting the

resources and the officers charged with oversight and control of the resources. The question

remains, is the CBNRM approach really operational in Tanzania? If so, why is it not working as

expected?

1.3 Background on the need for a Tanzania CBNRM Forum

The Tanzania Natural Resources Forum (TNRF) has embarked on a process to establish a series of

dialogues on CBNRM with the aim of providing a platform for multi-stakeholder exchange of

information, sharing experiences and agreeing on a common course for the success of CBNRM in the

country. The platform will disseminate information on CBNRM success stories, and thereby promote

a greater understanding of the actions and enabling environment on CBNRM that can lead to

success.

Concurrently, TNRF has joined a regional civil society network on CBNRM issues called Southern

Africa CBRM Forum (SACF) whose secretariat seats in Lusaka-Zambia. The ongoing transformation of

conservation paradigm from more projects oriented towards high level governance thinking entails

the need for dialogue within Tanzania and collaboration with other regional initiatives in order to

address natural resources management. However, for the meaningful dialogue among and between

stakeholders to happen, it is important to understand and analyze the current situation of CBNRM

implementation in the country. It is against this background that TNRF has undertaken the CBNRM

stocktaking exercise. This exercise has been carried out in partnership with the World Wide Fund for

Nature – Coastal East Africa Initiative (WWF-CEAI) and with WWF-Namibia.

12

CHAPTER 2: OBJECTIVES, SCOPE AND APPROACH OF STOCKTAKING EXERCISE

2.1 Objectives of the stocktaking exercise

This stocktaking exercise intends to establish the current situation of CBNRM implementation in

Tanzania, taking stock of the legislative and policy environment, champions of CBNRM projects on

the ground, benefits attained, challenges faced and how they are addressed, and important lessons

learned so far. This understanding is aimed at informing the dialogues and identifying the entry

points for improved collaboration and coordination among and between stakeholders involved in

CBNRM implementation in the country including the government, the private sector, civil society

organizations, academia and local communities.

The stocktaking exercise has the following specific objectives:

To provide a snapshot of the evolution and trends of policies, legislations and programs related to CBNRM covering the wildlife, fisheries, rangelands/land and forestry sectors in Tanzania.

To highlight the strategies/initiatives/institutions that have been successful in addressing community-based natural resources management (CBNRM) analysed with the view to determine if there is a need to upscale/share the skills/approach.

To summarize various CBNRM projects implemented in the country. This also includes information on realized benefits, challenges over implementation and how they were addressed and key lessons.

To develop recommendations for further engagement with CBNRM in the country: particularly on issues and levels to focus on, potential funding sources and collaborators, strategic intervention approaches, and regarding TNRF’s internal capacity to engage with CBNRM issues (to be assessed through interviews with relevant TNRF staff).

2.2 Scope of the stocktaking exercise

The sub-sections below provide the scope for the stocktaking exercise:

Sectors to be covered: all CBNRM models/programs/projects under the forestry, wildlife, and fisheries.

Review of the current policy and legislation environment and its evolution under each of the above sectors. Identify specific provisions in the policies and legislative documents that mention community involvement in forest management. Critically analyze the extent to which the policy and legislative supports or prohibits community involvement in forest management. Identify areas in need of revision for the aim of improving modalities of community involvement.

Explore and report on whether customary community level institutions that have traditionally managed resources over time are recognized and given priority or otherwise considered in the official arrangements for managing the resource – e.g. in fisheries, forests, wildlife or rangelands.

Review of the linkages between CBNRM and broader economic development and poverty reduction strategies, plans, policies and programs at the national level (MKUKUTA I & II, MKUZA I & II, MKURABITA, Five Year Development Plan, Vision 2025, etc.).

Review of the origin and current status of CBNRM models in Tanzania including: o Forestry: review the status of implementation of PFM (JFM and CBFM), paying

particular attention to REDD+ and community forest certification schemes (e.g. sustainable forest management SFM and improved forest management IFM).

o Wildlife: review the status with implementation of CBC, CCS, WMAs, etc.

13

o Fisheries: review the status of fisheries co-management schemes such as BMUs; review status of community involvement in fisheries co-management related schemes; review status of community based fisheries/water resources management for small lakes and rivers found in many parts of the country.

2.3 Methodology

The specific methodologies in conducting this stocktaking exercise included:

Desk survey of relevant documentation on CBNRM in the country and in other southern African countries

Interviews with relevant stakeholders including the public (relevant government ministries, departments and agencies), private sector, civil society organizations, development partners and academia

Validation workshop with broader group of stakeholders such as government, private sector, civil society organizations. This final report includes the inputs from the validation workshop held in September 2012.

14

CHAPTER 3: WILDLIFE SUB-SECTOR

3.1 Policy and legislative environment supporting Community Wildlife

Management

Wildlife conservation has experienced multiple regimes in different times from pre-colonial, colonial

to post-independence. From the 1890s until independence in 1961, the German and then British

colonial administrations put in place legislation for the purpose of protecting rare wildlife species

and habitats. During this period wildlife management was instituted on restrictions, where

communities were forbidden from utilizing wildlife resources in protected areas. A number of

restricted or protected areas were established, such as Serengeti National Park and Ngorongoro

Conservation Area, as well as several Game Controlled Areas, for example Lake Natron, Ugunda and

Lunda Mkwambi. The Protected Areas approach lasted until the early 1970s, when restrictions were

relaxed to allow game hunting in Game Reserves, under the control of regional administrators

(Emerton and Mfunda, 1999).

In the 1970s and 1980s Tanzania experienced a very high level of poaching, which led to a loss of

more than 50% of its elephants and nearly all its black rhinos (Nelson, 2008; WSRTF, 1995). Reasons

provided for this significant loss were a declining law enforcement capacity by state authorities, rural

poverty and a lack of local ownership rights to wildlife (Nelson, 2008). During this period wildlife

management was focused on protection and policing. The Wildlife Conservation Act of 1974 gave

powers to the Government to establish protected areas and outlined how these were to be

managed. Interactions between wildlife authorities and local communities centered on law

enforcement operations such as anti-poaching patrols and the eviction of resident human settlers

(Emerton and Mfunda, 1999). A few existing community programs at the time were focused on

passing on benefits to communities through access to either game meat or community hunting

quotas.

In the 1980s the Tanzanian government started to initiate community-based conservation

approaches as an alternative to the centralized wildlife management policies, which had previously

been ineffective in conserving wildlife. The move came after a realization that government did not

have the capacity to manage wildlife in village lands or general lands outside National Parks on its

own, and that communities needed to be involved in wildlife conservation initiatives in those areas.

Wildlife authorities such as the Tanzania National Parks Authority (TANAPA) and the Ngorongoro

Conservation Area Authority (NCA) started to allocate funds to programs providing social services to

communities with the hope of receiving their cooperation in conservation efforts.

In 1998 a new wildlife policy was launched which marked a departure in the wildlife conservation

discourse. For the first time, the policy recognized the need and made provisions for new community

based conservation (CBC) approaches. The following were the main objectives of the 1998 wildlife

policy:

To conserve areas with great biological diversity which are representative of the major habitats of Tanzania;

To promote involvement of local community in wildlife conservation in and outside protected networks;

To integrate wildlife conservation with rural development;

15

To ensure that wildlife conservation competes with other forms of land use; and

To enhance recognition of intrinsic value of wildlife to the rural people. (URT, 2007)

The new policy became the basis for change in the government’s approach to conservation. A

significant result following the launch of the 1998 policy was the formation of special Wildlife

Management Areas (WMAs) within village lands. WMAs would be a new category of protected area,

where villages would be responsible for managing the resources in those areas in collaboration with

wildlife authorities.

Regulations for the implementation of the WMAs were issued in December 2002, which were

revised in 2007. The Regulations allowed communities to become corporate entities and participate

and benefit from wildlife utilization in WMAs. The Regulations also outlined the process that the

communities must follow in order to qualify for being granted wildlife user rights. In 2009, the new

Wildlife Conservation Act introduced the WMA as a new category of protected areas, established

under Sect 31 of the Act.

3.2 Community Based Conservation Programs in Tanzania

Taking a loose definition of ‘community based conservation’, and considering a broad spectrum of

levels of engagement (from low to high), three different community based conservation programs

can be identified in Tanzania, each under a separate national authority as can be seen in Table 1.

These programs vary in terms of benefits and degree of power delegated to local communities in

decision-making.

Table 1: Summary of existing community based wildlife management programs in Tanzania

Programme Who is involved? How are communities involved?

1. The Outreach

Programme of

Tanzanian National

Parks (TANAPA)

566 villages bordering

National Parks around

Tanzania

Recipients of social services: health,

education

Recipients of conservation education

and awareness campaigns

Community policing and intelligence

2. Community

Development

Programmes under the

Ngorongoro

Conservation Area

Authority (NCAA)

17 villages both within

the Conservation Area,

and in neighboring

districts

Pastoralist Council develops plans for

communities within NCA with

Community Development

department of NCAA; providing

some education support, some water

development, and income

generation activities related to

tourism Conservation education and

awareness campaigns in areas

surrounding NCA

Community policing and intelligence

in areas surrounding NCA

Veterinary department of NCA

16

provides some vet services

3. Wildlife Management

Areas under the Wildlife

Division

137 villages in wildlife

corridor areas and on the

edges of Parks and

reserves

Recipients of earnings from tourism

Allocate area of land for wildlife

Engage village game scouts in patrols

3.2.1 Tanzania National Parks (TANAPA) Outreach Program

The Tanzania National Parks Authority (TANAPA) is an autonomous authority established under the

Tanzania National Parks Ordinance of 1959, which was given the mandate to manage and regulate

the use of areas designated as National Parks. There are currently 15 National Parks in Tanzania,

which share borders with a total of 566 villages. TANAPA’s Outreach Programme was initiated in

1988, with the aim of engaging villages as partners in conservation activities in wildlife areas within

and bordering National Parks. Focus areas of effort have been in conservation education, community

development and general collaboration and networking with communities.

In 1992 TANAPA established a Support for Community Initiated Projects (SCIP) fund, the aim of

which was to support projects for communities bordering National Parks. TANAPA’s website reports

that the SCIP fund currently amounts to 7.5% of each park’s operations. Generally the Park

contributes up to 70% of a community project cost and the community contributes the remaining

30%. SCIP funding has been used for the construction of schools, student dormitories, teachers’

facilities, laboratories, medical dispensaries, health centers, youth centers, training centers, roads,

libraries, water projects, the purchase of text books and school furnishings, and the support of

children’s rights. TANAPA also offers educational outreach programs, where through films and

presentations, the community is educated on the value of conserving wildlife areas. In return the

communities give their support by providing intelligence reports to park rangers on any illegal

behavior by community members e.g. harvesting of wildlife and plants in the Parks, or

encroachment into park boundaries.

3.2.1.1 Costs of TANAPA’s Outreach Programme

Table 2 shows TANAPA’s annual spending on projects within their Outreach Programme, as well as

the number of projects implemented.

Table 2: TANAPA’s Expenditure on communities under the Outreach Programme

Year Number of projects Spending in Tshs.

2001 – 2002 62 446,758,197 (USD 496,3982)

2002 – 2003 33 187,902,038 (USD 187,902)

2003 – 2004 94 805,821,034 (USD 746,130)

2 Estimated costs have been computed using the US$ exchange rate for each year

17

2004 – 2005 60 618,502,685 (USD 562,275)

2005 – 2006 65 865,860,778 (USD 727,614)

2006 – 2007 90 1,212,619,300 (USD 970,095)

2007 – 2008 141 3,447,154,353 (USD 2,825,536)

2008 – 2009 87 1,736,751,235 (USD 1,325,764)

2009 – 2010 98 2,320,893,785 (USD 1,657,781)

2010 - 2011 33 536,136,868 (USD 341,488)

(Source: TANAPA Outreach Programme Manager) In terms of supporting conservation efforts, TANAPA’s officials report that in communities where the

Outreach Programme projects have been initiated they have seen more willingness to provide

information and assist in combating poachers. This is perhaps supported by a decline in spending on

anti-poaching shown as can be seen in Figure 1. Expenditure on Anti-poaching decreased from 2007-

2009 while that of expenditure on community projects has been increasing since 2004-2009.

However, assessment of the extent to which the programme has led to improvement of

conservation efforts is difficult as no baseline studies are available that show the effectiveness of

community conservation efforts before initiation of the programme.

18

Figure 1: Spending on community projects, and in anti-poaching (Source TANAPA records, 2010)

3.2.2 Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority

Ngorongoro Conservation Area (NCA), covering 8,300 km2 and with a population currently estimated

at around 60,000, was created in 1959 by Ordinance. The area is also listed as one of UNESCO’s

World Cultural and Natural Heritage Sites. The Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority (NCAA),

with its own Board of Directors appointed by the Minister, governs the NCA. The day-to-day

management is in the hands of the Conservator. The Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism

(MNRT) monitors NCAA through the Wildlife Department. Financially NCAA has been self-supporting

through tourist revenues since 1989 and today it is estimated that NCA is the largest single source of

tourism revenue in Tanzania. The revenues for NCA has been ranging between 35 and 40 billion

Tanzanian Shillings with the year 2012 seeing the revenue figure at 40 billion Tshs. Some of this

income is paid in taxes to the Central Government and to the District with the remainder

administered by NCAA.

The NCA Ordinance of 1959, together with later amendments, gives NCAA the powers of a

governmental authority. The objectives of NCA, also called multiple land use concept, are

summarised as follows:

- To conserve and develop the natural resources of the area

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Exp

en

dit

ure

(Ts

h m

illio

n/Y

ear

)

YEAR

TANAPA Expenditure on Anti-poaching and Community: 1997-2009.

Anti-poaching

Community Projects

19

- To promote tourism in NCA

- To safeguard and promote the interests of the citizens of NCA

Although successful in enhancing tourism, NCAA has been criticised for failing to fulfill its obligations

to the resident people under the terms of the Ordinance. In 1974, NCAA evicted the pastoralist

families who lived inside the Ngorongoro Crater. A range of other restrictions followed this event on

land use, such as banning grazing in the Northern Highland Forest, the Olmoti and Empakai Craters

and restricting access to several other areas with important grazing resources. In 1976 cultivation

was banned throughout the whole of NCA. The eviction of the local people from the crater was

reportedly followed by increased poaching inside the crater, leading to the near extinction of the

rhinoceros population3. The ban on cultivation has been a source of contention and conflict between

local people and the NCAA ever since it was introduced into the law governing the area, and

reduction in grazing area has reportedly had a negative impact on the livestock economy

(Ngorongoro Pastoralist Project Document 1998).

In response to the deteriorating circumstances in NCA, the Ad Hoc Ministerial Commission on

Ngorongoro was appointed in 1988. The commission made suggestions in 1990 for improving the

situation as regards the status of the resident Maasai in relation to the Ordinance and NCAA, and

amongst other suggestions, the formation of a representative organ to be called the Pastoralist

Council (PC) was recommended (Report on the Ad Hoc Ministerial Commission on Ngorongoro,

1990). Community members identified their areas of need, which included food security, livestock

health and infrastructure development, such as water supply, clinics and schools. In 1998, NCA

facing a situation where 37% of the population within the crater was destitute and hungry, the

Government entered a bilateral agreement with Denmark to tackle issues of better distribution of

tourism revenues and a project named the Ereto - Ngorongoro Pastoralist Project was established.

