Tanzania’s policies and laws

in support of

Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems

Report by Tanzania Natural Resource Forum Acronyms AF Agro-forestry ANSAF Agricultural Non State Actors Forum AU African Union BMELV Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CBNRM Community-Based Natural Resource Management CBO Community Based Organisation CC Climate Change CSO Civil Society Organisation EIA Environmental Impact Assessment FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations GIAHS Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems GNP Gross National Product ICESCR International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights ICRAF World Agro-forestry Centre IP Intellectual Property KNCU Kilimanjaro Native Coffee Union MADC Ministry of Agriculture, Food Security and Cooperatives MEA Millennium Ecosystem Assessment MKUKUTA National Strategy for Growth and Poverty Reduction MLFD Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development MNRT Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism MOU Memorandum of Understanding MVIWATA MtandaowaVikundivyaWakulima Tanzania/National Network of farmer’s groups NAPA National Adaptation Programme of Action NAS National Agro-forestry Strategy NASCO National Agro-forestry Steering Committee NCA Ngorongoro Conservation Area NCAA Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority NEMC National Environmental Management Council NORAD Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation NPP Ngorongoro Pastoralist Project PES Payment for Environmental Services RAMSAR Convention on Wetlands signed in Ramsar Iran REDD Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation SADC Southern Africa Development Community TAPHGO Tanzania Pastoralist and Hunter-Gatherer Organisation TEV Total Economic Value TIPEI Tanzania Indigenous Poverty Eradication Initiatives TK Traditional Knowledge TNRF Tanzania Natural Resource Forum TTB Tanzania Tourism Board UCRT Ujamaa Community Resource Team UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNESCO United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organisation UPOV Union for Protection of Plant Varieties URT United Republic of Tanzania WMA Wildlife Management Areas WSSD World Summit on Sustainable Development Contents 1 Introduction to the study ...... 5 2 Context, significance, value and extent of GIAHS in Tanzania ...... 7 2.1 The context of GIAHS ...... 7 2.2 Characteristics and qualities of important agricultural systems ...... 7 2.3 The extent of GIAHS in Tanzania ...... 9 2.4 The Kihamba (Chagga homegarden) system Kilimanjaro ...... 10 2.4.1 Summary of dynamic conservation of the Kihamba GIAHS pilot project ...... 12 2.5 The Maasai pastoral system ...... 14 2.5.1 Summary of dynamic conservation of Maasai pastoral system GIAHS pilot project...... 16 3 Historical policy and practice perspective ...... 19 3.1 Overview of policy and practice for smallholder production in Tanzania ...... 19 3.2 Historical events impacts on the Chagga homegarden system Kilimanjaro ...... 20 3.3 Key events with impact on the Maasai pastoral system ...... 21 4 Analysis of the national policy framework...... 23 4.1 The agricultural policy context in Tanzania ...... 23 4.2 Tanzania policies and legislation ...... 25 4.3 International conventions related to environment and natural resources ...... 30 5 Best practices and lessons learned in relation to GIAHS ...... 33 5.1 The importance of learning lessons for improving practice ...... 33 5.2 Restocking, Ewoloto, practiced in Ngorongoro Pastoralist Project ...... 34 5.3 Strengthening Community Forums ...... 34 5.4 Payment for ecosystem services in Simanjiro ...... 35 5.5 The Multiple land use concept in Ngorongoro Conservation Area (NCA) ...... 35 6 Conclusions and recommendations ...... 36 6.1 Conclusions ...... 36 6.2 Recommendations ...... 38 List of literature and reports consulted ...... 40 List of Annexes ...... 43 People met and consulted by email ...... 43 Terms of Reference ...... 44 1 Introduction to the study During the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg, South Africa, the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and United Nations launched a Global Partnership Initiative on conservation and adaptive management of Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS).

The goal of the initiative is: to identify and safeguard GIAHS and their associated landscapes, agricultural biodiversity and knowledge systems through catalyzing and establishing a long-term programme to support such systems and enhance global, national and local benefits derived through their dynamic conservation, sustainable management and enhanced viability (Koohafkan and Altieri 2011,p.7).

The three main objectives of GIAHS are to:

1. Leverage global and national recognition of the importance of agricultural heritage systems and institutional support for their safeguard:  global recognition through the creation of Agricultural Heritage Systems category with support of Governments, FAO governing bodies, UNESCO, World Heritage Centre and other partners  national recognition, awareness and improved understanding of threats that such agricultural systems face, of their global importance and of the benefits that they provide at all levels 2. Capacity building of farming communities and local and national institutions to conserve and manage GIAHS, generate income and add economic value to goods and services of such systems in a sustainable fashion:  Identify ways to mitigate risks of erosion of biodiversity and traditional knowledge, land degradation and threats posed by globalization processes, and skewed policies and incentives  Strengthen conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and natural resources, reducing vulnerability to climate change, enhancing sustainable agriculture and rural development and as a result contributing to food security and poverty alleviation  Enhancing the benefits derived by local populations from conservation and sustainable use of their resources and their ingenious systems and rewarding them through payment for Environmental Services, Eco-labelling, Eco-tourism and other incentive mechanisms and market opportunities 3. Promote enabling policies, regulatory and incentive environments to support the conservation, evolutionary adaptation and viability of GIAHS:  Assessment of existing policies and incentive mechanisms and identification of modalities to provide support for sustainable agricultural practices  Promotion of national and international processes leading to improved policies and incentive mechanisms (Ibid.)

FAO started the initiative in 2002 with the aim to gain international recognition, support dynamic conservation and adaptive management of GIAHS. In 2008 FAO initiated the project in Kenya and Tanzania: “Supporting Food Security and Reducing Poverty in Kenya and Tanzania through Dynamic Conservation of Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems”. The project was supported by the Federal Republic of Germany through the Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection (BMELV). In Tanzania the project partnership with the Ministry of Agriculture, Food Security and Cooperatives (MADC), the Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development (MLFD), the National Environmental Management Council (NEMC), the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism (MNRT), The Tanzania Tourism Board (TTB), the Tanzania Natural Resource Forum (TNRF) and the Ujamaa Community Resource Team (UCRT). The project focuses on two different agricultural systems namely the Chagga homegarden system and the Pastoralist System of the Maasai, with pilot project sites in Shimbwe Juu, Moshi district and at Engaresero by lake Natron, Ngorongoro district. These systems are of particular interest to the GIAHS initiative, because of their customary use and adaptive management of biological and natural resources compatible with conservation and sustainable use; The significant contribution to food production, livelihoods and rural development; The social and cultural features significant to cultural diversity and national identity; The systems have important adaptive elements found to be “climate smart”. In 2011 an independent external evaluation of the project recommended that Tanzania’s different sector policies and laws, which have impacts on traditional forms of agricultural systems, should be brought to the attention of relevant stakeholders so as to provide an opportunity to formulate a way forward in addressing the need for support to GIAHS in Tanzania’s policies, laws and institutional framework. The understanding of linkages between policies, laws and the indigenous agricultural systems are important for informing processes of policy improvement. To implement this recommendation on policy, laws and GIAHS, this study was commissioned (see ToR annex 2). The study highlight the historic and contemporary impact of different sectors policy and law of on valuable forms of traditional agriculture and make recommendations for how to strengthen GIAHS in a policy perspective. Particular attention is given to the pastoral system of the Maasai and the Kihamba (Chagga) home-garden system on Kilimanjaro.

The approach of the study involves review of literature, interview key informants, and taking part in the GIAHS policy workshop on 6th and 7th December 2012, where preliminary findings were validated and a declaration on GIAHS was prepared.

This report presents the findings of the study. Following this general introduction, chapter two explains the values, qualities and characteristics of important agricultural systems, with subsections specifically focusing on the Maasai pastoralist system and the Kihamba system on the slopes of Kilimanjaro. Chapter three highlights historical trends, changes, specific interests, evolution of the systems vis a vis policy and governance in pre-colonial, colonial and post colonial periods. Specific examples from the pastoralist and Kihamba system are highlighted. Chapter four analyze how relevant policies, support GIAHS and how various policies provide challenges to GIAHS, shortcomings, strengths, gaps and scope for improvement are identified. Conventions, national plans and processes are given consideration. Chapter five gives examples of practices relating to important agricultural systems and finally conclusions and recommendations are given in chapter six. All annexes are attached to the end of this report. 2 Context, significance, value and extent of GIAHS in Tanzania

2.1 The context of GIAHS Agriculture1 has been practiced for thousands of years and agricultural practices have been developed through careful adaptation, using trial and error as well as careful observations of the many parameters influencing the ecosystems. Social and economic conditions prevalent in the given context where agriculture is practiced also come into play, and must be considered part of the system, including the important role of women and of customary political management institutional arrangements for land allocation and recourse to justice.

Some of the agricultural practices or farming systems combine the retention of useful trees and bushes in cultivated fields. These traditional agro-forestry systems were developed and adapted by farmers through generations of observation of and adjustment to the natural environment. Existing sustainably managed agro-ecosystems represent successful strategies developed through the interaction between man and the ecosystem to provide a surplus for man’s use. Agriculture has evolved from flood plain cultivation (the River Nile delta, Rufiji river delta etc.), to clearing and burning of bush and forest in upland areas. Some agricultural practices are carried out combining cultivation and rearing of animals and others exclusively crop cultivation or exclusively livestock rearing. The introduction of draught power for ploughing and tilling land increased the efficiency of farming. Later in the second half of the 20th century ‘the green revolution’ was launched, with high technological farming practice and external inputs such as artificial fertilisers and chemicals to control pests and fungi, making great changes in production methods and reflecting back on social arrangements, such as on women’s role, land tenure and distribution and more. Areas with uniform conditions suited for these high technological mechanised farming practices were categorized as ‘high potential agricultural areas’. Landscapes which didn’t fall within this category, remained under traditional production regimes such as the ones we under this study term ‘traditional agricultural systems’ or as the Global Partnership Initiative launched by FAO refer to as ‘Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems’. The importance of the GIAHS is significant, as despite focus on the green revolution, GIAHS actually produce 30-50% of the domestic food consumed in the developing world, providing an important contribution to food security (Koohafkan and Altieri 2011,p.5). In Tanzania the contribution from traditional agricultural systems to food security and the GNP is higher as will be elaborated in more detail in chapter four, when outlining the agricultural policy context in Tanzania.

2.2 Characteristics and qualities of important agricultural systems GIAHS have a number of qualities and unique values in common, which warrant special attention. GIAHS are defined as ‘land-use systems and landscapes rich in globally significant biological diversity, these systems have evolved from a community’s co-adaptation to its environment and its needs and aspirations for sustainable development’. The GIAHS approach recognizes the crucial importance of the well being of family farming communities, while directing activities towards sustainable agriculture and rural development (Koohafkan & Altieri 2011)

1 A broad definition of agriculture is used: “the science or practice of cultivating the soil and rearing animals” (Allen 1990).

Overview of GIAHS characteristics

Characteristics of GIAHS Attributes of GIAHS GIAHS are a significant part of the -Management is part of men, women and children’s daily work local economy and people’s social routines and therefore well known and understood and cultural identity -The systems are locally significant for household food security & food sovereignty (See footnote 12) -The systems contribute to well-being, providing multiple goods and services to the families (food, medicine, shelter, fuel, tools and more)

GIAHS may conserve the -Long term adaptation of the systems conserves ecosystems and environment and water biodiversity as an integrated part of management catchments and provide -The systems use and conserves important water catchment areas important lessons for CC -The systems use locally available genetic plant and animal adaptation resources, often with unique local technical knowledge -The systems may act as a carbon sink (depending on type) GIAHS generates local knowledge -The systems are built on experience, know how, technical and expertise, using local genetic knowledge and expertise, with inbuilt learning and adaptation material, observation and -The systems provides a potential for learning how to develop experimentation adaptive management strategies, including adaptation to climate change -Local knowledge of uses, management and development of plant and animal resources may be invaluable to pharmaceutical, agricultural and other industries.

Generally GIAHS systems are productive entities, and it is estimated that between 20 and 40 per cent of the world’s food production is derived from these systems, making significant contributions to food and livelihood security. The systems make use of the locally available natural resource base and human capital, building resilience by optimising on genetic resources, diversified production systems2 and sources of income.

These smallholder agricultural systems have through decades been adapted to local ecosystems and the local economy in support of livelihoods, and are furthermore indispensable resources for the wider society to learn how to improve management of modern agro-ecosystems worldwide. For example, many local smallholder families prepare for and cope with climate change, minimizing crop failure by using drought tolerant local varieties, practice water harvesting, mixed cropping, agro-forestry, transhumance (modern and mobile) and gathering of wild plants and a range of other strategies. These management practices act as a buffer against drought, disease, pests and climate influences, both at field and landscape level. Women in particular, who often do the bulk of the practical work on farm,

2 When considering total output from grains, fruits, vegetables, fodder and animal products in the same field, small intensive farms are more productive than extensive large-scale monoculture farms, in the order of 20 to 60 percent (Ibid). hold considerable ecological knowledge and play a critical role in conservation and utilisation of on-farm agro-biodiversity and off-farm biodiversity. The knowledge passed from generation to generation on the intricacies of complex agro-ecosystems is pivotal in the day-to-day husbandry as well as preventing and coping with impacts from ecological, climatic and socio-economic fluctuations (Koohafkan and Altieri 2011,p.9-12).

