Evolution of Community Forestry Regimes and Decentralization Of

Evolution of community forestry regimes and decentralization of forest management in Babati District, Tanzania Paper presented at conference on taking stock of smallholder and community forestry: where do we go from here? Held on March 24-26, 2010, Montpellier, France.

1Babili, H.I , 2Wiersum, F.K. 1Institute of Continuing Education, Sokoine University of Agriculture, P.O Box 3044, Morogoro, Tanzania. Email: [email protected] 2Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group, Wageningen University, Droevendaalsesteeg 3 6708 PB, the Netherlands. Email: [email protected]

ABSTRACT Most developing countries started promoting community forestry since 1980s as an alternative to state forestry, which resulted in open access of forests under protection. The new option for forest management has increased interests of most scholars on the importance of community forestry regimes in conservation of forest resources and ensuring livelihood of local people. However, little attention is still given to multiple decentralization processes associated with evolution of community forestry regimes. Information indicating drivers and pathways of these processes are also scant in literature. In Tanzania, Babati District is a pioneer for implementing community forestry. Consequently, a number of studies have focused on community based forest management and joint forest management regimes in the district. This paper originates from empirical case study of decentralized forest management conducted at Babati, Tanzania. We argue that evolution of community forestry regimes is associated with multiple change processes that result in emergence of multiple forest management regimes. These change processes are supported by their corresponding drivers and follow different pathways. However, most of these processes of change seem to favour gradual disappearance of traditional forest management regime.

Key words: Community forestry, decentralized forest management, decentralization, community based forest management, joint forest management, state forestry, traditional forest management , forest management regime, Tanzania, Babati.

1.0 INTRODUCTION The need for conservation of forest resources and securing livelihoods of the rural communities has prompted change from government controlled management to involvement of communities (Adhikari et al., 2004; Agrawal and Gibson, 1999). Many developing countries in the world are pursuing some forms of decentralized forest management (FAO, 1999), which involve local people. Different terms are used to indicate involvement of communities in forest management. The terms include: community forestry, collaborative forest management (CFM), participatory forest management (PFM), decentralized forest management, community based forest management (CBFM) and joint forest management (JFM) (Blomley and Ramadhani, 2006}, Leach et al., 1999; Ribot, et al ., 2006; Taconni, 2007). Community forestry perspective emerged as an alternative to state forestry which placed management of forest resources under central government. Depending on places, use of the term community forestry can be generic or specific (Petheram et al ., 2004). When used generically, it includes two forms of decentralized forest management or participatory forest management. The two regimes include CBFM when a community is both the owner and manager of forest and JFM when community manages government owned forest jointly with government agency (Havnevik, 2003; Alden Wily and Dewees, 2001). In Tanzania, community forestry under natural forests started with experience from Babati District in 1994 (Alden Wily, 2001). The paper has also indicated that approaches of CBFM and JFM in Tanzania have its basis at experience gained in Babati. This information is also reported by other scholars e.g. Havnevik (2003) and Wily, 2001.

The successful implementation of the approach in the district attracted a number of researchers to conduct their studies on community forestry at the district (Kajembe, et al ., 2009; Kajembe et al., 2003; Alden Wily, 2001; Zahabu, 2008). Most of these studies have often focused on the role of decentralized forest management regimes on conservation of forest resources and contribution of these regimes to livelihoods of the local communities. Still, little attention is given to simultaneous occurrence of different forest management regime (FMR) change processes and how these processes are related to evolution of multiple community forestry regimes. Moreover, drivers and pathways for these processes have not been identified. In addition, information on history of community forestry in Babati is inadequate while existing one is contradictory.

For example, two studies indicated that Duru-Haitemba was gazetted and owned as government forest reserve before it was put under villages ownership in 1994 (Kistler, 2009; Zahabu, 2008). But, another different study by Alden Wily (2001) reported that Duru-Haitemba was never gazetted for central government ownership. Furthermore, Alden Wily (2000) found that Duru Haitemba was surveyed for gazzettement, its boundary cleared and beacons installed in 1991/1992. In contrast, Havnevik (2003) reported that the forest was surveyed for gazzettement in 1993. Understanding history of forest management is essential for providing insights for the management of forest resources sustainably (Gautam, et al ., 2004). The objective of this paper is to improve our understanding on evolution of community forestry regimes by identifying the following: processes associated with forest management regime (FMR) change, drivers and pathways for these change processes, and demonstrate how the three phenomena create multiple forest management regimes (FMRs). The study addressed three research questions: (i) how community forestry regimes evolved at Babati? (ii) how different FMR change processes are related to development of multiple FMRs? and (iii) what are drivers and pathways for the different FMR change processes?

2. Community forestry, forest management regimes and decentralization concepts The concept of community forestry had emerged out of the need for forms of forestry that are responsive to local need as opposed to state forestry which regarded state agencies as having unique capacity to manage the resources. Initially, involvement of local people in forest management was referred to as social forestry (Fisher, 1995). With social forestry local people were involved in small scale activities as a means to improve their livelihoods (Fisher, 1995; Wiersum, 2004). FAO (1978) as cited by Fisher (1995) define community forestry broadly as any situation which intimately involves local people in

2 forestry activity. Community forestry is also referred to as regime of common property management that strives to achieve sustainability by linking local people’s social and economic interest with forest conservation (Taylor, 2000). In this paper we adopt the definition by Tailor because it is consistent with objective of establishing community forestry in the study area. In Tanzania, community forestry is popularly known as participatory forest management (PFM). The PFM in Tanzania is in two forms namely joint forest management and community based forest management. The two community forestry management regimes are found mainly under government forest reserves and village owned forest land, respectively (Blomley and Ramadhani, 2006). The JFM and CBFM regimes have resulted from decentralization process. Decentralization is defined as any act in which a central government formally cedes powers to actors and institutions at lower levels in a political-administrative and territorial hierarchy (Agrawal and Ribot 1999; Ribot et al., 2006). These scholars have used the term institution as organization.