The aim was to redistribute wealth through a re-stocking program, improved pastures and increased

capacity of communities for engaging in decisions making (Ngorongoro Pastoralist Project Document

1998). The project was confirmed a success by both government and the local people (Kipuri and

Sorensen 2008), but in 2009 when funding from Denmark stopped, the NCAA also stopped

supporting this work.

Currently, through the Community Development department, NCAA does play a role in community

development by providing some social services such as veterinary services, education, and feeder

roads to NCA residents and surrounding areas in Meatu, Karatu and Monduli Districts. While some

progress has been made, the conditions in NCA have recently deteriorated and there are reports of

widespread hunger amongst the residents of the area.

According to the interviews, the NCA gives an approximate of 1.4 billion Tshs. to the communities

through the Pastoralist Council (PC), which then decides how the funds can be used for various

community priorities. Of the disbursed funds, nearly 96% goes to education programs (600 million

Tshs), management, purchasing food for communities, and village development projects (6 million

Tshs per each village). However, PC does not make decisions on the share of earnings communities

are to receive from the NCA; rather NCAA decides upon this amount each year. And also the decision

on what to fund is made by NCAA, leaving the PC with an advisory role. There are discussions

between the PC and NCA to increase the current funds to the communities. 3 Source: http://www.unep-wcmc.org/medialibrary/2011/06/28/a1e08823/Ngorongoro.pdf

20

But there are still other challenges that remain to be clarified for NCA to meet its objectives and

especially its relations with local communities within the crater.

Local communities are still not part of the management, which also hinders the space for dialogue on the interests between the NCAA and the communities

In the interviews with NCAA officials and PC, population for example has been cited to be a problem within NCA but there remain challenges of lack of scientific research to support this argument

Archeology, which is also one of the areas of focus for NCA remain contested between NCAA and Antiquity Department of MNRT. In some instances, this has posed challenges in balancing NCAA and communities’ interests on grazing and and areas for archeology research within NCA. Interviews indicate that there are discussions already on how archeology component should be managed.

3.2.3 Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs)

Following the implementation of the Tanzania Wildlife Act of 1998, feasibility studies for establishing

community run wildlife management areas (WMAs) were carried out in 2005. Five pilot projects

were initiated around the Selous game reserve, with support from the German development agency,

GTZ. Programmes were thereafter expanded country-wide. In 2002, guidelines and regulations for

running WMAs were developed after an economic, social and environmental analysis was

conducted. These regulations were reviewed again in 2005. By 2007 16 pilot WMAs were in

operation around the country.

Following a comprehensive evaluation of the 16 pilot WMAs by the Institute of Resource Assessment

(IRA) in 2007, there was a push for the pilots to become fully fledged WMAs. To date 14 WMAs have

been gazetted with a total of over 22067.34 km2 under wildlife conservation in 137 villages, with 3

more in the process. In addition, 19 new WMAs will be formed over the next few years making the

total number of WMAs in Tanzania to be 38. Table 3 lists WMAs that have been initiated, and their

implementation status.

Table 3: Summary of implementation status of WMAs in Tanzania

Initiative Year

started

Partners

involved

Area

(Km2)

Target

beneficiary

population

Implementation status

1. JUKUMU (Morogoro) 2003 WWF (Ex-GTZ) 639 21 villages AA gazette and has user

rights

2. WamiMbiki Society

(WMS), Morogoro,

Bagamoyo, Mvomero

2003 DHA

(Danida)

2400 24 villages) AA has user rights

3. Mbarang’andu

(Namtumbo)

2003 WWF (Ex-GTZ) 2471 7 villages AA has user rights

4. NALIKA (Tunduru) 2003 WWF (Ex-GTZ) 1391 10 villages AA has user rights

21

5. MAGINGO (Liwale) 2003 WWF (Ex-GTZ) 4515 9 villages AA has user rights

6. Ngarambe-Tapika (Rufiji) 2003 WWF (Ex-GTZ) 767 2 villages AA has user rights

7. Burunge (Babati) 2003 AWF 617 10 villages AA has user rights and

contracts with investors

8. Makame (Kiteto) 2003 AWF 5372 4 villages AA has user rights

9. Enduimet (Longido) 2003 AWF 751 9 villages AA has user rights and

contracts with investors

10. Ikona (Serengeti, Tarime) 2003 FZS (NORAD) 242 5 villages AA has user rights and

contracts with investors

11. Uyumbu (Urambo) 2003 Africare 839 4 villages AA has user rights and

contract with one

investor

12. Ipole (Sikonge) 2003 Africare 2406 4 villages AA has user rights

13. MBOMIPA (Iringa) 2003 WCS (DFiD) 777 21 villages AA has user rights and

contracts

14. Makao (Meatu) 2007 FZS 768.9 7 villages AA has user rights and a

contract

15. KIMBANDA (Namtumbo) 2008 2150 5 villages AA registered

16. CHINGOLI (Tunduru) 2008 938.1 4 villages AA registered

17. KISUNGULE (Namtumbo) 2008 1345 3 villages AA registered

22

Figure 2: Growth in WMAs and AAs around the country (Source: Wildlife Division)

3.2.3.1 Costs of establishing and operating WMAs

Estimates for costs of establishing a WMA range from $100,000 to more than $250,0004. The

process is lengthy, and involves several stages (Nelson, 2007; Minwary, 2009):

1. A Community Based Organization (CBO) is formed after villages – through village assembly meetings

- agree to contribute sections of their land to a WMA.

2. Registration of the CBO with the Ministry of Home Affairs.

3. Villages in the CBO create land use plans, which are subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment

(EIA).

4. The CBO creates of a Resource Management Zone plan.

5. The CBO applies to the Director of Wildlife for Authorized Association (AA) status. The AA status

enables the CBO to apply for user rights of the wildlife in the area, which then gives the CBO the right

to conduct a tourism-related business.

6. Another EIA is conducted for all business investments established in the WMA.

4 Source: ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/011/i0821e/i0821e04.pdf

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Nu

mb

ers

Year

Growth in WMA and AAs: 2003-10.

Total

AA

23

In Enduimet WMA in Longido district, the process of forming the WMA and obtaining user rights

took 10 years since its first conception in 1997 (Minwary, 2009). The duration of this process coupled

with the costs involved in the formation of WMAs means that communities are not able to oversee

this process without external support.

3.2.3.2 Benefits and Challenges of WMAs

Benefits

Areas have been set aside for wildlife management

A positive outcome of the CBC initiatives is that communities have set aside areas of land where land

use is restricted to ensure wildlife habitats are sustained. AWF reports that more than76,000

hectares have been set aside for conservation in Enduiment and Burunge WMAs alone. On the

whole more than 22,000 km2 have been set aside as wildlife management areas within land in 137

villages.

Training community members in wildlife management

In most villages with a WMA, game scouts are employed to patrol the wildlife area to ensure there is

no illegal harvesting of trees or wildlife. In Burunge WMA, 40 village game scouts have been trained

at the Wildlife Institute in Mwanza, and 18 are currently employed to carry out patrols within the

WMA. In Ngarambe-Tapika 20 village game scouts are employed, while in Enduimet there are 34

village game scouts. In Namtumbo and Tunduru districts 20 Village government scouts have received

training in wildlife and interpretation of wildlife census data.

Income earned from tourism activities in WMAs

Communities are already earning income from tourism activities in WMAs. Earnings to villages on

average range from USD $2000 to USD $7000 or more per year as can be seen in the snapshot of

earnings in 2009 on Table 4 These funds, if well managed, could have an impact on local

development. Some communities, which originally had no earnings from wildlife-related activities,

are starting to generate income after the establishment of WMAs. For example, Kakoi village in

Burunge WMA is earning up to USD $3000 per year, an amount they were not receiving previously

despite their location in a wildlife area.

24

Table 4: Earnings to selected WMAs and villages in 20095

Name of the WMA / village

Number of investors in the WMA

Overall revenues collected by the WMA (in USD) per year

Portion of revenues to villages (USD)

Number of villages

Earnings per village (USD)

Enduimet (Elerai)

2 42,051 21,026 (50%) 9 2336

Burunge (Minjingu)

2 93,637 46,818 (50%) 10 4682

Ikona (Robanda)

7 206,590 38,846 (31%) 5 7769

Ngarambe-Tapika (Ngarambe)

1 29,154 14,577 (50%)

2 7288

More recent records show that Burunge WMA earned some TShs 200 million (USD $133,333), and

Ikona some Tshs 300 million (USD $200,000) in 2010/20116. In 2012, Mbarang’andu WMA received

$100 million from a hunting investor. Earnings to WMAs still have to be shared between the CBO

(which receives 50% to cover operational costs) and all villages involved, which means earnings of

roughly Tshs 10 million per village in Burunge WMA consisting of 10 villages, and Tshs 20 million per

village in Ikona WMA consisting of 6 villages. Figure 3 shows a general trend of increasing earnings to

WMAs from hunting tourism.

5 Calculations are based on records of annual earnings from each WMA, converted from Tanzanian shillings using the exchange rate of 1 USD = 1300 Tsh 6 Source: oral communication by the Executive Secretary of the AA Consortium

25

Figure 3: Revenues from Tourist Hunting by WMA 2006-10 (Source: Wildlife Division)

Development of infrastructure to support CBC activities

In Burunge, Enduimet, Ching’oli WMAs, CBO offices have been constructed as well as visitors’

centers under WWF’s cash for work program in Burunge and Ikona WMAs. However, a challenge

remains in the day to day running of the centers, as communities do not yet have the management

know-how. There is need for training and / or development of partnerships with experts before the

full potential of such infrastructure can be exploited.

Challenges

WMAs are not yet self-funding / self-sustaining

A major challenge facing WMAs is that they are not yet self-sustaining and able to generate the

funds needed to support conservation and anti-poaching work on their own. Even in WMAs where

some earnings are obtained from tourism, the funds allocated to conservation are below what is

required. In Enduimet WMA the estimated annual operational costs for the anti-poaching team has

been estimated at USD $96,000, while the CBO receives less than USD $20,000 annually for wildlife

management (Honeyguide Foundation). The WMA is currently receiving support from a local NGO

and AWF. The two in partnership have assisted in providing three vehicles for anti-poaching support,

radios, tracking dogs, temporary ranger posts, guns and other equipment at an additional cost of

USD $123,000. They have also worked to organize the game scout team and leadership. Hence

WMAs continue to rely on external funding for their operation.

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10

Re

ven

ue

(Ts

h m

illio

n)

Revenue from Tourist Hunting by WMA: 2006-10. Ikona

Ngarambe-TapikaIpole

Endumet

Burunge

Songea

Mbomipa

26

Need for good business planning in WMAs, and for cooperation between government and

investors

In order for WMAs to be successful the pricing of tourism products needs to be right. Each WMA has

a different tourism potential depending on accessibility, numbers of wildlife etc. Investors will be

interested in WMAs only if tourist numbers are sufficient to cover costs of operation.

Currently, fees for tourism activities in WMAs have been set at a flat rate without taking the tourism

potential of the area into account. The fees proposed by the Wildlife Division per person includes a

USD $15 bed night fee, a $10 wildlife activity fee, a $30 camping fee, $20 for a night game drive and

other fees including vehicle fees, landing fees (if tourists arrive by air) etc. In addition, a conservation

fee of USD $25,000 per year7 is charged. One investor in Enduimet estimated that he would have to

pay between USD $50 and $100 per tourist as fees for a single night’s stay within the WMA, which

compares to $100 park and camping fees charged in a National Park where security, facilities, and

marketing of the area were covered by the Park. In Enduimet the burden of marketing falls heavily

upon the investor, as the area is not well known in the global tourist market. The same investor

projected that he would not be able to get enough bed nights in a year to meet the fee structure

proposed by the Wildlife Division. He consequently pulled out of the area.

The cooperation of investors is needed in order to come up with accurate estimates for how many

tourists can realistically be expected to visit the area, expected revenues, as well as costs for running

the venture before tourist fees are set.

Need to clarify laws and regulations relating to land use, and to calm fears of ‘land grabbing’

Inconsistencies between various laws and regulations related to land ownership and use have led to

confusion, and hesitancy in accepting WMAs. Community members have expressed concern about

whether the land allocated to WMAs will remain under their authority. The law does not offer clear

answers. A discrepancy exists between the Land Act and the Village Land Act. The Land Act

categorizes land into village land, general land and reserve land. Under the Land Act the government

may re-categorize ‘unused’ village land as general land. Technically WMAs could qualify as ‘unused’

areas within village lands, or these areas could be re-categorized as ‘reserve lands’, thus

disenfranchising the villagers from future access to these areas.

Another area of uncertainty is about the question of opting out of WMAs. According to the WMA

regulations, a village that decides to opt out cannot take back the land that was incorporated into

the WMA. Yet the Village Land Act places land ownership rights with the community. Minjingu

village in Burunge WMA is currently in a situation where some villagers are refusing to be part of the

WMA, and yet their use of the land allocated to the WMA is being restricted.

Discrepancies between the Wildlife Conservation Act (2009) and the Village Land Act (1999) have

also created confusion on who has authority to decide on tourism investments in community lands.

The first places authority with wildlife authorities, while the latter provides rights to the village to

determine investments in their land. This has posed problems in cases where villages had initiated

relations with tourism investors in areas such as Sinya village in Enduimet WMA and Robanda village

7 This fee schedule was provided by the Tourist Hunting & Photographic Tourism office in Arusha

27

in Ikona WMA prior to the establishment of WMAs. Investors have expressed that they have

developed a sense of uncertainty about the future of their investments following the changes.

Irregularities also exist between the Wildlife Conservation Act and the Forestry Act, which have led

to conflict on how land should be used in Ipole WMA. Part of Ipole WMA is in a Forestry Reserve,

where no investment or development can be carried out without the approval of the Director of

Forestry. The Forestry Division has not consented to degazetting the area so tourism activities

cannot proceed in the area.

In other cases it has been noted that there is a lack of enforcement of WMA regulations. For

example, in Mbarang’andu WMA, mining activities are ongoing within the WMA, which are not

compatible with wildlife conservation. Livestock grazing is allowed in the wildlife area in Enduimet

WMA, but not in Burunge WMA.

Clarify the benefit sharing mechanism, and provide a rationale for it

Amongst communities there is a feeling that earnings received are not proportional to the resources

committed. Earnings to WMAs are shared between central government, the District, the AA / CBO

office and villages in the WMA according to the benefit sharing structure (for photographic tourism

activities) shown in Figure 3, but no clear rationale is provided for why the earnings are divided in

this manner. For example in WMAs where hunting is carried out within the wildlife area, CBOs

receive only receive 25% of hunting revenues (Figure 4). Government keeps the remaining amount

to cover administrative costs incurred. In individual cases, villagers have complained that benefits

they receive from WMAs do not correspond with the resources they have committed. Robanda

village in Ikona WMA for instance, has stated that they are contributing 72% of village land area to

the WMA – a total of 7,334 hectares, and yet they share benefits equally with villages which

contribute a much smaller area of land e.g. Paki Nyigoti contributing 300 hectares.