The importance of GIAHS initiative stands out against the background of issues related to food security and nutrition in the face of climate change, scarce natural resources and rural poverty. The combination of innovation, ecological knowledge and optimising on agro-biodiversity is thought to increase resilience to climate change, and over the last two decades it has been observed that resilience to climate and ecological disasters is closely linked to agro-biodiversity (ibid.).

2.3 The extent of GIAHS in Tanzania In Tanzania there are a number of outstanding traditional agricultural systems that deserves attention, and these are distributed across the whole country, in highland, grassland, forest, wetland and coastal ecosystems. Some of these systems may not qualify as globally important, but may be of significant importance locally. Therefore we take a broad view looking at agricultural livelihood systems, signifying that all these systems have over time more or less been carefully adapted to the ecological, economic and social context of the areas where they are practiced. However common to all GIAHS and most agricultural systems is that they are adapted to specific ecological conditions and sustainable management is based on specific technical knowledge. In many cases these landscapes make up unique cultural landscapes with significant values and “The term ‘cultural landscape’ embraces a diversity of manifestations of the interaction between humankind and its natural environment” (Rossler 2012). “Cultural landscapes are those where human interaction with natural systems has, over a long time, formed a distinctive landscape”(Mitchell et al 2009). There are many examples to illustrate this in Tanzania, here we mention just a few:

Overview of extent of important smallholder systems in Tanzania

Characteristics Distribution Pastoralist Systems Extensive livestock production, using a range Throughout Tanzania, particularly of ecosystems and aiming to optimize on where crop cultivation is a abundant grazing resources and minimize challenge – about 90% of risks associated with drought and disease. Tanzania’s livestock are managed Crops are often also cultivated by pastoralists and agro- pastoralists Agro-pastoralist Agro-pastoralist systems are similar to As above – but in higher rainfall Systems pastoralist systems, however cattle may be areas, or in patches with better used for ploughing, and commercial and soils as crop cultivation features in subsistence crop cultivation is integrated the system into the system Silvi-pastoral Ngitiri grazing and tree reserves are Practiced by Sukuma agro- Systems managed for providing dry season grazing. pastoralists throughout Shinyanga Communally agreed restrictions on use of Region. both pasture and wood resources are enforced through traditional systems Agri-silvo-pastoral The Faidherbia albida (F.albida) system The system is mainly found in systems combines crop cultivation, trees partly areas with alluvial soils, most covering fields with broad canopies. After commonly in Southern Tanzania, crop harvest the tree provide protein rich but also to a lesser extent here seed pods as livestock fodder and there throughout the country, complementing roughage maize stover as the tree is versatile and can grazed by livestock. The F.albida tree is grow under a wide range of unique with reverse phenology, dropping conditions. foliage contributing nitrogen rich fertile leaves at the beginning of the crop growing season and does not shade crops through to harvest. Home garden Home-gardens are adapted to mountainous Kilimanjaro, Meru, Usambara, systems rain forest type ecosystem, where Mara, Bukoba, Pare are all continuous vegetation cover is essential. mountainous ecosystems where Emulating the eco-system, intercropping various home gardens systems are and mulching is carried out to ensure practiced continuous groundcover and harvesting and planting is carried out in one operation so by the time the crop is carried from the site a new plant is in place. Pit Cultivation and Matengo pit cultivation is a system designed Matengo is found in Mbinga to optimize on water, where a small pit is District in SW Tanzania Mound Cultivation dug filled with decaying biomass and left to decay, and seeds are planted to optimize on Grass mound cultivation is mostly the compost and make best use of scarce practiced in southern Tanzania, rainfall. often close to wetlands (dambos) Grass mound systems are similar in or in miombo woodland in approach, but are above ground and in conjunction with forest fallow higher rainfall areas, often dambos or in systems miombo woodland Bush and Forest These systems are also called ‘slash and The whole coastal strip of Fallow Systems burn’ or shifting cultivatio. Farmers cut Tanzania in coastal thicket forests, branches with foliage from trees and burn and in the miombo woodlands of just before planting, but do not destroy the southern Tanzania regenerative capacity of trees and bushes. The ash and heat from burning increases soil fertility. After two to three years of cultivation, trees and bushes are left to regenerate in the fallow period, and new land is opened for cultivation.

2.4 The Kihamba (Chagga homegarden) system Kilimanjaro The Kihamba home-garden, agro-forestry system practiced on the eastern and southern slopes of Mount Kilimanjaro has evolved over more than five centuries. The bantu Chagga migrated from Taita region, four to five hundred years ago, to the southern and eastern slopes of Mt. Kilimanjaro where they over the years adapted the natural vegetation of the mountain mist forest into a multilayered agri- silvicultural system providing food, timber, fodder, medicine and cash crops. Kihamba means ‘the inherited land’ and is where the family life of the Chagga people evolves, they are born, come of age, marry and are buried in the Kihamba. Useful trees and vines were kept while less useful species were gradually replaced by cultivated fruit and timber trees such as avocado, mango and grevillea. However most of the 82 tree species represented are remnants of the original forest cover of which the most common are: Albizia schimperiana; Ranvolfia caffra; Cordia Africana; Commiphora eminii; Magi-ritaria discoidea. Approximately 500 plant species are represented of which more than 100 for human use (Banzi 2012). The main crop is coffee and bananas intercropped with several food and tree crops with up to over 100 different species in one plot. Coffee was first introduced in the late 19th century, and suitable for the ecology, was fairly quickly adopted allowing farmers to incorporate emerging cash needs into household economies. Banana covers the upper shrub layer (4-6m) and coffee a lower layer (1.5- 2m). The main crops are coffee, bananas, millet, maize, pawpaw, beans and livestock for milk and meat. The system is supplied with water by an intricate traditional irrigation system with storage ponds (Nduwa). The 1200 km2 area had 1.3 million inhabitants in 2003 and farm sizes were 0.5-2 ha. The area has a history of supporting the highest rural population densities in Africa, without compromising sustainability. The Kihamba biomass and high levels of biodiversity and sustainable management are critical for Mt. Kilimanjaro ecosystem, including its function as a water catchment area supplying the surrounding regions and as a carbon sink.

The farmers practicing the Kihamba system in most cases have a lowland farm with maize, millet and beans. In response to recent years falling coffee prices farmers have diversified into other cash crops such as ground nuts, sunflower and vegetables: Tomatoes; Green pepper; Chilly; Onions. However cash income has not reached the level derived in the past from reasonably priced coffee. Livestock are stall fed in the highlands and herded in the lowlands. The family’s home is in the highland home garden in a single dwelling, villages as such do not exist. Mobility is limited to the cultivation season where the family travels from the home-garden to tend lowland fields and return within the same day. There is a flow of nutrients from lowland plots to home gardens as grain, crop residue and fodder is transported uphill to the Kihamba (Kitalyi & Soini 2004).

The home-garden system of Kilimanjaro has often been showcased as a viable model for sustainable land use. The system has flourished with growing production for almost two and a half century with coffee as the main cash crop, complemented by bananas, livestock, timber trees, beekeeping and a number of other crops for home use and sale.

However the viability of the system has come under severe pressure due to demographic, economic and ecological changes. The Chagga home-garden system and associated livelihoods face a number of related challenges (Kitalyia & Soini 2004):

1) Water availability and rainfall patterns have become erratic resulting in excess water when heavy rainfall and diminishing water availability in between downpours. This is due to a number of factors: 75% of glaciers on the mountain have disappeared since 1912; Changes from indigenous vegetation to exotic species in the home-gardens combined with cultivation of riverbanks is believed to contribute to drying up of rivers and springs; The traditional irrigation system has partly collapsed further loosing scarce water resources, due to inadequate water storage capacity and leakage from distribution channels.

2) The world market decreased coffee prices contribute to increased poverty and inability to purchase necessary farm inputs. Alternative income has not reached the level of the previous cash earnings from coffee. With the low farm input levels the home-gardens are becoming less productive. Poor extension services and policy change on availability and distribution of farm inputs has aggravated the problem.

3) There is an increased lack of incentive for the youth to stay on farm, which results in migration to urban areas, which result in shortage of labor for farm operations. This furthermore disrupts the transfer of knowledge to new generations in managing this complex, bio-diverse system.

4) Due to pests and diseases coffee plants are weakened, resulting in decreased yields.

These identified constraint areas are clearly examples of “low hanging fruit” for policy makers, extension service and other implementing agents to turn into successful improvements. We shall return to implications for policy and practice in chapter four below.

2.4.1 Summary of dynamic conservation of the Kihamba GIAHS pilot project World market coffee price has decreased, coffee pests and diseases have multiplied, price of inputs are high providing serious challenges for the viability of the system. The GIAHS project3 works to address this key threat, in a selected project site, in Shimbwe Juu village4, Moshi district, Kilimanjaro Region. The community in Shimbwe Juu is committed to maintain the integrity and biodiversity of the Kihamba system through an action plan that lays out the way forward (Banzi 2012)

Outline of the project for dynamic conservation of GIAHS in Shimbwe Juu

THE ACTION PLAN FOR CONSERVING THE KIHAMBA AT SHIMBWE JUU 1) Strengthening community institutions in environmental management and marketing; 2) Improve management of coffee through organic farming, certification and training; 3) Rehabilitation and increasing capacity of traditional irrigation system i.e. furrows and ponds (Nduwa) 4) Introduction of vanilla as an additional source of income; 5) Introduction of aquaculture for raising trout as an additional source of income/protein; 6) Soil erosion control (terraces/ground cover plants/mulch); 7) Community conservation and transmission of traditional knowledge; 8) Establishment of a Kihamba heritage museum; 9) Recognition of the area as a National Heritage Site.

THE STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION

3 The Project partners involved are: Ministry of Agriculture Food Security and Cooperatives (lead); Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development; National Environmental Management Council; Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism (Antiquities Div.); Kilimanjaro Native Coffee Union (KNCU); Tanzania Indigenous Poverty Eradication Initiatives (TIPEI); World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) –TZ; Moshi District (LGA); The Community of Shimbwe Juu; Zonal Irrigation Office. 4 in a 619 ha area with a human population of 2,569, at about 1800-2600 meters elevation in the Montane Humid Tropical Forest zone. The assessment of the coffee crop pests, diseases and management practices has been carried out; KNCU has been consulted and accepted to build capacity to farmers on organic farming; 630 farmers are participating in revival and improvement of coffee production; With GIAHS support, KNCU has expanded its central coffee nursery from 9,000 to 58,000 grafted improved seedlings and will be able to serve farmers beyond the project boundary; So far KNCU has distributed over 21,000 improved coffee seedlings to farmers to replace aged coffee trees and to establish new coffee farms; Internal and external inspections on organic farming compliance have been done and about 400 farmers are certified as organic farmers and selling their coffee crop as organic grade. Most farmers do not use agrochemicals, which make the certification process easier; KNCU has opened a coffee collection centre in the village to facilitate marketing of the crop.

Vanilla production has been introduced by a local organization TIPEI; Following training, about 80 farms have established the vanilla crop, which is expected to start producing 2012.

Assessment of the irrigation system for rehabilitation has been carried out and a combined design for the irrigations system and aquaculture has been submitted; Procurement of the contractor is expected soon.

The aquaculture assessment found that trout is the best suited for this environment. Trout was first introduced by the Germans in the rivers Weruweru and Olmotonyi in the 19th century and have now become naturalized.

Base line and biodiversity survey for Shimbwe Juu has been conducted and a report produced.

A soil and water assessment revealed that soil erosion is a problem, especially on plots with annual crops and a proposal for soil and water conservation has been submitted.

The establishment of a model Kihamba is in progress and the selected ‘model’ (based on best practice) will have most of the components of the traditional Kihamba system, such as tree layer, banana layer, coffee layer, climbers, yams and vegetables.

Lessons learned from the Kihamba, Shimbwe Juu, Moshi

• Traditional farming systems are characterized by traditionally developed intelligent solutions/practices in natural resources management, each being unique to particular ecological and sociological conditions, but all aimed at sustainable utilization to meet socio-economic ends. Support to these systems is an important requirement to meet emerging challenges and threats

• The ongoing degradation of the Kihamba has a real risk of transforming Mt. Kilimanjaro from a lush and bio-diverse area into an eroded, barren area. Therefore scaling up the present efforts on Mt. Kilimanjaro in support of the Kihamba system would be highly desirable

• This system, like most GIAHS areas, is intricate. Interventions in one component of the system often require adjustment of other components in order to be effective and to maintain the balance of the system. Working across sectors and levels is therefore essential. This has also been an extremely valuable learning experience for the agencies and people involved • In many countries farmers are not secured in cases where their agricultural heritage systems fail, the impact of which may destabilize the socio and political economy. Policies could be far more helpful in addressing these concerns by specific statements

Challenges:

• The high cost of implementation of this action plan made it necessary to prioritize activities to match with available funds

• Increasing human population has resulted in fragmentation due to dividing farm plots for inheritance, in some cases beyond economic viability.

