CONTRIBUTION OF LOCAL COMMUNITIES IN …I provide my thanks to Ms. Joyneth Mbogo, Frank Luvanda,...
Transcript of CONTRIBUTION OF LOCAL COMMUNITIES IN …I provide my thanks to Ms. Joyneth Mbogo, Frank Luvanda,...
CONTRIBUTION OF LOCAL COMMUNITIES IN CONSERVATION OF BIOSPHERE RESERVES IN TANZANIA
ANGELA MWATUJOBE Senior Environmental Management Officer National Environment Management Council (NEMC) Directorate of Environmental Planning and Research (DEPR) P. O. Box 63154 DAR ES SALAAM TANZANIA Mobile: +255 786 646447; E –mail: [email protected]; [email protected]
NOVEMBER2016
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Man and Biosphere (MAB) is the programme that puts man at the center of all conservation
activities in whole concept of Biosphere Reserves (BR). Thus, having a community surrounding
the BR, it is a requirement to involve it in management activities. Tanzania has four BRs which
are East Usambara Biosphere Reserve (EUBR), Serengeti Ngorongoro (SNBR), Lake Manyara
(LMBR) and the new one of Jozani Chwaka Bay (JCBBR). These BRs are surrounded by large
communities that need to be involved in conservation activities being directly or indirectly
implemented since it is the requirement of the MAB Programme that man, specifically the local
community should be the main stakeholder.
The communities leaving in and surrounding BR need to know the presence and importance of the
BR in all aspects including conservation activities, hence all practitioners from higher levels to
lower level have to include the local communities to ensure total protection of resources that in
most cases starts with those leaving in them.
Local community especially in rural areas in most cases have a lot of information concerning
resources and their local mode of utilization and management, unfortunately, they are left behind
hence management and conservation activities remains in the hands of higher levels such as the
government, donors and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs).
This report provides information on the local community’s involvement in BR conservation
activities. This involvement is mainly at all aspects being individual, group initiatives or external
involvement in projects and activities that have been initiated by other reserve practitioners.
People leaving near and in the BRs need to have information on the BR and be involved so as to
understand on the BR importance and at the end will create more protection of BR resources at all
levels.
ii
Data for this study was collected through focus group discussion, key informants, participants’
observation, and structured questionnaire. Data analysis was done using the Statistical Package for
Social Sciences (SPSS).
The results have shown that majority of local communities in the three BRs have education of
standard seven being in the age of 18- 45 with a family size of 4-7 members. Further to that, is has
been shown that, majority do conduct crop production at 64% as the main economic activity, 22%
are engaged in livestock keeping while 14% are engaged in other small businesses and all these
are carried by both men and women.
With regard to their awareness, knowledge and ownership of the BR, results have shown that they
are aware of the presence Reserves; however, they do not know if they are called BRs. These
results therefore suggest that that, there is a need to popularize BR concept at all levels and
especially at local community so as to make them differentiate BR with other categories of
reserves such as National Parks and Game Reserves.
Participation and involvement in BR conservation has shown that local community do participate
in different activities which are initiated by themselves in all aspects being individual or in
groups, these activities are such as tree planting, fire management, boundary protection against
fire hazards and encroachers. 93% has revealed that they participate in BR conservation.
However, responses from these communities vary from one BR to the other but this shows the
diversity through which there would be a meaningful community engagement so as to reach
effective and viable conservation of the BRs.
Moreover, results have shown that there are local community groups that have been created for
the purpose of reducing destruction and dependence to BR resources; these are such as
Beekeeping, tree nurseries, spice farming. However, there are other local people that have not
joined any group for the reason that there is no individual economic gain in such groups also
results shows that increased poverty has lead to people concentrate more on economic activities
instead of BR conservation activities.
iii
Basing on presence of Organizations at all levels such as Governmental, Non-Governmental,
lnternational, Community Based and Faith Based, response has shown that, these are available in
their areas for instance Amani Nature Reserve (ANR), UNESCO which are for the sake of
protection of BR and their resources. It has been further shown that, some of these organizations
do involve local community in conservation with activities such as conservation education and
awareness while others do not. Challenges that have been observed or collected from local
communities through presence of conservation organizations is that, there are no follow-ups on
training provided by some of these institutions, some institutions have failed to meet their
promises to communities and there lack of monitoring the established projects by donors.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Involvement of local communities in conservation of BR is crucial as they are part and parcel of
conservation and total management activities. Their knowledge on BR is limited as they regard
BR are like other reserves which management is usually under a certain institution making them
not fully committed to get involved in management of BR as the Program requires. Hence it is
recommended that, there is a need to raise awareness on MAB Program at all levels so as
management initiatives can be started at local level instead of leaving all management activities to
the government or donors.
iv
COPYRIGHT
No part of this report may be reproduced, stored in any retrieval system, or transmitted in any
form or by any means without the prior written permission of the author and UNESCO under the
Programme of Man and Biosphere.
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I thank the Almighty God who gave me strength and ability to complete this research study. I
wish to express my sincere gratitude to my beloved family to whom I shall always remain greatly
indebted for their untiring love, moral and material support during the whole period of
undertaking this research. Furthermore, I wish to convey my special thanks to my husband Jensen
Mahavile for his prayers and care which has always been a source of encouragement to me
throughout this research activity.
I sincerely convey my special thanks to UNESCO for offering me the Man and Biosphere Award
that has allowed me to undertake this important research study around Biosphere Reserves in
Tanzania. I convey my thanks to Mr. Joel Samuel for his tireless efforts in advising me toward
working for MAB.
My exceptional thanks goes to my Director at National Environment Management Council
(NEMC) Mr. Joseph R. Kombe and my immediate work supervisor Ms. Rose Sallema Mtui for
supervising my work and encouraging me to move forward with this research.
I provide my thanks to Ms. Joyneth Mbogo, Frank Luvanda, Rehema Kaitila and Martha Mahule
for their support in the whole process of research. And finally, to all respondents in Serengeti-
Ngorongoro BR Biosphere Reserve, Lake Manyara BR, and East Usambara BR for devoting their
time to respond to the questionnaire that I served them. I really thank individual respondents, FGD
members, Key Informants, and communities in these three Biosphere Reserves for their
willingness to participate in this important research study.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. i
COPYRIGHT ................................................................................................................................................... iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .............................................................................................................................. v
LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................................... xi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................................................... xiv
CHAPTER ONE ............................................................................................................................................... 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Introductory Background..............................................................................................................1
1.2. Problem Statement and Justification............................................................................................2
1.3. Objectives.....................................................................................................................................3
1.3.1. General Objective.....................................................................................................................3
1.3.2. Specific Objectives...................................................................................................................3
1.3.3. Research Questions..................................................................................................................3
1.4. Significance of the Study..............................................................................................................4
1.5. Scope of the Study........................................................................................................................4
1.6. Limitation of the study.................................................................................................................4
CHAPTER TWO .............................................................................................................................................. 5
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................................... 5
2.1 Local Community Involvement in BR Management....................................................................5
2.2 Community Involvement in SSA.................................................................................................5
2.3 Community Involvement in Tanzania..........................................................................................6
2.4 Importance of Community Involvement......................................................................................6
2.5 Biodiversity loss...........................................................................................................................7
vii
2.6 East Usambara Biosphere Reserve...............................................................................................7
2.7 Lake Manyara Biosphere Reserve................................................................................................7
2.8 Serengeti Ngorongoro Biosphere Reserve (SNBR)......................................................................8
CHAPTER THREE ........................................................................................................................................ 10
3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................... 10
3.1 Study Area and Justification for Selection.................................................................................10
3.2 Research Design.........................................................................................................................10
3.3 Sampling Frame and Procedure..................................................................................................11
3.4 Research Approach(s)................................................................................................................11
3.5 Ethical Issues..............................................................................................................................11
3.6 Types and Sources of Data.........................................................................................................12
3.7 Data Collection Techniques.......................................................................................................12
3.7.1 Primary Data Collection.....................................................................................................12
3.7.2 Secondary Data...................................................................................................................13
3.8 Data Analysis.............................................................................................................................13
CHAPTER FOUR .......................................................................................................................................... 14
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.................................................................................................14
4.1 Results and Discussion from Individuals Respondents in the BRs............................................14
4.1.1 ResponsesonGeographicalLocation.................................................................................14
4.1.2 Responses on Bio-data Information....................................................................................14
4.1.3 Responses on Respondents’ Sex in Three BRs..................................................................15
4.1.4 Responses on Respondents’ Age........................................................................................15
4.1.5 Responses on Respondents’ Education Level....................................................................17
4.1.6 Responses on Respondents’ Being Head of Household.....................................................17
4.1.7 Responses on Respondents’ on Main Economic Activities................................................19
viii
4.2 Responses on Land Ownership, Use, and Conservation of BRs................................................20
4.2.1 Responses on Types of Ownership.....................................................................................20
4.2.2 Responses on Land Size Owned.........................................................................................21
4.2.3 Responses on How Long a Respondent Has Been Owning Land......................................21
4.2.4 Responses on Who Own the BRs and the Resources in the Forests...................................21
4.2.5 Responses on if the BRs Benefits Communities in Any Way............................................22
4.2.6 Responses on if Communities Were Previously Cultivating in the BRs Lands..................23
4.2.7 Responses on if Communities Were Rearing Animals in the BRs.....................................24
4.2.8 Responses on Problems Communities Encounter in Crop Production and Rearing of Animals 24
4.2.9 Responses on Whether Wild Animals Intrude Communities’ Land...................................25
4.2.10 Responses on Why Wild Animals Come Out of the BRs...................................................28
4.2.11 Responses on What Communities Do to Counteract the Conflict......................................29
4.2.12 Responses on Community Recommendations to Curb Human-Wildlife Conflict..............29
4.3 Community involvement and participation................................................................................31
4.3.1 Responses on Whether Individual Community Members Belong to a Conservation Local Community Based Group...................................................................................................................31
4.3.2 Responses on What Problem Have Hindered Some Community Members to Not Join Local Conservation Groups................................................................................................................34
4.3.3 Responses on Activities Conducted in Communities Areas for the Conserving the BRs...34
4.3.4 Community Responses With Regard to Conservation of the Biosphere Reserves.............36
4.3.5 What can be done to improve livelihood of local people and enhance participation?........39
4.3.6 Community Responses – Question 3: Have you contributed in any way for the conservation of BR?...........................................................................................................................40
4.3.7 Community Responses – Question 4: In your opinion, what do you think can be done to solve the problems and enhance community participation?...............................................................43
4.4 Responses from Focus Group Discussion on BRs Conservation...............................................47
ix
4.4.1 Do you acknowledge or recognize the presence of BR?....................................................47
4.4.2 Which resources are available in the BR?..........................................................................47
4.4.3 How do you benefit from the BR resources?......................................................................49
4.4.4 Do you encounter any challenges in the management and conservation activities?...........51
4.4.5 How do you solve challenges that arise from resource conservation?................................53
4.4.6 Is there any destruction going on in the BR?......................................................................54
4.4.7 If yes, where are the destructors come from?.....................................................................55
4.4.8 What does the community do to conserve the BRs?...........................................................55
4.4.9 Is there any institution involved in environmental conservation in your area? If yes mention them......................................................................................................................................58
4.4.10 Do they involve you in any conservation activities? If yes how do they involve you?......59
4.4.11 Does availability of these institutions create any conservation challenge to local community?........................................................................................................................................61
4.4.12 In your opinion, what do you think can be done to solve the problems and enhance community participation in conservation issues?...............................................................................62