28

Figure 4: Benefit sharing structure in WMAs for earnings from photographic tourism

Figure 5: Benefit sharing structure in WMAs for earnings from hunting tourism

Need for improved and transparent accounting practices

Budgetary constraints have been blamed as a limitation that prevents government from effectively

implementing WMAs. As an example, the national CBC unit of the Wildlife Division has no more than

8 people to deal with CBWM projects around the country. Yet 20% of all earnings from WMAs where

photographic tourism activities take place, and 75% of earnings from hunting tourism go to central

government. The Wildlife Division states that this amount is deposited in the Tanzania Wildlife

Protection Fund (TWPF), which is used to support anti-poaching activities and law enforcement in

wildlife areas outside National Parks overall in Tanzania. The fund also supports wildlife education

programs and training institutions around the country. It is not clear what proportion of the amount

earned, if any, is re-invested back into WMAs. It appears that the problem is in the proportion of

funds that is channeled back into WMAs, and not the availability of funds on the whole.

65%

15%

20% Communities (50% used for CBOoffice and conservation)

District

Wildlife Division

75%

25%

Central govt.

District (voluntarily distributes tovillages)

29

At the District level the lack of sufficient funds to manage CBC initiatives has been stated to be a

challenge, even though the District government is supposed to receive 15% of earnings from WMAs.

According to Longido District Game Officer, the amount they receive is usually lower, and does not

exceed USD $5,000 a year. This amount is deposited into the District’s general fund, and the funds

are usually channeled to other priority areas such as health and education. Hardly any of this

allocation goes to anti-poaching or conservation activity. Hence the anti-poaching unit in Longido

District was operating with only a single vehicle at their service. The District now relies on the

assistance of NGOs and of a hunting investor for patrolling a large proportion of the wildlife areas. In

Ikona WMA, the Serengeti District Game Department also had a very small allocation of funds, and

its ability to deal with poaching activities in the areas was limited. Anti poaching in Serengeti was

largely being carried out through the support of Grumeti reserve.

Transparency is also needed at the CBO and village levels. Robanda village in Ikona WMA, for

example, is a village that has suffered from poor management of funds from tourism investments in

the village. With earnings of over USD $200,000 every year for a period of over eight years, the

village has little to show in terms of socio-economic development. There is no apparent difference in

the level of development of Robanda village compared to neighboring villages.

There is a need for a transparent system of audits where all earnings and expenditures of WMAs are

clearly explained. A good example of such was carried out in JUKUMU AA in Morogoro when Ernst &

Young audited accounts in 2005-2007.

At the central government level there is also a need for increased transparency on earnings from

WMAs, and a clear indication of how those funds were utilized. Currently there is a lack of clarity on

total earnings collected from WMAs, with AAs such as Enduimet saying that they have no clear

information that would allow them to see how the WD decides the amount to be distributed to each

WMA.

Need to build human and physical capacities in order to ensure effective implementation of WMAs

In most WMAs, community members still require training to enable them to effectively take part in

wildlife management. This applies to general understanding of the WMA framework and its

regulations, as well as technical aspects such as management and administration of the CBO,

carrying out patrols, tour guiding and more generally in acquiring business know-how of setting up

enterprises that will allow them to benefit from tourism in the area.

There is currently no good means of measuring the effectiveness of WMA and other CBC initiatives

in conserving wildlife resources. This is because no baseline studies were conducted that would be

crucial for showing progress in achieving this objective over time. Although, wildlife census and

surveys in the country are carried out Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute (TAWIRI), there has not

been a specific focus on following up on changes in the areas in which CBC initiatives are located. It

has been suggested that there is a need for other independent bodies to be involved in this

monitoring activity. The WMAs themselves could participate in an assessment of the effectiveness of

their patrol activities by observing changes in wildlife numbers in their area. There is WMA

monitoring tool that has been developed by WWF through USAID, and follow up will be needed for

communities to be involved in the process in testing. The District councils and the Wildlife Division

would need to cooperate in this process.

30

Equally, no baseline studies were conducted that would allow conclusions to be drawn on the socio-

economic impact of WMA initiatives in communities. It is only recently (in 2010) that research was

conducted to assess the socio-economic status of some communities located in WMAs, though this

was not compared to previous years. Hence no reliable conclusions can be made regarding the

impact of WMAs on the communities’ social and economic development, except for what can be

deduced from the presence of new physical infrastructure like classrooms that have been

constructed using funds obtained through WMAs.

3.3 Linkages between CBWM and broader (national) economic development

and poverty reduction strategies, plans, policies and programs

The community based wildlife management initiatives outlined in this report have the potential to

contribute to broader economic development and poverty reduction goals, as they offer rural

communities opportunities to earn incomes through the sustainable use of wildlife resources in their

area. Hence CBC initiatives potentially have an impact in achieving poverty reduction and ‘an

improved quality of life’ as stated in the National Strategy for Growth and Poverty Reduction

(MKUKUTA II), the Five Year Development Plan (FYDP 2011/12-2015/16) and in Vision 2025

respectively. This can already be seen in communities that have managed to improve their

infrastructure, such as roads, classrooms and health facilities as a result of earnings from CBC

initiatives. Examples of this can be seen at different stages in villages where CBC activities are

ongoing, although progress could be faster in villages with a longer record of earnings such as

Robanda and villages in Burunge WMA.

Table 5 provides a brief assessment of the extent to which CBWM is contributing to the

8thMillennium Development Goal, to which MKUKUTA II and the FYDP are committed as

internationally agreed targets for reducing poverty while taking into account national circumstances,

and based on observations on the ground.

Table 5: Link between CBWM and broad economic development

Objective

Contribution of CBWM initiatives: WMAs,

TANAPA Outreach Programme, and NCA

Community Development Programme

1. Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger Medium

2. Achieve universal primary education Medium / High

3. Promote gender equality and empower women Low / Medium

4. Reduce child mortality Medium

5. Improve maternal health Medium

6. Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases Medium

7. Ensure environmental sustainability High

8. Develop a global partnership for development Medium

31

It is observed that the CBC initiatives discussed in this report have yet to place specific emphasis on

promoting the rights of women and opportunities for their development in order to achieve gender

equality, although some projects have supported women entrepreneurial groups in skills

development.

In terms of improving good governance and accountability as stated in MKUKUTA and in Vision 2025,

there is still much work to be done, which communities may push for through engagement with CBC

initiatives. Villagers have an opportunity to demand better accounting and reporting practices

related to earnings from wildlife resources from local and central government because of their

involvement in CBC.

CBWM could potentially benefit from the country’s Property and Business Formalization Program

(MKURABITA) if small enterprises in CBC areas become recipients of services, such as assistance in

business registration and obtaining title deeds that enable them to run their businesses more

efficiently. CBC has potential to contribute to the transformation of rural economies to relying more

on service provision (in tourist areas) if their capacities are enhanced, hence fulfilling the Vision 2025

goal of developing economic bases other than agriculture.

3.4 Linkages between CBWM and broader environmental policies and

legislations at the national, regional and international level

In terms of compliance with national environmental policies, the CBC initiatives are in line with the

National Environment Policy (1998), which aims to protect wildlife resources with the participation

of local communities, and to share financial benefits from wildlife with local communities.

CBC in Tanzania is also heading towards achieving some international environmental initiatives such

as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), where the first two objectives8: conservation of

biological diversity and the sustainable use of biological diversity are somehow the objectives of CBC

initiatives such as WMAs.

The recent increase of poaching incidents in Tanzania is also worrying, as it indicates that there is

ongoing violation of national laws/regulations. It is estimated that some 276 elephants were killed in

2011, while the count to mid-April of 2012 was 87 elephants. CBC initiatives are supposed to work

towards reducing such incidences but the recent increase indicates that there are weaknesses in the

system. A decision in May 20129 by the Tanzanian government to suspend TANAPA officials

following the poaching of two relocated rhinos in Serengeti National Park was a bold move, which

helped to reassure the international community that this issue is of importance.

There are however, positive cases of the influence of CBC initiatives in impacting cross-border

conservation efforts. This is in regard to the development of structures that facilitate the

engagement of communities across borders in conservation. Namtumbo and Tunduru WMAs in

Ruvuma region have provided a framework for tackling issues of trans-boundary conservation with

Mozambique. Similarly trans-boundary conservation issues are approached more easily in Enduimet

WMA bordering Amboseli National Park in Kenya after administrative structures were set up

following establishment of the WMA.

8http://www.cbd.int/intro/ 9http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/30/us-tanzania-poaching-idUSBRE84T12B20120530

32

CHAPTER 4: FORESTRY SUB-SECTOR

4.1 Policy and legislation environment related to Participatory Forest

Management in Tanzania

During the colonial time in Tanzania and in other many countries in Africa, local communities were

prevented from consumptive use of forest resources in their surroundings. Independent African

states inherited the colonial approach to management of land and land resources. In Tanzania, post-

colonial forestry management was under the control of the state, excluding and alienating forest

adjacent communities from any form of benefit-sharing or management role (Wily and Dewees,

2001) and thus denying their rights to plan, manage and benefit from neighboring forests. But in

some parts of Tanzania, traditional management of forests was still practiced by local communities

without any formal recognition in the policy and legislation. These traditional practices can be

noticed within the Sukuma tribe through management of forests and rangelands for grazing in dry

season. Similar examples also exist in North Pare Mountains where some clans reserved patches of

forest (called mpungi or mshitu) for sacred reasons (URT, 2006).

Limited capacity of the government to manage the country’s forest resources and increased

population at local levels resulted into deforestation and forest degradation threatening the forestry

sector in Tanzania (Wily and Dewees 2001; Blomley and Ramadhani, 2006). In the mid-1990s there

was an increased realization that insufficient central government’s capacity to manage both

reserved and non-reserved forests necessitated a new approach to secure local communities’

support and involvement (Wily and Dewees 2001). Thus, over the past 15 years, the Tanzanian

government has promoted participatory forest management (PFM) as a major strategy for managing

natural forests for sustainable use and conservation. PFM has been supported by legal and policy

reforms and significant investments from government and development partners. The PFM is

operationalized in the country through two major wings: Joint Forest Management (JFM) – the form

of PFM where communities and local or central government manage forest reserves. JFM has

tended to be concentrated in the Eastern Arc Mountain forests that provide important water

catchment and biodiversity functions, and in the coastal forests with low catchment values – but

similar high biodiversity values (Blomley and Ramadhani, 2006). The other wing is Community Based

Forest Management (CBFM) - the form of PFM where communities own and manage forests

themselves on their own land - has tended to be concentrated in miombo and Acacia woodlands in

the central and southern parts of the country

There are also other reasons why decentralization for forest management was necessary and this

included:

the potential for cost-effective local management of forests;

local knowledge of ecological dynamics that leads to proper management practices;

increased motivation for local communities to conserve forests following recognition of their critical role in the management, eventual increase in tangible benefits from the forest (economic incentives) and sense of ownership regained over their forest resources (empowerment) (Kajembe and Kessy, 2000)

A limited number of experiments were pioneered in the northern and western Tanzania to generate

lessons for transferring forest ownership and management responsibilities from central to village

33

government/community (Wily 1997). Earlier lessons indicated improved forest quality and reduced

illegal forest activities when communities are given control and responsibility to manage forest (Wily

1997: 1-2). These lessons were important for improving modalities to scale up PFM activities.

Concurrently, a review of policies and legislation related to the forestry sector was initiated in order

to formalize the decentralization of forest resource management rights (Blomley and Ramadhani

2006, URT, 2006).

Important legal reforms and processes that created an enabling environment for participation of

local communities in management of land and forest resources included: the development of the

National Land Policy (URT, 1995), approval of National Forestry Policy (1998), formulation of the

Land Act (1999) and Village Land Act (1999), enactment of the Forest Act (2002) and Forest

Regulations (2004) as well as development of Participatory Forest Management Guidelines in

Mainland Tanzania. Such initiatives in Tanzania and Zanzibar are highlighted in Box 1.

Box 1: Community Forest Management (CFM) in Zanzibar

Formal initiative to involve community in forestry activities in Zanzibar started since 1970s. Prior to that, most forests were managed under the state. In 1979, the Zanzibar Permanent Planning Commission (ZPPC) decided each village within five years time to have established its own village forest in order to cub a problem of wood scarcity, this was later emphasized into establishment of individual plots. In 1980, the Zanzibar Forestry Development Project mobilized community members in woodlots and tree nurseries establishment. This was an important stage towards piloting community-based forest conservation and management in Kisakasaka Village and coral rag forest of Cheju Village. In 1994, the piloting phase stopped due to less community commitment to implement the established programme (especially at Kisakasaka in mangroves). Reasons to promote Community Forest Management includes; the need to fulfil international obligation to involve local communities in the management and protection of country forest resources, limited labour force under the State to manage and protect the forest, and realization that local communities are part of solution to promote effective forest management. To enhance community participation in forestry development, major changes under Zanzibar forestry sector were made; 1. The formulation of the First Zanzibar Forest Policy of 1995 (reviewed 2011), which advocates for

communities involvement in forest planning and management. The revised forest policy (draft of 2011) ‘Emphasis people’s participation in forest resources management and conservation to contribute in reduction people’s poverty and improving their livelihoods’. Further, to ‘Increase investment in forest plantations including supporting participatory forest and tree management to increase forest cover and provide benefits to communities’.

2. The formulation of legal support for implementation of Zanzibar Forest Policy by enacting Forest Resources Conservation and Management Act (No. 10 of 1996). The Act gives community conservation groups (CCGs) a legal mandate to actively participate and benefit in conservation and management of forest resources around their village or part or whole of the government forest reserve through signed agreements with a Forest Administrator.

3. The formulation of Community Forestry Management Agreement (CoFMA) between forest Administrator and Community Forest Management Group (CFMG) of a particular society as recognized in the Forest Act. The agreement gives community inclusive rights of forest management, forest resources utilization and share benefits accrued from forest resources at community level.

Formulation of Community Forest Management Agreement (CoFMA) between the Revolutionary Government of Zanzibar and eight Shehias1 around Jozani-Chwaka Bay National Park (JCBNP) were carried out during the implementation of Jozani-Chwaka Bay Conservation Project (1995-2003). The first eight CoFMAs were launched in 2004 during the inauguration of the JCBNP. After the successful

34

introduction of CoFMAs around JCBNP, the Department of Forestry, Civil Society Organizations and development partners have been working to scale up more CoFMAs the Protected Areas. Guidelines to facilitate establishment of CoFMA were reviewed to give primacy to the needs and circumstances of the poor and marginalized groups of different communities. By mid 2012, a total of 57 shehias were practising CoFMA. The districts and Shehias of Zanzibar with CoFMAs are presented in Appendix 1.

National Land Policy (1995)

The development of the National Land Policy was an important milestone to provide framework for

defining land tenure issues and providing clear distinctions between land that falls under the

authority of central government and that of village governments. The policy, among other things,

addressed the need for governing/securing land tenure, land use management and administration.

Such reforms had been needed for years, since Tanzania attained political independence in 1961.

The village councils are charged with the role of managing the village communal land, including

forests and woodlands within their respective village boundaries. This reform was an important step

towards decentralization of land management rights through involvement of the local communities.

Land Act (1999) and Village Land Act (1999)

To provide for instruments to implement the National Land Policy (1995), Tanzania enacted two land

acts in 1999: the Land Act and the Village Land Act. The two Acts have important implications on

forest management in relation to land tenure, ownership and land use conflicts versus sustainable

forest management, as well as land use planning for forest development activities (URT, 2008).

While the Village land Act (1999) provides for the management and administration of land in villages

(as registered under the Local Government Act No. 7 of 1982), and for related matters; the Land Act

(1999) provide for the basic law in relation to land other than the village land, the management of

land, settlement of disputes and related matters. The provisions of both the Land Act (1999) and the

Village Land Act (1999) and related regulations provided an enabling environment for communities

to participate in land management by recognizing and acknowledging existing customary rights

practiced by different ethnic groups in Tanzania (Village Land Act, 1999, Section 20: 97-98). Further,

the two Acts allow for registration of customary land rights to hold common resources on land such

as forests by households, groups, or communities.