• Unreliable and erratic rainfall is reducing productivity of the system

• Changes in world market coffee price is reducing viability of the system. Exploration of new markets and promotion at local markets (including tourism) is urgently required

Conclusions and recommendations:

• Traditional agricultural systems have stood the challenges of environmental change and population growth. These agricultural systems have a large untapped source of knowledge, which could potentially contribute to improved land use and enhancement of food security

• In order to promote farmers’ developed techniques, deliberate efforts must be taken to first document what farmers are doing and work towards their improvement. The immediate future challenge is to raise awareness and understanding of these systems among decision makers and to build productivity and livelihood enhancing improvements into the present systems without destroying their unique advantages. However, initiatives must come from farmers, or in close collaboration, articulating key issues and proposals for the way forward.

2.5 The Maasai pastoral system The Maasai, a Nilo-Hamitic ethnic group living in Kenya and Tanzania are arguably one of the most famous and well known ethnic groups in Africa. In the somewhat exaggerated words of Thomas Spear “everyone knows the Maasai”. Earliest writings on the Maasai include travelogues by Gustav Fischer (Fischer, 1884) and Joseph Thomson (Thomson, 1885). Since then, literature on Maasai ranging from ethnographic accounts (Merker, 1910) to language (Mol, 1977) and customary law (Maguire, 1928) abound. A part of their oral literature has also been admirably recorded by a Maasai author (Kipuri, 1983). However, in spite of such extensive studies, there is generally no consensus among scholars on the origin of the Maasai. In the words of Dorothy L. Hodgson, Professor of Anthropology at Rutgers University, “Historians, archaeologists, linguists, and others are still exploring reconstructing, and debating the pre-colonial history of the Maasai. Central to their findings and ensuing debates and disagreements are their very definitions of Maasai identity.” (Hodgson, 2001:1) Although this study does not focus on identities of the Maasai, it is worthwhile mentioning on the outset that the study is confined on pastoral Maasai as opposed to other pastoralists. However, it is worth noting that pastoralism is practiced throughout Tanzania, and that the Maasai pastoralists are mostly in the north, but also in coastal and southern parts of the country, while agro-pastoral production features in the lake zone and the southern highlands. The regions where Maasai pastoralist production is the dominant economic activity are Arusha and Manyara (specifically Simanjiro and Kiteto districts for Manyara region and Ngorongoro, Monduli and Longido districts in Arusha region). Altogether, it is estimated that pastoralists and agro-pastoralists manage 61 million hectare (610,000 km2) of Tanzania’s landmass, and that they own approximately 18.5 million cattle, 13.1 million goats and 3.6 million sheep, or 90 % of the national herd (the third largest in Africa) (National Livestock Policy 2006). According to the 2003 National Census, there are 2.2 million people practising pastoralist or agro-pastoralist production in Tanzania.

Unlike the more sedentary agricultural tribes such as the Wanyakyusa and Wasukuma, the Maasai have no centralized leadership. Each smaller community is considered a functional unit that can manage its own affairs. This is probably to suit their mobility, which is a part and parcel of pastoral mode of production.

Pastoralism, then, has been described as an extensive system of animal production that involves varying degrees of mobility where families depend on livestock and their by-products for a significant level of their subsistence and income (UNDP 2008). The main distinguishing feature of the system is mobility, which is an intelligent response to the unpredictable weather and other ecological conditions of the rangelands, and includes reserving forage, optimizing on abundant grazing in areas where rain has fallen, avoiding drought and avoiding disease such as Ningana fever.

Among the Maasai, pastoralism is not only the source of livelihood but also an amalgam of culture, identity and knowledge. Most Maasai consider pastoralism to be their identity. Pastoralism plays a great role in day to day interactions. Friends and family relatives, for example, refrain from using their given names (culturally considered to be less formal and at times lack of respect) and instead opt to exchange say a goat or calf and passionately call each “Ndawo” (my calf), “Mbalelo-aiy” (my kid) etc. A very large segment of Maasai folklore, philosophy and taboos is derived from years of pastoralism.

The system is centered on interdependency between people and nature with widespread taboos and prohibitions against environmental degradation. This particular practice accounts for the presence of abundant wildlife in most of the pastoral areas in northern Tanzania, as killing or harming of wildlife is considered taboo. Scholars have tried to quantify the contribution of Pastoralism to the maintenance of spectacular landscapes, abundance of wildlife particularly large mammals and the ever thriving tourist industry as totaling 83.5 Billion US $ (Nelson 2012). The “attention grabbing” image of the Maasai has also contributed significantly to the thriving tourist industry in both countries (Nagol 2009).

A rich and dynamic indigenous and traditional knowledge system including long exposure to adapting to ever changing weather and rangeland conditions, has made it possible for pastoralism to survive in the harshest of environmental conditions in the rangelands of Tanzania (Laltaika and Faida 2010). The type of livestock kept by the community for close to a hundred years has become highly adapted to the local climatic and ecological conditions. Such adaptation brings in the interdependency between livestock and wildlife even closer. For example, it has been observed that the number of wildlife has dropped as a result of banning pastoralists from grazing in the Ngorongoro Crater in the 1970’s, among other places (Runyoro et al., 1995).

Food security and employment are probably the most important contributions of pastoralism to the welfare of the Maasai as a community. Researchers have pointed out that recent exodus of Maasai youths to big cities such as Dar es Salaam to work as night watchmen along with acute famines in most of the districts inhabited by the Maasai is closely linked to dwindling herds of livestock and land grabbing that makes it difficult for pastoralism to thrive. (Riley et. al. 2012)

In addition food security and employment as described above, pastoralism is estimated to contribute about 14% of Tanzania’s GDP. (Tenga et al 2008). It also contributes significantly to protein needs of the nation (Tenga et al 2008). In spite of all these, there is wide spread misinformation and xenophobia (to use the word used by Tenga, leading researchers in the field) against pastoralism resulting into unfriendly policies and laws that go as far as criminalizing many practices considered essential for pastoralism to thrive.

Two main paradigms have contributed to the current state of discrimination against pastoralism. These are Hardin’s tragedy of the commons theory (Hardin, 1968) and the ‘carrying capacity’ narrative (Pratt and Gwynne 1977). Tragedy of the commons asserts that due to the lack of property rights to the commons, the randomly and extensively used commons (which are also ineffectively governed) are bound to degradation due to lack of accountability. The carrying capacity on the other hand, presupposes that a given piece of land can carry only a given number of livestock. This concept is based on models from temperate lands, and requires an equilibrium environment with predictable rainfall for it to be effective. However, in environments such as the rangelands of Africa, where rainfall is unpredictable within and between seasons, carrying capacity as a concept does not make sense unless at tremendous scale (such as ‘East Africa’), because the productivity of pasture is dependent on rainfall, and livestock and wildlife need to move to where there is pasture to optimize on the grazing. At the same time, overgrazing cannot happen, as without water or grass, the cattle have to move or they will die. Despite science having disproven the theories of ‘tragedy of the commons’ and ‘carrying capacity’, these misconceptions persist with policy makers, and underpin the unhelpful policies and laws under which the pastoralists have to operate (Mattee & Shem 2006).

Laws and policies influenced by these two paradigms have sought to “modernize” pastoralists by encouraging destocking and fragmenting rangelands. Wildlife conservation policies have also been used to evict pastoralists from their lands to make way for national parks and forest reserves. Specific impacts of these policies and laws on pastoralism are discussed in the next chapter.

2.5.1 Summary of dynamic conservation of Maasai pastoral system GIAHS pilot project The Engaresero Village, by Lake Natron in Ngorongoro District has a surface area of 104,550 ha., a human population of 5,539, a livestock population of 15.000 (cattle), 46.000 (shoats). The environment is semi arid grassland, wooded grassland, forests and soda-lake shore. The area has a high tourism potential, with Oldonyo Lengai and the oldest homo sapiens footsteps, approximately 120.000 years old, it has waterfalls, wildlife and it is the breeding ground for the lesser flamingo (Mwaigomole 2012).

Outline of the pilot project for dynamic conservation of GIAHS in Engaresero

THE ACTION PLAN FOR CONSERVING PASTORAL SYSTEMS IN ENGARESERO 1) Develop standard site selection process and criteria; 2) Potential sites were evaluated: Engaresero village chosen as the pastoralist system is intact; 3) A Free Prior and Informed Consent5 procedure in the community was followed; 4) Threats and opportunities presented by the site were analyzed and a draft Community Action Plan was developed by the project team (national level partners); 5) The draft Community Action Plan was presented to the community, to indicate priorities and to include suggestions for its improvement; 6) The revised draft was presented to the Project Facilitating Committee (directors at ministry departments) and community for approval; 7) The community set up committees for each of the components of the action plan to work with the project team.

STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION Strengthen community institutions for planning, NRM and tourism: CBO established to manage Engaresero Village as a GIAHS area. Tasks are: to address challenges facing pastoralism (livestock diseases, water issues); to maintain community development fund; to manage the tourism enterprise; to ensure money accrued from tourism is used for the benefit of all community members. Improve management of pastures (was not implemented due to drought) Construction of 2 water dams. The designs for 2 dams are ready, EIA done awaiting EIA certificate and tendering. Improvement of animal health care. 43,872 livestock were treated for various common diseases and 2 cattle crushes constructed. Development of the area as a pastoral/cultural tourism destination. A community tourism development plan was developed; 30 tour guides trained to be employed by the CBO when tourists need guides; 5 walkie talkies, first aid kits and bicycles supplied. CBO makes USD 200 per day (low season) for the community fund and have 5,000 USD in the account. The Engaresero Cultural Tourism program was promoted at the Karibu Tourism Fair held in Arusha, June 2012. Women’s arts and crafts cooperative established. Women groups formed and 24 women trained on business management and product development including quality control, price setting and marketing. Transmission of traditional knowledge and community conservation through establishing an information center (museum/botanical garden) to showcase pastoralist practices, medicinal plants and items used in the pastoral way of life will be displayed as well as arts and crafts. TTB will build the

5 Under current international law, governments are obligated to consult Indigenous communities before any development affecting their lands and resources takes place, and even more broadly, any decisions directly affecting Indigenous Peoples and their self-determination require their consultation and consent. The UN Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples advises on the proper implementation of Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC): “The element of ‘free’ implies no coercion, intimidation or manipulation; ‘prior’ implies that consent is obtained in advance of the activity associated with the decision being made, and includes the time necessary to allow Indigenous Peoples to undertake their own decision-making processes; ‘informed’ implies that Indigenous Peoples have been provided all information relating to the activity and that that information is objective, accurate and presented in a manner and form understandable to Indigenous Peoples; ‘consent’ implies that Indigenous Peoples have agreed to the activity that is the subject of the relevant decision, which may also be subject to conditions.” museum and MFLD to provide piped water. Pastoralist Traditional Knowledge on environmental conservation was documented and a draft is available. 2000 flyers and 600 posters on pastoralism & advertising Engaresero as a tourist attraction developed & distributed. Recognition of the area as a National Heritage. Proposal for inclusion of GIAHS considerations in the national heritage act was submitted to MNRT.

Lessons learned from the pilot project supporting the Maasai Pastoralist system in Engaresero:  In Engaresero, the community has become cautious of outside actors as there are a range of external interests at play from the government, NCAA, RAMSAR, tourist companies, soda ash extraction plant development, hunting companies etc.  The Free Prior and Informed Consent procedure provided the transparency that allowed the project to be accepted and owned by the community. I.e. people realized that the pilot project gives direct support to the pastoralist production system and generate income from tourism to meet livelihood challenges  Cultural tourism in areas where pastoralists coexist with wildlife can improve economic wellbeing if pastoralists are empowered to manage and benefit from tourist attractions. Income generated through tourism can supplement the livestock economy and compensate for any eventual loss of access to grazing or water resources.  Many policy makers think that the Maasai pastoral land use systems degrade the environment. It is important to show and prove that the Maasai’s ecological knowledge, range management practices and livelihood system actually conserve wildlife, their habitats and the landscapes as a whole. Grazing patterns of livestock increase total range of resources available to wildlife. By supporting pastoralists address emerging challenges in a focused manner, improved conservation of wildlife, their habitats and landscapes can be achieved.

Challenges  Drought in 2008/09 and early 2011 meant that the activity on pasture improvement & hay bailing was postponed  Delays in the formulation of the CBO and its constitution and delays in approval of these by the district authorities.  District not keeping its agreement in handing over the authority to collect gate entry fees to Engaresero from tourists.  Poor standards of design and long EIA process delayed construction of the dam. To date the dam construction not been started

Conclusions and recommendations  The GIAHS initiative aims to identify and understand cultural practices and indigenous knowledge systems which shapes, conserve and manage the natural resources and their associated landscapes and biodiversity.  When assisting pastoral communities to dynamically safeguard good practices and knowledge systems GIAHS supports pastoral communities in meeting emerging challenges, which threaten both the pastoral systems, landscapes, biodiversity and livelihoods.  With a holistic approach, building on existing structures and practices in dialogue with local managers to move towards achieving sustainable natural resource management, is possible.  In order to provide appropriate support and promote sustainable pastoral production systems it is necessary to understand challenges and the principals governing the system, including the institutional systems in place and their contribution towards conservation, biodiversity, food security and the national economy.  GIAHS is playing a critical role in changing perceptions among policy makers and other actors. Collaboration with the government to “list” the project area as a national heritage under national heritage law will be a major success in this effort (Mwaigomole 2012).