The concept of forest management regime is rarely defined in literature e.g. (Demsetz, 1967; McCarthy, 2000; Regenvanu, et al ., 1997; Taylor, 2000). Also, Kant and Berry (2001) use the term forest resource regimes without giving a direct definition. But, they implicitly define the term as institutional framework for management of forest resources. A related direct definition is given by Harvey (1995) who defines a regime as a set of implicitly or explicit principles, norms, rules and decision making procedure in governing a certain area. Combining elements of definition by Harvey (1995), and Kant and Berry (2001) with addition of a new dimension of actor, we define forest management regime (FMR) as an institutional- organizational framework comprising a set of rules, norms, and actors responsible for management of forest resources. Therefore, change in forest management regime involves change in institutions such as legislations, and also change of organizations or actors (Alden Wily and Mbaya, 2001; Gautam et al ., 2004; Kumar, 2002; Ribot, et al., 2006; Thanh and Sikor, 2006). Institutions are defined as set of rules and norms that shape interaction of human and others and nature (Agrawal and Gibson, 1999). Institutions define and give organization a meaning (North, 1990). Institutions can be socially imbedded, those based on culture, social organization and daily practices or bureaucratic, those formalized arrangement based on explicit organizational structure, contracts and legal rights often introduced by government or development agencies (Cleaver, 2002). Organizations are entities organized for interests of some groups or set of goals (Murphree, 1994). In retrospect, the entities develop rules and norms in executing their basic responsibilities. Thus, the major variables defining forest management regime are basic responsibility and, type of norms on management.

The forest management regime (FMR) change process are facilitated or motivated by drivers (Berkes, 2004). The processes also follow different pathways. The term pathways is used here in the same way perceived by Frost, et al ., (2007) who stated that rural development can be brought about through endogenous or exogenous pathways. Also, Wiering and Crabbe (2006) categorised forces of change of institutions as either endogenous or exogenous when they originate from within community and outside community, respectively.

3 3. Institutional organization for decentralized forest management at Babati District This section presents information on how forest management is organized at Babati district whose location on the map of Tanzania is presented in Figure 1. In Babati, forest management is justified for protection of water sources protection and support to livelihoods of the local people. With development of decentralized from management, forests in the district have attracted research, education and extension activities which are conducted by individuals and institutions from within and outside Tanzania.

The key informant interviews established that prior to 1980s management of forests within the district: those in village lands, general land and government forest reserve were formally the responsibility of district foresters. After 1980s, the government instituted deconcentration process by establishing regional and district catchment forest offices through NORAD support. In this process, central government district catchment forest officers replaced local government district forest officers in the management of state forests at the district level. Management of unreserved forests became ineffective due to unregulated: agricultural expansion, grazing of livestock, harvesting of tree for timber, charcoal production and acquisition of fuel wood (Havnevik, 2006). Similarly, central government forests reserves were used extensively for timber and charcoal production for household and commercial purposes. Focused group discussions with local people and key informant interviews with foresters revealed that the government forest reserves became an important sources of additional income for government foresters through illegal timber activities. In an attempt to slow deforestation, the government of Tanzania decentralized forest management by recognizing local people as managers and owners of village forests and also as co-managers of government forest reserves. This happened for the first time in 1994 and 1998 when CBFM and JFM were established, respectively. The CBFM and JFM implementation was formalized through formulation of 1998 forest policies and enactment of 2002 Forest Act.

Management of village forests under CBFM is now facilitated by district foresters under the District Council but managed and owned by local people themselves. With CBFM, Village Council which is at the lowest level in the local government hierarch owns and manages village forest on behalf of entire village community. Within the village government, village environmental committee formally manages village forest on behalf of village council. This organizational framework is defined by the 1982 local Government Act which established local government (URT, 1982). The Local Government Act thus support the devolution state functions and ownership to local communities. The Act also enables deconcentration process in the creation of village local authority forest reserves (LAFRs). The management of catchment forests continue to be the responsibility of district catchment foresters who are employee of Forestry and Beekeeping Division of Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism. In addition, with introduction of JFM, catchment foresters manage the forest jointly with local community through village council as explained above.

The management of both catchment and village forests are guided by village forest management plans and bylaws. The bylaws are formulated by local communities under facilitation of foresters responsible for each management regime. Each village has its

4 own documents and get authority to develop the bylaws from Local Government Act. In the documents, management plans identify management activities and the roles of actors involved. The bylaws define permitted and banned activities in the forest reserves and specify sanctions for non-compliance. Use of valuable forest products such as timber is prohibited in all forest reserves reflecting the dominance of bureaucratic norms particularly with JFM and less application of socially imbedded ones.

Besides the Local Government Act and bylaws, the Village Land Act of 1999 and Forest Act of 2002 are also important in forest resources management at the District. Right to land ownership by village as a whole and individuals is provided by the Land Act (URT, 1999). This way the Act support existence of village forest reserves and private forest management. Ironically, despite the existence of traditional forest management in the district and elsewhere in Tanzania, Article 43 of the 2002 Forest Act does not recognize traditional forest reserves. It does however create another category of community forest reserve which can be formed voluntarily by a group within a village (URT, 2002).

Figure 1: Maps showing location of Babati District on Manyara Region in Tanzania

4. Methodology Babati District was selected for undertaking the study because first, it practised decentralized forest management and second, it had implemented the approach for at least five years, the period that indicated sufficient experience in implementing the approach. The study was empirical and undertaken using qualitative approach in four villages namely Ayasanda, Endanachan, Haraa and Boay village. In the first two villages, the study focused on CBFM while in the rest, the focus was on JFM. Collection of primary data on institutional change and how management of forests was organized before and after establishment of decentralized forest management involved a combination of methods for validating information collected. The methods used were focused group discussions with traditional elders and members of village environmental committees, in-depth interviews with key informants and participant observation. The focused group comprised a group of people ranging from six to twelve (6-12). At least two contacts were made with each group for conducting discussion. Data recording

5 during interviewees was done using field notes. The researcher led open ended discussions in Kiswahili language using a check list of general questions followed by probing questions while a trained research assistant wrote notes. In some situations, assistance from a translator was needed to translate local language spoken by some elders who were not fluent or did not speak Kiswahili.

In-depth interviews were conducted with relevant individuals who served as key informants for providing information on history of community forestry in Babati district. People selected for the interviews included village chairpersons, members of the village environmental committee, individuals who had in-depth understanding of history of forest management in their respective villages. Other key informants were district- and catchment- foresters and LAMP technical adviser. Several interviews (at least three) were conducted with the key informants in order to verify and complete information required. Participant observation was also used to note how management of village forests and Beruku forest reserve was implemented. Secondary data was collected to provide additional information to primary data. These were obtained from scientific sources and some from reports in the study district. Data analysis was done by abstraction of ideas and relating the resulting abstract concepts (Punch, 2005).

5. Evolution of community forestry regimes in Babati District This section shows how community forest management regimes in Babati District went through four major phases. These were socially imbedded institutions period, centralized state policy, ujamaa villagization, and bureaucratic decentralization. The phases were characterised by respective forest management regimes (Table 1). The corresponding forest management regimes included the following: traditional management systems, state forest management, community forestry through communal farm tree planting, private farm tree planting, community forestry in natural forests and community forestry in village- and government-forest reserves. Generally, each new forest management regime adopted in subsequent phase was implemented together with preceding regime.

