United States Forest Service – African Wildlife Foundation Collaboration Technical Assistance for Forest Management Planning in the Tarangire River Headwaters, Kondoa District, Tanzania

Trip Report August 6 – 20, 2006

Susan Charnley and Ronald Overton

United States Forest Service – African Wildlife Foundation Collaboration Technical Assistance for Forest Management Planning in the Tarangire River Headwaters, Kondoa District, Tanzania

Draft Trip Report August 6 – 20, 2006

1 Table of Contents List of Acronyms...... 3 Acknowledgments ...... 4 Executive Summary...... 5 Introduction: Scope of Technical Assistance...... 7 Section 1: Background and Context...... 9 Section 2: Issues, Findings, and Recommendations...... 17 Issue 1...... 17 Issue 2...... 20 Issue 3...... 23 Issue 4...... 29 Issue 5...... 33 Issue 6...... 35 Section 3: Steps to Operationalize Recommendations ...... 37 Section 4: USFS Support for Implementation and Next Steps...... 40 Literature Cited ...... 41 Annex 1 - Itinerary...... 42 Annex 2 - Scope of Work...... 49 Annex 3 - People Contacted ...... 53 Annex 4 - Workshop Agenda, Participant List, and Notes...... 55 Annex 5 - Relevant Literature ...... 69 Annex 6 - Examples of Participatory Forest Management in Tanzania...... 72 Annex 7 - Villages in the Tarangire River Headwaters, Kondoa District ...... 74

2

List of Acronyms

AWF African Wildlife Foundation FAO Food and Agriculture Agency of the United Nations KEA Kondoa Eroded Area ICRAF International Centre for Research in Agroforestry (in 2002, name changed to World Agroforestry Centre) LAMP Land Management Programme (funded by the Swedish International Development Cooperation Authority) MALISTA Man-Land Interrelations in Semi Arid Tanzania PFM Participatory Forest Management SAREC Swedish Agency for Research Cooperation SIDA Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency USAID United States Agency for International Development USFS U. S. Forest Service UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization

3 Acknowledgments

We would like to extend our greatest appreciation to Frank Melamari, Project Officer, African Wildlife Foundation for being an outstanding guide, technical expert, translator, workshop organizer, logistics arranger, and companion throughout our mission. We would also like to thank Davis Mziray, Driver, African Wildlife Foundation for safely and graciously transporting us during our stay, accommodating all of our needs and schedules, and entertaining us during long drives. Augustine Martin, Kondoa District Forestry Officer, kindly devoted a week of his time to hosting us in Kondoa District, setting up and assisting with village meetings and the workshop, and serving as an excellent and knowledgeable local guide and resource person. We are also grateful to Idris Kikula, Institute of Resource Assessment, University of Dar es Salaam for loaning us a portion of his library during our visit so that we could become more familiar with the social and biophysical landscape of Kondoa region, and its history. Finally, we thank the village chairmen, executive officers, and council members from the villages of Mnenia, Kwadinu, Humai, Bukulu, Masawi, Kandaga, Filimo, Itundwi, and Kolo who met with us and gave their time to discuss and help us understand local forest management and development issues.

4 Executive Summary

In August, 2006 the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) sent a technical assistance team to Tanzania to work with the African Wildlife Foundation (AWF) in an effort to protect the watershed of the Tarangire National Park by improving forest conditions in the upper reaches of the Tarangire River in the area around the Irangi Escarpment.

The tasks of the USFS team included: (1) assessing the potential for implementing participatory forest management in the forested areas of the Tarangire River headwaters in Kondoa District; recommending a strategy for moving forward with implementing participatory forest management in the area; and, identifying resource and assistance needs to support this strategy; (2) identifying activities that could be introduced in villages in the Tarangire River headwaters to relieve pressure on forest resources and provide alternative ways of meeting household needs that are currently being met by forest products, and recommending a strategy for introducing and developing these activities; and (3) holding a one-day workshop with Kondoa District staff and others who work in natural resource management in Kondoa District to familiarize them with the participatory forest management process, assess their level of support for it, discuss how they think it should be implemented, identify what resources they need to move it forward, and solicit their ideas, knowledge, and experience with alternatives to current forest resource use practices that could relieve pressure on natural forests.

To address these tasks the USFS team, along with the Kondoa District Forestry Officer and the AWF Project Officer for this region, visited nine villages near the Irangi Escarpment. This allowed us to observe the relationship between the villages and the surrounding forest and to meet with village residents to obtain their perspective on forest conditions, their need for forest products and other natural resources, and their views on the concept and practice of participatory forest management. Following these visits, the team and the AWF project officer conducted a workshop on the participatory forest management process that is set forth in the National Forest Policy of Tanzania (1998) and the Forest Act, 2002.