3 Historical policy and practice perspective

3.1 Overview of policy and practice for smallholder production in Tanzania It is recorded that, in 1875, a German explorer named Karl Peters signed “treaties” with local tribes, convincing them to hand over their land to the Gesellschaftfür deutsche Kolonisation6 Upon recognition of such treaties by the then German Chancellor, Otto von Bismarck, the lands in question were declared part of a German Protectorate. Effective colonization began immediately, only to be brought to an end by the aftermath of the First World War (Iliffe, 1979:25). Pursuant to the Treaty of Versailles, the League of Nations assigned German colonies to the British. In 1919, the part that is now the Tanzanian mainland fell under the British colonial powers until 1961, when the country attained independence under the leadership of Mwalimu Julius Kambarage Nyerere. Tanzanian legal and policy history, therefore, can be divided into pre-colonial, colonial (German and then British), and post-independence periods. This part revise historical evolution of legal and policy instruments related to traditional agricultural systems particularly Chagga home gardens and Maasai Pastoralism from pre-colonial through colonial to independence period.

In the first 30 years of independence Tanzania implemented agricultural related policies, plans, strategies and programs. Initially in the 1960s agricultural policy was market-oriented interventions formulated and implemented according to Five Year Development Plans. With the 1967 Arusha Declaration, agricultural policy became government-led interventions, including nationalization of private sector enterprises responsible for major export commodities, state farms, state processing and marketing enterprises were established and Cooperative Unions controlled by the state. However around 1980 it was realized that these interventionist policies did not work in favor of the national economy. By mid-1980s, the government, supported by development partners, started economic and structural adjustments dismantling interventionist instruments in the economy including in the agricultural sector. Private sector became again active in the value chain of most agricultural and

6 Society for German colonization livestock products, producer price control was lifted, and state enterprises became privatized (URT 2011). These policy reforms are still in progress and will be covered in more detail in chapter four.

Historical change in policy, practice and governance is highlighted and related to evolution of the systems. Significant events impacting on important agricultural livelihood systems in Tanzania is given with particular focus on the Maasai pastoralist system and agro-forestry systems.

3.2 Historical events impacts on the Chagga homegarden system Kilimanjaro

Timeline: Key historical events with impacts on the Kihamba system

14-1500 The The Chagga migrated from Taita Region to the southern and eastern slopes of Mt. Chagga Kilimanjaro and started to transform the mountain mist forest into an agri-silvicultural people farming system migrate

1600 Trading Introduction of bananas is believed to have occurred in this period. (Koponen 1998 in caravans Soini s.d.) Maize cassava and sweet potatoes were bought by Portuguese and sugar brought cane from Asia with Arab traders (Krapf 1860; Moore & Puritt 1977) change

1893 Catholic Introduction of coffee as a cash crop led to major modifications to the Kihamba system. mission Rangelands were converted to coffee growing and made it necessary to stall feed introduce cattle, reducing milk production, as Zebu cattle are less suitable for stall feeding coffee

1912 The The arrival of the railway to Moshi opened the area up for large scale European railway colonization. It was particularly the grazing lands that were proclaimed vacant and arrived in taken over by Europeans ( Mtei 1974; Masseliere de la 1999 in Soini s.d.) Moshi

1950s Soon there were no longer unused land available suitable for home-gardens. Due to the Expansion of expansion of coffee planting, food crops moved down the slope to the lowland (Maro coffee as a 1974; Fernandes et al. 1984 in Soini s.d.). With a relative good income from coffee, cash crop farmers started purchasing improved cattle (Aminu-Kano et al. 1992 in Soini s.d.).

1960 Land No more lowland plots available close enough for farmers to travel from highland farms scarcity and return in a day ( Maro 1974 in Soini s.d.).

1961 With declaration of Tanzanian independence from British rule, new party and Independence government administrative units replaced earlier chiefs and chief’s councils. 1967 The agricultural policy environment became characterized by government-led The Arusha interventions. These included the nationalization of private sector enterprises Declaration throughout the value chain of major export commodities. This resulted in the establishment of state farms, state processing and marketing enterprises and state controlled Cooperative Unions (URT 2011).

1973-75 The Ujamaa program required people to abandon traditional systems and provide land Ujamaa for collective farms and create nucleus village settlements. The people on Kilimanjaro Villagisation resisted this program as it would be detrimental to their land use system. Therefore Programme resettlement under the Ujamaa Villagisation Programme was not implemented in the area and there were no implications on land use and ownership (Aminu-Kano et al 1992; Mlambiti 1985 in Soini s.d.) 2004 National agro- This important cross sector agro-forestry strategy, was never institutionalized in policy forestry and legislation. It is thought that this was due to funding from NORAD ended abruptly. strategy developed

3.3 Key events with impact on the Maasai pastoral system There is consensus among many historians that the Maasai had occupied a large part of the Kenyan and Tanzanian rangelands before the coming of colonialists. Their real and perceived war-like lifestyles7 (Krapf, 1860) had made most of their neighbors fearful of any attempt to invade Maasailand. As already expounded, pre-colonial Maasai pastoralism operated under customary law.

The coming of colonialists ushered a new era and commencement of anxiety among the Maasai both in Tanzania and in Kenya. German colonialists, influenced by existing literature on “ferocity” of the Maasai, decided to put them in a reserve. Harold Sippel, a German legal Historian recounts:

“In the case of pastoralists, e.g. the Maasai, a gigantic reserved area was established for the purpose of preventing the nomadic herdsmen from disturbing the rights of pasture of European and Boer farmers and from stealing white men’s cattle in Kilimanjaro region…the so called Maasai Reservant (Maasai reserve) created in 1907 in Arusha and Moshi districts, had a size roughly of 1,500.000 acres and approximately 11,300 inhabitants. But even this vast area was insufficient for feeding the enormous livestock of the Maasai Cattle-breeders. In spite of that fact the Maasai herdsmen were not allowed to leave their “protected areas” together with their cattle and they were punished by confiscation of cattle or by corporal punishment if they dared do so.”8 (Sippel 2004:18)

Like the Germans, the British also perpetuated the notion of “Maasai Reserve” in the pretext that it needed to restore the affluence of the once respected Maasai “tribe”. Although the “reserve” (later on named Maasai district), was expanded compared to the German period, it constituted mostly of arid and semi-arid lands with important water sources under private ownership of European settlers. A number of taxes and ad hoc administrative punishments were introduced to restrict movement beyond Maasailand (Hodgson 2001).

7Krapf, for example, describes the Maasai as 'truculent savages' who are 'dreaded as warriors, laying all waste with fire and sword, so that the weaker tribes do not venture to resist them in the open field . . .

After independence, the notion of “Reservant” or reserve was done away with (one would say deferred) as the constitution provided that any Tanzanian could freely move and live in the place of his choice within the United Republic of Tanzania.9 In 2002, however, this constitutional right was tested as the government of Tanzania, divided the Maasai into two separate regions of Arusha and Manyara. When the region was divided, the assumption was that the Maasai would still move freely back and forth from Arusha to Manyara and other regions. Recently, however, a number of regional commissioners have issued statements to the effect that Maasai herders and (other pastoralists) need to apply for a “permit” to move from one region to another in Tanzania.

Post-independence period is also characterized by widespread eviction of Maasai pastoralists from their ancestral lands mainly for wildlife conservation. The chart below shows key historical events affecting Maasai pastoralism.

Timeline 2: Key events with impacts on the Maasai pastoral system in Tanzania

1800 Arrival of the Maasai in the present day Tanzania (after a disagreement between migration Sendeu and Lenana on who should ascend to the hereditary throne of their father Batiany

1853-1867 The age of the first Ilnyangusi10. The Maasai conquer and occupy most of the highland occupation of region (Saitoti 1989) northern highlands

1890-1919 German colonization of Tanganyika. Maasai pastoralists are confined into a specially Tanganyika designated Maasai Reserve (Sippel 2004) under German rule

1920-1960 The British builds on the “Maasai reserve” notion and expands it to include present day Tanganyika districts of Longido, Monduli, Ngorongoro, Kiteto and Simanjiro. under British rule 1973-75 One of the primary purposes of Ujamaa was to establish collective villages “Vijijivya Ujamaa Ujamaa”. Although villagisation was not appropriate to the pastoral way of life, the Villagisation overall impact was minimal as pastoralists had to continue to use their extensive Programme livestock production systems in the rangelands and the program did not prohibit transhumance.

1961-1990 Eviction of the Maasai from their lands to pave way for wildlife conservation. Manyara,

9See Article 17 of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania 1977 as amended.

10 The Maasai are divided into age groups or “generations”. Ilnyangusiis is one of such age groups. For reasons not very clear among historians and anthropologists, the name Ilnyangusi was used more than 100 years later for yet another age group “Ilnyangusi 2” (also known as Irmakaa)

Conservation Serengeti, Tarangire, Mkomazi and other national parks that used to be a part of against the pastoralists lands were gazetted and the notion of no human residence in wildlife areas people was enforced The President issues circular directing measures to encourage sedentary lifestyles 2002 among pastoralists: This Directive (Warakawa Rais Namba 1 2002) directs district and Presidential regional authorities to take measures aimed at minimizing mobile pastoralism directive (ufugajiwaKuhamahama) in the country. Parliament of the United Republic of Tanzania passes the Grazing Lands Act. The law, 2010 based on the “livestock per unit” paradigm empowers the government to issue a three Law on year notice requiring a pastoralist to “harvest” a given number of his stock upon being grazing notified that his herd exceeds the required “unit”. (See Section 20).

4 Analysis of the national policy framework

4.1 The agricultural policy context in Tanzania Currently there is a strong focus on commercialization and scaling up investment and innovation for sustainable agricultural growth and food security in the agricultural policy environment in Tanzania. Large scale commercial farming is seen as an important way of increasing food production, which is actively supported through a number of initiatives under the overall heading ‘Kilimo Kwanza’ ‘Agriculture First’. Attention is paid to creating a facilitating environment for private investment in agriculture (Vorley et. al. 2012). The current approach for commercialization and scaling up in Tanzania has raised concern that small scale farmers are being ignored in the process. “The Tanzania’s green revolution grand plan (Kilimo Kwanza) is doomed to have little impact on the improvement of agriculture because the process of its preparation neglected the needs and priorities of small-scale producers,…” (The Citizen 2011)11. Small scale farmers are responsible for the main part of food production in Tanzania and women play a critical role, for example, women are reported to produce about 70 per cent of all food crops in Tanzania (Vorley et. al. 2012). The recent publication ‘Tipping the balance’ raise the following big questions related to inclusive sustainable development for commercial investment in agriculture: (a) whether that commercial investment will support, bypass, or marginalize small-scale producers and women; and (b) what role public policy can play in tipping commercial investment and the benefits of agricultural markets in the direction of pro-smallholder and pro-women models of development, while respecting the environment (ibid.). Therefore the key in policy and practice is that appropriate support is provided for the small scale sector as production supplies food products locally, nationally and internationally. The small scale and traditional agricultural sector provides employment for millions of people and contributes to food sovereignty12 at various levels. In

11 http://farmlandgrab.org/11954 http://thecitizen.co.tz/magazines/-/9137-new-agriculture-plan-ignores-small-farmers

12 "Food sovereignty" is about the right of peoples to define their own food systems. People who produce, distribute and consume food are at the centre of decisions on food systems and policies, rather than the demands of markets and corporations that have come to dominate the global food system. In 2007, delegates from across the world gathered for the international forum on food fact appropriate support to small scale producers can lead to quick impact and success as productive capabilities can be fairly simply enhanced by addressing specific needs identified by small scale producers. It is timely to take a look at how to complement the focus on large scale commercial farming and for that purpose the principles of ‘food sovereignty’ (see footnote 12) provide useful insights for broadening our understanding of smallholder agricultural producer priorities.

When developing policies to shape agricultural investment and markets in favour of small-scale farmers, five interrelated relevant areas are important, which are useful to keep in mind for the analysis of policy and smallholder agriculture:

• Policy matters – but currently policy is biased against smallholders A lack of appropriate policy and physical infrastructure tends to favour large-scale over small-scale farming by raising the cost of procuring produce from multiple scattered smallholdings. This is thought to be partly due to limited understanding of small scale agriculture combined with small scale producers do not have a strong enough voice and power to shift the balance

• Investment climates that support smallholder investment and corporate investments in agriculture, are not the same, though they have some elements in common In general, commercial investors are attracted by the returns that can be generated from large-scale agriculture, which may or may not include smallholders as out-growers.