National Forestry Policy (1998)

In addition to the land tenure issues under the National Land Policy (1995), the government of

Tanzania approved a National Forestry Policy in 1998. The policy is considered the first new forest

policy in Tanzania since 1963, which introduced substantial changes to the way forests are managed

(MNRT, 1998). To ensure efficiency in forest management and conservation, either for production

and/or protection, the policy statements recognize the need for broad stakeholder engagement

through it does not define PFM as such. Under the forestry policy, engagement of local communities

falls under two major options: 1) through establishment of Village Land Forest Reserves (VLFRs),

where communities becomes managers and owners of forests within their village boundaries; 2) or

through co-manage of forests under central and local government authorities-National Forest

Reserves (NFRs) or Local Authority Forest Reserves (LAFRs). To enable participation of all

stakeholders, the forestry policy advocated for the establishment of management agreements, with

35

appropriate user rights and benefit sharing mechanisms set up between the parties involved in

forest management (the central government, specialized executive agencies, private sector or local

governments, and organized local communities or other organizations of the people living adjacent

to the forests). Beyond the formal forest reserve network, the policy considers the role of

surrounding communities/village councils a rational way to rescue forest resources from

unsustainable uses, through clear legal mandates.

Forest Act (2002) and Forest Regulations (2004)

In accordance with the National Forestry Policy (1998), the Forest Act (2002) provides the legal

framework to implement the National Forest Policy. Together with other objectives stipulated in the

Act, the Forest Act (2002) aims to:

encourage and facilitate the active participation of the citizen in the sustainable planning, management, use and conservation of forest resources through the development of individual and community rights, whether derived from customary law or under the Forest Act to use and manage forest resources;

delegate responsibility for management of forest resources to the lowest possible level of local management consistent with the furtherance of national policies; and

promote coordination and cooperation between the forest sector and other agencies and bodies in the public and private sectors in respect of the management of the natural resources of Tanzania (Forest Act, 2002, Part II Section 3].

The Forest Act (2002) provides legal rights and incentives to rural communities to participate in

forest conservation. Such rights and incentives include: waiving state royalties on forest produce

and, if they chose, retaining 100% of revenue from sale of forest products (Forest Act Section 78 (3));

retaining fines levied on village land in respect of village land or community forest reserves as

approved by village bylaws”; and the power to confiscate and sell any forest produce or equipment

used for illegal harvesting in a village land forest reserve (Forest Act, Section 97 (1)(b)).

Part II, Section 4 of the Forest Act (2002) classifies four types of forests:

National Forest Reserves (NFRs) managed by Central Government. This type consists of; NFRs managed for protection, NFRs managed for production, Nature forest reserves, and Forests on general lands that are managed by central government.

Local Authority Forest Reserves (LAFRs) managed by local government. This type consists of: LAFRs managed for protection and LAFRs managed for production, and forests on general lands managed by local governments.

Village Forests which consist of: village land forest reserves (VLFRs); community forest reserves created out of village forests (CFRs), and forests that are not reserved which are on village land and of which the management is vested in the village council.

Private forests, which include: forests on village land held by one or more individuals under a customary right of occupancy, and forests on general or village land of which the rights of occupancy or a lease has been granted to a person or persons or a partnership or a corporate body or a Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) or any other body or organisation for the purpose of managing the forest which is required to be carried out in accordance with this Act.

The enactment of the Forest Act (2002) was then followed by the Forest Regulations (2004) to guide

its operation.

36

National Forest and Beekeeping Programme 2001-2010 (2001)

Three years after the inception of the National Forestry Policy (1998), Tanzania developed a National

Forest and Beekeeping Programmes (NFBKP) for the period of 2001–2010. The NFBP was designed

to provide strategic framework for implementation of forest sector policy of 1998, and in order to

ensure sustainable forest and bee resources management (SFBM). Funded by the Government of

Tanzania and Development Partner’s Group, the NFBP do also emphasize the involvement of both

the government and non-governmental actors for improvement of the design and implementation

of projects and programmes. Under SFBM, some implemented projects includes; Forest Policy

Implementation Support (FOPIS-1995/2007); Tanzania Forest Conservation and Management Project

(TFCMP-2002/07); Participatory Forestry Management (PFM–2002/09); National Forest Programme

Coordination Support Unit Project (NFP-CUSP-2003/06); Southern Africa Development Cooperation

(SADC) Forestry Curriculum Revision (2004/06); Support to National Forest Programme

Implementation (2004/08); National Forest Programme FAO Facility (2004/09); and the National

Forestry Resources Monitoring and Assessment in Tanzania (2008/11). Other programmes and

projects implemented by private sectors, NGOs and institutions have as well contributed to the

implementation of NFBKP.

Participatory Forest Management (PFM) Guidelines (2007)

In line with development policies and legal frameworks for PFM as mechanism for transferring forest

ownership and management from the central to village governments, Tanzania developed PFM

guidelines for both Joint Forest Management (JFM) and Community-Based Forest Management

(CBFM) in 2007. The JFM guidelines aim to facilitate establishment of JFM regarding the

management of forest land in forest reserves owned and managed by either government (central or

local authority) or the private sector. CBFM guidelines also facilitate the establishment of village land

forest reserves (VLFR), community forest reserves (CFR) and private forest reserves (PFR) as

classified by the Forest Act of 2002. The guidelines provide some general principles, legal basis for

both CBFM and JFM, an outline of processes that must be followed/recommended to categorize

forest under CBFM or JFM as well as a ‘tool box’ for some simple forest resource assessment tools

(for CBFM) or simple appraisal tools (for JFM). Box 2 summarizes the forest types and coverage.

Box 2: Forest Types and Coverage in Tanzania

In 2005, Tanzania mainland was estimated to have 35.3 million hectares of forests (FAO, 2009), which is currently estimated to be equivalent to 40% of the country’s area (FAO, 2010). Major forest types include miombo woodlands (in lowland areas, central and southern parts of the country), the acacia woodlands (in the northern regions), the coastal forest/woodland mosaic (in eastern zone), mangrove forests (along the Indian Ocean coast), closed canopy forests (Eastern Arc Mountains in the east, Albertine Rift and Lake Tanganyika in the west, and on volcanic mountains in the north (URT, 2009).

37

4.2 Participatory Forest Management Models

PFM has been adopted as an official strategy to allow for wide participation of stakeholders in forest

resource management. PFM has three main policy objectives: improved forest quality, through

sustainable management objectives; improved livelihoods through increased forest revenue and

secure supply of subsistence forest products; and improved forest governance at district and village

levels through effective and accountable resource management institutions (URT, 2003).

Theoretically, it is assumed that forests can be better managed under close involvement of forest

users in decisions regarding appropriate management plans, rules and obligations pertaining to the

resource (Ostrom, 1999). Two major forms/approach of PFM are being promoted in Tanzania; Joint

Forest Management (JFM) and Community-Based Forest Management (CBFM) (URT, 2006).

4.2.1 Joint Forest Management (JFM)

Joint Forest Management (JFM) is recognized as a form of PFM where local communities become co-

managers of forests on land that has been set aside (reserved land) by government as part of either

Local Authority or National Forest Reserves (URT, 2007). The co-management aspect can also take

place between the community and private forest owners (URT, 2002). The management aspect that

is shared jointly includes the practical responsibilities of management and the authority to make

decisions, such as with forest protection and regulations pertaining to costs and benefits from the

resource (URT, 2007). The two parties involved in a jointly managing a forest, such as the local

community with Central Government (in National Forest Reserves) or with District Government (in

Local Authority Forest Reserves) or with private forest owners enter into agreements called Joint

Forest Management Agreements (JFMAs). If a village signs a JFMA with either central or local

government on the use and management of the forest, it (the village) should define an area “Village

Forest Management Areas” within the forest that it will jointly manage with government as stipulate

in the Forest Act, 2002 (Section 39 (2)).

A JFMA is a legal document that spells out how the costs and benefits of forest management shall be

shared between the forest owner (e.g. central government or district government) and the

managing partner (local community). Depending on the category of forest that is co-managed, the

overall objectives may be for protection or production or a combination of both (URT, 2007). In

principle, JFMAs are required to be signed before a JFM programme is implemented; however

experience shows that most JFM programmes are being implemented in many parts of Tanzania

before the respective JMAs become fully operational following lengthy legal related obstacles.

4.2.2 Community-Based Forest Management (CBFM)

Community-Based Forest Management (CBFM) is a form of PFM that takes place on village land, on

forests that are owned or managed by the Village Council on behalf of the Village Assembly (URT,

2007). It is under CBFM where communities have legal rights to establish village forest reserves

(Village Land Forest Reserves and Community Forest Reserves) as classified by the Forest Act (2002)

or to establish Private Forest Reserves (URT, 2002; 2007). Different from JFM, which takes place on

National and Local Authority Forest Reserves, CBFM takes place inside village Lands (URT, 2007).

Depending on the category of forest that is under CBFM, the overall objectives may be for

conservation or production or for a combination of both (URT, 2007). The CBFM approach

empowers the community to become both managers and forest owners. The communities elect

village institutions to play the role of management and operations regarding production and/or

38

protection of the forest. As per CBFM guidelines (URT, 2007), the role of the district authority (to

which the owner of the forest is located) is to support and assist the owner to manage the forests

sustainably (URT, 2002; 2007).

Under CBFM, a village land forest reserve (VLFR) is usually owned and managed by a single village

within its village boundaries. In some areas where the forest covers more than one village, the

Forest Act of 2002 (Section 32(3)) allows for a single VLFR to be owned and managed by more than

one village, even if respective villages are administratively under different local authority (URT,

2007). The overall management responsibility (if deemed appropriate) is assumed by a “Joint Village

Forest Management Committee (JVFMC)” comprising of members elected from each village council.

4.3 PFM Implementation and Coverage in Tanzania Mainland

Early PFM projects implemented in the 1990s, such as Duru-Haitemba forest in Babati District, Mgori

Forest Reserve in Singida District and SULEDO10 forests under the SIDA-funded Land Management

Programme (LAMP), provided important lessons for scaling up and for policy implication as they

were implemented under a range of social and ecological conditions (Blomley and Ramadhani 2006,

2007). A lot of support towards PFM programmes has been from development partners (e.g.

DANIDA, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland and the World Bank) in collaboration with either the

government or Non-state Actors.

4.3.1 JFM and CBFM Coverage

Since introducing PFM in the 1990s the size of forest areas managed by communities has grown

considerably (Blomley and Ramadhani, 2007). By 2009, approximately14.3 million hectares of forests

were within gazetted Forest Reserves either under National Forest Reserves, Local Authority Forest

Reserves, Village Land Forest Reserves, Private and Community Forest Reserves for both production

and protection purposes (URT, 2009). Additionally, 2.5 million hectares of forests were proposed to

become gazzeted as Forest Reserves. Available data on PFM since the end of the 1990s indicates an

increase in the adoption and spread of both CBFM and JFM across Tanzania. The total forest area

under PFM has increased from 348,550 ha in 1999 to 4,122,500 ha in 2008 with a large number of

villages involved in PFM increasing from 555 to 2328 respectively (see Table 6).

Table 3: Overview of Forest Area covered and number of villages participating in PFM (CBFM and JFM) in

mainland Tanzania11

Year CBFM JFM

Forest area under CBFM (ha)

No. of villages with CBFM

Forest area under JFM (ha)

No. of villages with JFM

1999 323,220 544 25,330 11

2002 1,085,300 845 1,175,550 525

2006 2,060,600 1102 1,612,250 719

2008 2,345,500 1457 1,777,000 863

2012 Appr. 2,400,000 No figures Appr. 5,000,000 No figures

10 SULEDO include three wards of Manyara Region – Sunya, Lengatei and Dongo 11 Figures have adopted from Wily and Dewees (2001); URT (2001); URT (2006); URT (2008); and J.Kigula (Pers. Comm. 2012). No figures (as of 2012) were available for villages under JFM and CBFM at the time of this exercise as they were subject to change according to MNRT.

39

In addition to data presented in Table 7, by 2008 the number of declared and gazetted forest under

CBFM had reached 331 in 63 districts, with a total of 64 declared and gazetted Village Land Forest

Reserves, mostly established in Iringa Region. But of 863 villages where JFM activities are

implemented, only 155 villages (or approximately 18%) have signed Joint Management Agreements,

(Tables 6 &7). The delay in signing JFM Agreements by the government, particularly in National

Forest Reserves, has partly been due to the lengthy legal processes involved (URT, 2007; 2008) and

lack of clarity on the cost-benefit sharing mechanisms between the government and local

communities (Bromley and Ramadhani, 2007; URT, 2009). Information in Appendix 2 and 3 provides

a summary of how CBFM and JFM have been distributed across different regions of Mainland

Tanzania as of 2008.

Table 4: Overview of CBFM and JFM coverage in Mainland Tanzania (Extracted from URT, 2008)

Community-Based Forest Management Joint Forest Management

Number of declared Village Land Forest Reserves

331 Number of villages that have signed JMAs 155

Number of Declared and Gazetted Village Land Forest Reserves

64 Number of National Forest Reserves with JFM

75

Number of District where CBFM is implemented

63 Number of Local Authority Forest Reserves with JFM

171

Percent of public land forests under CBFM arrangements

11.60% Percent of total area reserved by National or Local Government under some form of JFM

12.8%

Percent of Villages on Mainland Tanzania that are engaged in CBFM activities

13.90%

An analysis conducted in 2008 by the government indicates that CBFM initiatives are mostly being

seen in miombo woodlands and coastal and acacia woodlands where the majority of unreserved

forests can be found. On the other hand, JFM arrangements cover mostly the montane, evergreen

forests and mangroves forests (URT, 2008) as illustrated in Figure 6.

40

Figure 6: Coverage of CBFM and JFM in different Forest Types (Source: URT2008)

4.3.2 Actors involved in implementation of PFM

Communities in areas implementing both Community Based Forest Management and Joint Forest

Management are key to achieving successful implementation of PFM. PFM activities are

spearheaded by the Ministry responsible for forest resource administration, which is currently under

the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism through the Tanzania Forest Service). In addition,

PFM activities have gained the support of a range of other actors, including local government, local

NGOs, international NGOs and through bilateral agreements. Table 8, summarizes the range of

actors and current and former initiatives and organizations involved in the facilitation and scaling up

of PFM activities in mainland Tanzania (URT, 2008). However, the list is not limited; other

institutions may as well be supporting PFM, raising awareness and enabling advocacy in different

parts of the country (e.g. Tanzania Natural Resources Forum (TNRF) and Mtandao wa Jamiiya

Usimamizi wa Misitu Tanzania (MJUMITA) – Tanzania Network of Community Forest Managers).