One of the observations of this and previous USFS teams was that little information was made available to the team prior to the technical assistance visit. Therefore, this report includes a considerable amount of background information and reference lists on topics which we hope will be of use to future teams. These topics include geographic and natural resource conditions, land use history, government organization for the region, and the participatory forest management process being promoted by the Tanzanian government.

Six main issues were identified during the trip. These issues are listed below. More detailed discussion of the issues and our recommendations for how to address them are found in the body of the report.

Issue 1: Forests in the Tarangire River headwaters – specifically, in the Salanka, Isabe, and Kome Forest Reserves and in the Irangi Escarpment Proposed Forest Reserve – are degrading, and there is concern about the ecological and biophysical effects of forest degradation on the Tarangire River watershed.

5

Issue 2: People living in villages in and around the Tarangire River headwaters in the Kondoa Irangi hills and the Irangi escarpment are dependent on forest resources for many uses, but these uses may be having a negative impact on watershed health.

Issue 3: There is a need to assess the potential for implementing participatory forest management in villages located in the forested Tarangire River headwaters – specifically in villages adjacent to the Salanka, Isabe, and Kome Forest Reserves, and around the Irangi Escarpment Proposed Forest Reserve – as a strategy for promoting forest protection.

Issue 4: There is a need to identify and implement strategies for reducing human pressure on forest resources.

Issue 5: There is a need to assess what information is available already, and what the current capacity of communities and district staff are, for implementing alternative strategies to reduce human pressure on forest resources; and, what information is needed, and what capacity needs to be built, in order to implement these strategies effectively.

Issue 6: The Kondoa Irangi Hills and Irangi Escarpment contain prehistoric rock paintings that are several thousand years old that not only have heritage value, but are the only notable tourism attraction in the District. The sites are threatened by vandalism. The Tanzania Department of Antiquities does not have the resources to adequately protect and manage the sites, and local residents are not actively protecting or managing them because they don’t derive any benefits from them. There has been no tourism development associated with the rock paintings that benefits local communities.

The first step to operationalizing the recommendations made in this trip report is to identify a holistic strategy for addressing the forest management problem in the Tarangire River headwaters of Kondoa District that includes both on-the-ground implementation of the Tanzanian government’s participatory forest management process, and specific interventions that would reduce demand for, and increase supply of, forest products. We have suggested what some of these interventions could be in this report. More work needs to be done, however, to investigate how specifically these interventions should be designed. The second critical step is to secure funding to support implementation of this strategy.

6 Introduction: Scope of Technical Assistance

The initial scope of technical assistance for this mission outlined by the African Wildlife Foundation (AWF) and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) identified two objectives: (1) to put on a workshop to provide practical guidance to AWF, local representatives of the Tanzanian Forestry and Beekeeping Division of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, and Kondoa District authorities on the process of creating a forest management plan for the Kolo Hills Forest Reserve in Kondoa District, Dodoma Region, Tanzania; and (2) to assist AWF, The Tanzanian Forestry and Beekeeping Division, and Kondoa District authorities in developing plans for a village-based demonstration project in the Tarangire River headwaters that would serve as an example of sustainable natural resource management for other villages in the district (see Annex 2).

Within a few days of our arrival in Tanzania it became clear that the purpose of our mission was slightly different from that which was outlined in the initial scope of work. Thus, we redefined the scope of technical assistance as follows: (1) to assess the potential for implementing participatory forest management in the forested areas of the Tarangire River headwaters in Kondoa District; to recommend a strategy for moving forward with implementing participatory forest management in the area; and, to identify what resources and assistance are needed in order to support this strategy; (2) to identify activities that could be introduced in villages in the Tarangire River headwaters to relieve pressure on forest resources and provide alternative ways of meeting household needs that are currently being met by forest products, and to recommend a strategy for introducing and developing these activities; and (3) to hold a one- day workshop with Kondoa District staff and others who work in natural resource management in Kondoa District to familiarize them with the participatory forest management process, assess their level of support for it, discuss how they think it should be implemented, identify what resources they need to move it forward, and solicit their ideas, knowledge, and experience with alternatives to current forest resource use practices that could relieve pressure on natural forests.