Table 1: Periodic phases with corresponding forest management systems Period Forest management regimes 1. Period of socially imbedded Traditional forest management (TFM) institutions 2. Period of centralized state State forestry with reservation, policy Traditional forest management in areas outside forest reserves adopted, social forestry in reserved forests, Private tree planting among few people started 3. Period of ujamaa Community forestry through communal farm trees villagization planting and private tree planting. Private farm trees promoted. Community forestry extended in natural forests. 4. Period of political and CBFM in village forests reserves (VFR) initiated, TFM Bureaucratic decentralization in VFR adopted. Joint forest management initiated in Babati. Some traditional forests gradually disappearing. Source: Authors’ analysis of research data

6 The table above indicates that history of forest management in Babati started with traditional forest management. This form of community forestry is known to have existed in Tanzania for a long time but on small scale (Iddi, 2002). Management of forest resources at this phase was guided by traditional organizations and socially imbedded institutions. Forests under traditional management constituted Qaidasu which were forests for girls at puberty age, sacred trees, spring forest, forests of traditional elders, Qaimanda forests- which were forests for the traditional group of Manda within the Gorowa tribe. The management of sacred trees, traditional and spring forests were under traditional leaders. Forest where girls at puberty received traditional education was protected by traditional women. The Qaimanda forests were protected by Manda group and were used for conducting male circumcision and traditional ceremonies.

Change of traditional forest management regime during pre-and post independency periods led to ending traditional organizations and socially imbedded institutions in managing the newly created forest reserves under centralized managements. The regime change resulted from the need of central government to protect water catchment. The centralization process involved creation of catchment forest departments to protect the forests (Simonsson, 2004) replacing traditional elders. Replacement of socially imbedded organization for government agencies has also been reported by other scholars e.g. (Dahal and Caspirano, 2006, Sunseri, 2005). In Babati, forest reservation led to creation of Nou, Bereku and Ufyome national forest reserves which were gazzetted in 1933, 1932 and 1941, respectively. Similarly, during post-independency period until 1980s, the traditional forest management in Babati have gradually been squeezed due to reservation and other policies. The Ujamaa villagization policy of 1970s which led to creation of Ujamaa villages resulted in further disruption of traditional management as some local people and traditional leaders moved out of their original villages. Other scholars have reported that Ujamaa Village Act of 1975 established village council that removed the authority of traditional leadership (Simonsson 2004; Semboja and Therkildsen, 1994). Haraa forest was gazzetted, during the period of Ujamaa policy.

In 1970s during the ujamaa villagization, communal farm trees planting were adopted as form of community forestry. The system was associated with extension of scientific norms of government foresters to local community through donor support. In 1980s to early 1990 private forest management was started along with the communal tree planting. Promotion of the communal and private tree planting aimed at relieving pressure on natural forests in reserved and unreserved forest by providing alternative sources of trees for fuel and wood. This was to achieve government objective of protecting natural forests. Tree seedling were raised in government nurseries and supplied to villagers as a whole, organizations such as schools and individuals. This forestry extension explains how bureaucratic norms were transferred to local people and used in the management of private forests. Latter in early 1990s, indigenous knowledge of the local people was emphasized in tree planting. As a result, farmers were taught by foresters how to raise tree seedlings including indigenous tree species by themselves. Some farmers raised tree seedlings in their nurseries for planting in own farms and selling. In addition to government initiatives, introduction of trees from outside the district by farmers themselves

7 contributed to development of farm trees. Introduction of coffee agro-forestry system to Babati by Chagga from Kilimanjaro is an example of current private forest management present in Babati. Although traditionally major ethnic groups in Babati were not tree planters, immigrant from Kilimanjaro brought Grevillea spps as a shade tree for coffee during times when coffee fetched good price before independency. Some tree species such as Acrocarpus and lemon were introduced from Arusha through individual contacts (Johansson, 1991). To date the private forests and trees in Babati provide alternative sources of poles, timber, fuel, fruits and income for local people.

Within the period of bureaucratic and political decentralization, Babati District started practicing another form of community forestry - community based forest management (CBFM). This was essentially devolution- a political decentralization process that marked a new paradigm of forest management in Tanzania. Village natural resources committees (VNRC) and local forest guards were elected by village assemblies to carry out daily management activities. The VNRC in Tanzania is also named as village forest committee or village environmental committee (Akida and Blomely, 2008; Havnevik, 2003; Simonsson, 2004). In this document the names will be used interchangeably. During the in-depth interviews, respondents stated that before CBFM adoption, central government surveyed Duru forests in 1992 for planned gazzettment. By then Tanzania was implementing the 1988 forest policy which emphasized reservation (Wily, 1997). But a different study indicated that the FTP suggested gazzettement of Duru forests as national forest reserve in 1990. Following the suggestion, the forest was surveyed for gazzettement in 1993 (Havnevik, 2003). Alden Wily (2001) reported a different observation that Duru was surveyed for gazzettment in 1991. In order to avoid contradictory information on history of CBFM in Babati we state that attempt for gazzettement of Duru forests was done in early 1990s. We also clarify that the current forests under Duru-Haitemba were never gazetted as central government reserves before establishment of CBFM. Another correction we make is that not all forests under the current Duru-Haitemba forests were intended for gazzettement. The government intention was to gazette Duru- forests which qualified for a national reserve.

6. Driver of forest management regimes change processes in Babati Distict Evolution of community forest management regimes in Babati District was supported by a number of bureaucratic and socially imbedded drivers. This part shows the relationship between forest management regime change processes and their drivers (Table 2).

Drivers that supported devolution process for establishment of CBFM regime were: change of legal framework in forest sector and other sectors, impact of programmes, national and international environmental and developmental goals, financial support and knowledge transfer from national and international actors. Another driver under socially imbedded category - changing local awareness or power also contributed to emergence of CBFM. The devolution processes was followed by partial devolution starting in 1998 which led to establishment of joint forest management (JFM). Devolution in JFM was partial because the government still retained much power concerning use and management of forest resources. Thus, JFM is a product of devolution and deconcetration processes. The bureaucratic drivers identified above for CBFM also contributed to JFM

8 establishment. In conclusion, the two processes of devolution and bureaucratic decentralization have provided grounds for emergence of the dual forest management regimes under village and government ownerships. In other districts in Tanzania, deconcentration has resulted in the creation of district forests (Akida and Blomley, 2008).