• Policies must respond to the diversity of rural societies The challenge of promoting inclusive sustainable development in rural areas will remain unaddressed unless investment policies respond to the diverse needs and aspirations of the many different segments of rural societies. sovereignty, Nyeleni, in Sélingué, Mali. These delegates deepened their collective understanding of the key principles and published what is now known as the 6 pillars of food sovereignty [2]: 1. Focuses on Food for People: Food sovereignty puts the right to sufficient, healthy and culturally appropriate food for all individuals, peoples and communities, including those who are hungry, under occupation, in conflict zones and marginalised, at the centre of food, agriculture, livestock and fisheries policies; and rejects the proposition that food is just another commodity or component for international agri-business. 2. Values Food Providers: Food sovereignty values and supports the contributions, and respects the rights, of women and men, peasants and small scale family farmers, pastoralists, artisanal fisherfolk, forest dwellers, indigenous peoples and agricultural and fisheries workers, including migrants, who cultivate, grow, harvest and process food; and rejects those policies, actions and programmes that undervalue them, threaten their livelihoods and eliminate them. 3. Localises Food Systems: Food sovereignty brings food providers and consumers closer together; puts providers and consumers at the centre of decision-making on food issues; protects food providers from the dumping of food and food aid in local markets; protects consumers from poor quality and unhealthy food, inappropriate food aid and food tainted with genetically modified organisms; and resists governance structures, agreements and practices that depend on and promote unsustainable and inequitable international trade and give power to remote and unaccountable corporations. 4. Puts Control Locally: Food sovereignty places control over territory, land, grazing, water, seeds, livestock and fish populations on local food providers and respects their rights. They can use and share them in socially and environmentally sustainable ways which conserve diversity; it recognizes that local territories often cross geopolitical borders and ensures the right of local communities to inhabit and use their territories; it promotes positive interaction between food providers in different regions and territories and from different sectors that helps resolve internal conflicts or conflicts with local and national authorities; and rejects the privatisation of natural resources through laws, commercial contracts and intellectual property rights regimes. 5. Builds Knowledge and Skills: Food sovereignty builds on the skills and local knowledge of food providers and their local organisations that conserve, develop and manage localised food production and harvesting systems, developing appropriate research systems to support this and passing on this wisdom to future generations; and rejects technologies that undermine, threaten or contaminate these, e.g. genetic engineering. 6. Works with Nature: Food sovereignty uses the contributions of nature in diverse, low external input agroecological production and harvesting methods that maximise the contribution of ecosystems and improve resilience and adaptation, especially in the face of climate change; it seeks to heal the planet so that the planet may heal us; and, rejects methods that harm beneficial ecosystem functions, that depend on energy intensive monocultures and livestock factories, destructive fishing practices and other industrialised production methods, which damage the environment and contribute to global warming. • Effective implementation is vital There is a major gap between good policy intentions and what is happening on the ground. Policy and law can be supportive, but without adequate financing of efficient implementation will not make required impact.

• Politics matter Vested interests undermine socially optimal outcomes. At times implementation may be skewed by in favour of powerful interests (Vorley et. al. 2012).

Ideas and interests of small scale farmers represented in agricultural related policy and law in Tanzania was recently described as follows. Smallholder farmers in general and women in particular lack in contributing to the process of formulation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation/review of policies. This is due to the processes not being participatory enough to capture the views, outcries, concerns, frustrations and other burning issues of representative smallholder farmers in general and women in particular. Policy making processes typically take place in urban ministries‘ offices, and hotels in male-dominated decision-making environments where voices of smallholder farmers in general and women in particular are not adequately represented, if at all (Ibid.).

However barriers to representing small scale farmer priorities are gradually being overcome, as recently some smallholder farmer organizations and CSO’s in Tanzania, such as MVIWATA and ANSAF, as well as some members of parliament and parliamentary working groups are raising smallholder farmer issues of priority in forums where policies are made and reviewed (Ibid.). Furthermore ideally policy making and reviews must start at the grassroots where members of farming communities articulate their concerns, which then feed into policy formulation processes, which will help ensure that policies address local issues appropriately (Pact 2005). Various manuals and guidelines are available on policy law and governance as well as on advocacy processes on how best to influence policy making (Ibid.)

4.2 Tanzania policies and legislation Findings below show that policy and legislation in support of GIAHS and small scale farming in Tanzania have scope for improvements. Although there is mention of indigenous knowledge, agro-forestry and organic farming as well as support to alternative farming systems, however there are no direct policy statements showing how concrete support be provided. Furthermore policies may impact differently on small holder agricultural production systems or policies may at best be indifferent. In this section we identify and present some examples of strengths, shortcomings, gaps etc., including some commitments in international conventions. The section finally presents a matrix with strengths, weaknesses and opportunities of policies, laws, plans, strategies and conventions relating to GIAHS. First we look at a few concrete examples from relevant policies.

The Agricultural and livestock policy 1997 mentions indigenous knowledge once in relation to research and extension (p.10) and the ministry will promote agro-forestry and organic farming is mentioned once (p.31). Pastoralists are more frequently mentioned, both in supportive terms and in more restrictive terms. The National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA) for Tanzania suggests that Alternative Farming Systems is an important resource (p. 9 and 34) and suggest Promoting indigenous knowledge (p. 34 Sector: Agriculture and Food Security (including Livestock)).

The Tanzania’s Forest Policy 1998 encourages Agro-forestry practices and recognizes the contribution of trees outside forests in agricultural production and for conservation. However the Forest Act 2002 has provisions related to tree tenure, which constrain Agro-forestry practices: The minister can declare any indigenous species a “reserved tree” regardless of where they grow. The Forest Act protects trees from cutting and removal without permission, which can have limiting effect on investments in planting or retention of “reserved trees”.

The Cultural Heritage Policy 1997 states under the heading 3.5 Cultural and Environmental Conservation in section 3.5.1 Traditional knowledge, skills and technology which are environmentally friendly shall be identified and their use encouraged. However, how this cultural policy intention can be implemented in the Agricultural sector may be a challenge. A Cultural Heritage Act is being drafted, but official permission is awaited to go ahead and complete the process.

The National Agro-forestry Strategy (NAS) 2004 supports Agro-forestry (AF) and GIAHS. The strategy is designed to scale up the use and spread of AF techniques. NAS envisions that 4 mill HH will adopt and benefit from AF practices by 2025.

The goal of NAS complements Tanzania’s Development Vision 2025 and the National Strategy for Growth and Poverty Reduction (MKUKUTA), which aim to increase HH income while conserving the environment.

However, the National Agro-forestry Strategy has major limitations. The process funded by NORAD, ended abruptly and the institutionalization in policy and legal frameworks for its cross sector implementation has not yet been completed.

It was the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security (MAFS) & Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism (MNRT) that constituted the National Agro-forestry Steering Committee (NASCO) in 1993 and NASCO formulated the National Agro-forestry Strategy.

Although MAFS & MNRT recognize the importance of a strategy to guide implementation of Agro- forestry and NASCO to oversee this, there is no structure to institutionalize the NAS and NASCO in national policy and legal frameworks.

Tanzania is a signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity,13 there are no measure taken to protect traditional ecological knowledge of the Maasai and other local communities. The dominant thinking is to consider local communities as a nuisance and cause for environmental degradation. It is submitted that for the current community based conservation reforms to succeed, community rights of

13 Article 8(j) of which obliges member states to protect traditional knowledge of local and indigenous communities embracing traditional lifestyles. the locals must be acknowledged and safeguarded. This is also true as far as the protection of cultural heritage is concerned. The latter is the subject matter of our discussion in this section.

Like policies, legislation relevant to GIAHS also has scope for improvement. This subsection analyses relevant laws with the intention of showing their strengths, weaknesses and gaps, the laws have been grouped into five parts namely those related to (i) land tenure (ii) Traditional knowledge and Genetic resources (iii) Cultural heritage (iv.) Agriculture, livestock development and food security (v) Natural resources and the environment

(1) Land tenure

The most relevant land laws for the purposes of this study are the Land Act and Village Land Act 1999. The two Acts read together lay down the foundation for administration of land issues in Tanzania. The Land Act vests all land in Tanzania under the President as a trustee and goes on to provide for three categories of land namely Village Land, Public Land and Reserved Land. Based on this categorization, Village Land is administered by Village Councils as per provisions of the Village Land Act. The main strength of this legal regime when it comes to GIAHS is that village assemblies and village land committees are empowered to make binding land use plan decisions on their land. Pastoral communities can decide to carry out land use plans and decide to set aside their lands for pastoralism as opposed to cultivation. Likewise, Kihamba systems can be strengthened through local arrangements without “consent” from higher authorities. According to the Land (Conditions of Right of Occupancy) Regulations, 2001 land granted for the purpose of say pastoralism must mandatorily be used for pastoralism. This legal position offers a window of opportunity for Maasai pastoralists, for example, to choose investors whose investments do not cause unnecessary inconvenience on pastoralism.

The main weakness of the current land law regime is lack of security on collective rights to land. Although the law permits issuance of certificates of “customary” land rights, they are often at times applied for by individuals as opposed to a community. There is, therefore, room for conflicts between “individual” and collective rights to land. Based on tenets of property rights protected by the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania, lack of specific provisions on group rights to land is prejudicial to pastoralism. A researcher on land rights (Rutten 1992) taking the Kajiado area in Kenya as a case study, has equated such individualization of land rights (where individuals acquire constitutional rights to protect their land from “trespassers”) to “selling wealth to buy poverty”.

This report notes with appreciation recent attempts by the Ujamaa Community Resource Team (UCRT) to apply for group rights of marginalized communities particularly the Hadzabe Hunter-gatherers. Although a certificate has been issued, the decision to do so was based on an administrative discretion (to protect the Hadzabe from intruders) rather than a position of the law. It is proposed that the forthcoming constitution provides specifically for group rights to land for pastoralist and other communities.

(2) Traditional Knowledge and Genetic Resources The main legislation for promoting science, technology and innovation related to GIAHS are the Patent Act 1987 and Plant Variety Protection (Plant Breeders Rights) Act 2002. Like most of the Intellectual Property (IP) laws in Africa, these two Acts are a relic of Tanzania’s colonial past whereby policies aimed at plundering and looting resources without encouraging local ingenuity. The Patent Act provides for protection of inventions which are new, involves an inventive step and are industrially applicable. This criterion does not give room to protection of indigenous knowledge systems and innovations based on traditional knowledge. The Plant Variety Protection (Plant Breeders Rights) Act, likewise, is based on western tenets of innovation thus it favors modern plant breeders at the expense of traditional communities and their land races.

Save for scanty provisions in the Forestry Act 2002 and the National Environment Management Act 2004, there is no specific law to protect genetic resources associated with traditional knowledge of local and indigenous communities in Tanzania. As a result, there is no incentive among communities to preserve genetic resources of their livestock (as evidenced by heightened desires to “modernize” livestock breeds among the Maasai) and their agro-biodiversity (as exemplified by the Chagga who have recently developed a tendency to clear off their coffee and plant tomatoes and other seasonal crops).

The impact of genetic erosion on food security cannot be over emphasized. Among the Maasai pastoralists, for example, locally adapted livestock have more than 50% chances of surviving through drought than their newly introduced counterparts including “high yield” breeds (TAPHGO 2009). Likewise traditional kihamba system offers not only food needed at family level but also enough forage for cows.

It is submitted that concerned government functionaries should devise mechanisms to promote the use of and protect traditional knowledge and associated genetic resources.

(3) Cultural heritage

The legal regime for protecting cultural heritage in Tanzania is comprised of among other legislation, the Antiquities Act 1964, National UNESCO National Commission Act 2008, and the National Museums Act 1980. All these Acts red together form the basis for preservation and promotion of cultural and traditional practices of national or local significance. Specifically, the Antiquities Act provides for preservation and protection of sites and articles of paleontological, archaeological, historical or natural interest. The UNESCO National Commission Act, likewise, establishes a commission charged with implementing UNESCO activities in Tanzania. It is well known that UNESCO’s mission includes but not limited to preservation and protection of sites with international cultural and natural significance. Finally the National Museums Act establishes the national museum whose primary function is collecting, conserving, displaying and researching on all materials relating to Tanzania’s Cultural and Natural heritage. We submit that both Maasai pastoralism and Kihamba are a part of the cultural heritage of Tanzania.

The term culture does not command a universally accepted definition. However, a definition that comes closer to the purposes of this study provides that culture is “that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capacities and habits acquired by man as a member of society.” We prefer this definition due to its incorporation of knowledge thus supporting the thesis for protecting traditional knowledge as discussed in 2 above. The term tradition on the other hand, has been defined as “values, practices, outlooks and institutions that one generation within any given society inherits from the generation(s) that preceded it.” As already provided in the introductory remarks to this study both pastoralism and the Kihamba systems are significant cultural heritage practices whose history goes back more than 100 years. It is advised that pastoralism in Ngaresero be preserved as a UNESCO landscape of international significance.

(4) Agriculture, Livestock development and Food Security

Many laws in Tanzania have a bearing, direct or indirect on agriculture, livestock development and food security. The most relevant for the purposes of this study include the Food Security Act of 1991, the Seeds Act of 2003, The Plant Protection Act of 1997, and the Protection of New Plant Varieties (Plant Breeders Rights) Act, 2002. The main strength of these laws when it comes to GIAHS is the fact that in one way or another they all aim at enhancing food security. According to the FAO, food security exists when ‘all people, at all times, have access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life’ (FAO, 1996:2). According to this definition, the two most important factors for food security are accessibility and availability. Food insecurity, therefore, is a result of a lack of either food accessibility, or unavailability, or both. The right to food (which encompasses both availability and accessibility) is recognized as a fundamental human right in international law. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR, 1945) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR, 1966), among other international law instruments, provide for the right to adequate food. According to the African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights (African Commission), state parties must protect access to food from interference by powerful third parties. (Mbazira 2004)

As already discussed, in chapter one, both pastoralism and the Kihamba systems are food security “safety valves” for communities concerned. It is submitted therefore that the government of Tanzania takes deliberate steps to implement the GIAHS project in order to enhance food security which, as discussed, is a fundamental human right.