There were two main reasons for this shift in scope. First, the National Forest Policy of Tanzania (1998) and the Forest Act, 2002 advocate and clearly outline a process for participatory forest management to be implemented at the village level in Tanzania. Developing a forest management plan is only one step in this process (see Background and Context section). What was called for in this mission, then, was to assess how to begin implementing the forest management approach identified by the National Forest Policy and the Forest Act in Kondoa District, where it has yet to take hold. Second, the assignment to develop a village-based demonstration project for sustainable natural resource management in one village seemed to “put the cart before the horse”, before an adequate assessment had been made of what projects had already been introduced in the area, where, with what results, and what would be the best approach to introducing more sustainable natural resource use practices locally.

7 A word on terminology: there is no “Kolo Hills Forest Reserve” as referred to in the original scope of work. We did not encounter anyone in Kondoa, or any literature pertaining to the area, that used the place name “Kolo Hills”. The Tarangire River headwaters in Kondoa District lie in the eastern drainages of the Kondoa Irangi Hills and the Irangi escarpment, which flow into the Irangi Plain (also called lower Irangi), which forms the western extent of the Maasai Steppe (Figure 1). The hills and escarpment are dominated by miombo (Brachystegia spp.) woodlands. These woodlands lie both inside and outside of government forest reserves. The existing government forest reserves in the Tarangire River headwaters are three: Salanka, Isabe, and Kome by name. Kondoa District natural resources management staff are concerned about the management of these government forest reserves, but they are equally concerned about the management of forests outside of the reserves. Thus, our focus in this report is on forest management in the Tarangire River headwaters of Kondoa District, which refers to forests both inside and outside of government reserves in the Irangi Hills and Irangi escarpment that lie within the catchment basin of the Tarangire River.

Figure 1. Maps of the Kondoa Area. Top: Map of the Kondoa District. The shaded area is the Kondoa Eroded Area. Source: Mung’ong’o, Kikula, and Mwalyosi, 2004 Bottom: Map of Irangi Hills and surroundings. Source:Christiansonn and Kikula,1996

8 Section 1: Background and Context

Problem Statement

The African Wildlife Foundation, with whom the U.S. Forest Service is cooperating to provide technical assistance, has a long history of working in Tarangire National Park. Tarangire National Park lies within the “Maasai Steppe Heartland”, an area of northern Tanzania that AWF has designated as a focal area for landscape-scale conservation efforts. A map of this area is shown in Figure 2.

AWF is currently concerned about watershed degradation in the Tarangire River watershed. The Tarangire River is the main source of dry season water for wildlife inside the national park. Should the river flows decrease, impacts on aquatic and riparian habitat and wildlife could be significant. One component of the technical assistance package USFS is providing to AWF in the Tarangire watershed pertains to assessing the state of the watershed, and making management recommendations for improving watershed health to ensure that water flows in the river are sustained. A second component of technical assistance focuses on land-use practices in the Tarangire River headwaters outside the national park that may be contributing to watershed degradation, and threatening the Tarangire River. This second component was the focus of this technical assistance visit to Tanzania.

The Kondoa Irangi hills and the Irangi escarpment – which drops down to the Maasai steppe – form the headwaters of the Tarangire River catchment basin. Much of this area is covered in miombo woodlands which lie inside of three government forest reserves. These reserves all lie east of the Great North Road. Salanka (also spelled Salanga, and referred to by some as Kolo Salanka) was gazetted in 1941 and is 20,600 acres in size. It is a central government forest reserve and is designated as a protection reserve, meaning its main purpose is watershed protection (some call it a catchment forest reserve). This forest is contiguous with the Bereko Forest Reserve in neighboring Babati District (Manyara Region). The Isabe Forest Reserve is contiguous with Salanka to the south. Both reserves lie to the north of the road that connects Kolo and Mnenia. Isabe was designated in 1954, is 10,500 acres in size, and is managed by Kondoa District – it is a local authority forest reserve also designated as a protection reserve for watershed protection. The locations of the Salanka and Isabe reserves are shown in Figure 3. The Kome Forest Reserve, which is 10,000 acres in size, is the third government reserve. It was established in 1941. Kome is a central government reserve and not contiguous with the first two, lying south of the Kolo-Mnenia road. It is also a protection reserve.

9 Figure 2. Map showing Kondoa and surrounding villages in relation to the Masai Steppe and the Tarangire National Park

10 Figure 3. Map showing location of Salanga and Isabe Forest Reserves.

11 The reserves are surrounded by villages in the upper and lower catchment areas (see Annex 7). The government forest reserves have been identified by AWF as areas of high importance for protecting the health of the Tarangire River. AWF thus wishes to support sustainable forest management there in order to improve the health of the forest as a catchment for the Tarangire River, and ensure a sustainable supply of forest goods and services to local communities.