4.5 Results and Discussion from Key Informants on BRs Conservation.........................................67
4.5.1 Who is responsible for conserving the BR?........................................................................67
4.5.2 Which activities does the community do in conserving the BR?........................................68
4.5.3 What benefits do the community involved in conservation get?........................................69
4.5.4 Is there any resource encroacher in your BRs?...................................................................69
4.5.5 Where are the encroachers come from?..............................................................................69
4.5.6 Which punishment did you take?.......................................................................................70
4.5.7 Are there any bylaws in place that have been set?..............................................................71
Mention them.....................................................................................................................................72
4.5.8 What can be done so as to make BRs Sustainable?............................................................72
5.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION .......................................................................... 75
x
5.1 CONCLUSION..........................................................................................................................75
5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................................................................................77
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................ 78
Appendix 1: List of consulted stakeholders who were willing to share their details ....................... 79
Appendix 2A: Questionnaire for Community Members........................................................................81
Appendix 2A: Questionnaire for Community Members........................................................................81
Appendix 2B: Focus Group Discussion.................................................................................................88
Appendix 2C: Key Informants...............................................................................................................89
Appendix 3: Some of pictures taken during research work....................................................................90
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Geographical location of Respondents.........................................................................................14
Table 2: Wild Animals coming out of BR to community farms................................................................26
Table 3: Community recommendation to curb Human- Wildlife conflict..................................................30
Table 4: Communities’ Environmental Conservation Groups...................................................................32
Table 5: Communities' conservation activities...........................................................................................35
Table 6: Reasons for Poor participation in BR Conservation.....................................................................36
Table 7: Contribution to BR conservation..................................................................................................41
Table 8: Suggestion to increase community participation..........................................................................44
Table 9: resources available in BRs...........................................................................................................47
Table 10: Benefits from presence of BR....................................................................................................49
Table 11: Challenges in BRs management and conservation.....................................................................51
Table 12: Solving challenges from resource conservation.........................................................................53
Table 13: Activities conducted by Communities to conserve BR..............................................................56
Table 14: Institutions found in BR.............................................................................................................59
Table 15: Community Involvement from Institution..................................................................................60
Table 16: Conservation challenges brought about by presence of Institutions and NGOs.........................61
Table 17: Recommendations to enhance participation...............................................................................62
Table 18: Community rating on the suggestions to enhance participation.................................................66
Table 19: Encroachers in the BR................................................................................................................70
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Sex of Respondents.....................................................................................................................15
Figure 2: Respondents' Education Level....................................................................................................17
Figure 3: Head of Household.....................................................................................................................19
Figure 4: Economic Activities....................................................................................................................19
Figure 5: Benefit of BRs to Communities..................................................................................................23
Figure 6: Previous cultivation activities in the BRs...................................................................................23
Figure 7: Previous Animals Rearing in BRs..............................................................................................24
Figure 8: Problems in Crop Production......................................................................................................25
Figure 9: Problems in Rearing Animals.....................................................................................................25
Figure 10: Wild Animals Intrusion in Communities' farms.......................................................................26
Figure 11: Reasons for Wildlife coming out of the BRs............................................................................28
Figure 12: Community actions in counteracting Human- Wildlife conflict...............................................29
Figure 13: Community Recommendations to reduce Human- Wildlife Conflicts.....................................31
Figure 14: Engagement in Community conservation group.......................................................................32
Figure 15: Community activities in BR Conservation...............................................................................35
Figure 16: Hindrances to participation.......................................................................................................38
Figure 17: Community view to enhance their participation.......................................................................40
Figure 18: Communities in BRs conservation............................................................................................42
Figure 19: Community activities in BR conservation................................................................................43
Figure 20: views to increase participation..................................................................................................46
Figure 21: Challenges in BR conservation.................................................................................................52
Figure 22: activities conducted by communities surrounding BRs............................................................57
Figure 23: Institutions found in BR............................................................................................................59
xiii
Figure 24: Community involvement by Institutions and NGOs.................................................................60
Figure 25: Punishment to BRs encroachers................................................................................................71
Figure 26: Suggestions to make BR sustainable........................................................................................73
xiv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ANR - Amani Nature Reserve
BR - Biosphere Reserve
CBC - Community Based Conservation
CBNRM - Community Based Natural Resource Management
EAMCEF - East Arc Mountain Conservation Endowment Fund
EUBR - East Usambara Biosphere Reserve
FGD - Focus Group Discussion
KI - Key Informants
LMBR - Lake Manyara Biosphere Reserve
MAB - Man and Biosphere
MAP - Madrid Action Plan
NEMC - National Environmental Management Council
NGOs - Non-Governmental Organization
NIMR - National Institute for Medical Research
NNR - Nilo Nature Reserve
SILC - Saving and Internal Lending Community
SNBR - Serengeti-Ngorongoro Biosphere Reserve
SPSS - Statistical Package for Social Sciences
TAFORI - Tanzania Forest Research Institute
TFCG - Tanzania Forest Conservation Group
UNESCO - United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
UTCO - Usambara Tea Company
VICOBA - Village Community Banks
VLUP - Village Land Use Plan
WMA - Wildlife Management Areas
WPT - Wildlife Policy of Tanzania
WWF - World Wide Fund for Nature
1
CHAPTER ONE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1. Introductory Background
Biosphere reserves (BR) management is a bit different from other protected or reserve areas.
This therefore calls for local community involvement in management activities. By design, there
is no single model for running biosphere reserves, but the principles underlying their presence
and functioning are management system of a biosphere reserve needs to be open, not closed, to
community concerns and needs to be adaptable to changes in local circumstances
(www.georgewright.org).
Moreover, BRs are meant to be places where communities can work in concert with the area's
land-managing agencies, local governments, schools, and other institutions to design responses
to external political, economic, and social pressures that affect the ecological and cultural values
of the area (www.georgewright.org). With this, local community is at the center of BRs
conservation activities hence need to be involved.
Tanzania has four BRs which are Serengeti Ngorongoro, Lake Manyara, East Usambara and the
new baby BR which has been nominated early 2016, the Jozani Chwaka Bay. These BRs are
surrounded by large communities of people. These communities therefore are the ones that are
directly linked with the BR since they live in and surrounding them, hence tend to benefit from
presence of BR. These BRs are rich in biodiversity of various species. Hence calls for proper
conservation initiatives to ensure the biodiversity are fully protected.
Local communities leaving in and around BRs usually get their needs through the presence of
BRs. For instance, land for cultivation, hunting, water sources, minerals, construction materials
such as sand, timber and stones, fuel such as firewood and charcoal, all are easily found in BRs.
This can lead to overuse or misuse of such resources hence biodiversity loss; this is alarming
2
hence protection is crucial. To attain this, there is a need to include local communities in all
aspects of conservation.
There have been ways and modes to involve local communities to take charge and protect
biodiversity from various actors within and outside the country. This has led to initiation of
activities more related to alternative income so that they can reduce dependency of BR resources
and hence reduce degradation.
This report therefore provides information on how local community have been involved, being
direct or indirect, initiated by themselves or external forces in BR conservation. The study has
been conducted in the three BRs found in Tanzania which are SNBR, LMBR and EUBR in 2016.
1.2. Problem Statement and Justification
Biodiversity loss is mainly caused by inadequate involvement of people at grassroots who are
directly living with the BRs. The situation of degradation to biodiversity in Tanzania’s BRs is
marked by years of inadequate involvement of local communities and the clear role of these
people at ground level has been neglected hence lose of BRs status. The idea of involving local
communities in conserving Biodiversity is not new. Plans have been in place to sensitize on local
communities’ involvement, but still there is less involvement. (Kevin G and Specier J, 2004)
Among other issues and plans which have been in place, the Madrid Action Plan (MAP) has put
a requirement that involvement of local communities in the management of Biosphere is crucial.
Further to that, executive secretary of the Convention on Biodiversity stated that indigenous and
local communities are environmental managers with immense ecological knowledge ‘and crucial
partners’ in both conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity (Djoghlaf, 2007).
Despite those efforts done worldwide, biodiversity conservation has remained a challenge which
needs collaborative efforts to attain sustainable biodiversity.
3
The above statement justifies undertaking of this research study in order to unfold reasons for the
ongoing biodiversity loss in many Biosphere Reserves in Tanzania. The research study will
particularly focus on three Biosphere Reserves namely Lake Manyara Biosphere Reserve,
Serengeti-Ngorongoro Biosphere Reserve, and East Usambara Biosphere Reserve. The research
findings will assist in resolving the degradation of the Biosphere Reserves by making sure that
local communities participate fully in the conservation and restoration of the Biosphere
Reserves.
1.3. Objectives
1.3.1. General Objective
To find out the contribution of Local Communities in conservation of Biosphere Reserves and
challenges that faces their conservation.
1.3.2. Specific Objectives
Ø To identify local communities’ roles, initiatives and efforts in BRs conservation.
Ø To find out the conservation activities undertaken by local communities but supported by
the government or Development partners.
Ø To examine the challenges facing local communities in conservation of Biosphere
Reserves.
Ø To come up with initiatives and practices that will help to conserve BRs.
1.3.3. Research Questions
Ø What are the roles and efforts of communities in conservation of the Biosphere Reserve?
Ø What are the conservation activities undertaken by local communities which are
supported by the government or development partners?
Ø What are the challenges facing local communities in the conservation of the Biosphere
Reserves?
4
Ø What are suggestions from local communities that aim at strengthening community-based
conservation efforts?
1.4. Significance of the Study
The findings generated from this study are expected to be of great significance to conservation
practitioners, policy makers, government institutions with mandate of BR conservation, Civil
Society Organizations working particularly on conservation, and to development partners. The
findings will contribute to the existing little knowledge on the relationship between local
communities and conservation of the Biosphere Reserves. The findings will be used by various
stakeholders in conservation and in evaluating conservation projects to ensure local communities
are involved fully in conservation of the Biosphere Reserve.
1.5. Scope of the Study
This research study assessed the contribution of local communities in the conservation of
Biosphere Reserves in three selected Biosphere Reserves. This study is limited to the three
Biosphere Reserves which are Lake Manyara Biosphere Reserve, Serengeti-Ngorongoro
Biosphere Reserve, and East Usambara Biosphere Reserve; and did not look into the new
Biosphere Reserve in Tanzania (Jozani Chwaka Bay), moreover, it has taken more of East
Usambara and a little bit less of Serengeti Ngorongoro and Lake Manyara.
1.6. Limitation of the study
The research has been constrained by financial resources and time. The generous grant by
UNESCO was not enough to cover all the costs; and also, the research was conducted without a
study leave. However, despite these limitations the research was fully done as planned by using
own resources and working overtime.
5
CHAPTER TWO
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Local Community Involvement in BR Management
The Madrid Action Plan (MAP) has put a requirement in it that involvement of local
communities in the management of Biosphere Reserves is crucial. This therefore leads to make
local communities be part and parcel of all activities in Biosphere Reserves. Further to that, the
Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biodiversity in his speech, he stated that indigenous
and local communities are environmental managers with immense ecological knowledge ‘and
crucial partners’ in both conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity (Djoghlaf, 2011). This
also creates an importance of involvement of local communities since they have their local
knowledge.
The Management Manual for UNESCO BR in Africa requires that biosphere reserves are
managed and planned through participation, involvement, and engagement. Thus it focuses on all
stakeholders that have interest in BRs management and planning for it including local
communities. It also calls for a bottom up approach in planning for conservation of BRs. The
Manual further provides importance of local community involvement in BR management, among
other importance; it has provided that it strengthens partnerships with local communities to
implement decisions.
2.2 Community Involvement in SSA
Community Based Natural Resources Management (CBNRM) approach has been presented in
the report by IIED, 2009. In this, it has shown that communities in sub Saharan Africa which has
include countries from West Africa (Ivory Cost and Cameroon), Southern Africa (Mozambique
and Namibia), Central Africa (Democratic Republic of Congo), and East Africa (Kenya, Uganda,
Rwanda and Tanzania) has been involved communities in natural resources management through
Community Based Natural Resources Management (CBNRM) approach. The report further
6
presents that, this approach is more practiced in such a way that those authorities or donors that
are working at a certain protected resource formulate community based groups so as to make
both active and passive stakeholders participate in resources management.