Table 2: Regime change process and associated drivers

Types of FMR change process Drivers of FMR change processes I Change of bureaucratic institutions 1. Centralization- concentration of power to central Need for protection of forest resources, industrial government (Rudqvist, 2006). needs, (Sunseri, 2005; Simonsson, 2004). 2.Deconcentration (administrative decentralization)- External support, government support (Ribot et al ., process leading to transfer of power from central 2006; Semboja and Therkildsen, 1994). government to appointee of the central government. Bureaucratic norms remain unchanged (Agrawal and Ribot, 1999; Ribot et al ., 2006) 3. Devolution as part of democratic or political Existing legal framework, failure of forest related decentralization – involving transfer of power from institutions, claims of local communities, central government to actors or organizations that experience from other places and external support are accountable to local population in their (Brokington, 2008, Lund and Treue, 2008; jurisdiction usually through electoral process Asbjornsen and Ashton, 2002); FAO, 2000; (Agrawal and Ribot, 1999; Ribot et al ., 2006; Petersen and Sandhöven, 2001 ) Petersen and Sandhöven, (2001); Rudqvist (2006) 4. Delegation of forest management responsibilities External support, failure of existing forestry related e.g. to enable involvement of NGOs (Donoghue et institutions (Donoghue et al ., 2003; Sunseri, 2005) al ., 2003) 5. Privatization of forest management activities- Government financial constraints, liberalized when government cedes power to private non state economy and management of natural resources actors such as private individuals or corporations policies, multilateral support (Sunseri, 2005), (Ribot et al ., 2006) private land ownership (Skarstein, 2006). II Change of socially imbedded institutions Formal education, acquisition of new religions, government declarations, challenge by local people, existence of multiple institutions (Agrawal and Ribot, 1999; Cleaver, 2002; Simonsson, 2004)

Source: Authors’ analysis of research data

The drivers for forest regimes change processes identified above can be re-categorised into bureaucratic drivers: changing legal framework in forest sector and other sectors, impact of programmes, national and international environmental and developmental goals, financial support and knowledge transfer from national and international actors; and socially imbedded drivers: changing local awareness/power, formal education, influence of new religion, influence of multiple institutions. These drives are discussed below.

(I) Bureaucratic drivers (a) Changing legal framework in forest sector and other sectors Decentralization of forest management in Babati was possible due to existence of other Acts that complemented 2002 Forest Act. The importance of available policy and legal environment in facilitating decentralization of forest management is indicated in the national forest policy (URT, 1998). This is also acknowledged by Havnevik (2003) and

9 Ndonde (2000) who observed that existing institutional framework supported the decentralized forest management in Tanzania. The Local Government Act of 1982 formally endorsed establishment of village government at local level. It provided legal basis for the organization to formulate bylaws (Rudqvist, 2006) including those related to management of forest resources. The village environmental committee that is responsible for carrying out daily management activities of forests under both CBFM and JFM is part of village government. The village Land Act of 1999 also support the newly formulated Forest Act of 2002 as it allows creation of village and communal land (URT, 1999). Forest land within a village then becomes the property of village assembly who are also empowered by the Forest Act to manage it. The Village Land Act also recognize reserved land while the 2002 Forest Act allows management of government owned forest reserve in partnership with the adjacent communities. Alden Wily and Mbaya (2001) emphasized that Tanzania Village Land Act of 1999 which provides village land ownership to village assembly through deed holding have contributed to emergence of community based forest management. Therefore, existence of formal local government structure at community level is incorporated into community level forest management including joint forest management and community based forest management (YIhäisi, 2003).

Other government prescriptions, including declarations enforcing government rules had earlier replaced traditional leaders in managing gazetted forests of Nou, Ufyome, Bereku and Haraa in Babati District. As a result, traditional norms were now restricted in managing forests outside reserved forests. Likewise, sexual Offences Special Act of 1998 (URT, 1998) enhanced centralization of forest resources. Although we don’t support female circumcision, the Act and associated campaigns of the government and NGOs against female circumcision have eroded the role of traditional women and rules in protecting Qaidasu forests. AFNET-Anti Female Genital Mutilation Network was operating in Babati at local level to stop the practice of female circumcision. Thus, government legislations have enhanced existence of state forests while reducing the role of socially imbedded institutions in forest management.

(b) Knowledge transfer from national and international actors Although Babati district is the first place in Tanzania to implement decentralized forest management, experience from other countries where decentralization had taken place before, certainly contributed to development of new forest management regimes. The joint forest management for example had already been established in India in 1990 and Nepal in 1970s (Bahuguna and Upadhyay, 2002; Ribot et al ., 2006). An involvement of a consultant Lizy Wily who led the process of introduction of community based forest management in Babati district was an indication that experience from elsewhere in the world was used as a driver for FMR change process. Indeed Wily (1997) acknowledge herself that experience from South Asia has been pivotal for establishment of community forestry in Africa. Alden Wily and Mbaya (2001) further add that ideas and practice of involving communities in natural resources management are not confined in one area but are adopted and adapted from one country to another. Other scholars had highlighted that scaling up of decentralized forest management in new areas in Tanzania followed success stories of implementation of the approach in other areas of the country (Blomley and Ramadhan, 2006). Indeed, the new areas in Tanzania adopting decentralized forest

10 management followed similar process including formation of village forest committees and bylaws (Havnevik, 2003).

(c) National and international financial support Different external actors have supported decentralized forest management in Babati District. Wily (1997) reported that community involvement in Africa has largely depended on donor support. Additionally, Ribot et al ., (2006) asserted that donors have largely supported the decentralized forest management in Africa, Asia and Latin America. In Babati, since 1994, the LAMP programme supported by SIDA provided various trainings to local actors under CBFM and JFM. NORAD had initially supported the establishment of joint forest management at Nou forest. SIDA on the other hand had supported the government financially in the establishment and implementation of decentralized forest management at Ufyome, Bereku and Haraa forest reserves. FarmAfrica-an international NGO, was also supporting local people in practising joint forest management at Nou forest reserve Babati since 2001. Additionally, the World Bank had started supporting Tanzania Social Action Fund (TASAF) from 2007 to scale up community based forest management in new areas of Babati District. Also the Netherlands government in 2008 supported CBFM in Babati financially on trial through reduced emission from deforestation and degradation scheme (REDDS) which was under Kyoto: Think Global Act Local programme. Other scholars had indicated the role of both bilateral and multilateral organizations in supporting NGOs and government financially to implement decentralized forest management in Tanzania (Sunseri, 2005; Zahabu, 2008). Such bilateral and multilateral organization supporting implementation of the new approach in Tanzania includes Danida, MFA (Finland), NORAD and World Bank (Blomely and Ramadhani, 2006).