Miombo woodlands also lie outside of the government forest reserves and are contiguous with them. It is not clear how much of this forest lies on general state land, and how much falls within village boundaries. Nevertheless, it was clear that all of the forest in the catchment area that feeds the Tarangire River is of interest for management and protection, regardless of its classification. In 1957 a 692 square mile area of the Irangi hills and escarpment south of the road connecting Mnenia and Kolo, and north of the road from Kondoa to Mondo, Tandala, and Busi, etc. was proposed to be gazetted as the Irangi Escarpment Forest Reserve, another government forest reserve. It was never created, however, because of lack of local support.

To date, Kondoa District has had the authority for managing the government forest reserves. In protection forests, it is not permitted to harvest timber. Communities can only collect water, gather honey, obtain firewood, obtain medicinal plants, harvest fruits, and in some cases, graze livestock. It is necessary for community residents to obtain a permit for these activities from the Kondoa District office, and to pay for the permit. We did not learn what the policy is toward the collection of other nontimber forest products.

Government forest reserves in Tanzania on the whole have suffered from inadequate forest management practices because government institutions which have been responsible for their management are weak, and demand for their goods and services has been increasing (National Forest Policy 1998). The Salanka, Isabe, and Kome forest reserves are no exception. The Kondoa District Forestry Officer has management responsibility for these forest reserves, in addition to one other government forest reserve in the district (the Songa forest reserve outside the Tarangire watershed, in the southwestern part of the district). However, these forest reserves lack management plans; the District Natural Resource Office is located in Kondoa town which is roughly 25 km. away from the nearest, southernmost border of the forest reserves; transport for visiting the reserves is difficult to obtain (the district offices have a pool of vehicles but there is no money to support travel); the annual district budget for forest management is low and we saw no evidence of investment in active forest management, restoration, or conservation projects; and the number of district forestry staff is 17, of whom 6 are charged with enforcing the regulations regarding resource use in the Salanka and Isabe forest reserves. Consequently, forests inside of the reserves are being degraded because illegal and unsustainable forest use activities are difficult to control.

Unreserved forests on village and general lands are also subject to increasing demands for forest resource use. Because tenure over these forests is unclear, there is little if any regulation of forest resource use there, and little incentive for sustainable use and management. Forest degradation and destruction are a problem in unreserved forests, and these forests are being converted to other land uses.

12 It is within this context of what can be termed “open access” (anyone has access to the resource, and no institutions govern its use or management) that AWF requested assistance from the USFS to provide guidance on how to support sustainable forest management in the Tarangire River headwaters of Kondoa District.

Forest Management in Tanzania

In order to fully understand the purpose of this technical assistance mission and its associated issues, findings, recommendations, and steps for operationalizing the recommendations, it is important to understand the context of forest management in Tanzania, and the relatively recent approach to forest management now being advocated by the Tanzanian government. We provide this context below.

There are four types of forests in Tanzania: 1) national forests, which occur in central government forest reserves and on general lands; 2) local authority forest reserves, which are reserved by local government councils (districts) for the purpose of conservation or sustainable production; 3) village forests, which lie on general village lands (managed by the village council), in village land forest reserves (managed by the entire village), or in community forest reserves (managed by a designated group within the village); and 4) private forests, located on general or village lands, which are held by one or more individuals under rights of occupancy or leasehold (Forest Act No. 14 of 2002, Part II). Roughly 45 percent of the forests in Tanzania are reserved in national and local government forest reserves (with a small percentage in National Parks, Game Reserves, and private and village forest reserves) (Wily & Dewees). The balance are unreserved forests lying on general lands, either inside or outside of village boundaries.

One objective of Tanzania’s 1998 National Forest Policy is to ensure a sustainable supply of forest products and services by maintaining sufficient forest area under effective management. To accomplish this goal in government forest reserves, the Tanzanian government has identified the following national policy and direction: (1) sustainable management objectives should be defined for each forest reserve, and the management of these reserves should be based on forest management plans; (2) central and local government forest reserves should be demarcated on the ground, and forest management plans should be prepared on the basis of reliable inventory data and should cover all different uses of forests; (3) central government forest reserves will be managed by one or several specialized executive agencies or the private sector (in the case of production reserves), or they may remain under management of the central government if they are of strategic importance (ie critical watershed areas, high biodiversity); (4) joint management agreements with appropriate user rights and benefits will be established between the central government, specialized executive agencies, local governments, the private sector, and/or organized local communities or other organizations of people living adjacent to the forest, as appropriate, to enable participation of all stakeholders in forest management and conservation in accordance with approved management plans.