2.3 Community Involvement in Tanzania
Community participation is regarded to be so important and it has been reflected in the Wildlife
Policy of Tanzania (WPT, 2007) dedicated about three quarters of its strategies to the matter.
Community participation in the WPT hinges on wildlife protection and utilization. Among
objectives of it, it requires to transfer the management of Wildlife Management Areas (WMA) to
local communities thus taking care of corridors, migration routes and buffer zones as well as to
ensure that local communities obtain substantial and tangible benefits from wildlife conservation.
It has been shown to ensure local community are engaged in conservation activities, there was a
need to formulate an institution that will be entrusted by villagers to manage the wildlife
resources on their behalf and for the benefit of the entire community.
Noe and Kangalawe (2015) have shown that community participation is important but has to
consider local needs and prioritization. It suggests that securing land through community
participation point to the fundamental success, in conservation terms, of the Community Based
Conservation (CBC) scheme. Further to that, it has shown that through participatory land use
planning land for conservation is secured but the process lack prioritization of local needs for
agricultural land and security against problem animals.
2.4 Importance of Community Involvement
Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2004 provides that the importance of community involvement in
natural resources management that can help to reduce the degradation of marine and terrestrial
biodiversity, address resource use conflicts, improve the community’s quality of life and provide
opportunities for economic activity. Moreover, it improves governance through building stronger
community institutions and increased community capacity, empowerment and voice, which can
7
in turn provide a vehicle for strengthening local governance in other spheres of social and
economic development.
2.5 Biodiversity loss
Tanzania is rich in biodiversity but it is threatened by various human activities. The report by
Byers et all, 2012 provides causes of biodiversity loss such as agriculture expansion, firewood
collection, hunting, charcoal making, mining and poaching. The report further explains that, the
root causes among others is the Lack of sustainable livelihood opportunities for poor, rural, small
farmers and fishers and Lack of competitive sources of income in rural areas, which is generally
thought to motivate local people to harvest local natural resources without authorization (mainly
for domestic use) and make them more susceptible to bribes and payoffs from commercial
poachers of high-value species.
2.6 East Usambara Biosphere Reserve
Designated in 2000 the East Usambara Biosphere Reserve (EUBR) is part of the Eastern Arc
Mountains System which is one of the biodiversity hotspots in the world. The EUBR is located
within Muheza, Korogwe and Mkinga Districts, Tanga Region. Covering a total area of about
90,000 hectares the major ecosystem type of this EUBR is tropical submontane rainforest.
Tropical evergreen forest tree species found in the area include Cephalosphaera usambarensis
and Allanblankia stuhlmanii. About 155,000 people live in and around the Biosphere reserve
(BR) with their main sources of livelihood being small-scale farming and cattle breeding. This
BR aims at promoting alternative income or additional sources for the local populations (GEBR,
2014).
2.7 Lake Manyara Biosphere Reserve
Lake Manyara Biosphere Reserve is situated in the depression of the East African Rift Valley in
the Lake Manyara Basin in northern Tanzania. Below the rift wall, perennial springs in the north
support a ground water forest (characterized by Trichilia roka and Croton macrostachyus or the
8
yellow fever tree (Acacia xanthophloea) but also riverine habitats, swamps, woodland and
alkaline grasslands characterize the area.
The human population in the biosphere reserve is estimated to 257,147 people (2012). With most
indigenous people practising pastoralism and agriculture, these are the most important socio-
economic activities in the area. Ethnic groups of the Lake Manyara region are the Maasai, the
Iraq and the Barbaig. Most of the immigrants in the region depend on tourism. Poaching of
wildlife for meat and trophies, illegal fishing, selling of firewood and charcoal constitute threats
to the biodiversity in the biosphere reserve.
(www.unesco.org/mabdb/br/brdir).
2.8 Serengeti Ngorongoro Biosphere Reserve (SNBR)
The Serengeti Ngorongoro biosphere reserve covers an area of 1,476,300 hectares of the
Serengeti National Park and 828,800 hectares of the Ngorongoro Conservation Area in the north
of Tanzania. The plains of the Serengeti are mostly formed by crystalline rocks overlaid by
volcanic ash with numerous rock outcrops (kopjes).
The part of the BR in Ngorongoro Conservation Area has been used by man for hunting and
pastures for a long time. Maasai still use parts of the region for livestock raising, leading to the
overgrazing in some areas. Poaching is a serious problem in the biosphere reserve, while anti-
poaching activities are hampered by lack of fuel and equipment. Serengeti has been a centre for
research over the last decades (www.unesco.org/mabdb/br/brdir).
The report by IIED, 2009 further reports that, CBNRM approach has provided positive results
which has been termed as 3Es which are Empowerment, Economics and Environment. In all
countries that has been conducting the approach; the 3Es has been improved in such a way that
community members have been empowered to take charge of their own lives and future. With
regard to Economics, the report has presented that, communities got economic benefits through
getting food, tourism activities that have been created by CBNRM hence creates more efforts to
9
strengthen the approach, this at the end has helped to reduce poverty to community members and
lastly, the Environmental aspect becomes well protected.
TanzaniaMapshowingbiospherereserves.
Source:UNESCO
http://www.unesco.org/mabdb/br/brdir/africa/Ta
nzaniamap.htm
10
CHAPTER THREE
3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Study Area and Justification for Selection
This study has covered three Biosphere Reserves that are found in Tanzania, in which the large
part of the study has covered in the East Usambara Biosphere Reserve and part of Lake Manyara
and Serengeti Ngorongoro BRs. Administratively, East Usambara BR which has an area of
about 1300 km² is found in Tanga Region covering districts of Muheza, Mkinga and Korogwe.
Lake Manyara which is found in Manyara Region and has an area of 377,920 ha, on the other
hand, Serengeti Ngorongoro which covers the largest part of BRs in Tanzania, has an area of
about 3,836,814 ha. All these three BRs have the core, buffer and transition zones to make them
complete BRs.
These BRs has been chosen based on the fact that they are the ones experiencing degradation and
encroachment due to various reasons some of which this research seeks to unfold.
3.2 Research Design
In this study, a cross sectional research design was used since it enabled the researcher to collect
data at a single point in time (Bailey, 1998). Data collected were used for the purpose of simple
descriptive statistics and interpretation; also made it possible to determine relationship between
different variables specified for this study. This type of study also helped a researcher to observe
hence undertake proper descriptive studies (Kothari, 2004). The selection of this design was based
on provision of greater degree of accuracy, quick results and it allowed collection of data from
different groups in a given time. Furthermore, this design provided an opportunity to take on
board questions raised during the study through scheduled information interview something which
shows that both quantitative and qualitative research design has been considered (Kombo and
Tromp, 2006).
11
3.3 Sampling Frame and Procedure
This study targeted the local communities found in wards and villages that surround the BRs
who are the main beneficiaries of the existing resources. In EUBR, the study was conducted in
12 villages, SNBR in 2 villages and in LMBR in 3 villages making a total of 18 villages. All
villages involved were selected purposely as the aim was to acquire responses and knowledge
from communities living in proximity to BRs. Within selected villages, the study used random
and cluster sampling so as to get the desired information. More factors that led to selection of
these procedures were more of Geographical location in relation to the BRs.
3.4 Research Approach(s)
Mixed research methods were used in this study whereby quantitative and qualitative elements
were explored. Since the research intended to ask specific questions about community efforts and
activities on conservation of the BRs; and since the research also asked specific questions on
other factors affecting communities’ efforts in undertaking conservation activities to safeguard
the BRs, then quantitative approach was necessary to quantify these empirical data and to
analyze them using statistics in an unbiased manner. However, this research also intended to
gather suggestions from local communities adjacent to the BRs on what should be done to
strengthen conservation activities to protect the BRs. In order to achieve these; both quantitative
and qualitative methods were used.
3.5 Ethical Issues
In order to comply with ethical issues while undertaking this activity, the researcher asked for
appointments from all village leaders and local communities concerned. All randomly selected
participants were informed clearly on the importance of the study and their rights to take part in
it or not. This implied that the all local communities, local leaders, religious leaders, and other
key informants made decision to participate in the study willingly. All who participated in the
study were assured of full anonymity and confidentiality of their views and identity. All
participants who participated in the study were those who willed to do so and were not forced by
the researcher or local government leaders.
12
3.6 Types and Sources of Data
Both primary and secondary sources of data have been used in this study. The primary data was
collected from information provided by communities in the villages that the study relied to. In
this, information collected include education level, socio-economic activities, BR resources, BR
ownership, dependency on the BR, BR destruction, participation in the BR conservation.
Key informant interviews were also conducted with representatives from Village leaders, Village
environmental committees; Community based organization (CBO) and youths and elders.
On the other hand, the study used secondary data which has been obtained from various sources
including books, papers and reports.
3.7 Data Collection Techniques
3.7.1 Primary Data Collection
The following collection procedures were used to get both quantitative and qualitative data:
3.7.1.1 Participant observation
Mettrick, 1993, stated that it is always essential to keep ones eye open when visiting a new area
and to check what is being told against what is seen. This method was used so as to make more
distinct elements of data gathered by other methods.
3.7.1.2 Focus Group Discussions
Twenty-three (23) major focus group discussions (FGD) having between 12 and 42 participants
per ward and village were gathered to get their views. Participants for FGD were selected with
the help of village government leaders.Groups of youth, elders, environmental committee, CBOs
were assembled for Focus Group Discussion (FGD). There were a total of 12 groups and each
group consisted of 8 - 12 people.
3.7.1.3 Structured Questionnaire
Structured questionnaires were administered to individuals found in the villages. The
questionnaires sought to seek information on the education level, economic activities, awareness
13
on the presence and ownership of the BR, resources found in it and general utilization, awareness
on activities done to protect the BR, role of an individual in conservation activities, participation
in BR conservation, challenges encountered participation. A total number of individuals who
were interviewed were 150.
3.7.1.4 Key Informant Interview
The key informant interview drew participants from village government leaders, including
Executive officers, village chairperson, environmental committee leaders, Community based
leaders, environmental management officers at district level and BR ecologists. These were
selected since are influential and have knowledge on BR hence could provide relevant
information.
3.7.2 Secondary Data
The secondary data was collected from sources including books, papers and reports. These were
those that are more relevant on local community involvement and participation in natural
resources and that are more of BR related.
3.8 Data Analysis
The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) has been used to make analysis the data that
has been collected from questionnaires. Variables were coded and imported for cross tabulation
so as to enable calculation of frequencies and percentages and be presented in tables, charts and
histograms. Further to that, descriptive analysis has been used to analyse information collected
from key informant interviews, FGD and field observation.
14
CHAPTER FOUR
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Results and Discussion from Individuals Respondents in the BRs
4.1.1 ResponsesonGeographicalLocation
Table 1: Geographical location of Respondents
No: Variable Responses No: Variable Response No: Variable Response 1.1.1 District Muheza 1.1.1 District Mkinga 1.1.1 District Korogwe
1.1.2 BRs Name EUBR 1.1.2 BRs Name EUBR 1.1.2 BRs Name EUBR
1.1.3 Ward Amani 1.1.3 Ward Bosha 1.1.3 Ward Mnyuzi
1.1.4 Village(s) 1. Amani
2. Msasa IBC
3. Mlesa
4. Shebomeza
1.1.4 Village(s) 1. Kuze
2. Kwamtili
3.Kuze-Kibago
1.1.4 Village(s) 1. Mnyuzi
2. Kwamzindawa
3. Mkwakwani
4. Shambakapori
4.1.2 Responses on Bio-data Information
Under this section bio-data from various respondents are presented in data form with exception
to sub-section 4.1.2.1 on respondents’ names and 4.1.2.2 on respondents’ phone numbers as most
of them requested that their names and mobile phones remain under the state of anonymity for
their security reasons.