(d) National and international environmental and development goals A closely related driver to (b) and (c) above is environmental and development goals of national and international actors. These actors seek to achieve goals of protection of water catchment and global environmental protection such as REDDS by providing funds to support knowledge transfer on environmental education. Sunseri (2005) argue that government created national reserves with underling intentions of providing sources of timber for carrying out government-led development projects.

(e) Impacts of programmes Ineffectiveness of centralized forest management was another driver that motivated decentralization of forest management in Babati. According to focused group discussions, existing institutions and organizations under central government by then failed to stop increased forest destructions in the government owned forest reserve. The failure was partly due to fewer number of forest officers responsible for management of the reserve. For instance Bereku forest which occupied 5373 ha had only one forester responsible for its management. Although communities were not allowed to carry out activities in the forest between 1976 until 2000, local people could easily monitor where the forester was and undertake such activities as grazing and collection of firewood in another area. Furthermore, foresters were themselves involved in illegal lumbering. Since local communities did not have management responsibilities in the reserve, it was possible for

11 the foresters to continue with timber harvesting unasked. Government officials and other people who wanted timber products approached the foresters for permission in return of payment that went directly to foresters pockets. Until 1990 there was still high level of tree cutting in Babati District. Several scholars have reported change in forest management regimes as result of failure of state forestry (Alden Wily and Mbaya, 2001; Vihemaki, 2005; Kumar, 2002; Petersen and Sandhöven, 2001).

(II) Socially imbedded drivers of FMR change processes Several socially imbedded drivers motivating change of traditional forest management regime were identified. They include changing local awareness/power, formal education, influence of new religion, and influence of multiple institutions.

(a) Changing local awareness or power Claims of local people took the form of opposition decision of the central government to gazette village forests in Babati. The central government decision to survey Duru forests in Babati for gazzettement sparked resistance from local people who knew that their access to the forests for their livelihoods was endangered. The stiff opposition in the form of increased deforestation and claiming ownership of the forest forced the government to halt gazzettment process and returned ownership and management authority to local community. In Mtwara Tanzania centralization was stopped in favour of decentralized forest management after intense opposition of local communities (Sunseri, 2005). Asbjornsen and Ashton (2002) stated that, in Mexico “ the success of local resistance to the government concessions issued to large companies marked an important milestones culminating in the legally recognized transfer of control to local communities ”.

(b) Acquisition of formal education and new religion, and existence of multiple institutions. Three kinds of drivers contributing to change of traditional forest management regimes were identified. These drivers are presented together in this section because they are closely related. The formal education and new religions now provide alternative believes and understanding against which some people challenge traditional believes. The presence of multiple organization including socially imbedded ones provide alternative sources of ideas leading to change of socially imbedded institutions. Agrawal and Ribot (1999) also indicated how education and religion influence change of traditional norms. Although there is still respect to some traditional institutions and organizations, the gradual erosion of traditional believes is taking place. This is leading to gradual encroachment of traditional elders’ forests for farming, cutting or gradual killing of tree species such as Ficus sycomorus (Mkuyu in Kiswahili) which are protected by traditional norms. The tree killing is done through gradual burning at basal part of such trees and placing salt on wound of the tree.

7. Pathways of forest management regimes change processes in Babati Distict The forest management regime change processes which have resulted in creation of multiple forest management regimes followed endogenous and exogenous pathways (Figure 1). With exogenous pathway, state actors who are linked to international actors, encode the emergence of most intermediate forest management regimes. Petersen and

12 Sandhoven (2001) noted that formulation of Tanzania’s new policy was motivated by changes in forest policies internationally. These changes therefore carry with them bureaucratic norms and state responsibility in the establishment of private forest management regime, CBFM and JFM regime. The CBFM regime is also the only intermediate regime for natural forest management where considerable level of socially imbedded norms and local responsibility are present.

Another idea revealed in Figure 2 is the dynamic relationships between norms on management and basic responsibility. The figure also indicates key actors for different norms and types of forest management regimes 1. At one extreme end there is conventional state management (SM) which is dominated with plantations and protected national reserves. Here state responsibility and bureaucratic norms are exclusively important. At another end, traditional forest management regime (TM) is governed entirely by socially imbedded norms and local responsibility. Interaction of state and local community led to emergence of intermediate management regimes including private forest management, CBFM and JFM which incorporates both scientific and traditional norms. These intermediate regimes were observed to co-exist in same location. Therefore, instead of having dominant regimes with robust institutions as was emphasized in recent past literature e.g. Ostrom, 1990 we find different types of management regimes having different characteristics. Furthermore, the dynamics in forest management in Babati is leading to changing positions regarding use and management of forest resources. The village forest reserves which were once regarded as entirely source of livelihoods are now protected by local community for providing other functions including protection of water sources. Also, government foresters who regarded government forest reserve as source of their income have changed their perception after transfer of some power to village communities. A gradual change in position at local level involving change of forest management as spiritual practice to forest management as livelihood practice is also taking place.

With regard to when exactly the central government attempted to gazette Duru forests, we propose that it is safe to state that the process took place in early 1990s. This will resolve the problem of reporting three different years when government surveyed the forests for planned gazzettment. Through discussions with key informants, Duru forests were surveyed for gazzettement in 1992 while other two scholars presented two different years of 1991 and 1993 when the survey was done (Havnevik, 2003; Wily, 1996). Another clarification is that initially Duru forests were the only forests targeted for gazzettement. Other distant forests including Haitemba and other forests adjacent to it were not identified for gazzettment as national forest reserve. These distant forests were included under CBFM because of increased deforestation following widespread fear of gazzettment learnt from Duru. These forests were later named collectively Duru- Haitemba by merging two names representing different areas. This finding show clearer picture contrary to the assumption that all Duru-Haitemba forests were intended for gazzettement in early 1990s.

1 Abbreviations below represent the following: TFM= traditional forest management, PM= private forest management and SM= state forest management, TEL=Traditional elders’ forest

13 Bureaucratic Norms

WOODLOTS, FARM TREES PLANTATIONS , FOREST RESERVES

Government foresters PM SM Government foresters Individual farmers Donors Donors

Local responsibility State responsibility CBFM JFM District foresters Local community actors Central government foresters Consultant, Donors Local community actors NGOs, Donors

SPRING FOREST QAIMANDA TEF TFM QAIDASU Local actors

Socially imbedded norms

Endogenous pathway Exogenous pathway

Figure 2: Interaction of Bureaucratic and socially imbedded norms and actor’s responsibilities leading to creations of multiple forest management regimes (Source: Authors’ analysis of research data)

7. Discussion This section discusses results by showing relationships between four concepts: FMRs change processes, drivers of FMRs change processes, pathways of FMRs change processes and forest management regimes.