41

Table 8: Current and former initiatives and organizations involved in the facilitation and scaling up of PFM activities in mainland Tanzania (URT, 2008)

4.4 Benefits generated and costs incurred under PFM

As described earlier, cost-benefit sharing arrangements differ significantly between CBFM and JFM

models. Villages are provided with legal rights and incentives to own and manage forest resources

on village land in ways that are both sustainable and profitable (the Local Government Act No.7 of

1982, Village Land Act No. 5 of 1999, and the Forest Act No. 14 of 2002). Under the Forest Act

(2002), among other things, communities have legal rights to benefit from waiving state royalties on

forest produce, retaining 100% of revenue from sale of forest products, levying and retaining fines,

and being able to confiscate forest produce and equipment from illegal harvesting. In a study that

examined the impacts of PFM (CBFM) on local forest-based livelihoods in the Eastern Arc Mountains

of Tanzania, it was found that CBFM contributes to poverty reduction when combined with support

42

for forest-linked income generating activities (Meshack, 2005). But these benefits should not

undermine the fact that there is also considerable costs for establishing CBFM with currently

estimates ranging between USD$20,000 and 25,000 and even higher if full cost recovery is

considered (Steve Ball, Pers. Comm. September 2012).

Under JFM, villages are recognized as co-managers but there is currently no clear and functional

guidance on a cost-benefit sharing mechanism between the managing partners. Modalities of

determining cost-benefit sharing for JFM in Protection (Catchment) Forest Reserves and Production

(Natural) Forest Reserves are different. In National or Local Authority Protection Forests utilization

of timber and non-timber products by communities is not permitted, but negotiations can be made

to allow ‘‘limited and localized’’ utilization, such as of water, honey, firewood, medicinal plants. In

some cases where local communities are permitted to harvest timber, limited amounts of timber can

be used for social development activities such as construction of village infrastructure (e.g. schools

and clinics). In Production forests where production is permitted, a share can be channelled to the

communities after the timber has been harvested (URT, 2007).

In high biodiversity areas where JFM is heavily promoted, management costs incurred by

communities living around protected areas tend to be higher than the benefits obtained from

supporting JFM in their areas. Although JFM forests are set aside for water catchment, irrigation,

industrial activities, domestic purpose, etc. for downstream users, no tangible benefits are returned

to compensate conservation efforts for communities. Table 9 provides an example of how

management costs and benefits of high biodiversity forests under JFM arrangements are distributed.

Table 9: Overview of management costs and benefits for high biodiversity JFM forests as perceived by stakeholders at different levels (URT, 2009)

Stakeholder Group

Forest Management Benefits Forest Management Costs

International Interests

High

High biodiversity in many of the forests (e.g. Eastern Arc Forests

Carbon sinks

Low:

Limited support to financing of Joint Forest Management programmes through projects

National Government

Medium:

Water catchment functions are important but are rarely captured in economic terms and even when they are, they rarely come back to the relevant ministries responsible for their management.

Some benefits from tourism revenues

Medium:

Costs associated with management and protection of forest reserves

Costs associated with facilitating and monitoring Joint Forest Management Agreements

43

Local Communities

Medium to low

Limited access to non-timber forest produce, and water in some locations.

Limited revenue from fines, confiscated goods and research fees

High (depends on location and stakeholder group):

Time spent planning for and establishing JFM

Undertaking regular patrols inside forest management areas

Co-ordination of forest management activities by VNRC

Crop raiding and damage to property by wildlife

Opportunity costs of alternative, productive land-use and forgone benefits (such as timber and poles)

Source: URT, 2009 While implementation of Participatory Forest Management (PFM) activities were ongoing in

different parts of the country, in 2007 the Government of Tanzania made funds available for

research on three policy objectives of PFM (improved forest quality, livelihood and governance)

under the coordination of Tanzania Forestry Research Institute (TAFORI). These research areas were

attempting to determine if PFM is the right option for sustainable forest management in Tanzania.

Results from a number of studies have indicated the following as per each research objective.

a. Improved forest quality

Mixed results are available to support the evidence that PFM results in improved forest conditions.

Overall results indicate that in most areas JFM has been influential in restoring and sustaining forest

conditions and in reducing forest degradation as compared to forests managed by the government

alone or under open access regime (Pfliegner, 2007; URT, 2009). Indicators used to justify

improvements in forest condition includes, increases in basal area and volume, declines in number

of stems per ha in forests managed under CBFM, and increases in JFM areas and forests under

exclusive state management.

A comparative study of three matched pairs of similar forests under JFM and state management

showed forests under JFM to be in better conditions than those without JFM, (Pfliegner and Moshi

2007). Better forest conditions included: higher numbers of live and naturally dead trees, poles, or

withies, and fewer cut timber trees, 68% fewer freshly cut timber trees than 70% less frequent in the

JFM than in forest without co-management. In addition, almost 34% more live timber trees, 45%

more live poles, and more than 55% more withies were recorded in JFM areas, and lower incidences

of freshly cut poles and withies.

Other studies done across a range of conditions have indicated more disturbances and a general

trend of decreasing gradient of stem density, and increasing gradient of basal area and standing

volume from non-CBFM to CBFM regimes (Kajembe et al., 2009). Similar trends were observed when

CBFM and JFM forest were compared and hence concluding that CBFM seems to perform better

than non-CBFM and JFM regimes due to strong institutional arrangement and improved incentive

mechanisms.

44

Traditional forest management practices (recognized as CBFM), which existed even before adoption

of PFM, provide another good example of improvement in forest condition. Forests reserved by rural

communities for cultural, traditional, ceremonial and grazing during dry season purposes have

resulted in recovery/restoration of large areas of woodland. A good example of this is the traditional

Wasukuma reserved areas (called ngitili), which are conserved for dry season grazing. By the late

1980s, many traditional ngitili disappeared, but as a result of efforts led by district authority, donors,

and NGOs in collaboration with local communities, more than 350,000 ha of land in the region and in

833 villages have been restored as ngitili. Many of these ngitili have now been formalized as private,

community or village forest reserves (Barrow and Mlenge, 2003 in URT, 2009). Similar improvements

have also been demonstrated in Wanyamwezi sacred groves and in Handeni District and North Pare

mountains.

Although PFM has proven to be quite successful in improving forest conditions across the country,

there are examples where it hasn’t had positive outcomes. For example, a survey conducted to

determine the health of Urumwa Forest Reserve and the extent of forest disturbance during JFM

implementation indicated a high extent of illegal logging and deforestation within the reserve due to

poor management (Nuru et al., 2009).

b. Improved livelihoods

In the late 1990s, CBFM was piloted in Iringa District through the assistance of a DANIDA-funded

project in fourteen villages. The project helped reserve small to medium sized areas of miombo

woodlands averaging 2,600 ha on village land. Income from the forest showed annual revenue of

equivalent to USD $540 per year in 2002, which increased to roughly USD $720 per year by 2005. In

2005, the Ministry of Natural Resource and Tourism assessed the impact of another project - the

Hifadhi Ardhi Shinyanga (HASHI) project - that worked to restore ngitili managed at individual, group

and village level. Ngitili owners obtained cash returns from the sale of ngitili products (grazing rights,

firewood and poles) equivalent to USD $11.50 per month. With income from ngitili products, 64% of

households reported their economic well-being to have increased and improved.

Promotion of alternative livelihood activities such as fish farming, butterfly rearing, rearing of small

livestock, beekeeping, tree plantations, agroforestry and eco-tourism has been a priority focus in

JFM forests especially those under National Forest Reserves. Such alternative livelihood activities

contribute to improved household income. A study by Nshubemuki (2009) on contribution of

agroforestry practice involving planting trees suitable for firewood, timber and charcoal

communities surrounding the Ruvu North Forest Reserve (under JFM) indicated that each

participating household in four villages (Kongowe, Mwendapole, Msangani and Mkuza) earned a

total of TZS 310,329 (=USD 255.99)12 in 2007 from selling charcoal, firewood, poles, agricultural

crops and tree seedlings from JFM plots. This income contributed significantly in improving

household income. Another great example of an alternative income generating activity is butterfly

farming, which has been shown to improve income of participating communities in Eastern

Usambara Mountains (see Box 3).

The Mpingo Conservation and Development Initiative (MCDI) facilitated the first commercial harvest

of Mpingo (the East African Blackwood, Dalbergia melanoxylon) in a certified VLFR managed by

12 1 USD = 1,212.26 Tanzania Shilling, 2007.

45

Kikole village, Kilwa District. Upon completion of harvest in November 2009, the village obtained

revenue of USD $1,800 in return for 15 cubic metres of D. melanoxylon. The revenues was used by

the village to pay for forest patrols and other management activities as well as for the construction

of a new house for the village midwife. Prior to approval of the management plan for the

establishment of the VLFR in Kikole, the village previously received previously roughly 4% of revenue

per sale of each log for 63 logs sold.

c. Improved governance

The objective of PFM to improve forest governance seems to vary depending on the nature of the

community involved and the PFM approach undertaken. Generally, most models of PFM focus on

the process to get the PFM in place while issues of governance appear to be cross cutting through

participation, transparency, accountability, and rule of law. PFM builds upon existing government

structures at the community level. In PFM, the practical responsibility to manage the forest is

exercised through village institutions elected by all community members, and the authority to make

decisions regarding forest management is vested in village institutions (URT, 2007). As is required by

the Forest Act, 2002 (Section 33 (1), (2)), the village must elect a committee—usually called a Village

Natural Resource Committee (VNRC) or Village Environment Committee—to manage their forest on

their behalf. A VNRC is a sub-committee of the Village Council and is (as a must) selected by the

Village Assembly and not appointed by the Village Council. It is the principal body concerned with

the management of the Village Land Forest Reserve (for CBFM) or a Village Forest Management

Areas (for JFM). In CBFM, where more than one village shares a forest, participating villages select a

Joint Village Forest Management Committee. It is upon existing institutions in the village, with

facilitation from the government, that aspects of improved governance can be assessed and

compared between forests under CBFM and JFM.

A study by Kajembeet al., (2009) comparing CBFM and JFM showed a decreasing gradient of stem

density, basal area and standing volume when looking at CBFM and JFM, which could be a result of a

more functional governance structures in CBFM than in JFM. The strong governance seemed to base

on well-spelled out incentive mechanisms under CBFM as compared to JFM. Similar findings were

obtained in west UsambaraMontane forests of Lushoto district in Tanga region where forests under

CBFM showed greater institutional autonomy and tenure security, more effective monitoring and

rule enforcement than forests under JFM or state ownership, which appearto be more disturbed

(Blomley and Persha, in press).

Other examples of improved forest governance under CBFM can be drawn from early PFM projects

in Duru-Haitemba forest in Babati district and Mgori forest in Singida District. In Duru-Haitemba,

overexploitation of forest resources by the community necessitated the government to plan a

gazettement of the forest in 1990/1991. In the course to gazette the forest under state ownership,

villagers opposed the plan. Further negotiations with the government led to handing the forest to

the community through apportioning the forest to eight village governments (Duru, Riroda,

Endagwe, Hoshan, Endanachan, Gidas, Bubu and Ayasanda). Transferring forest managementto the

community established secure ownership rights and provided the community with authority and

management responsibility. With the assistance from the Forest and Beekeeping Division, and a

Sida-funded project (Land Management Programme, LAMP) the forest condition was improved

46

(URT, 2009). The case of Mgori forest managed by five villages took more or less a similar approach

as the case of Duru-Haitemba forest.

Box 3: Amani Butterfly Project

The Amani Butterfly Project was initiated as a pilot project in partnership with Tanzania Forest Conservation Group (TFCG) in 2002. The mission of the project is to reduce poverty and create incentives for forest conservation. The project works to help approximately 400 villagers in 6 villages of East Usambara Mountains in Tanga Region. Pupae are sold for live butterfly exhibits in Europe and North America. Depending on species, each pupa is worth between USD $1.00 and $2.50. The first butterfly export took place in Dec 2003, and by 2005 annual sales reached USD $45,000. Butterfly farmers farm individually or in small groups of up to three households, but sell pupae at market as part of a larger group of between 10 to 30 households. Farmers start by catching female butterflies from the wild and placing them in shade net cages with host plants grown from forest sourced seed in nurseries. Once the eggs hatch from the first generation, farmers place the small larvae on host plants until they pupate. Farmers sell pupae to the project participating butterfly farmers who receive about 70% of the project's sales and the other 30% covers the project's staff salaries and operating costs. As sales increase, farmers receive an even larger percentage. Source: TFCG Technical Report No. (2006)

4.5 Additional incentives to forest conservation

Implementation of PFM activities has not yet exhausted all opportunities attached to forest

management. In addition to cost-benefit arrangements advocated and stipulated in different

policies, there are opportunities to extract even more from forest resources under PFM through the

sale of carbon credits. This could be done through implementing an international carbon scheme

known as ‘Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation’ (REDD) and through

community forest certification schemes.

4.5.1 REDD+ implementation

Climate change has been recognized as a global challenge that can be addressed through both

national and international efforts. Among efforts to address the problem is to reduce the levels of

Green House Gases (GHGs) emissions, which are major contributors to global warming and hence

climate change. Efforts to reduce GHG emissions are sector specific, and depend on available

systems, infrastructure and capacity to enable the process. In the forest sector, a policy to reduce

emissions resulting from deforestation and forest degradation in forest rich countries has been

conceived not only to reduce GHG emissions but also to provide financial incentives to forest owners

through sales of carbon credits (through offsets and sequestration). The 16th Conference of the

Parties to The United National Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) adopted an

agreement to expand the scope of REDD activities to include: reduction of emissions from

deforestation; reduction of emissions from forest degradation; conservation of forest carbon stocks;

sustainable management of forests, and enhancement of forest carbon stocks-together the activities

form what is called REDD+.

The implementation of REDD+ activities in Tanzania is currently at the pilot stage. Through the

support of the government of Norway, Tanzania (in 2008) started implementation of pilot activities

47

through non-governmental organizations throughout country (see Appendix 4). Some of the major

milestone and the current status to-date include;

a. Formulation of the National REDD+ Task Force (NRTF) led by the Vice President’s Office and five Technical Working Groups on REDD+ issues (TWGs). Both the NRTF and TWGs constitutes of members from different ministries with a representation from civil society and the private sector.

b. Five in-depth studies on issues pertaining to REDD+ were undertaken to provide lesson for development of the National REDD+ strategy.

c. Preparation of the National REDD+ Framework (2009), which guided the development of the National REDD+ Strategy. The strategy and action plan underwent series of reviews by various stakeholders throughout the country. A national validation workshop was held in October 2012 to validate the revised strategy. The final drafts of the strategy and action plan have already been endorsed by the government. A five-year programme on capacity building and a research programme on climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation (CCIAM) is also being implemented in partnership between Tanzanian and Norwegian institutions.

d. A National Carbon Monitoring Centre (NCMC) is about to be established. The NCMC will be a key institution in the coordination of forest and carbon data in Tanzania. The establishment is expected to be within 2012. In addition to NCMC, a Measurement, Reporting and Verification (MRV) system has to be developed.

e. The National REDD+ Fund will be established to consolidate and distribute funds accrued from REDD+ implementation. The timeframe for this is by end of 2013.

f. Processes have been initiated to establish the National Safeguard Framework for REDD+ in Tanzania. The timeframe being end of 2013.

g. A series of awareness raising on climate change and REDD+ issues is ongoing; involving national, regional, and district and local level representatives. Awareness campaigns are ongoing through the NRTF and Civil Society Organizations.

Several challenges are foreseen regarding implementation of REDD+ activities. At the international

level, modalities to finance REDD+ activities have not yet been finalized. At the national level, among

other things, REDD+ activities have to demonstrate real offsets, address leakage, prove additionality,

permanence, as well as develop an effective measurement, reporting and verification system (MRV

system). Furthermore, a fair, transparent and workable cost-benefit sharing mechanism has to be

developed.