No: Variable Responses No: Variable Response
1.1.1 District Tarime 1.1.1 District Monduli
1.1.2 BRs
Name
SNBR 1.1.2 BRs
Name
LMBR
1.1.3 Ward Nyarukoba 1.1.3 Ward Mto wa Mbu
1.1.4 Village(s) 1. Gibaso
2. Ketongo
1.1.4 Village(s) 1. Magadini
2. Majengo
3. Migombani
15
4.1.3 Responses on Respondents’ Sex in Three BRs
A total of 149 respondents from three Biosphere Reserves namely East Usambara Biosphere
Reserve, Serengeti National Biosphere Reserve, and Lake Manyara Biosphere Reserve
responded to this question. It should be noted that these mentioned three (3) BRs are found in
five administrative districts namely Muheza, Mkinga, Korogwe, Tarime, and Monduli. The
following bar chart shows distribution of number of responded based on their sex. The bar chart
shows that female interviewed were 82 amounting to 55% and men interviewed were 67 making
45% of total interviewees.
Figure 1: Sex of Respondents
4.1.4 Responses on Respondents’ Age
As explained above, total respondents were 149; out of this women were 82. The following data
diagrams shows clearly female respondents’ age both in number and in percentages. Majority of
women who were interviewed ranged 17 - 45 years making a total of 67 respondents who make
82%. On the other side those female aged 46 years and above comprised a smaller number of 15
respondents making 18%.
16
Men’s respondents were 67 and their distribution of age based on respondents is shown in the
following data charts bellow.
The above data charts show clearly that a large number of male respondents’ age is between 26
and 55 years amounting to 57 respondents who make 85% while the other age category forming
only 10 respondents making only 15%. These results show clearly that young men and who
majority have little interests in conservation of the BR. This would thus require a specific
program or project campaign to sensitize and empower the youth in conservation of the BR in
their respective localities.
17
4.1.5 Responses on Respondents’ Education Level
Respondents’ education levels are covered well under this section which summarizes responses
from respondents in all BRs. The following data charts show clearly distribution of education
levels amongst communities in the BRs.
Figure 2: Respondents' Education Level
Reading from the data chart above it is evident that the majority of the interviews are community
members who have completed primary school education. The data shows that of all 149
respondents 61 (41%) were respondents who completed primary school, 12 (8%) with no formal
school at all, 18 (12%) did not complete primary school, 24 (16%) completed secondary school
education, 11 (7%) did not complete secondary school education, 14 (10%) completed
university/college education, and 9 (6%) who did not complete university/college education.
These data show categorically that majority of the respondents in the BRs had some kind of
formal education that would provide an effective avenue for CSOs to undertake effective
conservation training and interventions in the BRs.
4.1.6 Responses on Respondents’ Being Head of Household
In responding to this question both respondents’ male and female at some points showed that
they are head of household, based on this data processing had to be differentiated in order to
capture this variation properly between male and female. The aim was to get percentage of
18
households’ leadership of male and those under female leadership. This allows for project
planning that consider who has the authority at household level for effective community
engagement in conservation of the BRs.
The data chart in the left side shows
clearly that there some women who
are leading households. Of the 82
female respondents to this question 24
(29%) responded YES which confirms
that they are leaders of household. On
the other hand 58 (71%) responded
with NO something that shows that
they are not household leaders.
Data from male respondents as presented
in the left data chart shows that 59
(88%) males are household leaders with
only 8 (12%) males which responded as
not household leaders. In view of this,
one can extract a meaningful
interpretation that male need to be
involved at large in conservation of the BR as most of them are household leaders who can
communicate to their families the importance of conserving the BRs.
The second part of the question 1.2.6 wanted to know the number of house hold members to all
who were interviewed. The following bar chart shows clearly such household composition.
19
Figure 3: Head of Household
4.1.7 Responses on Respondents’ on Main Economic Activities
In responding to this question all 149 respondents comprising of male and females answered this
question properly as shown in the data chart below:
Figure 4: Economic Activities
20
The data chart above shows that respondents in BRs are involved in crop production at 64%
which is equivalent to 95 respondents. 22% of respondents are involved in Livestock keeping
equivalent to 33 respondents, and 14% are involved in small scale businesses equivalent to 21
respondents. This suggests that there is a need to empower communities in all BRs to embark on
small-scale income generating activities rather depending heavily on crop production and
livestock keeping as these two economic activities are currently prone to negative effects of
climate change. Without stable income generating activities there is likelihood that people may
opt to be involved in poaching and other activities that are not friendly for conservation of the
BRs.
4.2 Responses on Land Ownership, Use, and Conservation of BRs
In this section all respondents interviewed provided information on land ownership, land uses,
and on conservation of the BRs. The following data charts provide data that support their
responses.
4.2.1 Responses on Types of Ownership
The following chart shows how land is being owned to most respondents living adjacent to the
BRs. Extracting data from the chart below land ownership to most respondents is on individual
level with few respondents
owning the land communally.
This communal ownership of land
has been found mainly amongst
people who keep livestock and
very few for people who are
involved in crop production. In
view of this, it is therefore
pertinent to undertake advocacy
in emphasizing for land management plans to ensure communities know how to use land in a
way that does not affect the BRs negatively.
21
4.2.2 Responses on Land Size Owned
Overall responses from all 149 respondents responded by indicating that most of communities
own land that is from minimum 3 acres to a maximum of 30 maximum acres. Communities
offered some explanation as why some people own fewer acres while other have more land size.
They explained that some families are increasing in a quantum number hence requiring them to
divide land amongst themselves as there is no other area where they can expand land ownership
simply because they are close to the BRs. Some went far by claiming that they have few acres
because some of the land was taken during expansion of the BRs and they were not compensated
something that would have enabled them to buy land from those who have more.
4.2.3 Responses on How Long a Respondent Has Been Owning Land
Most respondents who responded to this question showed that they have been owning land for
more than 40 years. There are some who just bought from other communities while others have
inherited it from their parents in a normal traditional land ownership system. Some communities
lacked proper information on how long they have owning land probably due to failure to keep
records.
4.2.4 Responses on Who Own the BRs and the Resources in the Forests
Communities who were interviewed responded to this question with lots of comments, but for
the sake of data the following
data charts presents
summarized responses from
communities in the BRs.
According to the data chart,
the government is owning
most BRs and resources in the
forest at 81%, followed by
foreigners, that is foreign
22
investments by 15%, and lastly by communities at 4%. This paints a picture that most of these
reserves are owned by government and foreigners who have received concession from the
government for tourism purposes. In view of this, communities mighty have grudge and see the
BRs as not their despite being close to the Community explained that the 4% represents only few
lucky communities who have obtained the Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) through which
they can manage somehow resources in the BRs. They also mentioned there are some
government authorities in some BRs who allow communities to benefits from the BRs in a
sustainable way that does not harm the BRs like fuel wood collecting without cutting trees, that
is by collecting natural died trees or branches. Therefore, there is a need to undertake policy-
advocacy campaign in order to review policy, legal framework, and institutional framework to
allow communities to be part of the BRs so as to increase ownership and conservation measures
to the BRs.
4.2.5 Responses on if the BRs Benefits Communities in Any Way
Respondents from all BRs respondent effectively to this question, of all 149 respondents
interviewed 128 responded with YES hence making 86% of all respondents with only 21
responding with NO at 14%.
Apart from answering NO these
21 respondents explained their
dissatisfaction on how the
government handled the process
of land acquisition to expand the
BRs without their concert and
even without being involved in
the process. Worse enough, most
of the communities whose land
was taken to expand the BRs were not compensated. For those who responded with YES
participate fully in answering the question on the importance of BRs to them. The following are
their responses which comprises the number of respondents who responded in black color and
the corresponding percentages in red color:
23
Figure 5: Benefit of BRs to Communities
4.2.6 Responses on if Communities Were Previously Cultivating in the BRs Lands
Most respondents were honest enough to respond to this question by telling the truth that before
strict measures to prevent the BRs most of them were involved in cultivating various crops
within the BRs because the land is very fertile for it has not been used for farming for many
years. Some of them confessed that they used to cultivate opium well known as ‘Bangi’ in the
BRs as many animals especially wildebeest, bush back, and dear loves it, and so it was easier to
trap and catch them for meat in the form of systematic poaching! The following data chart shows
communities responses on this question:
Figure 6: Previous cultivation activities in the BRs
24
4.2.7 Responses on if Communities Were Rearing Animals in the BRs
A small number of communities interviewed agreed that they used to send their animals within
BRs for pasture. They confirmed that within BRs there are lots of fodders for their animals
though there is a challenge of contracting diseases which are particularly for wild animals such
as buffalos and wildebeest. The Following data chart presents respondents’ responses:
Figure 7: Previous Animals Rearing in BRs
4.2.8 Responses on Problems Communities Encounter in Crop Production and Rearing of
Animals
The following diagram that has no quantifiable data presents responses from communities from
all BRs which were involved in the survey. They mentioned many challenges that they encounter
in crop production and rearing in animals. So the diagrams contain qualitative information from
farmers on the challenges they encounter in crop production and the other diagram contain
challenges that face livestock keepers in rearing their animals.
25
Figure 8: Problems in Crop Production
As shown above, those are the challenges which farmers who reside in proximity to BRs face in
their production circle. The following illustration shows the challenges which livestock keepers
face in rearing their animals.
Figure 9: Problems in Rearing Animals
4.2.9 Responses on Whether Wild Animals Intrude Communities’ Land
Of the 149 respondents, 20 respondents agreed that wild animals do come into their lands during
dry and rain seasons for various purposes. Wild animals come during dry season in search for
26
water and fodder and they would come during rainy season for attractive crops to them such as
banana plantation, maize, millet, and ground nuts. Having responded YES to question, they
responded through data as shown in the table following after this data chart:
Figure 10: Wild Animals Intrusion in Communities' farms
Table 2: Wild Animals coming out of BR to community farms
No: Animal Specie Type of Conflict Months/Period of
the year
Estimated Loss Per
Year (Tshs)
1. Elephant Human-Elephant conflict,
they raid various crops in a
mass destruction
During rainy
farming season
and during dry
season
300,000 – 500,000
per person
2. Buffalo They raid crops especially
maize and millet
During rainy
season only
150,000 - per person
3. Leopard No Conflict
4. Sykes monkey No Conflict
5. Vervet monkey Raid crops at early stages of
maturing especially on maize,
mille, onions, beans, and
many more.
During rainy
farming season
50,000 – 100,000-
per person
6. Hyena Attacking domestic animals All the year 300,000 – 500,000
27
especially goats and sheep round per person
7. Wild pig Raid maize, sweet potatoes,
and cassava
During rainy and
dry season
200,000 - to
250,000- per person
8. Porcupine No Conflict
9. Baboons Raid crops at all stages
particularly maize, millet,
sweet potatoes, cassava, etc
During rainy
farming season
and less during
dry season
300,000 – 400,000
per person
Note:
1. It should be noted that many factors take into account with regard to the loss on crops or
domestic animals due to interference from wild animals. This includes number of acres
someone have, the stage of crops, and the type of animals that have raided crops.
2. Another factor that takes into consideration is the timing to deter wildlife when
approaching communities’ crops or animals.
3. Therefore, a separate research study needs to be undertaken to dig deeper into this subject
as it is very complex involving many variables that have not been cached in this survey.
Source; Research work, November, 2015
28
4.2.10 Responses on Why Wild Animals Come Out of the BRs
Communities in all three BRs namely East Usambara Biosphere Reserve, Serengeti National
Biosphere Reserve, and Lake Manyara Biosphere reserve answered this question by showing
reasons that make wild animals to come out of their habitat in the BRs to communities’ areas in
such for various needs and specifically in raiding crops that they love, and partly due to
increased number especially for Buffalos, Baboons, Vervet Monkey, and wild pigs. The
following data chart shows responses on processed data.