(5) Natural Resources and the Environment

Environmental and natural resource related laws relevant for this study are the Wildlife Act of 2009, the Forestry Act 2002 and the Environmental Management Act 2004. The importance of these laws for the success of GIAHS in Tanzania cannot be over emphasized. The interdependence between livestock and wildlife in Maasai rangelands has already been described. Agro-forestry, on the other hand, cannot be discussed in isolation from forestry laws in general. The main strength of these laws in the light of GIAHS is incorporation of community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) principles. CBNRM has been described as a “paradigm shift” in the conservation circles departing from the colonial “fines and fences” to more collaborative approaches where communities are regarded as partners and not enemies of conservation. While CBNRM has undoubtedly managed to put a silver lining in the public relation landscape of many protected areas which hitherto epitomized enmity between conservation officials on one hand and local communities in and around protected areas on the other, it has not solved all our conservation problems.

Progress in Ecology and conservation sciences in general inform that sustainability of life on the planet requires more than setting aside areas of land for conservation. The field of Ecology informs that in an interdependent world there are critical processes that provide life support to living things in the form of air, water, timber, nutrients and even recreation to mention but a few. Not only are these provisions critical for the maintenance of life but they also cannot be contained in one place thus rendering the “protected areas” model of protection less useful.

Economists, on the other hand, have managed to quantify and come up with an economic value of such services. Considering such nature provisions public goods whose maintenance is beneficial to all, economists have suggested a model to incentivize protection of such services in the form of payment for ecosystem services. This study has already shown that pastoralism contributes significantly to the success of tourism in northern Tanzania. It is also undeniable that the Kihamba system protects much needed trees and vegetation for regulation of whether, water catchment and acting as carbon sinks. It is submitted therefore that payment for ecosystem services schemes be designated to incentivize the Maasai and Chagga communities continue practice pastoralism and Kihamba systems respectively for the benefit of the whole country.

4.3 International conventions related to environment and natural resources The UN conventions on desertification, biodiversity and climate change in general terms, seek to mobilize the political will to bring about sustainability in the management of the life supporting systems found in the earth’s natural resources. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in particular in Article 10c directly supports traditional agricultural systems by stating: “protect and encourage customary use of biological resources in accordance with traditional cultural practices that are compatible with conservation or sustainable use requirements” and further in Article 8j: “respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity”.

Matrix of policies, laws, plans strategies and conventions relating to GIAHS

Law /Policy/ Strength Weakness Opportunity International Convention Constitution of Protects fundamental Contains many “draw back Tanzania is in the process the United rights and freedoms clauses” whereby many if of rewriting its Republic of including the right to not most of the constitution, which is an Tanzania 1977 movement fundamental human rights important opportunity for are qualified, enforceable inclusion of new provisions “subject to the laws of the land” Village Land Act, Empowers villagers to form Does not guarantee Section 29 obliges 1999 land committees and carry collective ownership of land customary land users to out land use plans at the thus endangers the future of use the land sustainably village level pastoralism due to and in accordance with rangelands fragmentation. land use forms prevalent in the area. Wildlife Offers villagers an Does not recognize the Research on the role of Conservation opportunity to benefit interdependence and livestock in shaping Act 2009 from wildlife conservation historical coexistence landscapes and maintaining through Wildlife between wildlife and forage can help change the Management Areas (WMA) livestock. attitude schemes Forest Act 2002 Protects Genetic Resources Does not provide protection Forest committees through requiring a permit for traditional knowledge established by the act (at for all researchers on forest related to such genetic village level) can use other products resources such as traditional government functionaries medicinal knowledge to protect traditional knowledge along with genetic resources The protection Aims at protecting new Protection is granted to As Tanzania is not a of New Plants plant varieties to enhance plants which are Distinctive, member of the UPOV varieties ( plant food security Uniform and Stable (DUS (Union for Protection of Breeders Rights) test) and this leaves out land Plant Varieties) there is an Act, 2002 races which are pillars of opportunity to amend the plant genetic resources for law without contravening food and agriculture in this international developing countries convention The Patent Act Protects and promotes Adopts a western style of The law can be amended to of 1987 inventiveness in Tanzania identifying an invention provide for Disclosure of through the New, Inventive Origin (DOO) of genetic and Industrially applicable resources for patent method thus locking out applicants on inventions traditional knowledge based based on genetic resources inventions obtained in Tanzania The Plant Regulates importation of Does not contain specific Can be used to designate protection Act new plant varieties to provisions for protecting zonal measures to protect 1997 protect plants in Tanzania indigenous plants indigenous trees against against harmful invasive invasive species

species Agricultural and Mentions indigenous There is no coherent It is timely to follow up and Livestock Policy knowledge once in relation statements showing how expand and operationalize 1997 to research and extension concrete support be these important areas for and promotion of agro- provided agricultural development forestry and organic farming once National Climate The plan suggests that Financial constraints have The plan focus on 14 Change Alternative Farming restricted the coverage of priority areas amongst Adaptation Systems are an important the plan. Plan is submitted others water conservation, Programme of resource and suggests for Funding to United water harvesting and Action (NAPA) promoting indigenous Nations Framework recycling as well as knowledge in Agriculture, Convention on Climate community catchment Food Security and Livestock Change (UNFCCC) and it is conservation Sector hoped that other development partners will assist Tanzania Forest The Policy encourage Agro- The Forest Act protects Careful review of this Policy 1998 and Forestry practices and indigenous species as provision and propose Forest Act 2002 recognizes the contribution “reserved trees” regardless adjustments to ensure that of trees outside forests in of where they grow. Which the act provide incentives agricultural production and can act as a disincentive for for planting and retaining conservation planting and retaining “reserved trees” on “reserved trees” on farmland farmland The Cultural Traditional knowledge, How this is to be A Cultural Heritage Act is Heritage Policy skills and technology which implemented in the being drafted. It is 1997 are environmentally agricultural sector may be a important to monitor the friendly shall be identified challenge. process and make relevant and their use encouraged. contributions. The National Designed to scale up the The Agro-forestry Strategy It should be examined if Agro-forestry use and spread of Agro- has not been NAPA can be used as Strategy (NAS) forestry (AF) techniques. institutionalized in policy leverage for securing funds 2004 NAS envision that 4 mill HH and law, due to abrupt end for policy and law will adopt and benefit from to funding. development for AF AF practices by 2025 development The National MKUKUTA aims to increase The important statement in The next round of Strategy for HH income while MKUKUTA 1, on pastoralism consultation (in????) Growth and conserving the being a sustainable should see civil society environment united to support Poverty livelihood has been left out. Reduction Tanzania’s small scale (MKUKUTA) investors and producers to increase growth and reduce poverty in the country Convention on CBD protect and encourage Tanzania has taken no Tanzania is a signatory to Biological customary use of biological measure to protect the Convention on Diversity (CBD) resources compatible with traditional ecological Biological Diversity, which conservation or sustainable knowledge of local provides a commitment to use and respect, preserve communities, and the incorporate the CBD’s and maintain knowledge, Convention has not been provisions into Tanzania innovations and practices domesticated Policy and Law or of indigenous communities ‘domesticate’ the convention National The livestock policy is biased A policy that undermines Livestock Policy against agro-pastoralism the livestock economy will 2006 and pastoralism. It ascribes have negative impacts on them to practice food security and the uncontrolled mobility, poor national economy, if animal husbandry practices, implemented. It is to have poor livestock therefore important that a genetic resources, better understanding of accumulation of livestock the current highly and no market orientation. productive systems informs This is despite extensive the development of a new consultation with civil policy, and appropriate society during policy support is given to the formulation. livestock economy of the country.

5 Best practices and lessons learned in relation to GIAHS

5.1 The importance of learning lessons for improving practice There are a number of examples of sustainably managed systems, which serve to inform policy and practice. There are also examples of conversion of GIAHS to modern cropping systems, which have resulted in environmental and social disaster. A number of lessons have been learned over time showing that the GIAHS systems are very difficult or at times impossible to replace with other agricultural systems. In 1970 the Canada supported wheat scheme in Hanang converted Barabaig pastoral grazing land to mechanized farms for growing wheat, which had detrimental social and environmental impacts14.

Clearing Faidherbia albida trees in cultivated fields to grow hybrid maize, in the agro-silvopastoral system, caused water logging, making cultivation impossible (Olsen 1992). Severe soil erosion was observed and became a serious problem when replacing the Kihamba agro-forestry system with mono- cropping on the slopes of Mt. Kilimanjaro (Banzi 2012).

However when projects have learned to build on local knowledge and practice good results has been achieved. The Ngorongoro Pastoralist Project is a good example and the GIAHS pilot project sites in Ngaresero and in Shimbwe Juu, show how an applied focused approach can reverse deteriorating trends in the systems and restore viable economies. Two other examples of how to build on good practices, that is payment for ecosystem services in Simanjiro district and multiple land use in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area (NCA) may also provide useful examples of good practice and could be useful for

14 “In Tanzania a Canadian aided wheat scheme is causing even greater concern. Since it began in 1970, Canada has committed $44 million to the project with the hope that the Tanzanian Government will be able to run it independently in the foreseeable future. Yet the prospect of that is nil. In addition, $1.5 million was spent on equipment for each of the six farms in the Hanang district (totalling 60,000 acres). “The land for the wheat schemes was taken from the Barabaig, a pastoral people who both occupied and grazed their cattle on the land. They have now been forced to overgraze on the surrounding land. The schemes themselves are far too intensive for the area, and a report on Agricultural and Livestock Production in Arusha Region noted with alarm that the technology being applied to these large scale fully mechanised operations is alarmingly similar to the technology used in western Canada which contributed to the catastrophic soil erosion (dust bowls) of the 1930s. “The farms are laid out prairie style with no allowance for tropical downpours. Erosion is already severe as huge gullies cut through the fields – indeed £22,000 was spent on one farm trying to fill such a gully, without success. This catalogue of disasters might be excusable if the schemes were at least producing wheat on a comparable scale. In fact, Tanzania is now estimated to be producing less wheat than when the project began, and any prospects of even sustaining production without massive inputs are bleak.” (Tanzanian Affairs 1986) informing future policies. However, a thorough mapping of GIAHS in Tanzania is needed, providing detailed information of strengths, weaknesses and opportunities, so as to provide a sound basis on which to learn lessons and develop good approaches and practices that will strengthen these valuable important agricultural systems.

5.2 Restocking, Ewoloto, practiced in Ngorongoro Pastoralist Project The Ngorongoro Pastoralist Project (NPP) 1998-2008 was originally initiated due to widespread poverty among the habitants of NCA, with more than half of the population living below the poverty line. The project supported the pastoralist Maasai in bringing their pastoralist production system back to viable levels. The project worked in four areas, namely: Water development and rehabilitation for livestock and human consumption; Support to private veterinary services including community animal health workers; Empowering local institutions and communities and restocking destitute families making use of the existing Maasai mechanism for restocking, Ewoloto. Ewoloto is a traditional form of mutual assistance, where clans restock poor family members so as to allow them to build up a herd that can sustain the household. In order to initiate project assistance the community donated livestock to the destitute family, then the project matched the number of livestock given – for project purposes the agreed limit was 9 livestock units. Maize was also given to ease the recipients making the transition while waiting for animals to mature and become productive. This example of building on traditional structures led to strengthening community values and to communities finding new and innovative ways of tackling poverty and improving livelihoods. The use of traditional institutions, worked to help people solve problems of poor households burdening the community as a whole to again become self reliant, live with dignity and make contributions to society (Sorensen and Kipuri 2005).

5.3 Strengthening Community Forums The 'Community Forums' is a joint initiative coordinated by the Tanzania Natural Resources Forum (TNRF) and Ujamaa Community Resource Trust (UCRT). Both organizations work to improve accountability, transparency and local empowerment in natural resource management governance. The community forum was established in 2007 as a partner project between the two organizations with funding from the Ford Foundation, and with support from other partner organizations (eg. PINGOs and Pastoralist Women Council) to combine their efforts to better address overlapping goals. The community forums were established to achieve improved natural resource governance at the local level, increase information flow across communities and between communities and government (local, regional and national) as well as between communities and civil society, and increase involvement of local communities in national policy debates. The community forums help to bridge the gap between national policies and local governance, while striving for improved, transparent, and informed natural resource management, with a focus on pastoralist communities. It introduces the important idea that women can be leaders in communities where men have dominated customary leadership. It provides a commonly recognized and accepted forum for women to get together, discuss their problems and to think through possible solutions. As recognized leaders, and as an accepted forum, women now have the power to propose solutions to government leaders as well as customary leaders in the larger community forum. While most women living in villages are poor and desire development projects, they see the forum as just as, if not more important than, more specifically economic-based development interventions. The forum could act as a gate way for improved, appropriate, more efficient and accountable community development (Goldman 2010).