Upon completion of modalities to finance implementation of REDD+ activities in Tanzania,

communities are expected to benefit from alternative income generating activities, and from

proposed activities to address drivers of deforestation and forest degradation stipulated in the

National REDD+ Strategy. Currently, REDD+ Pilot projects are working to design the best approach

for distribution of revenues from sales of carbon credits at the community level. For example, from

the project’s funds the Tanzania Forest Conservation Group (TFCG) and MJUMITA, Jane Goodall

Institute-Tanzania (JGI), and Tanzania Traditional Energy Development Organization (TATEDO) have

all tested models for revenue sharing in their projects’ area. Individual payments made to

community members are important sources of income at the household level, while payments

directed to support community projects are important for the development of the whole

community. Modalities of payments in each pilot village are community-driven and differ according

to agreed bases. Table 10 summarizes amount paid to each village as test-payments from REDD+

projects.

48

Table 10: Test payments made by JGI (to Village Council), TFCG/MJUMITA (Individual payments) and TATEDO REDD+ Projects (to Ngitili Groups)

JGI REDD+ Project TFCG/MJUMITA REDD+ Project TATEDO REDD+ Project

Village Name

Total Amount paid (T.sh.)

Village Name

Total Amount paid (Tsh.)

Village Name

Total Amount Paid (T.Sh.)

Village Name

Total Amount paid (Tsh.)

Amount in USD** (Kigoma

Region) (Lindi District Project sites)

(Kilosa District Project Sites)

(Kahama and Shinyanga Rural Districts)

Karago 28,500,000 Mkanga 8,375,794 Dodoma Isanga

13,291,922 Ngulu 11,997,817 7699.693881

Kirando 25,500,000 Likwaya 7,268,086 Chabima 23,216,778 Ilwilo 10,433,661 6695.884407

Sigunga 21,000,000 Ruhoma 21,081,960 Ibingu 10,030,750 Bukwangu 4,689,968 3009.82403

Songambele 18,000,000 Kinyope 12,648,900 Nyali 29,415,100 Pandagichiza 12,066,705 7743.9033

Lyabusende 16,500,000 Mkombamosi 32,268,000 Lunenzi 6,905,650 Manyada 5,794,490 3718.659753

Sunuka 13,500,000 Muungano 51,511,200

Ilagala 12,000,00 Nandambi 49,642,000

TOTAL 135,000,000

182,795,940 82,860,200

44,982,641 28,867.79

Source: Project material shared during a National Dialogue on Carbon Payments held in Bagamoyo, Tanzania, 20-21 September 2012) **, Exchange rate as of Sept-Oct, 1USD = 1,558.22 Tanzania Shillings

4.5.2 Forest certification schemes

Forest certification is defined as “a system to give recognition to those forest managers who follow

international standards and best practices of responsible management and fair treatment of local

people”. Most certified forests around the world are managed by big companies who have the

capacity] to meet the demanding standards to achieve certification. However, community managed

forests can also be certified. The best known forest certification scheme in the world is run by the

Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). This scheme is also widely recognized as the best and toughest; it

is the global gold standard in responsible forest management.

Several companies in Tanzania have pursued FSC certification for plantation forests, most notably

Green Resources Limited and Tanganyika Wattle Company. The Mpingo Conservation and

Development Initiative (MCDI) is the first organization in Tanzania to obtain an FSC certificate for

community-managed forests, and holds the only such certificate in the whole of Africa (Box 4). MCDI

is working in Kilwa District, South-Eastern Tanzania to help and encourage the communities there to

engage in Participatory Forest Management (PFM) by developing Village Land Forest Reserves (VLFR)

in their area. This arrangement is considered beneficial as in VLFR the community will own the rights

to forest resources within the reserve.

49

Box 4: Mpingo Conservation Development Initiative (MCDI)

Since 2004, MCDI has been developing an approach to PFM, which focuses specifically on sustainable management of high-value hardwood timbers, and specifically, the East African Blackwood (Dalbergiamelanoxylon) known in Kiswahili as ‘Mpingo’. In addition to other uses of D.melanoxylon, the tree is used to make valuable musical instruments in developed countries (USA, Europe and elsewhere). However, this trade is threatened by new regulations in the USA and Europe that require importers of timber to demonstrate that timber has been legally felled. Wood from exporting countries that have a poor record enforcing forest laws, such as is the case in Tanzania, will inevitably come under suspicion. Thus buyers are searching for sources of timber which is above suspicion. Taking advantage, MCDI identified a market for ‘Mpingo’ logs that are demonstrably legal, sustainably produced and fairly traded (i.e. certified timber). MCDI was first awarded its FSC certificate in March 2009. Under MCDI’s group certificate, more communities are allowed to join the scheme upon completion of the PFM development process. In November 2009, MCDI carried out the first commercial timber harvest of D.melanoxylon which brought revenue of USD 1,800 to forest owners (Kikole village, Lindi). Thus far (year 2012), 7 villages are FSC certified under MCDI’s scheme and have earned approximately USD 20,000. More recently, MCDI has been working to combined certification scheme and REDD to catalyse expansion of PFM into new villages across the miombo woodlands of south-eastern Tanzania. Establishment of more PFM is in turn expected to accrue revenues from REDD payments, which in turn will lead to more PFM and more revenue to communities from selling FSC certified mpingo.

4.6 Challenges faced in implementing Participatory Forest Management

i. Delay signing of the JMAs: JFM is being implemented in different parts of Tanzania, but by 2008 only 155 out of 863 villages implementing JFM have actually signed Joint Forest Management Agreements (JFMA) and many have been pending. Delay in signing of the JMAs has been a major impediment for most villages to benefit from revenues accrued through JFM process.

ii. Cost-benefit sharing mechanisms under JFM not operational: Implementation of cost-benefit sharing mechanism between the government (owner) and the local communities (co-managers) in JFM forests set for production have not yet been clear (as per Section 16 (2) (h) of the Forest Act). This legal gap has been mentioned as another reason leading to delays in signing JFMAs (Bromley and Ramadhani, 2007; URT, 2009). In production forests, the government collects significant revenues from harvesting timber, charcoal and firewood by commercial timber operators. Moreover, direct benefits arising from protection of forests, such as water catchment forests and high biodiversity forests have not been realized by local communities and hence hinder active participation. The government through the Ministry of Natural Resource and Tourism proposed to undertake revisions of benefit revenue sharing mechanisms; however the process has not been finalized and no standard cost-benefit ratios have been agreed (Bromley, 2006). Ongoing review of PFM guidelines is expected to cover modalities for communities to benefit from plantation forests. The National Forest and Beekeeping Programme emphasizes the need to put efforts in developing a successful and operational ‘business model’ to enhance local communities to gain financial benefit from implementation of PFM in both production and protection forests (URT, 2008). Introduction of Payments for Environmental Services (PES) in high biodiversity

50

and catchment forests are recommended to enhance the flow of benefits to the local community (URT, 2008). The challenge remains as to how to do appropriate monitoring of PES to ensure that local communities gain significant benefits.

iii. Insufficient and unsustainable funding of PFM activities: Most PFM activities are being implemented by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism in collaboration with both local and international NGOs, donor agencies and through bilateral arrangements. Most of the funding for PFM activities is provided by the donor community rather than by the government itself. Under such funding situations, most activities are implemented as projects and not as a continuous process. Under such circumstance, PFM becomes donor driven instead of demand driven. In addressing this challenge, efforts to improve sectoral financing were initiated through Improved Revenue Collection (IRC) component under the umbrella of Tanzania Forest Conservation and Management Project–TFCMP (2002-09).

iv. Inadequate staff/human resource: In addition to insufficient financial resources to implement PFM activities, there has been inadequate human resource capacity of local and government institutions and implementation instrument to adequately support PFM on a large scale (URT, 2008).

v. Participation of players other than the community: The Forest Act (2002) legalizes the management of forests on village lands under a range of options ranging from individual, group and community levels. Under JFM approach, the legislation provides legal rights for management of forest resources to be shared through signing of JMA between the government (owner) and a third party agency (co-manager). A third party in this case can be a community group, NGO, a private company or a local government body; however, there are no known cases of this partnership recorded to happen (URT, 2009). Deliberate efforts to address this challenge have been initiated through encouragement of Private-Public Partnership (PPP).

vi. Translating opportunities into substantial economic benefits: Existing policies and legal set-up provides strong incentives for local participation in Community-based Forest Management (CBFM). In some areas with rich forest resources CBFM has the potential to generate significant and wide-spread economic benefits to the communities involved through their legal rights to consumptive use of forest resources in line with approved management plan. However, translating this opportunity into a reality has never been the case in most areas due to a range of reasons including (according to URT, 2009); Institutional failures and governance shortfalls in the forest sector, limited capacity (human, operational resources and legal understanding) at local government level, lack of knowledge among forest-dependent communities on CBFM opportunities, Concerns over loss of forest revenues to District Councils, Focus on conservation and protection rather than sustainable utilization.

vii. Poverty among participating community: Despite positive willingness of some community to participate in PFM implementation, poverty among the community remains a central constraint prohibiting effective participation. To address poverty, PFM implementers have been viewing PFM in a broader scale by considering the community and comprehensiveness of the environment.

51

4.7 Important lessons learnt

Tanzania has been considered as one of the successful countries in African in implementing

Participatory Forest Management (PFM) as promoted through both Community Based Forest

Management (CBFM) and Participatory Forest Management (JFM). Policy provisions and legal

framework has been important stepping stones for involvement of different players in forest

conservation. In addition, legal reforms have tried to invert the colonial approach that excluded local

communities from management and ownership of most resources in their vicinity. Since 1990s when

PFM activities were initiated, important lessons have been learnt by different actors and hence

worthy to document. Such lessons include the following:

i. Effective governance and enforcement is important for attaining PFM objectives of improved forest quality, improved livelihoods, and improved forest governance despite the presence of a well-described CBFM or JFM structure.

ii. Community members are willing to participate in PFM activities if awareness raising campaigns are put at the forefront of operations at early stages of PFM. Awareness raising campaigns and appropriate legal environment creates enabling environment for adoption of PFM programmes in villages. This goes hand in hand with involvement of local communities in various stages of PFM in order to win their (community) confidence and create a sense of ownership, and hence sufficient time and efforts are required.

iii. Deliberate policy incentives have been influential in rapid scaling up of CBFM across the country as rights and responsibilities in forest management are fully devolved. Community members are eager to participate effectively in JFM arrangements under a situation of clear legal status regarding sharing of costs and benefits. Section 16 (2) (h) of the Forest Act (2002) provides a general statement regarding benefit sharing without providing guidance on how benefits from JFM are to be shared: “rules regulating access to, use and division of, and management and audit of any funds which may be made available for, or are generated by the implementation of the agreement”.

iv. Lack of landscape or ecosystem level approaches to implement PFM activities has been leading to displacement (leakage) or degradation of forests in areas not covered by PFM.

v. Important gaps in the legislation regarding the ratio and mechanism for sharing forest management benefits under JFM have resulted in many Joint Management Agreements have stalled and have not been signed by government, frustrating local efforts to manage these forest resources sustainably.

vi. CBFM works better in a situation where village boundaries are well known such that conflict management over village land and village land forests is minimized. Due to current need for CBFM; there are dangers of declaring of a village land forest that overlaps to a land considered to be under the jurisdiction of neighboring village (DANIDA, 2002).

vii. Traditional forest management system like ngitili is a form of community-based forest management that enhances biodiversity conservation. This is considered among best practices worthy documenting.

52

4.8 Recommendations to implementers and policy makers

There are still important issues to be addressed in order to improve the implementation of

Participatory Forest Management in Tanzania. Implementers at the central and local governments,

Civil Society Organizations and private sectors, and policy makers in Tanzania have a role to play in

facilitating the policy objectives under PFM. The following issues are recommended for improved

PFM in Tanzania:

i. Expedite PFM processes: Both Community Based Forest Management (CBFM) and Joint Forest Management (JFM) approaches under PFM have guidelines with clear steps on how to go about developing an operational full-fledged CBFM or JFM programme. Experiences indicate that some of the PFM programmes take longer than expected due to vested interests of the funding agent. This has led to loss of confidence by local communities, and more importantly, a lack of benefits arising from such arrangements.

ii. Address leakage by implementing PFM using a landscape approach: A landscape approach or an ecological level approach undertakes PFM at a wide scope by taking into account nearby forests. This approach is preferred over the current forest-by-forest or village-by-village basis as it takes into account displacement of prohibited activities in neighboring, less protected forests (Lokina et al., 2008). Lokina et al. (2008) recommends that CBFM be implemented in areas where JFM operates in order for villagers to collect forest resources under managed conditions.

iii. Finalize cost-benefit sharing arrangements in forests under JFM: The current cost-benefit sharing mechanisms under JFM arrangement for forests set for production, biodiversity and water catchment are not fully operational. For JFM to have a long-term future and capture the trust of local communities, there must be legally binding benefit sharing arrangements between the government (owner) and the community (co-manager) in place. Several proposals have been made by the Ministry of Natural Resource and Tourism to allow co-managers to tap benefits arising from forest management. Such proposals include, sharing of revenues arising in the form of levies, fees and royalties at a ratio of 40% to the village government and 60% to either the District Council (if it is a Local Authority Forest Reserve-LAFR) or Central government (if it is a National Forest Reserve-NFR); village government’s right to retain all the fines imposed by village forest management committees implementing a signed JMA on individuals undertaking illegal activities inside NFR or LAFRs, as well as ability to confiscate, sell and retain revenues arising from sell of forest products or equipment arising from illegal harvest in all or part of NRF or LAFR (URT, 2009). These arrangements are not yet operational.

iv. Translate opportunities arising in PFM into substantial economic benefits: If PFM, and specifically JFM, is to attain its objective of improving community livelihoods there is a need to develop mechanisms that will match or go beyond the costs of activities foregone by surrounding communities. Baring in mind the costs incurred by communities living adjacent to forest under government ownership, a key challenge emerging is to understand how the communities can realise the value of the forests under protection. Options proposed to tap more benefits from JFM arrangements include, introduction of payment for environmental services (PES) as compensation payments to surrounding communities as described earlier (URT, 2008; Lokina et al., 2008). Suggested PES schemes by Lokina et al. (2008) include: Carbon sink functions of forests (through sells of carbon credits under Clean Development Mechanisms-CDM and implementation of Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation-REDD policy), payments for watershed protection (by industries and irrigation schemes, water users etc.), and compensation for biodiversity conservation.

v. Facilitate development of clear village boundaries: Community Based Forest Management works well in situations where village boundaries are well known such that conflict

53

management over village land and village land forests is minimized. Due to current needs for CBFM, there are dangers of declaring a village land forest that overlaps to a land considered to be under the jurisdiction of a neighboring village (DANIDA, 2002). Facilitators of CBFM activities should ensure a participatory assessment of village boundaries in order to avoid conflicts and ensure the viability of the CBFM process.

vi. Improve local incentives for forest and wildlife management through sectoral integration: Sectoral integration, especially at the policy level, between forest and wildlife is a challenge. Currently, wildlife and forests are considered under separate policies and legislation and hence remain disconnected from each sector (URT, 2009). The separation goes further into institutional mismatch required to establish, for example, a Village Land Forest Reserve (VLFR) and a Wildlife Management Area. While PFM establishment builds on existing local government structures and customary village-based land tenure (e.g. Village Council, Village Assembly, and village natural resource committees), establishment of Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) requires the village assembly to elect a new community level institutions called ‘Community-Based Organization’ (CBO) which is supposed to be registered with the Ministry of Home Affairs and be given user rights to the wildlife in the WMA (URT, 2009). It remains unclear whether a village can establish a WMA within its Village Land Forest Reserve. To the community, this integration would mean a double benefit and hence could improve local incentives to conserve forests while also protecting wildlife.

vii. Allocate sufficient budget to support PFM activities (make PFM a priority): Most funds for implementation of PFM activities depends on external funding agents (development partners) and international NGOs. Such arrangements are subjected to different conditions, and sometimes are have short timelines and are hence unsustainable. PFM should be given a high priority at the government level with sufficient funds allocated and commitment to make PFM a political agenda. In areas where PFM is implemented as projects, an exit and sustainable strategy should be developed.

viii. Flexibility among implementers: There is a need to change the PFM approach among implementers. Implementers are supposed to be flexible enough to go beyond JFM and CBFM guidelines to ensure deliberate efforts are put to raise awareness and build capacity of local communities to implement PFM activities.

ix. Need for strong coordination among implementers: As implementers of PFM activities range from the government to civil society organizations and other players, there is a need for strong coordination in order to set priorities, create a common understanding, avoid duplication and conflicts among implementers.