Figure 11: Reasons for Wildlife coming out of the BRs
From the data chart above, it is evident that crop raid is the main reason accounting for 49%,
followed by searching for food at 21%). Other reasons re increased number of specific wildlife
species as mentioned in the preceding paragraph above at 19%. Regular migration accounts for
only 4% while human settlement or encroachment accounted for 7%.
29
4.2.11 Responses on What Communities Do to Counteract the Conflict
Respondents showed various ways or measures they take in counteracting the human-wildlife
conflict as shown in the following data chart.
Figure 12: Community actions in counteracting Human- Wildlife conflict
The data chart above shows categorically that communities in proximity to the BRs prefer
chasing the animals using various ways in order to reduce their negative impacts to their crops
and livestock. This method accounts for 45%. The second method that is used by communities is
intimidating the animals which accounts for 43% while killing the animal is used by few people
who keep livestock at 12%. The further explained that there are some animals which are not
intimidated or chased away easily such as lions and hyena and so the suitable method for them is
just killing them using local means such as arrows and spears with poison!
4.2.12 Responses on Community Recommendations to Curb Human-Wildlife Conflict
In responding to this question communities living adjacent to the BRs provided many
recommendations. They provided recommendations based on local knowledge per specific
species as they said that each species had a suitable way for reducing the human-wildlife
conflict. The table 2 below has such local based recommendations per species
30
Table 3: Community recommendation to curb Human- Wildlife conflict
No: Name of Species Recommendation(s)
1. Elephants 1. Plant natural deterrent crops to Elephants such as chili
paper and bee hives as fencing.
2. Leaving opened corridors that Elephants uses migrate
from one place to another
3. Build water dams within BRs so as to offer water
needs for Elephants
4. Using electric fencing
2. Buffalos 1. Using fat extracted from dead lions and rub them in
ways that Buffalo uses
2. Using whistles to intimidate Buffalos as they scared
easily
3. Using electric fencing
3. Vervet Monkey 1. Kill 50% of the Vervet Monkeys as they reproduce
quickly in few years and have little attraction to
tourism
4. Wild Pigs 1. Using fat extracted from dead lions and rub them on
the border of the farms
2. Using moving lights during nights to intimidate the
wild pigs as they are intimidated easily by moving
lights
5. Baboons 1. Kill 30 to 40 percent of the Baboons as they can
reproduce easily
6. Hyena 1. Using moving lights to intimidate the Hyena
2. Kill few and put their dead bodies in ways Hyena uses
7. Lions 1. Using moving lights as lions are afraid of moving
lights and not static lights
2. Using electric fencing
Source, Research Work, November, 2015
31
Communities offered the above recommendations in the hope that the government and other
development partners would assist communities to have those tools that can be used safely to
deter wildlife intruding communities’ areas hence reduce human-wildlife conflict at large.
Furthermore, communities understood the need of migrating corridors and suggested to set free
wildlife migrating corridors.
Furthermore, communities responded to the questionnaire on question 1.3.14 and their responses
are summarized in the following data chart.
Figure 13: Community Recommendations to reduce Human- Wildlife Conflicts
4.3 Community involvement and participation
4.3.1 Responses on Whether Individual Community Members Belong to a Conservation
Local Community Based Group
Some of the interviewed respondents confirmed that they belong some local based conservation
group most of whom are not registered. Their responses are summarized in the following pie data
chart.
32
Figure 14: Engagement in Community conservation group
Fifty-four percent (54%) of the respondents said that they don’t belong to any local community
conservation group while 46% of the respondents showed that they belong to some local
conservation groups. The table below, provides information on those who have groups in
conservation activities.
Table 4: Communities’ Environmental Conservation Groups
Name of
Group
No. of
members
Major challenges faced
by the group
Major roles
of the group
Source of
funding
Benefits
received
Me Fe
Okoa Misitu 4 8 lack of working tools energy saving
stoves making,
tree planting
group
members
contributio
n
income,
reduced use
of firewood
Utalii Asilia 10 10 few tourist visits,
uregistered tourit visits
tourism, tree
planting
group
members
contributio
n
income,
employment
Tumaini 0 16 Lack of accountability
among members
Beekeeping group
members
income
through
33
Name of
Group
No. of
members
Major challenges faced
by the group
Major roles
of the group
Source of
funding
Benefits
received
contributio
n
honey selling
Environmental
Committee
6 1 inadequate
environmental awareness
environmental
conservation
education
group
members
contributio
n
environmenta
l education to
community
Sauti ya Umma 11 15 inadequate
environmental awareness
Tree nurseries group
members
contributio
n
income
through
selling trees
Uwatam 15 15 drought, market, lack of
agrochemicals
husk selling for
energy creation
group
members
contributio
n
Income,
reduction in
firewood
usage
Anglican Church
Youth Group
6 4 inadequate working tools Beekeeping Group
members
Income,
reduction in
dependency
Mazingira 6 8 inadequate water supply Tree nursery,
farming
group
members
contributio
n
Income
through
selling of
trees,
environmenta
l
conservation
Beekeeping
group
5 5 no challenges Beekeeping wekeza
finance
group
income
through
honey selling
34
4.3.2 Responses on What Problem Have Hindered Some Community Members to Not
Join Local Conservation Groups
Community members who responded NO in the question number 1.3.1.4 were asked this
question as to what problems have made them or hindered them to join local community
conservation groups. Communities responded by listing a number of problems or reasons as
follows:
Ø Extreme poverty that makes them to spend more time in income generating activities
to earn a living on a daily basis hence having no time to participate in conservation
activities.
Ø Poor leadership in most of local community conservation groups.
Ø Lack of incentives from the government and development partners to local
community conservation groups
Ø Inadequate information and training on the importance of conservation hence looking
at conservation as a minor thing.
Ø Unsolved compensation issue – especially for those whose land was taken for
expansion of the BRs.
Ø Lack of transparency and fairness in distribution of resources accrued from BRs
4.3.3 Responses on Activities Conducted in Communities Areas for the Conserving the
BRs
Many community individual members responded to this question with YES showing that there
are activities conducted that aim at conserving the BRs. The following data chart shows this
response in percentages and number of respondents.
35
Figure 15: Community activities in BR Conservation
Having responded YES at 93%, communities were supposed to mention those activities that are
taking place in their areas that aims at conserving the BR. The following table 4 contains
responses that mention such activities:
Table 5: Communities' conservation activities
Source; Research Work, January 2016
No: BRs Conservation Activities
1. Tree planting
2. BRs boundary protection
3. Patrol to ensure protection of the BRs resource
4. Enforcing bylaws at village level
5. Education to communities on conservation
6. Reporting poaching or destruction activities on the BRs
7. Fire management to protect the BRs
8. Intimidating and chasing away animals from BRs so as to
reduce poaching
36
4.3.4 Community Responses With Regard to Conservation of the Biosphere Reserves
Community Responses – Question 1: What hinders you to participate in BR’s conservation?
Communities in East Usambara, Lake Manyara, and Serengeti responded to this question with in
a diverse way but with a lot of similarities which in turn helps in strengthening project activities
in these BR areas. The following table and the pie chart offer much quantitative and qualitative
data with regard to this response.
Table 6: Reasons for Poor participation in BR Conservation
Source: Research work, January, 2016
Reading from the table above its is evident that there are similar concerns that hinders
communities not to participate fully in BR conservation ranging from lack of community
seriousness in conservation, community grudge due to poor benefits sharing from the BR,
inadequate information and awareness on the importance of the BR, gender discrimination
whereby women are not allowed by men to participate in BR conservation hence requiring them
Lack
of
se
rious
ness
in
cons
erva
tion
Grudge due
to poor
benefits
sharing from
BR
Inadequate
information
and
awareness on
the
importance
the BR Gen
der D
iscr
imin
atio
n No
compensation
to people after
their land was
taken to
enlarge the BR
Fear to report
BR
destruction
due to threat
from BR
destructors
Increased
poverty that
makes
people
concentrate
more on
economic
activities
Communitie
s were not
involved in
the BR land
acquisition
process
Unequal
and unfair
distributio
n of
revenue
from BR
to villages
Total
Point
s
EUBR 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 12
LMBR 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
SNBR 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 4
Total
Points
on
Hindra
nce 4 4 3 1 2 1 1 1 2
37
to stay home to take care of household works. Communities also mentioned that there is no
compensation to people after their land was taken to enlarge the BR, fear to report on BR
destruction due to threat from BR destructors, increased poverty that makes people concentrate
more on economic activities, communities were not involved in the BR land acquisition process,
and unequal and unfair distribution of revenue from BRs to villages in proximity to the BRs.
These have been major reasons that hinder some communities not to participate in BR
conservation.
The pie chart in this paragraph shows in percentages on hindrances that have been mentioned by
communities. Mkinga district has
the highest percentage which
means that it has many reasons
that hinder communities to
participate in the BR
conservation in Mkinga district.
It is then followed by Serengeti
and Muheza districts which each
has 21% of reasons that hinder
effective community participation in BR conservation in their respective BRs. Lake Manyara
come third at 16% of reasons hindering communities in Lake Manyara to participate effectively
in BR conservation. The last district is Korogwe with 10% of reasons that hinder community
participation in conservation of BR.
However, in general, communities have raised important reasons that need to be taken into
account during project implementation in these biosphere reserves. Addressing these community
concerns will position and encourage local communities to undertake deliberate measures on
BRs’ conservation. The following bar chart shows which hindrance has been mentioned most in
percentages hence helping project planners and implementers to priorities project activities in
addressing these community concerns.
38
Figure 16: Hindrances to participation
39
4.3.5 What can be done to improve livelihood of local people and enhance participation?
Responses on this question number two (2) from communities in Korogwe, Lake Manyara,
Mkinga, Muheza, and Serengeti have been presented in the following two diagrams that illustrate
what communities responded.
Based on the illustrating diagrams it is right to arrive at a consensus that needs vary between BRs
on what can be done to improve livelihood of local people. This call upon development partners
in the formal of CSOs, donor agencies, or the government to take deliberate initiatives in
supporting communities to have alternative means of livelihood hence reduce over dependency
on resources from BRs adjacent to them. Most of the suggestions provided by communities are
based on local specific context whereby each community adjacent to BR would like to have a
different supporting intervention, it not like a one size that fits all.
40
Figure 17: Community view to enhance their participation
4.3.6 Community Responses – Question 3: Have you contributed in any way for the
conservation of BR?
Communities from all biosphere reserve in East Usambara, Lake Manyara and Serengeti
responded to this question showing what they have been doing as part of their contribution in
conserving the BR. Responses from these communities vary from one BR to the other but this
shows the diversity through which there would be a meaningful community engagement so as to
reach effective and viable conservation of the BRs.
The following table and data charts presents precisely based on data with regard to community
responses.
41
Table 7: Contribution to BR conservation
Tree
plantin
g and
tree
nurser
y Bee
kee
ping
But
terf
ly fa
rmin
g Pr
otec
tion
of
the
BR
boun
darie
s Patrol for
protection
purposes of
the BR Fire
m
anag
emen
t on
th
e
BR
Provision of
education on
clean
renewable
energy and
clean cook
stoves
Adhering
and
enforcing
community
bylaws Con
serv
atio
n Ed
ucat
ion
Rep
ortin
g de
stru
ctio
n to
auth
oriti
es
Tota
l
Poin
ts
Korogw
e 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 7
Lake
Manyara 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2
Mkinga 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 6
Muheza 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 9
Serenget
i 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3
Total
Points
for
Conserv
ation
Activiti
es 5 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 2
Source: Research work, November, 2015
42
Figure 18: Communities in BRs conservation
The pie chart above shows level or number of activities that communities undertake in
conserving the BRs in their respective localities. Muheza leads the way by having 33% followed
by Korogwe with 26%, Mkinga 22%, Serengeti 11%, and lastly Lake Manyara at only 8%. This
suggests that more efforts need to be taken on board for Lake Manyara and Serengeti. However,
the other BRs should not be left alone but rather encouraging communities to move ahead with
conservation efforts they currently undertaking and even by adding more conservation activities
to protect the BRs.