5.4 Payment for ecosystem services in Simanjiro The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) defines Ecosystem Services as “the benefits people obtain from Ecosystems“. These are the conditions and processes derived from ecological complexities through which nature “sustains human life“(Daily 1977). An ecosystem presupposes a geographical area of a variable size where plants, animals, the landscape and the climate all interact together. Four broad categories of ecosystem services have been identified. These are (i) provisioning: e.g. production of food and water (ii) regulating: such as control of climate and diseases (iii) supporting: nutrient cycles and pollination (iv) Cultural: i.e. spiritual and recreational benefits particularly tourism. It should be noted that ecosystem services can be national, regional or global as in the case of the Congo Rain Forests as well as other forest areas acts as “Carbon sinks“ and regulates climatic conditions of a number of Central African counties.

Due to increasing threats facing many of the most critical ecosystems worldwide, economic attempts have been made to quantify their value in order to encourage protection. The main approaches are Total Economic Value (TEV) and Indirect Use (IU). The TEV approach for example, puts in monetary terms what it would cost a local authority (such as a municipality) to replace a wetland with a water purification plant once a wetland has been tampered with. Wetlands’ main functions include water purification. Indirect Use on the other hand, provides pecuniary estimates of the costs due to absence of a particular recreational facility. Payment for ecosystem services therefore can be seen as a concept that seeks to create incentives or compensation/payment schemes to encourage resource users to look after ecosystems and also to pay for their cost of maintaining the ecosystem services (Pagiola and Platais 2002) According to the IUCN Academy of Environmental Law, PES tackles the twin issues prevalent in most developing countries namely poverty and environmental degradation.

In the Simanjiro plains of the Maasai steppe a PES arrangements, named Conservation Easement has been introduced working as an innovative incentive for land and wildlife stewardship, where communities receive payment as compensation for not farming the land (Ujamaa Community Resource Team 2012). This conservation easement is practiced in Simanjiro district particularly Terrat Village (Sachedina and Nelson 2010). Information obtained from residents of Simanjiro points to the fact that this is an example to be emulated by other tourism stakeholders (Rokonga 2012). In this particular scheme the village authority in Terrat receives monetary incentives (amount not confirmed) to formally prohibit farming in an area that acts as a breeding ground for wildebeest.

5.5 The Multiple land use concept in Ngorongoro Conservation Area (NCA) The Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority, (NCAA) a body established by the Ngorongoro Conservation Act of 1959 to administer the area, attempts to work hand in hand with local communities through the Pastoralists Council. The area is a multiple land use area where Maasai pastoralists practice their livestock economy alongside wildlife populations and a growing tourism industry attracted to the unique cultural landscape around the Ngorongoro Crater and archaeological sites and the Maasai pastoralists, who exhibit themselves, their culture and crafts in cultural bomas. The main weakness or impediment to CBNRM in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area is the more than fifty year old colonial legislation (The Ngorongoro Conservation Act 1959) which concentrates all powers to the NCAA. According to Shivji & Kapinga:

“An examination of the power of the [Ngorongoro Conservation Area] Authority under the 1959 Ordinance (now Act) reveals typical powers of a governmental authority, namely, executive powers and legislative powers, under which the authority may make rules of a general and special nature in relation to the management and affairs of the area, as well as over the conduct of the residents within the NCA. The Authority also has quasi-judicial powers in respect of powers by the conservator (or his nominee) or against orders made under the Ordinance.”

There is a need to amend the law to incorporate democratic principles of an independent country. The amended law should address principles of CBNRM, which has been developed over recent decades to involve communities in day to day governance activities of conservation areas and rights to secure livelihoods of the community without which sustainability of the environment is endangered. The re- imposition of the ban on subsistence farming in 2009, for example, has not only led to famine among communities but also threatens the integrity of social and cultural organizational structures of the Maasai community. In times of severe hardship the cultural taboo against eating wildlife could be weakened.

In spite of these weaknesses, the NCA remains an example of an institutional arrangement for the coexistence between people and wildlife. The most important step at the moment for NCA to become sustainable is to amend the legislation to provide for PES schemes for compensating local inhabitants for not cultivating in the area and provide an acceptable welfare. As NCA is among the highest tourist revenue earner in East Africa there are no good economic reasons for not having a fair PES scheme working in NCA. Cultivation is considered to be a threat to wildlife conservation, while pastoralism is seen to be compatible.

6 Conclusions and recommendations

6.1 Conclusions Tanzania’s small scale agricultural production systems, including GIAHS, produce a wide range of food products as well as fodder and wood products where agro-forestry is part of the system. All in all they are essential contributors to food and livelihood security and to Tanzania’s economy as a whole. Furthermore they provide employment, contribute to ecosystem integrity, sustainable management of biodiversity and environmental services and are an important part of our wealth at local, national and international levels, both in terms of production and the ecological knowledge held by the men and women managing the systems on a daily basis. Agricultural systems in fragile environments fulfill essential key roles in combining the provision of food and livelihoods through wise use of natural resources. In turn land managers practice sustainable management of the environment also for the benefit of downstream users, including adaptive management to combat and minimize impact of climate change. These systems are living examples of how people’s experiences have been refined and tested through trial and error and have become practical knowledge, techniques and expertise, which are held by individuals, groups of specialists and the community as a whole.

The knowledge has become culturally embedded in local practice and maintenance of quality depends on amongst other the integrity of the ecosystem, the economic context and the integrity of community organizational structures and institutions.

These agricultural production systems are in fact in most cases irreplaceable, as the adaptations made within the natural limits of the ecosystem over time by communities (taking into consideration the market and other external factors), have become balanced agricultural systems which are well suited to the particular ecosystem and socio-economic context. Therefore it is important to note that replacing these systems with modern agricultural methods is in most cases not a viable option, as it may devastate local livelihoods and sustainable management of the environment. Likewise inadequate policies undermine the integrity of GIAHS and other small scale farming systems, the viability of the economy and also weaken climate change resilience and the capacity to adapt to CC challenges. Furthermore small scale intensive agriculture is in many cases more productive than extensive large scale monoculture farms, and for that reason, seen in a national economic perspective, deserves and requires appropriate support in policy and practical implementation in terms of production, marketing and infrastructure development to fulfill its potential role and contribute optimally to food production and national economies.

Although attention is paid to small scale producers to some extent, generally Tanzania’s policy framework currently favors modernization, which implies commercialized, high input agricultural production and desires change in technological capacities and approaches. However, it is also arguable that coherent and specifically targeted support to small scale agricultural production systems with enabling policy and legal frameworks, financed and implemented will potentially boost small scale agricultural production substantially, improve environmental services and rural livelihoods and food security as well as contributing to reduced poverty.

The ongoing review of Tanzania’s Constitution is an important ‘window of opportunity’ for GIAHS and small scale producers.15 This important opportunity for a policy intervention in Tanzania will be to work with the constitutional review process and seek to have the concerns of small scale crop and livestock producers articulated and incorporated in the new Tanzanian Constitution. The rationale for such a statement, unconditionally supporting small scale agricultural production systems in Tanzania is that small scale agricultural production is the backbone of the Tanzanian economy, provide employment, food and livelihood security, reduce poverty, maintains valuable ecological knowledge and part of cultural identities. The production systems are specifically adapted to prevailing ecological, social and economic conditions, therefore small scale agricultural production systems deserve recognition irrespective of their level of integrity at present. The rationale is that challenged agricultural systems, provided with the required support can again function optimally and contribute fully to local and

15 It is widely believed that the relative success of Community Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) in Namibia in part can be contributed to the fact that CBNRM is supported by Namibia’s constitution. national food and livelihood security and supply regional, national and international markets where appropriate.

Evidence from the GIAHS pilot project areas has shown that land managers are knowledgeable about the many intricate dynamic management issues at local level. Therefore policy making and reviews must start at the grassroots where the relevant people concerned articulate their concerns, which then are fed into policy formulation. This will help ensure that policies are efficiently addressing local issues appropriately.

6.2 Recommendations 1) Showcase outstanding examples: It makes good sense to provide support in policy and practice to showcase and support outstanding examples of viable land and landscape husbandry. Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems with significant agricultural productivity, provision of environmental services such as water catchment conservation, biodiversity conservation and carbon sequestration, if given appropriate support will ensure future viability. 2) Existing jurisdiction and tenure arrangements must be recognized: Common for any selection for support of GIAHS must recognize existing jurisdiction in terms of management decisions, land and resource access rights and other such important tenure arrangements for land as well as for other resources, such as water, forest (plus carbon) and wildlife. Existing institutional and tenure arrangements, including arrangements for land allocation and management, should be supported and must not be tampered with or changed by external processes. Importantly, these arrangements must not be removed nor placed under another jurisdiction. This will ensure that locally adapted and effective institutional arrangements and knowledge systems are strengthened, rather than undermined by removing authority from local to a more central level. 3) All GIAHS systems in Tanzania to be assessed and proposals to be made for action in terms of intervention for practical improvements and policy development. Furthermore the geographical extent, total volume and value of GIAHS should be ascertained including value of contribution to environmental conservation, biodiversity conservation, environmental services, employment as well as the value of produce for sale, home use, food security and the national economy. GIAHS being small scale in nature, it is relevant to estimate small scale farmer’s including GIAHS total contribution to GNP. 4) Self motivated selection should be applied: A process of self motivated selection for GIAHS should be applied, as well as Free Prior and Informed Consent procedures to be followed. Based on criteria recognizing the will of the people living and working with GIAHS to build on existing principles of agro-ecosystem management, innovation and adaptation, agro/biodiversity conservation, knowledge and viable local management institutions. 5) Support fund mechanism: Other areas with GIAHS, although possibly not fully eligible for selection or not selected (possibly not of global significance but of local significance) should be provided with options for seeking support in practice based on own identified needs and aspirations through a support fund mechanism, where the same criteria as with GIAHS are applied. Possibly the criteria are not met, but the incentive to meet the criteria will be part of the mechanism. This will ensure that potential GIAHS and small scale agricultural systems give the managers the opportunity to regenerate or revitalize their systems. 6) Monitor upcoming relevant policy reviews: Upcoming relevant policy reviews must be monitored and strategies for engagements developed. - Is the new forest policy still open for inclusions? The Agricultural policy? A new land policy? REDD? Climate Change? And so on 7) Formulation of policy statements must be based on broad consultation and articulated in an inclusive manner so as to embrace the diverse needs of GIAHS and small scale farming operating in different contexts. Furthermore policy statements must be followed up by considerations for implementation, as appropriate financing mechanisms are required for successful policy implementation. 8) Inform public opinion, media, key policy and decision makers: To contribute to development of national policies and legislation are important, however informing public opinion, media, key policy makers and decision makers are equally important. A communication strategy should be designed to highlight and inform about qualities of GIAHS and about small scale agricultural production and the great potential for improving production with appropriate targeted support. 9) There is need to document principles in management practice, structure and governance of GIAHS. In order to devise the best possible support, promote sustainable agricultural heritage systems and develop appropriate policies, it is essential to understand local knowledge systems, principals of management practice and governance systems. Therefore documenting, in clear terms, key principles and experiences of customary management systems must be undertaken.

How do we in practical terms best reach out & give relevant support to GIAHS ? 1) Information sharing, communication and decision making for appropriate action: Support to community forums to bring forward updates on issues, good practice & ways forward. Experience from elsewhere has shown that community forums have been efficient for information sharing, communication, decision making for appropriate action. There is need for establishing close collaboration with national and local civil society to ensure a vibrant and genuine multi-stakeholder dialogue on GIAHS 2) Opportunity for showcasing: The AU and SADC may offer opportunities to showcase on the ground lessons and good practice. 3) Strategic articulation of GIAHS concerns in Tanzania’s new constitution: There is need to strategically phrase the formulation for the Tanzanian Constitution so that statements fully cover the concerns of GIAHS and ensures appropriate future support. There is need to explore different routes for ensuring that GIAHS concerns are in Tanzanian constitution, e.g. need to link with national CSOs currently working for the interest of small scale farmers like MWIWATA, ANSAF and the Katibu Initiative (Kai). Other opportunities lie in monitoring when formulation or review of policies, laws and instruments takes place, relevant to GIAHS. Currently it is important to follow developments with the coming Cultural Heritage Act.