54

CHAPTER 5: FISHERIES SUB-SECTOR

5.1 The Legislation and Policy Environment on Community Fisheries

Management

Unlike community involvement in forestry and wildlife management, community involvement in

fisheries resources management in Tanzania is mainly through collaborative management

arrangements. These are known as Beach Management Units (BMUs) organized spatially either

according to a beach landing site or according to coastal villages. Three policy and legislative

documents provide guidelines on collaborative fisheries management in Tanzania. These include the

National Fisheries Sector Policy and Strategy Statement of 1997, the Fisheries Act No. 22 of 2003 and

the Fisheries Regulations on Co-Management of 2005. Several user guides have been developed to

interpret and implement the policy provisions.

The National Fisheries Sector Policy and Strategy Statement of 1997:

The goal of the fisheries policy is to promote conservation, development and sustainable

management of the fishery resources for the benefit of present and future generations. The Policy

provides guidance for promoting sustainable exploitation, utilization and marketing of fishery

resources. The Policy aims to achieve its goal towards sustainable management and development

through ensuring provision of food, income, employment, foreign exchange earnings, effective

protection of aquatic flora and fauna, and environment. The Fisheries Policy initiated a directional

change from state centered control to collaborative initiatives. The Fisheries Legislation of 2003

provides legal backup to the National Fisheries Policy.

Fisheries Act No. 22 of 2003 and Fisheries Regulations of 2005

The Act and Regulations have stipulations relating to fisheries co-management including:

Sustainable development, protection, conservation, aquaculture development, regulation and control of fish and fishery products, aquatic flora and its products and for related matters.

Section 18 of the Fisheries Act provides for the establishment of Beach Management Units (Community Based Collaborative Management Units).

Fisheries Regulations (2005) on Co-management

Specific regulations on fisheries co-management include Regulation 104 on co-management under

Part VIII (General Provisions), and Sub-Regulations (1- 4). In addition, the Fisheries Regulations 2005

have been amended and when approved by the Minister responsible for fisheries management

activities, the amended Regulations will strengthen fisheries collaborative management activities in

the fisheries sector.

5.2 Collaborative fisheries management in Tanzania

Fisheries managers increasingly recognize that a fishery cannot be managed effectively without the

co-operation and participation of fishers to make laws and regulations work (Pomeroy and Berkes,

1997). Co-management systems have emerged as a partnership arrangement using the capacities

and interests of local fishers and communities, complemented by the ability of the government to

55

provide enabling legislation, enforcement and conflict resolution and other assistance. Co-

management should be a middle course between state level concerns for the efficient and equitable

management of fisheries and local level concerns for self-governance, self-regulation and active

participation (Pomeroy, 1998). Such systems need to be sufficiently dynamic if they are to cope with

the changing socioeconomic environment in which community's face. The inclusion of communities

of resource users in the management of their resources may, to some extent, ameliorate the

divergence of the state and communities.

The history of collaborative fisheries management (CFM) dates back to 1990s when the government

realized the need to involve local communities in fisheries management. These efforts were

followed by the 1997 Fisheries policy that included a clause on co-management under Objective (8)

and in 1998 formal collaborative fish management units called the Beach Management Units (BMUs)

were created. The BMUs are made up various stakeholders surrounding water bodies with the local

communities. The Lake Victoria Fisheries Organization pioneered co-management initiatives around

Lake Victoria and implemented by Lake Victoria Environment Management Programme (LVEMP) in

Phase II and I.

To supplement implementation of collaborative fisheries management, the Fisheries Act, 2003 part

5 section 18 (1) also catered for the establishment of BMUs in all coastal villages. A number of

initiatives have been carried out through out Tanzania and one of them is the Rufiji-Mafia-Kilwa

(RUMAKI) Seascape Programme by WWF. RUMAKI (see Table 11 for details) was developed as a

strategy to empower coastal communities to take advantage of provisions of the Fisheries Act, 2003

to decentralize decision-making, planning and management of fisheries resources, in collaboration

with the government

The co-management initiatives were clearly elaborated in the Fisheries Regulations of 2009, which

included setting up mechanisms for implementation. Thus, Collaborative management in Tanzania is

recognized as an agreement between BMUs, District authorities and the Fisheries Division. These

Regulations under section 133 (10) further provides for BMUs to associate with others to form

higher-level co-management structures known as Collaborative Fisheries Management Areas for the

purpose of planning, management and development.

5.3 Opportunities in the fisheries sector

The enforcement of Fisheries legislation enhances sustainable conservation, protection,

development, management, exploitation, utilization and marketing of fishery resources in order to

provide food, income, employment, foreign exchange earnings, effective protection of aquatic flora

and fauna, and environment for the benefit of present and future generations. Specific

achievements are summarized in the RUMAKI program further below.

Several opportunities exist that stakeholders could tap into in contributing towards improved

fisheries co-management. These include:

Political will that supports sustainable fisheries management

Presence of fishery resources in marine waters

Availability of key stakeholders dealing with sustainable fishery resources

Presence of Development Partners and Private sectors, NGO’s, are among others that support sustainable conservation and development of natural resources

56

Presence of Fisheries Act and Legislation

Presence of government institution that have been empowered to enforce fisheries legislation that supports sustainable conservation and development of natural resources

Presence of fishing communities that have been empowered to enforce fisheries legislation

5.4 Constraints in the implementation of fisheries policy

Several constraints still hamper successful fisheries co-management in Tanzania including:

Un-harmonized sectoral policies related to conservation, development, management and utilization of natural resources including fishery resources

The existing administrative setup on the management of fishery resources (Central government and local authorities) is inefficient/ineffective

Weak capacity for enforcement on Fisheries Legislation including insufficient financial and human resources

Inadequate promotion of value added fish and fishery products to increase income

Weak mechanism for data collection, processing, analysis and storage hence affecting monitoring in fisheries management

Absence of reliable data, poor mechanism for dissemination of fisheries data & information

5.5 Recommendation by stakeholders to improve fisheries co-management

The Fisheries Co-Management Guidelines (2009) contain a list of solutions to the challenges for

ensuring sustainable fisheries management through fisheries co-management. Stakeholders

consulted in this exercise underscored these same solutions and stressed that these provide

additional strategies for multi-stakeholder engagement in improving fisheries management in the

country:

Continuous conservation, development, management and utilization of fishery resources in a sustainable manner with support from donors

Strengthening the collaboration among key stakeholders on the sustainable conservation, development, management and utilization of fisheries resources for the benefit of present and future generations

Establishing an effective mechanism to curb illegal fishing practices, control/regulate fishing capacity and promote alternative livelihood for the coastal communities

Continuous training to fisheries staff and fishing communities on natural resources conservation and management, entrepreneurship skills, Good leadership and Governance, conflict management and cooperation

Promoting and strengthening natural resources community based collaborative management in marine waters

Reviewing and updating Fisheries Policy and Legislation from time to time

57

5.6 Fact sheet about the WWF RUMAKI programme

Table 11: Fact Sheet About WWF: RUMAKI Project

Project Name: WWF Africa & Madagascar programme: Rufiji-Mafia-Kilwa Seascape Programme

Tanzania

1. Summary:

This project is a newer approach for WWF, based on an integrated, people-oriented approach to

sustainable natural resources management and biodiversity conservation. The ‘seascape’ concept

mirrors the terrestrial ‘landscape’ approach and recognises the need to look beyond protected areas

to the wider geographic, social and economic context. It takes as its starting point the fundamental

links between environment and poverty and biodiversity conservation and sustainable livelihood

development.

The project is implemented in partnership with Vice President’s Office, National Environment Management Council, Fisheries Division of Ministry of Natural Resources &Tourism, District councils of Kilwa, Rufiji & Mafia Districts, Mafia Island Marine Park, and Mangrove Management Project. The project area, at approx. 9,000 km2, has a human population of approx. 140,000 and includes the

largest contiguous block of mangrove forest (Rufiji) on the Eastern African seaboard, extensive coral

reef areas and important prawn, finfish & invertebrate fisheries. These habitats harbour the equal

highest levels of coral & fish biodiversity in the region, important sea turtle nesting sites and the only

remaining dugong refuge in Tanzania. The area was selected as one of 8 high priority ‘seascapes’

under the Eastern African Marine Eco-region (EAME) planning process.

2. Programme goal:

“Improved socio-economic well-being of coastal communities in Rufiji, Mafia & Kilwa districts through

sustainable, participatory and equitable use and protection of their marine and coastal natural

resources”.

3. Objectives:

3.1 Collaborative engagement strengthened between District authorities, communities and other

stakeholders, resulting in collaborative management plans for fisheries and greater empowerment of

communities to participate in the management of their local resources.

3.2 Knowledge shared and awareness raised amongst stakeholders on issues relating to sustainable

management of marine & coastal resources.

3.3 Environment for small and medium-scale enterprise improved through improved access to micro-

credit and enterprise loans; capacity-building for enterprise groups in financial management,

entrepreneurship and technical skills; and demand-led livelihood technology demonstrations.

3.4 Protection of threatened habitats and species and control of destructive activities improved

through collaborative initiatives.

58

3.5 Improved availability of information for natural resources management decision-making within

Districts, MIMP and communities, through development and strengthening of sustainable data

gathering, monitoring & information management systems.

4. Progress (at of 31st Dec 2012)

The programme conducted a 2 year planning & setting-up phase during 2004-05 involving extensive

consultation of communities, government and other stakeholders.

During 2005 a programme document was finalised, core funding secured, project staff recruited,

equipment procured, a field office constructed in Kilwa and one refurbished in Mafia. Quantitative

baseline monitoring surveys for socio-economic indicators were undertaken.

During 2006/ 07 there was a major focus on livelihoods initiatives: in microfinance - 74 village savings

& credit groups (VICOBAs) have been set up and trained; in aquaculture: 20 milkfish ponds, 10 crab

fattening farms and 22 pearl oyster culture initiative were supported; in enterprise development:

159community enterprise groups were provided with entrepreneurship training and small grants

worth 187m TSh for fishing, mariculture, trading, shop-keeping, beekeeping, mamalishe (food

vending), carpentry etc.. Other livelihoods working Mafia has included trials of deep-sea fishing

around fish aggregating devices (FADs).

Since Nov 2006, the collaborative fisheries management (CFM) component has received increasing

attention. Working closely with the Fisheries Division, planning, awareness-raising and exchange visits

with District and village leaders has been done, and 25 village-level ‘beach management units’ (BMUs)

have been formally established; their training is completed and financial sustainability strategy

initiated.

Additional work includes species protection initiatives (on marine turtles, dugong & whale sharks),

funded by WWF Switzerland; and assessing the vulnerability of mangroves and coral reefs to climate

change, funded by GEF.

5. Perspectives:

Wider issues of particular relevance are:

i) Poverty & HIV/AIDS.

2000/01 data shows 18.7% of TZ population below the national food poverty line and 35.7% below

the national basic need poverty line. There are indications of slight increases in infant mortality and

maternal mortality in recent years, probably related to HIV and AIDS pandemic. A revised National

Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty (MKUKUTA) was published in 2005 providing a

framework for all development activity, whether by Government or NGOs.

ii) Local Government Reform Programme (LGRP).

The RUMAKI seascape programme is implemented through a close and active association with three

district authorities. These districts are involved in a national reform process, which involves

decentralisation of government powers from national to district level. The degree to which the

capacity of the Districts continues to be strengthened through this process will have a major bearing

59

on the success of RUMAKI, JSDF, MACEMP and other projects.

6. Collaboration with other programmes:

There is close collaboration with the Ministry of Natural Resources & Tourism (MNRT) through the

Fisheries Division, specifically with respect to the JSDF funded Community Based Coastal Resource

Management and Sustainable Livelihoods Project; as well as the World Bank/GEF-funded Marine &

Coastal Environment Management Programme (MACEMP), both of which started early in 2006.

60

REFERENCES

Blomley, T. and Ramadhani, H. 2007. Participatory Forest Management in Tanzania: an Overview of

Status, Progress and Challenges ahead. The Arc Journal. Issue 21: 3-5.

Bromley, T. and Ramadhani, H. 2006. Going to scale with participatory forest management: early

lessons from Tanzania. International Forestry Review 8(1): 93-100.

Bromley, T., Pfliegner, K., Isango, J. and Zahabu, E. 2008. Seeing the wood for the trees: an

assessment of the impacts of Participatory Forest Management on forest Conditions in Tanzania.

Oryx 42(3): 380-391.

Blomley, T., Pfliegner, K., Isango, J., Zahabu E., Ahrends, A., and Burgess, N. 2008. Seeing the Wood

for the Trees: Towards an objective assessment of the impact of Participatory Forest Management

on forest condition in Tanzania. Oryx. 42(2), 1–12.

DANIDA PFM Component Document 2003-2007, Tanzania, 2002

Ellis, F. 2000. Rural livelihoods and diversity in developing countries. Ney York, Oxford University

Press.

Emerton L and Mfunda I. 1999. Making Wildlife Economically Viable for Communities Living Around

the Western Serengeti, Tanzania

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2009. State of Worlds Forests. Rome.

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2010. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010: Country

report, Tanzania. FRA 2010/222. Rome, Italy. Available at www.fao.org/forestry/fra

Kajembe, G.C. and Kessy, J.F. 2002. Joint Forest Management in Urumwa Forest Reserve, Tabora,

Tanzania. A process in the making. In Virtanen, P. and Nummelin, M. (Eds). Forests, Chiefs and

Peasants in Africa: Local Managemnt of Natural Resources in Tanzania, Zimbabwe and

Mozambiques. Silva Carelica 34:141-158.

Kajembe, G.C, Y.M Ngaga, S.A.O Chamshama and M.A Njana. 2009. Performance of Participatory

Forest Management (PFM) regimes in Tanzania: preliminary findings in the Project “Applied

Research in PFM”. In Nshubemuki et al., (Editors). Proceedings of the First Participatory Forest

Management (PFM) Research Workshop: Participatory Forest Management for Improved Forest

Quality, Livelihood and Governance. June 2009.