43
Figure 19: Community activities in BR conservation
The column chart above shows clearly with percentages on activities undertaken across all five
BRs. The leading conservation activity is tree planting at 19% followed by bee keeping,
protection of the BR boundaries, patrol within BRs, and fire management each at 11%. The rest
have less than 10%. But it should be noted that most of these activities are case sensitive, that is
they vary between BRs. Some activities like butterfly farming are geographically oriented and
can therefore not be done in every BR.
4.3.7 Community Responses – Question 4: In your opinion, what do you think can be
done to solve the problems and enhance community participation?
Communities from all BRs which were interviewed responded to this question by providing their
opinions on what should be done to solve the problems and enhance community participation in
conservation of the BRs. In answering these questions communities have showed variance in
responses something that suggests that needs differs amongst these communities surrounding the
BRs. The following data charts and tables shows specifically the dispersion of data based on this
44
question and responses from communities in Korogwe, Lake Manyara, Mkinga, Muheza, and
Serengeti.
Table 8: Suggestion to increase community participation
Equa
l
dist
ribut
ion
of
reve
nue
colle
cted
fr
om
BR
Prov
isio
n of
wor
king
tool
s to
com
mun
ities
in
BR
s
Aw
aren
ess
rais
ing
on
the
impo
rtanc
e of
BR
Prov
idin
g a
parti
cipa
tory
cons
erva
tion
educ
atio
n
Shar
ing
cons
erva
tion
educ
atio
n to
man
y
com
mun
ities
Form
ulat
ing
com
mun
ity
cons
erva
tion
grou
ps
Form
ulat
ion
of
byla
ws
and
guid
elin
es
to
prot
ect t
he B
R
Empo
wer
ing
Vill
age
Envi
ronm
enta
l
Com
mitt
ees
Var
ious
Con
serv
atio
n
activ
ities
Fair
com
pens
atio
n
to
thos
e w
ho
thei
r la
nd
was
take
n fo
r BR
Tota
l
Poin
ts
Korogw
e 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 7
Lake
Manyara 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Mkinga 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 7
Muheza 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 6
Serenget
i 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2
Total
Points
on
Opinion
s 3 1 4 4 3 1 2 2 2 2
Source: Research work, November, 2015
45
As previously indicated
in the first paragraph of
this sub-section five that
explains on community
responses to questions
number four it is evident
that communities prefer
most awareness rising on
the importance of the
BRs and on providing
participatory
conservation education
to communities. Also communities have shown high interest on fair sharing of revenue from BR
resources, sharing conservation education to many communities adjacent to BRs, and on
developing and enforcing local by laws for the purpose of safeguarding the BRs.
46
Figure 20: views to increase participation
As discussed above, the above column chart supports discussion already made on community’s
leading opinions that would help in reducing problems and enhancing community participation
in the conservation of BRs.
Communities’ opinions should be taken seriously because they reflect their desire to address
challenges facing them in the conservation of the BRs. Active and effective community
participation in conservation can only be reached when communities feel involved, respected,
and consulted in undertaking conservation activities.
47
4.4 Responses from Focus Group Discussion on BRs Conservation
4.4.1 Do you acknowledge or recognize the presence of BR?
Responses from all three districts showed and confirmed that communities acknowledged the
presence of Biosphere reserve in their localities. They all responded YES to the question above.
4.4.2 Which resources are available in the BR?
The following table shows responses from Biosphere reserve questionnaire based on points per
variable.
Table 9: resources available in BRs
Q-No Question
Responses
(Variables per Question)
Korogwe
District
Muheza
District
Mkinga
District
Total
Points
2
Which resources
are available in
the BR?
Trees 1 1 1 3
Minerals 1 1 1 3
Clay Soil for Pottery 1 0 0 1
Wild Animals 1 1 1 3
Water Sources 1 1 1 3
Stones 1 0 0 1
Grasses 1 0 0 1
Medicinal trees 1 1 1 3
Wild vegetables 1 1 1 3
Mushrooms 1 0 0 1
Insects 1 1 1 3
Birds 1 1 1 3
Flowers 0 1 0 1
Source: Research work, November, 2015
48
The above pie chart shows resources available in the BR. This pie chart is a result of combined
data from all three districts of Mkinga, Korogwe, and Muheza. It is evident that most of the
resources which have been recognized by respondents are minerals with 10%, wild animals with
10%, medicinal tree with 10%, wild vegetables with 10%, insects with 10% birds with 10%, and
trees with 10%. Other resources have been mentioned but they are rather locally specific, that is
based on specific locality.
49
4.4.3 How do you benefit from the BR resources?
Table 10: Benefits from presence of BR
Q-No Question
Responses
(Variables per
Question)
Korogwe
District
Muheza
District
Mkinga
District
Total
Points
3
How do you
benefit from the
BR resources?
Firewood 1 1 1 3
Beekeeping 1 1 0 2
Employment 0 1 0 1
Water 1 1 0 2
Tourism 1 1 0 2
Fodder 1 1 0 2
20% of revenue 1 1 0 2
Climate regulation 0 0 1 1
Wild vegetables 0 0 1 1
Stones 0 0 1 1
Enough rains 1 0 1 2
Fruits 1 0 1 2
Timber 0 0 1 1
Poles 0 0 1 1
Clay soil for pottery 1 0 0 1
Controlling run off 1 0 0 1
Shelter to animals 1 0 0 1
Source: Research work, November, 2015
The above table shows how communities benefit from resources available in the BRs in all three
districts of Muheza, Mkinga, and Korogwe. The following chart down here shows by percentage
on how communities benefits from the BR resources whereas firewood has 12% of total
respondents in all three districts, while beekeeping, water, tourism, fodder, revenue, rains, and
50
fruits each acquired 8% while each of the rest got 4%. It is therefore indicating that much needs
to be done in protecting the BR as they have positive socio-economic impact to communities
living adjacent to the BRs. Furthermore, the most leading benefit is firewood at 12% then clean
cook-stoves needs to be emphasized at large, followed by protection of water sources, tree
planting as buffer, and many others.
4.4.4 How do you participate in BR resource conservation?
The right side chart shows
clearly how communities
participate in resource
conservation in three districts
of Mkinga, Muheza, and
Korogwe. It is obvious that
most work is being done by
environmental committees
but communities have remarkable considerable role in resources conservation in the BRs.
HowcommunitiesbenefitfromtheBRresources
51
4.4.4 Do you encounter any challenges in the management and conservation activities?
The following table shows responses from respondents on challenges they encounter in the
management and conservation activities.
Table 11: Challenges in BRs management and conservation
Q-
No Question Responses
Korogwe
District
Muheza
District
Mkinga
District
Total
Points
5
Do you
encounter
any
challenges
in the
managemen
t and
conservatio
n activities?
No incentives to those conducting
patrol 1 0 1 2
Lack of protection mechanism to
whistle blower hence making
whistle blowers vulnerable 0 1 1 2
Inadequate firefighting gears 1 0 0 1
Lack of gears for patrolling 1 1 0 2
No compensation to injured person
during patrol or fire fighting 1 0 0 1
No incentives to volunteers
conserving the BR 0 0 0 0
Some top leaders are involved in
BR destruction 1 0 0 1
Violation of bylaws 1 0 0 1
The 20% revenue is minimal hence
demoralizing communities in
conserving the BR 1 1 0 2
Lack of transparency on revenue
collection and expenditure 1 1 0 2
Poor collaboration between
communities and conservators 0 1 0 1
Lack of feedback on encroachment
cases 0 1 0 1
It is difficult to reach remote areas
during patrol 0 1 0 1
Uses of noiseless techniques in
timber sawing hence making it 0 1 0 1
52
difficult to detect destructors
Poor bylaws enforcement hence
making the government to set free
destructors 0 1 0 1
Source: Reseach work, March 2016
Figure 21: Challenges in BR conservation
The above charts shows the most pressing challenges in conservation in all three districts of
Muheza, Korogwe, and Mkinga. Those are little or no incentives to those conducting patrols,
lack protection mechanism to whistle blowers, inadequate firefighting gears, violation of bylaws,
and meager 20% revenue that comes as returns to communities involved in the protection of
BRs.
53
4.4.5 How do you solve challenges that arise from resource conservation?
The following table and the chart that after shows how communities solve challenges that arise
from resource conservation in three districts of Muheza, Korogwe, and Mkinga.
Table 12: Solving challenges from resource conservation
Q-No Question Responses
Korogwe
District
Muheza
District
Mkinga
District
Total
Points
6
How do you
solve challenges
that arise from
resource
conservation?
To press on accountability 1 0 0 1
To demand for
transparence on revenue
collection and
expenditures 1 0 0 1
To ensure bylaws are
enforced and
implemented accordingly 1 0 0 1
Reporting to respective
area/person 0 1 1 2
Heavy fine to
encroachers/destructors 0 1 1 2
Increasing awareness on
conservation 0 1 0 1
Source: Research work, March, 2016
54
It is therefore right to assert that communities in three districts of Mkinga, Muheza, and
Korogwe uses the the above six (6) mechanism to solve challenges that arise from resource
conservation. That is they impose heave fine to destructors of the BR at 25% and they also report
to respective authorities at 25%. But they also ensure bylaws are eforced, they increase
awareness on conservation. They also keep pushing for revenue transparence and accountability.
4.4.6 Is there any destruction going on in the BR?
Respondents from all three districts of Muheza, Korogwe, and Mkinga responded that there is
destruction going within BRs.
Korogwe Mkinga Muheza
YES
YES
YES
55
4.4.7 If yes, where are the destructors come from?
Respondents from three districts of Korogwe, Muheza, and Mkinga showed that destructors both
come from within their communities and those coming outside their communities. This shows
that there is a need to address this from within and outside them.
4.4.8 What does the community do to conserve the BRs?
Communities in three districts of Mkinga, Muheza, and Korogwe have shown through their
responses that they conserve the BRs by undertaking beekeeping activities at 22%, tree planting
at 22%, butterfly farming at 14% and the remained activities such as vegetable farming,
mushroom farming, goat milk keeping, cattle keeping, education on the BR, and contour farming
each at 7%.
These data have been obtained from the following timetable and the pie chart that follows. Based
on these results it is therefore imperative to empower and support these communities to increase
all these activities as they contribute towards protection and conservation of BRs in all three
districts.
56
Table 13: Activities conducted by Communities to conserve BR
Q-No Question Responses
Korogwe
District
Muheza
District
Mking
a
District
Total
Points
9
What does the
community do to
conserve the
BR?
Beekeeping 1 1 1 3
Butterfly farming 1 1 0 2
Tree planting 1 1 1 3
Vegetable farming 0 0 1 1
Mushroom farming 0 0 1 1
Goat milk keeping 0 0 1 1
Cattle keeping 0 0 1 1
Education on the BR
significance 0 1 0 1
Contour farming 0 1 0 1
Sources: Research work, March, 2016
57
Figure 22: activities conducted by communities surrounding BRs
58
4.4.9 Is there any institution involved in environmental conservation in your area? If yes
mention them
Respondents from three districts responded yes to this question. The following table shows
responses from communities on institution involved in environmental conservation in Mkinga,
Korogwe and Mkinga districts.
Q-No Question Responses
Korogwe
District
Muheza
District
Mkinga
District
Total
Points
10
Is there any institution
involved in
environmental
conservation in your
area? If yes mention
them
ANR 0 1 1 2
UNESCO 1 1 1 3
NIMR 0 1 0 1
EMAU Hill Forest 0 1 0 1
BOHARI 0 1 0 1
TAFORI 0 1 0 1
UTCO 0 1 0 1
TFCG 1 1 1 3
Utafiti - Chai 0 1 0 1
WWF 1 0 1 2
EAMCEF 1 0 1 2
ABOT 0 0 1 1
59
Figure 23: Institutions found in BR
Table 14: Institutions found in BR
No: District Institutions
1. Korogwe UNESCO, TFCG, WWF, EAMCEF
2. Mkinga NNR, UNESCO, TFCG, WWF, EAMCEF, ABOT
3. Muheza ANR, UNESCO, NIMR, EMAU Forest Hill,
BOHARI, TAFORI, UTCO, TFCG, Utafiti Chai,
Institutional presence in these three districts shows the importance of coordinating conservation
efforts to ensure there is no duplication of efforts and activities.