In the results sections we have identified socially imbedded institutional process, centralization, privatisation, deconcentration, devolution and delegation as forest management regimes change process. These processes were facilitated by a number of drivers, which were either socially imbedded or bureaucratic in nature. Furthermore, the FMRs change processes followed either endogenous and/or exogenous pathways. The processes resulted in creation of different forest management regimes including state forest management, private forest management, and community based forest management and joint forest management. The FMRs change processes as related to emergence of different types of forest management regimes is evident worldwide (Agrawal and Ribot, 1999; Akida and Blomely, 2008; Poynter, 2005; Simonsson, 2004; Sunseri, 2004; Rechlin et al., 2002; Ribot et al., (2006); Yihaisi, 2003).

14 Traditional forest management which existed during pre-independency was developed by local actors themselves using socially imbedded organizations and norms. Bureaucratization in management of forest resources led to decreased in the role of socially imbedded institutions and organizations in the management of the resources. Influence of new religions of Christianity and Islam and formal schools are also gradually decreasing the role of socially imbedded institutions in managing forest resources.

Centralization process which occurred during pre-independency and latter maintained after independency was exogenous. The process was supported by bureaucratic drivers and resulted in state forest management regimes. Deconcentration process also perpetuated state forest management in Babati. The process led to creation of district catchment forest department to manage government owned forest. The pathways and drivers for deconcentration were similar to centralization. Thus, both centralization and deconcentration basically support state forest management regime (Agrawal and Ribot 1999; Ribot et al. 2006).

Besides state forest management regime, there was private forest management regimes. Privatisation was largely related to extension of scientific norms in the management of private farm trees and woodlots. In Babati, privatisation should be viewed as a process through which local people were encouraged to grow exotic tree species and some indigenous trees in their farms. However, some individuals had adopted tree planting activity by borrowing knowledge and skills from outside the district. Some few farmers also own natural forests. Pathways to privatisation of forest management in Babati were therefore mixture of exogenous and endogenous origins but largely the former. The drivers for privatisation included desire of government and international actors to achieve objective of protecting natural forests in the district. This was done through encouraging and supporting tree planting in individual farm as a strategy to reduce deforestation in natural forests. Other drivers for privatisation were donor support and changing legal framework such as enactment of Land Act of 1999. The private trees and woodlots have become important sources of tree related uses by the local people in Babati. In Tanzania, private forests at community level are usually small in size but important source of poles, timber and income (Akida and Blomely, 2008).

Delegation process was observed to be less dominant in Babati and largely involved FarmAfrica NGO. The NGO supported community activities as a way of protecting government natural forests under joint forest management. Governments in Africa commission NGOs to support implementation of JFM due to inadequate financial and human resources (Sarrazin, 2002). Elsewhere in the world, NGOs were used in the implementation of decentralized forest management (e.g. Donoghue et al ., (2003); Sunseri, 2005; Zahabu, 2008). Delegation in Babati was also used in a failed attempt of centralizing village forests. A consultant was engaged by the government to find out ways of persuading local people to accept reservation of Duru forests. But the process ended up supporting devolution following resistance of the local people. Delegation is therefore a process that can support development of state forest management regime, JFM, or CBFM.

15 The process of devolution was found to be important for development of CBFM and partly contributed to emergency of JFM in Babati (Akida and Blomely, 2008). The pathway for devolution was initially endogenous but was later captured and facilitated through government institutions. In this way, CBFM constituted both bureaucratic and socially imbedded institutions. In Endanachan village for example, three Qaimanda traditional forests were located within village forest reserve under CBFM. Traditional management of spring forest at the village also included CBFM bylaw prohibiting grazing near water sources. Banning harvesting of green trees outside water sources and traditionally protected species in the village forest is principally bureaucratic rule. While CBFM is largely the result of devolution process, the JFM resulted mainly from Deconcentration process. But CBFM and JFM are linked to both devolution and deconcentration at different degrees.

Tanzania’s legal and policy framework particularly villagization policy of 1975, local government Act of 1982 and Land Act of 1999 provided a foundation for decentralized forest management to work (Akida and Blomely, 2008; Wily, 1997). Village governments which are key actors for CBFM and JFM resulted from the previous policy and legal framework. The drivers for devolution in Babati were mixed. They were socially embedded bureaucratic ones. But, most of them were bureaucratic in nature. These were changing legal regimes in forest sector and other sector, impact of programme, national and international financial support and knowledge transfer from national and international levels. Only claims of the local people was the sole driver of devolution originated from local people. This analysis suggests that nature of drivers and kind of pathway defines nature of FMR change processes. In turn, the processes determine and predict nature and type of forest management regime established. Thus, socially embedded drivers and endogenous pathways were associated with FMR changes that create forest management regimes which are responsive to the local needs and vice versa (Table 3).

Table 3: Summary of relationship between FMRs change processes, their drivers and pathways and forest management regime

Change processes Driver Pathways Regime Centralization Bureaucratic Exogenous National reserves; government plantations Deconcentration Bureaucratic Exogenous JFM Devolution Bureaucratic, Endogenous, CBFM Socially imbedded Exogenous Privatisation Bureaucratic Exogenous, Private forest management: Farm trees and woodlots Socially imbedded Endogenous Natural forests Delegation Bureaucratic Exogenous JFM Socially imbedded Bureaucratic Endogenous Traditional forest management Socially imbedded

16 8. Conclusions This paper has attempted to achieve three objectives: first it has uncovered and clarified evolution of community forestry regimes in Babati. Second, the paper has identified different forest management regime (FMRs) change processes and how they are related to different forest management regimes. Furthermore, we have identified different drivers and pathways of different FMRs change processes. These processes have provided grounds for creation of multiple forest management regimes under the ownership of central government and local community in the study area. In addition to state and community owned forests, the processes have created district forests in Tanzania. However, most of these forest management change processes have gradually decreased the importance of socially imbedded organizations and institutions in management of forest resources and are causing gradual disappearance of traditional forests. We have established that socially embedded drivers and endogenous pathways are associated with FMRs change processes that create forest management regimes which accommodate interests of local people. In contrast, the exogenous drivers and trajectories mostly enhance forest regimes change processes that lead to achievement of goals of actors at higher national and international levels.