Kipuri , N. and Sørensen, C . 2008. “Poverty, pastoralism and policy in Ngorongoro: lessons learned

from the Ereto I Ngorongoro pastoralist project with implications for pastoral development and the

policy debate,” Protecting pastoralists' livelihoods: lessons from Ngorongoro, Tanzania. International

Institute for Environment and Development

61

Lokina R. B and Robinson, Elizabeth J. Z., 2008. Determinants of Successful Participatory Forest

Management in Tanzania. EfD Discussion Policy Brief- Environment for Development in Tanzania

(EfDT)

Lund, J.F. and Nielsen, Ø.J. 2006. The promises of participatory forest management in forest

conservation and poverty alleviation: The case of Tanzania. In: H. Charton, and C. Médard (eds)

2006. L'Afrique orientale. Annuaire 2005. L'Harmattan. Paris, France. pp. 201-241.

Luoga, E.J., Kajembe, G.C., and Mohamed, B.S. 2006. Impact of Joint Forest Management on Handeni

Hill Forest Reserve and Adjacent Communities in Tanga, Tanzania. A paper presented at Survival of

the Commons: Mounting Challenges and New Realities, the 11th Conference of the international

Association for the study of Common Property, Bali, Indonesia, June 19-23, 2006.

Meshack, C.K., 2005. Impact of Participatory Forest Management on Local forest Based Livelihoods:

Experience from Eastern Arc Mountains Forests of Tanzania. In Nshubemuki et al., (Editors).

Proceedings of the First Participatory Forest Management (PFM) Research Workshop: Participatory

Forest Management for Improved Forest Quality, Livelihood and Governance. June 2009.

Minwary, M. Y. 2009. Politics of participatory wildlife management in Enduimet WMA, Tanzania,

MSc Thesis in Development Studies Noragric, Norwegian University of Life Sciences (MB)

Mpingo Conservation and Development Initiative (MCDI). Undated. REDD Project Scheme Outline:

Combining REDD, PFM and FSC Certification in SE Tanzania.

Mrosso, C.T. 2006. Assessment of forest based income generating activities and their contribution to

livelihood of the communities around East Usambara mountain forests. Unpublished dissertation for

award of Msc. Degree at Sokoine University of Agriculture.

Nelson, F. 2007. Emergent or illusory? Community wildlife management in Tanzania. Pastoral Civil

Society in East Africa. London: International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).

Nelson, F .2008. Livelihoods, Conservation and Community-based Tourism in Tanzania: Potential and

Performance, in A. Spenceley (ed.) Responsible Tourism, Critical Issues for Conservation and

Development, Earthscan, London, pp. 305-321

Nuru, H., C.D.K Rubanza and C.B Nezia. 2009. Governance of key players at district and village levels

on health improvement of Urumwa Forest Reserve, Tabora: Ten years of Joint Forest Management.

In Nshubemuki et al., (Editors). Proceedings of the First Participatory Forest Management (PFM)

Research Workshop: Participatory Forest Management for Improved Forest Quality, Livelihood and

Governance. June 2009.

Nshubemuki et al., (Editors). Proceedings of the First Participatory Forest Management (PFM)

Research Workshop: Participatory Forest Management for Improved Forest Quality, Livelihood and

Governance. June 2009.

Ostrom, E. 1999. Self Governance and Forest Resources. Occasional paper no. 20. Centre for

International Forestry researches, Bogon, Indonesia

62

Pfliegner, K. 2007. Is Joint Forest Management Viable in Protection of Forest Reserves? Experience

from Morogoro region. The Arc Journal 21: 17-20

Pomeroy, R. 1998. A process for community-based fisheries co-management: NAGA, No. 1448

Pomeroy, R. and Berkes, F. 1997. Two to tango: the role of government in fisheries co-management,

Marine Policy 21(5): 465-480.

Sauer J; Abdallah, J.M. 2007. Forest Diversity, tobacco Production and resource management in

Tanzania. Forest Policy and Economics 9(5): 421-439

United Republic of Tanzania (URT). 1982. Local Government Act No 7. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

URT. 1998. National Forest Policy. Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, Forestry and

Beekeeping Division, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

URT. 2006. Participatory Forest Management: Facts and figures. Forestry and Beekeeping Division,

Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, 7 pp.

URT. 2007. Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, Assessment and Evaluation of Wildlife

Management Areas in Tanzania, prepared by Institute of Resource Assessment, University of Dar es

Salaam

URT. 2003. Framework for participatory forest management. Ministry of Natural Resources and

Tourism. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, 46 pp.

URT. 2001. National Forest Programme in Tanzania, 2001-2010. United Republic of Tanzania, Forest

and Beekeeping Division, Ministry of Natural Resource and Tourism.

URT. 2002. The Forest Act, No. 14 of 7th June 2002.

URT. 2007. Community-Based Forest Management Guidelines: for the establishment of Village land

forest Reserves and Community Forest Reserves. Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism,

Forestry and Beekeeping division, Dar es salaam, Tanzania. 57pp

URT. 2008. PFM: Facts and Figures, United Republic of Tanzania, Forest and Beekeeping division.

12pp.

URT. 1999. Village Land Act (and Regulations) No. 5 of 1999. Ministry of Lands and Human

Settlements, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

URT. 2009. Participatory Forest Management in Tanzania: 1993 –2009 Lessons learned and

experiences to date

Wildlife Sector Review taskforce (WSRTF) (1995), A Review of the Wildlife Sector in Tanzania, volume

1: Assessment of the Current Situation, Ministry of Tourism, Natural Resources and Environment,

Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

Wily L.A. 2000. Forest law in Eastern and Southern Africa. Moving towards a community-based

forest future. Unasylva No. 203. 29 pp.

63

Wily, L.A. 1997. Villagers as forest managers and governments 'learning to let go': The case of Duru-

Haitemba and Mgori forests in Tanzania. Forest Participation Series, No. 9. IIED, London, UK. 32 pp.

Wily, L.A. and Dewees, P. 2001. From users to custodians: Changing relations between people and

the State in forest management in Tanzania. World Bank. Policy Research Working Paper No. 2569.

64

Appendix 1: Districts and Shehias of Zanzibar with CoFMAs

No. Name of Districts Name of Shehia Number of CoFMA

1. North “A” Kandwi and Pwani Mchangani 2

2. North “B” Kiwengwa, Upenja, Pangeni and Kilombero 4

3. Central Cheju, Chwaka, Charawe, Ukongoroni, Michamvi, Marumbi, Uroa, Pagali, Uzi-Ngwamba, Bungi-Kibele, Pongwe, Bambi, Mchangani, Tunduni, Jendele, Umbuji.

16

4. South Unguja Paje, Jambiani, Mtende, Muungoni, KizimkaziDimbani, KizimkaziMkunguni, Kibuteni, Kajengwa, Muyuni “A”, Muyuni “B”, Muyuni “C”, Bwejuu, Pete-Jozani.

13

5. Micheweni Mgogoni, ShumbaMjini, TumbeMagharibi, Konde, Majenzi, MjiniWingwi, WingwiMapofu, Mtemani, Tondooni, Kifundi, MsukaMagharibi.

11

6. Wete MtambweKusini, MtambweKaskazini, Fundo, Gando and Kambini

5

7. Mkoani KisiwaPanza, Michenzani, Mjimbini, Kangani, Changaweni

5

8. Chake-Chake Mgelema

1

Total

57

65

Appendix 2: A summary of implementation of CBFM in district across regions in

mainland Tanzania as by 2008 (URT, 2008).

The Ministry of Natural Resource and Tourism is currently finalizing a new publication with more recent data on CBFM coverage.

Region Number of Districts with CBFM

Number of villages with CBFM

Number of declared VLFRs

Number of gazetted VLFRs

Total Area under CBFM

Tanga 6 152 80 1 39,468

Morogoro 5 65 2 0 223,773

Iringa 6 157 74 50 199,078

Mbeya 4 51 5 0 61,593

Lindi 6 76 19 1 322,475

Tabora 3 40 0 0 119,910

Kigoma 4 34 9 0 61,780

Kilimanjaro 1 58 4 0 1,656

Mwanza 4 150 0 0 24,147

Shinyanga 4 384 38 0 401,222

Mara 2 48 4 0 42,432

Manyara 2 55 48 9 209,494

Arusha 1 9 3 0 3,084

Pwani 4 26 8 3 61,225

Kagera 1 15 0 0 15,450

Mtwara 3 7 0 0 4,773

Dodoma 1 25 4 0 73,121

Singida 2 15 12 0 24,421

Rukwa 2 65 5 0 383,663

Total 63 1,457 331 64 2,345,535

Key: CBFM=Community-Based Forest Management VLFRs=Village land Forest Reserves

66

Appendix 3: A summary of implementation of JFM in district across regions in

mainland Tanzania as by 2008 (URT, 2008).

The Ministry of Natural Resource and Tourism is currently finalizing a new publication with more recent data on JFM coverage.

Region

Dis

tric

ts C

ou

nte

d

Number of NFRs with JFM

Number of LAFRs with JFM

Protection Forests

with JFM

Production Forests with

JFM

Number of

Villages

Number of

Signed JMAs

Total Area under JFM (Hectares)

Tanga 7 54 14 58 42 169 37 73,403

Morogoro 4 25 2 22 4 117 12 289,575

Iringa 8 18 23 31 0 110 37 315,815

Mbeya 3 4 5 4 0 27 0 128,583

Lindi 4 6 2 4 5 48 0 122,424

Tabora 2 1 0 0 1 27 0 168,000

Kigoma 2 7 5 5 5 29 0 91,923

Kilimanjaro 4 11 2 13 0 72 29 122,896

Mwanza 3 2 5 2 5 24 0 12,587

Shinyanga 2 11 10 9 2 24 0 117,827

Mara 2 1 3 2 2 17 6 4,492

Manyara 5 5 0 5 0 36 26 46,420

Arusha 2 4 3 6 1 18 0 17,207

Pwani 8 14 0 5 11 92 0 152,748

Ruvuma 2 2 0 0 2 9 0 6,871

Total 61 171 75 173 80 863 155 1,777,029

67

Appendix 4: Brief Profile of Civil Society Organization piloting REDD+ in Tanzania

Source: Summarized from Agreements and contracts made with the Government of Norway, available on http://www.norway.go.tz/News_and_events/agreements_and_contracts/

SN

Name of NGO Name of REDD+ Pilot Project

Region Districts Funding Levels (USD)

Project Duration

1 Jane Goodall Institute (JGI)

Building REDD+ Readiness in the Masito-Ugalla Ecosystem

Kigoma & Mpanda region

Kigoma Rural & Mpanda

2,759,641 3 years Started January 2010, expected to end December 2012

2 African Wildlife Foundation (AWF)

Advancing REDD+ in the Kolo Hills Forests (ARKFor) in Central Tanzania

Dodoma Kondoa 2,061,794 3 years Started January 2010, expected to end December 2012

3 CARE/HIMA Piloting REDD+ in Zanzibar through Community Forest Management

Unguja& Pemba

South Unguja, North B Unguja & Central Unguja districts; Wete, Micheweni, Chakechake and Mkoani districts in Pemba

5,539,175 4 years Started April 2010, expected to end March 2014

4 Tanzania Forest Conservation Group (TFCG) and Community Forest Conservation Network of Tanzania (MJUMITA)

Making REDD+ Work for Communities and Forest Conservation in Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests of Tanzania

Morogoro and Lindi

Kilosa and Lindi rural Districts

5,914,353 5 years, started in September, 2009

5 Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS)

Development of a Standardized Approach for Establishing Baseline Information in Support of REDD+, with a Focus on the Montane Forests of the Southwest

Mbeya and Rukwa

Mt. Rungwe Nature Reserve in Rungwe District Mporoto Ridge Forest Reserve in Mbeya district Livingstone

1,328,991 4 years Started July 2010 expected to end June 2014

68

of Tanzania Forest within Kitulo National Park in Rungwe District Mbizi Forest in Sumbawanga District

6 Tanzania Traditional Energy Development Organisation (TaTEDO)

Community-Based REDD+ Mechanism for Sustainable Forest Management in Semi-Arid Areas (A Case of Ngitilis in Shinyanga-Western Tanzania)

Shinyanga Shinyanga Rural and Kahama

2,012,752 4 years, started in January 2010, expected to end December 2013

7 Mpingo Conservation and Development Initiative (MCDI)

Combining REDD+, PFM and Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Certification in South-Eastern Tanzania

Lindi Kilwa 1,948,123 4 years Started January 2010, expected to end December 2013

8 Wildlife Conservation Society in Tanzania (WCST)

Piloting REDD+ in The Pugu and Kazimzumbwi Forest Reserve

Dar es Salaam and Coast

Ilala and Kisarawe

3,936,048 4years Started 1st February, 2011 expected to end 31st March, 2015

9 World-Wide Fund for Nature (WWF-Tanzania Country Office-TCO)

Enhancing Tanzanian Capacity to Deliver Short and Long Term Data on Forest Carbon Stocks across the Country

Mbeya, Iringa, Morogoro, Singida, Kilimanjaro, Lindi

Manyoni, Mwanga, Rufiji, Kilwa, Arusha, Mbeya, Dodoma, Kilombero

1,978,396 3 years, 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2013)

69

Appendix 5: List of people interviewed

SN Name Designation/Institution

1. Joseph .J. Kigula Coordinator, Participatory Forest Management, Tanzania Forest Service-Ministry of Natural Resource and Tourism

2. Rahima Njaidi Executive Director, MJUMITA

3. Bettie Luwuge Project Director, REDD+ Project TFCG

4. Charles Meshack Executive Director, TFCG

5. Evarist Nashanda

Senior Forest Office, Tanzania Forest Service-Ministry of Natural Resource and Tourism

6. Tamrini Saidi

Wildlife Conservation Officer, Department of Forest and Non Renewable Natural Resources Zanzibar

7. Gelard Kamwenda Senior Forest Office, Tanzania Forest Service, Ministry of Natural Resource and Tourism

8. Deusdedith Bwoyo Coordinator for the National Forest and Beekeeping Programme, Tanzania Forest Service-Ministry of Natural Resource and Tourism

9. Nurdin Chamuya National Project Coordinator of NAFORMA, Tanzania Forest Service-Ministry of Natural Resource and Tourism

10. Shukuru Nyagawa National REDD+ Secretariat, Institute of Resource Assessment, University of Dar es salaam

11. Abdallah Mwanauta CBC Unit, Wildlife Division, MNRT

12. Willness Minja CBC Unit, Wildlife Division, MNRT

13. George Wambura Executive Secretary, Authorized Association Consortium

14. Dr. Faustin Maganga Associate Professor, University of Dar es Salaam

15. Zamblon Kengera Lecturer, University of Dar es Salaam

16. George Jambiya WWF-CEAI

17. Paul Anspach International Team Leader, Selous Niassa Wildlife Protection Corridor

18. Mikala Lauridsen Natural Resource Management Adviser, USAID Tanzania

19. A.J.M. Mbugi Manager, Outreach Programme, TAWIRI

20. Honori Maliti Conservation Information Monitoring Unit, TAWIRI

21. Dr. J. Muumba Head of Community Development Department, NCAA

22. Steven Lelo Principal Tourism Officer, NCAA

23. Peter Metere Manager of Ngorongoro Pastoralists Council

24. James Moringe Secretary, Ngorongoro Pastoralist Council

25. Bruno Kawasange Acting Conservator, NCAA

26. Charles Byarugaba Fisheries Department

27. Julita Mwangamilo WWF-TCO (RUMAKI programme)

© Tanzania Natural Resource Forum 2013