4.4.10 Do they involve you in any conservation activities? If yes how do they involve you?
Communities in three districts of Mkinga, Korogwe and Muheza responded yes to the question;
the following table shows responses from communities on how they are being involved in
conservation activities by those institutions.
60
Table 15: Community Involvement from Institution
-No Question Responses
Korogwe
District
Muheza
District
Mkinga
District
Total
Points
11
Do they involve
you in any
conservation
activities? If
yes, how do
they involve
you?
Training on conservation
and entrepreneurship 0 1 1 2
Communities are involved
in the patrol 1 1 0 1
Provision of tree seedling
to communities 1 1 0 1
Employment provision 0 1 0 1
Tree planting 1 0 1 1
Beekeeping 1 0 1 1
Source: Research work, May 2016
Figure 24: Community involvement by Institutions and NGOs
These six activities have been mentioned by respondents in all three districts to show who
communities are being involved in conservation activities. More efforts are needed to increase
61
other activities that contribute to the well being of the BRs such as propagation of improved
cook-stoves.
4.4.11 Does availability of these institutions create any conservation challenge to local
community?
Responses from communities in two districts of Muheza, Korogwe and Mkinga came up with
challenges that they encounter due to existence of some of the institutions on conservation. The
following table shows those challenges per each district.
Table 16: Conservation challenges brought about by presence of Institutions and NGOs
No Question Responses
Korogwe
District
Muheza
District
Mkinga
District
12
Does the availability of
these institutions create
any conservation
challenge to local
communities?
No follow-up on
training provided by
some of these
institutions 0 0 1 1
Some institutions
failed to meet their
promises to
communities 1 0 1 1
No monitoring of
established projects 1 0 1 1
There is no
cooperation between
EMAU Forest Hill
and communities 0 1 0 1
UTCO uses heavy
duty trucks which
destroy roads 0 1 0 1
62
Corporate social
responsibility is not
implemented by
EMAU Forest Hill 0 1 0 1
Source: Research work, May, 2016
4.4.12 In your opinion, what do you think can be done to solve the problems and enhance
community participation in conservation issues?
Table 17: Recommendations to enhance participation
No Question Responses
Korogwe
District
Muheza
District
Mkinga
District Total Points
63
No Question Responses
Korogwe
District
Muheza
District
Mkinga
District Total Points
13
In your opinion,
what do you think
can be done to
solve the
problems and
enhance
community
participation in
conservation
issues?
Continuous
provision of
conservation
education 1 1 1 3
Mainstreaming of
conservation
education in school
curriculum from
primary to higher
levels 0 1 1 2
Amending bylaws
to increase
punishment to
people violating
bylaws 0 1 0 1
Provision of
training to all BR
actors - police, law
enforcers,
conservators, etc 0 1 0 1
Promotion of
income generating
activities so as to
reduce over
dependency on BR
resources 0 1 0 1
Continuous
research to discover 0 1 0 1
64
No Question Responses
Korogwe
District
Muheza
District
Mkinga
District Total Points
issues and solutions
on BR resources
Encouraging
communities to join
conservation groups 0 1 0 1
Conservators
should provide
funds to community
development
activities as
incentive to
community
participation in
conservation 1 1 1 3
Encourage
volunteerism 0 1 0 1
Sensitizing
communities to
establish individual
forest plots for
firewood and
timber 1 0 0 1
Refill tree in the
BIR with natural
trees in bare areas 1 0 0 1
Introduction of
conservation
competitions with 1 0 0 1
65
No Question Responses
Korogwe
District
Muheza
District
Mkinga
District Total Points
rewards to winners
Provision of
working tools 0 0 1 1
Source: Research work, May, 2016
66
Table 18: Community rating on the suggestions to enhance participation
No: Suggestion from Communities in three districts Total Percentage
from all three
districts
1. Continuous provision of conservation education 17%
2. Conservators should provide funds to community development
activities as incentive to community participation in conservation
17%
3. Mainstreaming of conservation education in school curriculum
from primary to higher levels
11%
4.
1. Encourage volunteerism
2. Sensitizing communities to establish individual forest plots
for firewood and timber
3. Refill tree in the BR with natural trees in bare areas
4. Introduction of conservation competitions with rewards to
winners
5. Introduction of conservation competitions with rewards to
winners
6. Provision of working tools
Each scored
6%
5.
1. Amending bylaws to increase punishment to people
violating bylaws
2. Provision of training to all BR actors - police, law
enforcers, conservators, etc
3. Promotion of income generating activities so as to reduce
over dependency on BR resources
4. Continuous research to discover issues and solutions on
BR resource
5. Encouraging communities to join conservation groups
Each scored
5%
Source: Research work, June 2016
67
The above table shows responses from communities in three districts of Mkinga, Muheza, and
Korogwe. The table has prioritized the community needs based on their response per each
district. This shows that continuous conservation education is very important and needed to
communities at 17%. Another component that has acquired similar percentage (17%) is on
provision of development funds to communities in the form of development activities or projects
as an incentive to make communities participate in conservation. The importance of
mainstreaming conservation education in school curriculums from primary to higher level came
third with 11% leaving other suggestions scoring 6% each and others scoring 5% each.
4.5 Results and Discussion from Key Informants on BRs Conservation
4.5.1 Who is responsible for conserving the BR?
Key Informants in Mkinga, Muheza, and Korogwe responded that those who are responsible for
conserving the BRs are communities adjacent to the BR, government, and donors. The following
diagram shows clearly this response.
ConservationofBRs
68
The above diagram illustrates clearly key informants understanding on the importance of who is
responsible on conservation of the BRs. This understanding provides a right ground to start with
in conservation of the BRs in respective districts. It is true that international support on
conservation should complement local efforts in BRs’ conservation for better conservation
results.
4.5.2 Which activities does the community do in conserving the BR?
The following chart shows responses from key informants on activities which communities do in
conserving the BRs in their respective localities. Activities presented in the chart are similar and
found in all three districts of Mkinga, Muheza, and Korogwe. This similarity allows for an easy
but effective project plan and implementation to foster conservation activities in all BRs in those
areas.
As the diagram above shows, five activities out of six namely beekeeping, boundary clearance,
butterfly farming, tree planting, and tourism are found in all three districts of Mkinga, Muheza,
and Korogwe while only one activity that is land use plan is found in Mkinga district. This shows
that there is a need to work hard in supporting Village Land Use Plans (VLUP) in other districts.
BRsConservation
69
4.5.3 What benefits do the community involved in conservation get?
Key informants in three districts of
Muheza, Mkinga, and Korogwe
responded to show that
communities those three districts
benefit much from the BRs
conservation work they participate.
The pie chart on the right side
shows in percentage based on the
responses accrued from key
informants. These benefits are
strong avenue for supporting
conservation of the BRs in Muheza, Mkinga, and Korogwe. Since key informants are aware of
the benefits that is an opportunity for conservation organizations.
4.5.4 Is there any resource encroacher in your BRs?
In responding to this question, key informants in all three districts of Muheza, Mkinga, and
Korogwe responded with a big “Yes” that there are resource encroachers in their respective BRs.
This answer by itself provides a legitimate ground for environmental conservation organization
to support communities’ efforts in conservation of BRs for sustainable conservation and
improvement of people’s livelihood adjacent to BRs.
4.5.5 Where are the encroachers come from?
Responses from key informants in Muheza, Korogwe, and Mkinga districts showed categorically
that encroachers and other destructors to the BRs come from both sides that is from within
communities and from outside communities. This provides a layout on how to solve such a
challenge that is starting within communities while dealing with external encroachers. This is
because internal encroachers may at some point harbor external encroachers.
70
Table 19: Encroachers in the BR
District Response on where encroachers come from
Korogwe Encroachers come from within communities and outside
communities
Mkinga Majority of encroachers come from outside communities but there is
also a considerable number of encroachers from within communities
who welcome those intruders
Muheza They come from within our communities and outside, reasons differ
but they are all encroachers
Source: Research work, June 2016
4.5.6 Which punishment did you take?
Key informants in all districts of Korogwe, Muheza, and Mkinga respectively showed several
disciplinary measures have been taken to punish encroachers who have been caught with clear
evidence destructing the BRs. Those punitive measures ranged from imposing fines, sending
cruel encroachers to police, and supporting legal actions that effectually made some encroachers
to be jailed. The following bar chart shows clearly by percentages.
71
Figure 25: Punishment to BRs encroachers
4.5.7 Are there any bylaws in place that have been set?
In responding to this question, key informants in all three districts of Korogwe, Mkinga, and
Muheza confirmed that they have bylaws that govern management and protection of the BRs in
their respective areas. In short, they responded “Yes” to this question. This answer provide an
avenue to start revisiting
those bylaws from village to
district level to ensure
bylaws are implemented
fully and to ensure that
enforcement mechanism are
there in place, like strong
patrol, strong and willing
local village leadership to
report on all incidences
related to the destruction of
the BRs.
72
Mention them
In responding to this question, key informants in many areas failed to mention precisely the title
of the bylaws! This partly indicates that most of the key informants understand there are bylaws
but probably do not take time to read the bylaws so as to internalize them. In all three districts,
key informants just responded that there are bylaws to conserve the BRs. So the answer was in a
general format without going specifically into specific bylaws.
However, existence of bylaws themselves provides another opportunity for conservation
organization to embark on fostering conservation work in all BRs in all three districts of Mkinga,
Muheza, and Korogwe.
4.5.8 What can be done so as to make BRs Sustainable?
Responses from key informants in all three districts of Muheza, Korogwe, and Mkinga
responded by listing activities that can support sustainability of the BRs for the benefit of
communities and the whole conservation organizations locally and internationally. The following
bar chart shows percentages based on respondents from all three districts of Mkinga, Korogwe,
and Muheza.
73
Figure 26: Suggestions to make BR sustainable
Looking at the bar chart above, it is evident that almost all suggestions need to be taken on board
in an integrated approach to ensure maximum conservation outcomes. Some of the suggestions
like financial loans or instrumental loans might require a very careful approach. One of the
approaches can be empowering communities adjacent to BRs to establish rural financing
mechanisms in the forms of Village Community Banks (VICOBA) or Saving and Internal
Lending Community (SILC). As most of these, if established in the right way can have a
sustainable positive impact to the communities surrounding BRs. The rest of the suggestions are
very important if conservation organizations are to make conservation work to communities
adjacent to BRs effective and sustainable.
74
75
CHAPTER FIVE
5.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1 CONCLUSION
Based on the data provided in chapter four, that is the data that has been acquired and run from
the research tools used in this study as responded by individual communities, communities in
general, key informants, and through Focus Group Discussion; it is obvious that local
communities adjacent to biosphere reserve somehow participate in the conservation of the
biosphere reserve. It is evident that local communities in proximity to these BRs face lots of
challenges with regard to conservation and involvement. It is also evident that some of the local
communities have been involving themselves in the destruction of the biosphere reserves.
Local communities have provided their recommendations that would help in increasing
conservation activities in the biosphere reserve. They have also underlined several challenges
just by being in proximity to the BRs. In view of this, an integrated approach is needed to ensure
that communities are involved and participate fully in the conservation of the biosphere reserves.