List of literature and reports consulted Allen R.E. (1990) Concise Oxford Dictionary. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Banzi F. (2012) Kihamba Agro-forestry System on Mt Kilimanjaro. Presented at GIAHS Policy workshop, Blue Pearl Hotel 6th -7th December 2012 FAO, [Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations] (1999) Rome declaration on World Food Security and World Food Summit Plan of Action, (document W3613/E), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, World Food Summit, 13–17 November 1996, Rome Available at ,http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/w3613e/w3613e00.htm (accessed 28 December 2012). Fischer G.A. (1884) “Dr. Fisceher’s Journey in the Masai” Proceedings of the Royal Geographical Society vi 76-63 Goldman Mara 2010 External evaluation. Community Forums Initiative. Tanzania Natural Resource Forum and Ujamaa Community Resource Team. Hardin, Garrett. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science 162: 1243–1248. Hodgson, Dorothy, L. (2001) Once Intrepid Warriors: Gender, Ethnicity and the Cultural Politics of Masai Development. (Bloomington: Indiana University Press) Kaelo, Dickson Ole, (2012) Characterizing the Maasai pastoralist System. Paper presented at the FAO’s Globally Important Agricultural Heritage System (GIAHS) Policy Workshop, Dar es Salaam 6th -7th December 2012 Kaonga M Ed. 2012 Kipuri, N. (1983). Oral literature of the Maasai.(Nairobi: Heinemann Educational Books). Kipuri, N & Sorensen C (2008) Poverty, Pastoralism and Policy in Ngorongoro. Lessons Learned from Ngorongoro Pastoralist Project, Ereto. International Institute for Environment and Development. Kitalyia A & Soini E 2004 The Prunus Tribune 2, World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi, Kenya. Koohafkan P & Altieri M (2011) Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems. A Legacy for the Future. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome. Krapf, J. L. (1860) Travels, Researches, and Missionary Labours during Eighteen Years of Residence in Eastern Africa. London: Frank Cass (2nd edn). Laltaika E.I and Joy Faida, (2010) “Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation: What role for Intellectual Property and Traditional Knowledge?” Paper presented at the Annual Scientific Conference of the African Technology Policy Studies ATPS The State of Science, Technology and Innovations in Africa: Implications for Achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDG's) held from 25-27 November 2010 inCairo, Egypt (Unpublished) Maguire, R.A.J. ((1928) “The Maasai Penal Code” Journal of African Society 28 (109): 12-18 Mattee A.Z. & Shem M. (2006). Ambivalence and contradictions. A review of the Policy Environment in Tanzania in Relation to Pastoralism. IIED Issue paper 140. Mbazira, C., (2004) Reading the right to food into the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, ESR Review 5(1) 5 Merker, Moritz (1910) Die Masai. Ethnographische Monographie eines ostafrikanischen Semitenvolks. 2nd edn (Berlin: Dietricht Reimer) Mitchell N. Rossler M. Tricaud P. (2009) World Heritage Cultural Landscapes. A Handbook for Conservation and Management. World Heritage papers 26. Mol, Franz., (1977) Maa: A Dictionary of the Maasai Language and Folklore (Nairobi: Marketing and Publishing) Msuya T.S. & Kideghesho J.R. (2012) Mainstreaming Agro-forestry Policy in Tanzania Legal Framework 129-40. In Kaonga M (Ed.) Agro-forestry for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services – Science in Practice. Published online by InTech. Mwaigomole G. (2012) GIAHS of Tanzania. Maasai Pastoralism at Engaresero. Presented at the Policy Workshop. Blue Pearl Hotel 6th & 7th December 2012. Nagol, Elias Moringe, (2009) “Is the Sacred for Sale? Tourism and Misappropriation of Traditional Cultural Expressions of the Maasai” Paper Presented at the Workshop on Livestock Keepers’ Rights, Traditional Knowledge and Intellectual Property Held at the Golden Rose Hotel, Arusha- Tanzania 18-19 December 2009 Nelson, Fred (2012) “Natural conservationists? Evaluating the impact of pastoralist land use practices on Tanzania's wildlifeeconomy” Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice 2012, 2:15 Olsen J (1992). The Management of Faidherbia albida in agri-silvopastoral systems in southern Zambia. MSc dissertation, University College of North Wales. Pact 2005 Policy Law and Governance. Advocacy Expert Series. Available on http://www.pacttz.org/ Pact 2005 Civil Society and Advocacy. Advocacy Expert Series. http://www.pactworld.org/galleries/resource-center/legislative_roadmap_english_2.pdf Pratt, DJ, and MD Gwynne (1977). Rangeland management and ecology in East Africa.London: Hodder and Stoughton. Riley, Erin E. Onesmo Ole Ngurumwa, Thomas Olesangale (2012) Urban Pastoralists: A Report on the Demographics, Standards of Living, and Employment Conditions of Migrant Maasai Living in Dar es Salaam ( Dares Salaam: Legal and Human Rights Centre LHRC and Livelihood Support Systems LSS 2012) Rossler M (2012) World Heritage Cultural Landscapes. GIAHS Scientific and Steering Committee Meeting 29-30 October 2012, FAO, Rome, Italy. Runyoro, Victor A, Heribert Hofer, Emmanuel B Chausi, and Patricia D Moehlman.(1995). Long-term trends in the herbivore populations of the Ngorongoro Crater, Tanzania. In Sachedina, Hassan, and Fred Nelson. (2010). Protected areas and community incentives in savannah ecosystems: a case study of Tanzania’s Maasai Steppe. Oryx 44: 390–398 Serengeti II: dynamics, management, and conservation of an ecosystem, ed. Sinclair, ARE, and P Arcese, 146–168. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Saitoti, Tepilit Ole (1989) The World of a Maasai Worrior-An Autobiography (University of California Press, Shivji, Issa G, and Wilbert B Kapinga (1998) Maasai rights in Ngorongoro, Tanzania. London: IIED/HAKIARDHI. Sippel, Harold (2004) “Aspects of Colonial Land Law in German East Africa” Identity in Africa-Processes of Development and Change (University of Bayreuth) 3-38 Tenga, Ringo, AmonMattee, NtenguaMdoe, Raymond Mnenwa, SengondoMvungi and Martin Walsh (2008) A study on the Options for Pastoralists to Secure their livelihoods in Tanzania: Current Policy, Legal and Economic Issues (Unpublished) Thomson J., (1885) Through Maasailand (London: Sampson, Low, Martor, Searle and Rivington) Ujamaa Community Resource Team (2012). Case Study: Conservation Easements – innovative incentives for land and wildlife stewardship. http://www.ujamaa-crt.org/case-study-conservation-easements.html United Republic of Tanzania (1987) Patent Act, Number 1 of 1987 United Republic of Tanzania (1999)The Village Land Act, Number 4, 1999 United Republic of Tanzania (1999) The Land Act, Number 5 of 1999 United Republic of Tanzania (2002) Grazing-Land and Animal Feed Resources Act Number 13 of 2010 United Republic of Tanzania (2002) Plant Variety Protection (Plant Breeders Rights) Act Number 22 of 2002 United Republic of Tanzania (2002) Forest Act Number 14 of 2002 United Republic of Tanzania (2004) National Environment Management Act Number 20 of 2004 United Republic of Tanzania (2006) National Livestock Policy. Ministry of Livestock and Development. United Republic of Tanzania (2007) National Adaptation Programme Action Plan. Vice Presidents Office, Division of Environment United Republic of Tanzania, (2011) Tanzania Agriculture and Food Security Investment Plan (TAFSIP) 2011/12 to 2020/21 Working Paper No 3. Vorley B, Cotula L & Chan M. (2012) Tipping the Balance: Policies to shape agricultural investments and markets in favour of small-scale farmers Warakawa Rais Namba 1 (2002) Juuya Ufugaji. Jamhuriya Muunganowa Tanzania. List of Annexes

People met and consulted by email

People met:

Name Position and Organization Toon Rottjers Country Director, TRIAS -Arusha Shomet Naikosia Program Advisor, TRIAS - Arusha Firmet Banzi MAFC Grace Mwaigomole Ministry of Livestock Development and Fisheries Prosper Ngowi Mzumbe University, REPOA Ms. Vibeke Jensen Representative and Director, UNESCO Dr. Kamamba Director, Antiquities Department, MNRT Aichi Kitalyi AFOREDA Katrine Plesner Coordinator, NAFAKA Staples Value Chain Activity

People consulted by email:

Name Organization Audax Rukonge Agricultural Non-State Actors Forum, ANSAF Forum Diana Tempelman FAO Representative Tanzania Marco Arpakwa Globally Important Agricultural Systems Initiative, Arusha

Terms of Reference

Study: Impacts of Tanzania’s policies and laws on traditional agricultural systems

Position: Policy Expert – traditional agricultural systems in Tanzania

Start Date: 7 November 2012

Duty Station: Arusha

Reporting to: TNRF Head of Programs

1. Project Overview

In partnership with the Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS) Initiative of FAO, TNRF is conducting a study on the impacts of Tanzania’s policies and laws on traditional agricultural systems. This study aim to provide valuable contributions to environmental management, wildlife and biodiversity, local livelihoods and cultural diversity with emphasis on the Pastoral system of the Maasai and the Chagga Home Garden system, which include management of a range of resources, including livestock, water, trees, crops, pasture, wildlife, photographic tourism, hunting tourism etc. and institutional arrangements regulating access, user patterns including seasonal mobility. The study is an input to a Policy workshop, to be organized by FAO in December 2012, which will make recommendations on contributing to a (more) supportive policy environment for valuable forms of traditional agriculture systems in Tanzania. This global GIAHS initiative is implemented by FAO in collaboration with a number of international and local partners in eight pilot countries.

The GIAHS Initiative

Worldwide, specific agricultural systems and landscapes have been created, shaped and maintained by generations of farmers and herders based on diverse natural resources, using locally adapted management practices. These systems have resulted not only in outstanding landscapes, maintenance and adaptation of globally significant agricultural biodiversity, indigenous knowledge systems and resilient ecosystems, but, above all, in the sustained provision of multiple goods and services, food and livelihood security and quality of life.

In order to safeguard and support world’s agricultural heritage systems, in 2002, FAO started an initiative for conservation and adaptive management of GIAHS. The initiative aims to establish the basis for international recognition, dynamic conservation and adaptive management of GIAHS and their associated values.

GIAHS in East Africa

Since 2008 the GIAHS Initiative was extended to Kenya and Tanzania through a project supported by the Federal Republic of Germany through the Federal Ministry of Food, agriculture and Consumer Protection (BMELV). In Tanzania, the project is implemented in partnership with the Ministry of Agriculture, Food Security and Cooperatives (MAFC), the Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development (MLFD), the National Environmental Management Council (NEMC), the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism (MNRT), the Tanzania Tourism Board (TTB), the Tanzania Natural Resource Forum (TNRF) and the Ujamaa Community Resource Team (UCRT).

The GIAHS project focuses on two different indigenous agricultural systems: Upland-agro-forestry systems and pastoral systems with focus on broader policy implications of already identified systems – the pastoralist systems of the Maasai and the Chagga Homegarden system. The upland-agroforestry and pastoral systems are of particular interest to the GIAHS initiative because of their - customary use and adaptive management of biological and natural resources compatible with conservation and sustainable use requirements; a substantive contribution to local food security and rural development; social and cultural features significant to the cultural diversity and identity of their countries; and they are often found to be “climate smart”. It is imperative to underscore the understanding of the linkage between policies, laws and the indigenous agricultural systems to inform policy within countries other on-going initiatives that could benefit from the process.

2. Objectives

The objectives of this assignment are:

 To prepare a study (report) which analyse the historic and contemporary impacts of the policies and laws in Tanzania of different sectors (e.g. Agriculture, Livestock, Sustainable Development, Land, Environment, Wildlife and Tourism) on valuable forms of traditional agriculture and makes recommendations for their improvement, In this case the focus is on the Pastoral System of the Maasai and the Chagga Homegarden System.  To present the findings of the policy study as an input to a policy fora on GIAHS in Tanzania to be held in December  To incorporate the stakeholders’ feedback from the policy fora in the final report

3. Approach and Scope of Work

The policy expert will work under the supervision of the Head of Programmes of TNRF. TNRF and the project partners including FAO will provide additional inputs and guidance to this assignment.

The study will involve desk review and interviews with project partners, experts and other stakeholders, including primary production managers, and International Livestock Research Institute and World Initiative for Sustainable Pastoralism. The scope of work for this assignment is further defined by the reporting structure below

The expected contents of the report are as follows:

 Outline of extend, significance and value of GIAHS type systems in Tanzania, with emphasis on the pastoral systems of the Maasai and the Chagga Home Garden Systems and agro-forestry systems (environmental, social, cultural and economic significance, including contribution to food security).  Historical policy perspective: Where ever relevant highlight pivotal impacts, changes and interests in a historical policy and practice perspective: evolution of systems vis a vis policy and governance (pre-colonial, colonial, post colonial)  Analysis of national policy framework in different sectors today and their impacts on the system, identifying shortcomings, strengths, gaps etc. Linkages to Tanzania’s participation and commitments in international policies should also be included.  Examples of best practices for the management and sustainable development of these systems, which may inform future policies and practices  Recommendations.

4. Outputs

The Service Provider will be responsible for the following deliverables:

 Inception report  Draft report (approximately 30 - 40 pages)  Presentation of the draft report at the policy forum in December 2012  Final report which incorporates feedback from the policy workshop 5. Required Qualifications

 Masters degree in Natural Resource Management, Agriculture/Livestock or a related field with more than 5 years of experience  Demonstrated interest in indigenous agricultural systems (agro-forestry and/or pastoralism)  Sound knowledge of the relevant Tanzanian Policies and laws of different sectors (e.g. Agriculture, Livestock, Sustainable Development, Land, Environment, Wildlife and Tourism)  Demonstrated excellent (English) writing skills and a capacity to present complex issues in a concise manner.  Able to work under strict deadlines

6. Timing

 Days allocated for consultant are 30 days  Draft annotated outline by 15 November 2012  Draft report (approximately 30-40 pages) by 30 November 2012  Presentation of the draft report at the policy forum by first week of December 2012  Incorporation of feedback from the workshop and final report (approximately 30-40 pages) by 20 December 2012