Reference cited Adhikari, B., Falco, D.S., Lovett, C.J. (2004). Household characteristics and forest dependency: evidence from commom property forest management in Nepal. Ecological Economics 48: 245-257 . Agrawal, A. and Gibson, C. (1999). Enchantment and disenchantment: The role of community in natural resource conservation. World Development 27 (4): 629-649 Agrawal, A. and Ribot, J. (1999). Accountability in decentralization. A framework with Southern Asian and West African cases. The Journal of Developing Areas 33: 473-502. Akida, A. and Blomley, R. (2008). Trends in forest ownership, forest resources tenure and institutional arrangements: Are they contributing to better forest management and poverty reduction? Case study from the republic of Tanzania. In: Understanding forest tenure in Africa: opportunities and challenges for forest tenure diversification . Food and Agricultural Organization of UN, Forest Policy and Institutions Working Paper No.14. FAO. pp 305-333. Alden Wily L. (2001). Forest management in Eastern and Southern Africa: Lessons from Tanzania . Gatekeeper Series no. 95. iied/Sida. pp20. Alden Wily, L. and Dewees P. (2001). From users to custodian: Changing relations between people and the state in forest management in Tanzania . World Bank Research Working Paper. pp 2569. Alden Wily, L and Mbaya, S. (2001 ). Land, people and forests in Eastern and Southern Africa at the beginning of the 21 st Century: The impact of land relations on the role of communities in forest future. IUCN Eastern Africa Programme. pp 303. Alden Wily (2000). The evolution of community-based forest management in Tanzania. In: Proceeding of international workshop on community forestry in Africa. Participatory forest management: a strategy for sustainable forest management in Africa , 26-30 April 1999, Banjul, the Gambia. FAO, Rome Italy. pp 127-143. Asbjornsen, H. and Ashton, M.S. (2000). Community forestry in Oaxaca, Mexico.

17 Journal of Sustainable Forestry 15 (1):1-15. Bahuguma, V.K. and Upadhyay, A. (2002). Forest fires in India: policy initiative for community participation . International Forestry Review 4(2): pp 122-127. Berkes, F. (2004). Rethinking community based forest conservation. Conservation Biology 18 (3): 621-630. Blomley, T. and Ramadhani, H. (2006). Going to Scale with participatory forest management: Early lessons from Tanzania. International Forestry Review 8 (1): 93-100. Brockington, D. (2008). Corruption, taxation and natural resources management in Tanzania. Journal of Development Studies 44 (1): 103-126. Cleaver, F. (2002). Reinventing institutions: Bricolage and the Social embeddedness of natural resources management. European Journal of Development Research 14(2): 11-30. Dahal, G.R. and Capistrano, D. (2006). Forest governance and institutional structure: an ignored dimenstion of community based forest management. International Forestry Review 8(4): 377-394. Danny Harvey, L. D. (1995). Creating a global warming implementation regime. Global Environmental Change 5(5): 415-432. Demsetz, H. (1967). Towards a theory of property rights. American Economic Review 57: 347-359. Donoghue, E.M., Cubbage, F.W., Mercer, D.E. (2003). Contract NGOs in community- based forest management in Philippines. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 17 (4): 47-73. FAO (2000). Legal bases for the management of forest resources as communal property . Community Forestry Notice 14. Rome. FAO (1999). State of the World Forests. FAO, Rome. Fisher, R.J. (1995). Collaborative management of forests for conservation and development . Issues in forest conservation . International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN)/World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). Gland Switzerland. Frost, P., Campbell, B., Luckery, M., Mutamba, M., Mandondo, A., Kozanayi, W. (2007). In search of improved rural livelihoods in semi-arid regions through local management of natural resources; Lessons from case studies in Zimbabwe. World Development 35 (11): 1961-1974. Gautam, A.P., Shivakovi, G.P., Webb, E.L. (2004). A review of forest policies, institutions and changes in resources condition. International Forestry Policy Review 6 (2): 136-148. Havnevik, K. (2006). Successful community based forest management in Northern Tanzania: Reflections and theoretical implications. In: Of Global Concern: Rural livelihood Dynamics and Natural Resource Governance (Edited by Havnevik, K., Negash, T., and Beyene, A.). SIDA. Stockholm. pp 165-190. Havnevik, K., (2003). Successful community based forest management in Northern Tanzania: Reflections and theoretical implications. In: Of Global Concern: Rural livelihood Dynamics and Natural Resource Governance (Edited by Havnevik, K., Negash, T., and Beyene, A.). SIDA. Stockholm. pp 165-190. Iddi, S. (2002). Community participation in forest management in the United Republic

18 of Tanzania. In: Proceeding of second international workshop on participatory forestry in Africa, defining the way forward: sustainable livelihood and sustainable forest management through participatory forestry , 18-22 February 2000, Arusha International Conference Centre February 18-22, Arusha, United Republic of Tanzania. FAO, Rome Italy. pp 59-67. Johansson, L (1991). Successful tree growers: Why people grow tree in Babati District, Tanzania. Working paper 155. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences/IRDC. Uppsala. pp 83. Kajembe, G.C., Ngaga, Y.M., Chamshama, S.A.O., Njana, M.A. (2009). Performance of participatory forest management in the project “Applied Research in PFM. In: Proceeding of the first participatory forestry management (PFM) research workshop (edited by Nshubemki, L., Chamshama, S.A.O., Mbwambo, L., and Balama, C.). pp 93-110. Kajembe, G.C., Monela, G.C., Mvena, Z.S.K. (2003). Making community based management work: A case study of Duru-Haitemba village forest reserve, Babati, Tanzania. In: Policies and governance structures in Woodlands of Southern Africa. CIFOR, Jarcata . pp 16-28. Kant, S. and Berry, R.A. (2001). A theoretical model of optimal forest regimes in developing economies. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 157: 331-355. Kistler, S. (2009). The political ecology of community-based forest management in Suledo, Tanzania . MSc. Thesis. Norwegian University of Life Sciences. Norway. pp. 100. Kumar, S. (2002). Does ‘participation’ in common pool resource management help the poor? A social cost-benefit analysis of joint forest management in Jharkhand India. World Development 30 (5): 763-782. Leach, M., Mearns, R., Scoones, I. (1999). Environmental entitlement: Dynamics and institutions in community–based natural resource management. World Development 27(2): 225-247. Lund, J.F., Treue T. (2008). Are we getting there? Evidence of decentralized forest management from the Tanzanian Miombo Woodlands. World Development 36 (12): 2780-2800. McCarthy, J. F. (2000). The changing regime: forest property and reformasi in Indonesia . Development and Change 31: 91-1129. Murphree, M.W. (1994). The role of institutions in community-based conservation. In: Western, D., Wright, R.M and Strum, S. (Eds.), Natural connections: perspectives in Community-based conservation . Island Press, Washington, DC. pp 403-427. Ndonde, M.V. (2000). Managing from below: opportunities for and constraints to, legal and institutional innovations for community forestry in Tanzania. In: Proceeding of international workshop on community forestry in Africa. Participatory forest management: a strategy for sustainable forest management in Africa , 26-30 April 1999, Banjul, the Gambia. FAO, Rome Italy. pp 115-123. North, D.C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance . Cambridge: Cambridge University. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons. The evolution of institutions for