It is evident from data presented that there is a conflict between communities bordering
biosphere reserves in Tanzania and wildlife due to various reasons as shown in the data. Human-
wildlife conflict has emerged to be one of the great challenges that require deliberate efforts to
address it. Some of the efforts might be of trans-boundary nature whereby states need to work
together to address this challenge. It is somehow discouraging that Tanzania is not a signatory of
the Trans-Boundary Ecosystem bills as it would have helped much in addressing some of the
reasons that contribute towards human-wildlife conflict. For example, communities explained
that some of the reasons that make Elephants to migrate into people’s areas is looking for water!
But the river that flows its waters through SNBR is the Mara River which originates from Kenya.
The Kenyan government has been using more than 60% of the water leaving little water to flow
through the SNBR. Furthermore, the Kenyan government has done little in preserving the Mau
Forest which is the source of Mara River. Therefore, states cooperation is the key to some
challenges which has a trans-boundary nature.
76
77
5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the responses as presented in data chart, I hereby provide my recommendations which I
am certain will be useful in addressing the negative plight facing biosphere reserves in Tanzania.
Ø The central government, local governments, private sector and Civil Society
Organizations should work together to ensure full involvement of local communities in
the management and protection of the biosphere reserves.
Ø Land use plans should be undertaken to ensure proper uses of land bordering biosphere
reserves which considerations to protect buffer zones and open up migratory corridors.
Ø Integrated projects that addresses local communities and concern should be emphasized
so as to ensure communities have alternative livelihood mechanism rather than depending
heavily on natal resources available in the BRs.
Ø There is a need to review policies, legal and regulatory framework to ensure heavy
penalties for all involved in the destruction of the BRs
Ø Natural wildlife deterrent mechanisms to reduce the human-wildlife conflict should be
strengthened and researched so as to reduce the human-wildlife conflict.
Ø Bylaws at local level should be reviewed to give more mandate to local communities in
the protection of the BRs
78
REFERENCES
Barrow, E. and Murphree, M. W. (2000) Community Conservation from Concept to Practice.
Borrini-Feyerabend, (2014), Indigenous and Local Communities and Protected Areas: Towards
Equity and Enhanced Conservation, Guidance on policy and practice for Co-managed Protected
Areas and Community Conserved Areas
Djoghlaf A, (2011), Biodiversity and Ecosystem Insecurity: A Planet in Peril
Green Economy in Biosphere Reserves: A Means to Poverty Reduction, Biodiversity
Conservation and Sustainable Development in Sub-Saharan Africa, 2014
Kevin, G, and Spicer, J. (2004), Biodiversity: An Introduction
Kombo D and Tromp D, (2006), Proposal and Thesis Writing: An Introduction, (Nairobi:
Pauline’s
Publishers Africa.
Kothari, C. K. (2004), Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques. (New Delhi: New Age
International Publisher).
Management Manual for UNESCO Biosphere Reserves in Africa
Noe C, Kangalawe R. Y. Wildlife Protection, Community Participation in Conservation, and
(Dis) Empowerment in Southern Tanzania. Conservat Soc 2015;13:244-53
www.unesco.org/mabdb/br/brdir
Zacharia M, Kaihula S.A. Community Participation in the Conservation and Management of
Wildlife in Tanzania.
79
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: List of consulted stakeholders who were willing to share their details
SN Respondents’Name
PhoneNumber Sex Age
1. MariamNgoda 0657592737 Female 402. HizaOmari 0787884478 Male 483. MwanaheraJuma 0713244847 Female 264. YohanaMsilim 0714400166 Male 375. MonicaMsigiti 0653561905 Female 646. EmmanuelKipingu 0654274510 Male 287. RashidSembe 0685625217 Male 398. StuartMahimbo 0718989401 Male 369. ErnestMakao 0657540533 Male 4110. WallesMahimbo 0719231092 Male 2611. AnnaMsumari 0782888184 Female 5712. RhodaMakawa 0712926335 Female 3813. SaleheKupe 0712179447 Male 5114. ViolethStuart 0654170222 Female 3115. GeorgeMathayo 0653788405 Male 6516. AminaNdope 0714991152 Female 5017. AshaNyundo 0655503783 Female 4218. MaryMnguruta 0712440165 Female 3319. YohanaKijazi 0656464110 Male 3720. HarrietHizza 0654470931 Female 4321. BeariceZuwakuu 0657604803 Female 3222. MaryKahungo 0713850004 Female 2423. MargrethLupatu Female 5024. MariamMjasambu 0675601513 Female 4025. IssaHassan 0719188076 Male 4526. DorisCharles 0714454997 Female 4827. IssaKibindo Male 5828. GoodluckAlmasi 0714703847 Male 5029. HassanHassan 0716516399 Male 2530. CharlesMohamed 0719354808 Male 4031. JoyceMhina 0782969773 Female 6332. MariamMghaza 0789599501 Female 5833. RamadhaniKilo 0682120017 Male 3434. RamadhaniShemtoi 056014621 Male 3535. FestoNyika 0788804385 Male 45
80
36. AsiaNdokezi 0675007698 Female 5937. JaneSingano 0652387401 Female 4038. JoyceKiondo 0654284419 Female 2539. ThomasChambo 0682069938 Male 7240. ChristinaShemandii 0714355852 Female 3541. SaidiNumbulames 0688737214 Male 6542. PatrickLuyagaza 0659164526 Male 5243. AyubuNyika 0657072227 Male 5544. HappinessMtaita 0714840639 Female 5445. JumaNgovi 0683144453 Male 5046. MohamedMbaya 0659102287 Male 4747. HabibaOmar 0784958099 Female 4848. JumaHemed Male 6549. GimongeChacha Male 4350. MarthaMahule Female 3351. RehemaKaitila Female 3552. NasiekuSabaya Female 4053. BhokeMagori Female 3554. Namnyaki
Lomayani Female 41
81
Appendix 2A: Questionnaire for Community Members
Appendix 2A: Questionnaire for Community Members
BIOSPHERE RESERVE QUESTIONNAIRE
Section 1: Location
SN VARIABLE
ANSWER 1.1.1 District 1.1.2 BRs name 1.1.3 Ward 1.1.4 Village
Section 2: Biodata SN VARIABLE EXPECTED RESPONSES ANSWER/CODE
1.2.1 Respondent’s Name 1.2.2 Phone Number
1.2.3 Sex of the respondent 1=Male 2=Female
1.2.4 Respondent age (in years)
1.2.5 Respondents Education level
1 = No school 2 = Primary –Completed 3 = Primary- Not completed 4 = Secondary Completed 5 = Secondary –not completed 6= University/College completed 7= University/College not completed
1.2.6 Are you the Head of your Household?
1=Yes 2=No
82
SN VARIABLE EXPECTED RESPONSES ANSWER/CODE
Number of household members
1=FE: Children aged 5 and below:_____ 2=MA: Children aged 5 and below:_____ 3=FE: Children aged 6 to 17:_________ 4=MA: Children aged 6 to 17:_________ 5=FE: Youth aged 18 to 35:__________ 6=MA: Youth aged 18 to 35:__________ 7=FE: Adult aged 36 and above:_______ 8=MA: Adult aged 36 and above:_______
1.2.7 What are the main economic activities?
1= Crop production, 2= Livestock Keeping, 3= Others (Specify)
83
Section 3: Land ownership, use and conservation of BRS
SN VARIABLE EXPECTED RESPONSES ANSWER/CODE
1.3.1 Type of the land ownership? 1= Individually 2= communally
1.3.2 What is the approximate size in acres?
1.3.3 How long have you lived near the BRs?
1.3.4 Who owns the BRS and the resources in the forest
1= Foreigner 2= Community 3= Government
1.3.5 Does the BRs Reserve benefits you in any way? If Yes, Fill the table below.
1=Yes 2=No
1.3.6 If yes in 1.3.5 above, what are the benefits of Biosphere Reserve to you? (Tick where
appropriate) Benefit Yes No Tourism
Employment
Timber, poles, firewood
Water, food plants
Charcoal
Medicinal plants
Cultural
Community projects
Meat/food
Others (specify)
84
SN VARIABLE EXPECTED RESPONSES ANSWER/CODE
1.3.7 Were you previously cultivating crops in the BRS land?
1=Yes 2=No
1.3.8 Were you previously rearing animals in the BRS?
1=Yes 2=No
1.3.9 What problems do you encounter in crop production and rearing of animals?
1.3.10 Do wild animals come to your land? 1=Yes 2=No
1.3.11 If yes in 1.3.10, fill the table below:
Animal species Type of conflict
Months/period of the year
Estimated loss per year (Tsh.)
1 Elephant
2 Buffalo
3 Leopard
4 Sykes monkey
5 Vervet monkey
6 Hyena
7 Wild pig
8 Porcupine
9 Baboons
10 Others
85
SN VARIABLE EXPECTED RESPONSES ANSWER/CODE
1.3.12 Why do you think animals come out of the BRs?
1= Food 2= Crop raiding 3= Regular migrations 3= Increase in numbers 4= Human settlement/encroachment 5= Specify others
1.3.13 What do you do to counteract the conflicts /problems?
1= Kill the animals 2= Chase away 3= Specify others;_______________ _________________________________
1.3.14 What recommendations do you propose to curb human/wildlife conflicts
1= Compensation 2= Electric fencing 3= Ranger outpost 4= Moats 5= Killing 6= Translocation 7= Game scouts 8= Other (specify)
1.3.15 Do you belong to any conservation Local Community Based Group?
1=Yes 2=No
1.3.16. If yes answer the questions in the table below.
Name of Group
No. of members
Major challenges faced by the group
Major roles of the group
Source of funding
Benefits received
Me
Fe
86
1.3.17. What problems have hindered you from joining any conservation local community based
group?
1.3.18 Are there any activities being conducted in your area for conservation purposes?
1. Yes
2. No
If yes, mention them
1.3.19. Have you ever seen or heard any environmental destruction being conducted in the BR?
1. Yes
2. No
If yes, where were the destructors from?
1. Within community
2. Outside community
3. Both
1.3.20. Which resources are mostly exploited by the destructors?
1. Medicine
2. Charcoal
3. Timber
87
4. Poles
5. Firewood
6. Animals
7. Minerals
8. Others, mention _______________________________
1.3.21. In your opinion, what do you think can be done to improve the livelihoods of the local people?
1.3.22 Have you contributed in any way towards the conservation Biosphere Reserve?
1. Yes
2. No
If yes what roles do you play in the conservation of the Biosphere Reserve?
1.3.23. In your opinion, what do you think can be done to enhance community participation in conservation issues?
Thank You
88
Appendix 2B: Focus Group Discussion BIOSPHERE RESERVE 1. Do you acknowledge/ recognize presence of BR? i. Yes ii. No 2. Which resources are available in the BR? 3. How do you benefit from the BR’s resources? 4. How do you participate in resources conservation? 5. Do you encounter any challenges in the management and conservation activities? i. Yes ii. No iii. Mention 6. how do you solve challenges that arise from resources conservation them 7. Is there any destruction going on in the BR? i. Yes ii. No 8. If yes, where are the destructors from i. From the community ii. From outside the community iii. Both 9. What does the community do to conserve BR? 10. In your opinion, what do you think can be done to solve the problems and enhance community participation in conservation issues? Thank You
89
Appendix 2C: Key Informants BIOSPHERE RESERVES 1. Who is responsible for conserving BR 2. Which activities does the community do in conserving BR 3. What benefits do the community involved in conservation get 4. Is there any resources encroacher in your BR? i. Yes ii. No 5. Where are the encroachers from 6. Which punishment did you take 7. Are there any bylaws in place that have been set? i. Yes ii. No 8. Mention them 9. What can be done so as to make BRs sustainable? Thank You
90
Appendix 3: Some of pictures taken during research work
Researchworkingsession
91
Left: Mushroom farming hut Right: butterfly feeding place
92
Topleft:pupaforbutterflybusiness,bottomright:beehivesinBR
93
l
OneofthevillagesintheMABSites
94
GeothermalmanifestationatLMBR
OtherpicturesinthevisitedBRs