19 collective action. Cambridge University Press, New York. pp 280 Petersen, L. and Sandhöven, A. (2001). Forest policy reform and the role of incentive in Tanzania. Forest policy and Economics (2): 39-55. Petheram, R.J., Stephen, P., Gilmour, D. (2004). Collaborative forest management: a review. Australian Forestry 67 (2): 137-146. Poynter, M. (2005). Collaborative forest management in Victoria’s Wombat State Forest- will it serve the interest of the wider community? Austratia Forestry 68 (3). pp 192-2001. Punch, K.F. (2005). Introduction to social science research. Quantitative and Qualitative approaches . Sage Publications. Thousand Oaks. pp 320. Rechlin, M.A., Hammett, A.L., Burch, W.R., Song, Y. (2002). Sharing the wealthy: A comparative study of distribution of benefits from community based forest management in Southern China and Nepal. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 15 (2). pp 1-23. Regenvanu, R., Wyatt, S.W., Tacconi, L. (1997). Changing forestry regimes in Vanuatu: is sustainability possible? The Contemporary Pacific 9(1): 73-96. Ribot, J.C., Agrawal, A. and Larson, A, M. (2006). Recentralizing while decentralizing: How national governments re-appropriate forest resources. World Development 34 (11): 1864-1886. Rudqvist, A. (2006). Decentralization, inequalities and internal conflicts in Colombia. In: Of glocal concern- Rural livelihood dynamics and natural resource governance (edited by Havnevik, K., Nagash, T. and Beyene, A.). Sida studies No. 16. Sida. pp 191-211. Sarrazin, K. (2002). Overview of second international workshop on participatory forestry in Afirca In: Proceeding of second international workshop on participatory forestry in Africa, defining the way forward: sustainable livelihood and sustainable forest management through participatory forestry , 18-22 February 2000, Arusha International Conference Centre February 18-22, Arusha, United Republic of Tanzania. FAO, Rome Italy. pp 5-21. Semboja, J. and Therkildsen, O. (1994). Decentralization, participation and spatial equity in rural Tanzania: A comment. World Development 22 (5): 807-810. Simonsson, L. (2004). Environmental assessment of landscape changes. An interdisciplinary studies in rural Tanzania . PhD dissertation. Uppsala University, Sweden. pp 62. Skarstein, R. (2006). The Tanzania smallholder under the yoke or liberalisation- from bad to worse? In: Of glocal concern- Rural livelihood dynamics and natural resource governance (edited by Havnevik, K., Nagash, T. and Beyene, A.). Sida studies No. 16. Sida. pp 31-46. Sunseri, T. (2005). Something else to burn: forest, squatters, conservationist, and the state in modern Tanzania. Journal of Modern African Studies 43(4): 609-640. Tacconi, L. (2007). Decentralization, forest and livelihoods: Theory and narrative. Global Environmental Change 17: 338-348. Thanh, T.N. and Sikor, T. (2006). From legal acts to actual powers: Devolution and property rights in the Central Highlands of Vietnam. Forest Policy and Economics 8: 397-408.

20 Taylor, P.L. (2000). Producing more with less? Community forestry in Duranga, Mexico in an era of trade liberalization. Rural Sociology 65(2): 253-274. [http://www.tanzania.go.tz/census/census/Manyara.htm] site visited on 15/5/2009. United Republic of Tanzania (URT) (2002). Forest Act . Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism. pp 123. Government Printer, Dar es Salaam. United Republic of Tanzania (URT) (1999). 1999 Village Land Act No. 5 of 1999 . Ministry of Lands and Human Settlements. Government Printer, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. pp 133. United Republic of Tanzania (URT) (1998). National Forest Policy . Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism. Forestry and Beekeeping Division. Government Printer. United Republic of Tanzania (URT) (1998). Sex Offences Special Provision Act . Government Printer, Dar es Salaam. United Republic of Tanzania (URT) (1982). The local government (district authorities) Act. No. 7 of 1982. Government Printer, Dar es Salaam. Vihemaki, H. (2005). Politics of participatory forest management: Case from the East Usambara Mountains, Tanzania. The Journal of Transdiscliplinary Environmental Studies 4 (2): 1-16 Wiering, M. and Crabbe, A. (2006). The institutional dynamics of water management in the low countries. In: Institutional dynamics in environmental governance Wiersum, K.F. (2004). Social and community forestry. In: Burley, J., Evans, J., Youngquist, J.A. (Eds), Encyclopedia of forest science . Elsevier Ltd. pp 1136- 1143. Wily, L. (1997). Finding the right institutions and legal framework for community based forest management. The Tanzanian case. Special Publication. Centre for International Forestry Research. pp 1-57. Yihäisi, J. (2003). Forest privatization and the role of community in forests and nature protection in Tanzania. Environmental Science and Policy 6: 279-290. Zahabu, E. (2008). Sinks and sources. A strategy to involve forest communities in Tanzania in global climate policy . A PhD dissertation. University of Twente Enschede. The Netherlands. pp 241.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Authors of this paper wish to acknowledge Ford Foundation International Fellowship Programme Tanzania for providing scholarship to the first authors of this paper to pursue PhD study at Wageningen University, the Netherlands. Thanks go to REPOA – Research on Poverty Alleviation in Tanzania for funding research work that founds this paper. Prof. Bas Arts of Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group and Prof. Cees Leeuwis of Innovation and Communication Studies Group are appreciated for their valuable comments on the drafts of this paper. The two professors were promoters of the first author for his PhD study at the Wageningen University. We also thank staff of Babati District Council and Orgat Consulting Firm for cooperating very well during fieldwork. Sincere thanks go to farmers at Ayasanda, Endanachan, Boay and Haraa villages in Babati for providing useful research data.