In order to reduce uncontrolled use of forests on general lands that have not been reserved, the National Forest policy says that clear ownership should be defined, and allocation of the

13 forests and associated management responsibilities should be given to villages, private individuals, or the government. New forest reserves may be created by central, local, or village governments. The priority, however, is to allocate unreserved forests on general lands to villages for establishing village forest reserves. Regarding village forest reserves, the policy says that: (1) village forest reserves will be managed by village governments or other entities designated by village governments for this purpose; (2) they will be managed for production and/or protection based on sustainable management objectives defined for each forest reserve; and (3) management will be based on forest management plans.

The implementing legislation for Tanzania’s National Forest Policy is the Forest Act, 2002. The Act has a number of objectives, but most relevant here are to encourage and facilitate active citizen involvement in managing and using forests sustainably, and delegating responsibility for forest management to the lowest possible level. The approach prescribed for doing so is termed “participatory forest management” (PFM). What is PFM?

PFM is an approach to managing forests in which villages that are in or adjacent to forest areas take on the role of forest managers, sharing the power to make forest use and management decisions. Village residents do not simply have rights of access to the forest and to forest benefits; they also have management authority, and can develop bylaws for this purpose. Participatory forest management relies on existing government structures. At the village level this can mean the village assembly (all village residents), the village council (the elected village government), or elected village forest management committees; at the district level it means the district forestry officer and others who represent an interdisciplinary team. District staff members take on a new role. Instead of developing and enforcing rules for forest management, they take on a support function. Thus, they become advisers to villages, help them resolve conflicts relating to forest management, help villages coordinate with each other, serve as a communication channel between villages or villages and higher levels of government, and monitor whether villages are managing forests in accordance with forest management plans. The purpose of PFM is threefold: (1) to ensure that forests are protected and well managed, thereby improving effective forest management and conservation; (2) to provide sustainable forest benefits to local communities, such as timber, firewood, honey, and revenue from harvesting forest products, thereby reducing poverty and improving rural livelihoods; and (3) to strengthen and improve village institutions for natural resource management by giving them more management responsibility.

In short, PFM seeks to turn what are currently open access forests into common property, meaning that a defined group of people have access rights, there are institutions that develop rules and regulations governing forest use and management, and there are mechanisms for enforcing these rules and regulations. It is rooted in the belief that if local people have the power and responsibility for local forest management, they will try to protect forests, because they will feel a sense of ownership over them, and will want to ensure that the forests they own and are responsible for are managed sustainably into the future. Research shows that giving people resource management authority increases resource stewardship.

There are two types of PFM in Tanzania. The first pertains to the management of forests that have been gazetted as central government and local authority forest reserves, such as

14 Salanka, Isabe, and Kome. In this case, villages become partners with the government in managing forests through what are called “joint forest management agreements”. Joint forest management agreements are co-management arrangements between the central or local (district) government and villages or other groups of persons, as appropriate, living next to a forest reserve. The District Forest Officer, together with a multidisciplinary team, works with village governments to develop joint forest management agreements. The agreement represents a contract between the district or national government entity and a village. It is established through negotiation, and lays out what rights and responsibilities each party will have, as well as how the costs and benefits of forest management will be shared. Villages identify the boundaries of Village Forest Management Areas within the government reserve that they will be responsible for managing. Forest management plans are required for these areas to ensure sustainable use of forest resources, which must be reviewed at least every 5 years. According to one source (we are not sure how reliable it is), to date about 1.8 million hectares of Tanzania’s forest land are being managed under joint forest management agreements in which some 530 villages participate (PCPFM nd).

The second type of PFM pertains to the management of unreserved forests that are on village or general lands. In this case, villages take ownership of unreserved forests; identifying boundaries around the areas they will be responsible for managing. Villages can gazette three kinds of forest reserves on village lands: 1) village land forest reserves, managed by the entire community; 2) community forest reserves, managed by a particular designated group within a community like a women’s group, subvillage, or ethnic group (subject to approval by the village council); and 3) private forests, managed by individual designated households. Villages can define a village land forest reserve out of village land, and smaller groups can define community forest reserves on village land. The Forest Act contains detailed procedures for how this is to be done.

Forest reserves on village lands are managed using what are referred to as “community- based forest management agreements”. The village council, village assembly, and an elected village forest management committee are responsible for developing community-based forest management agreements. The agreements establish clear rights of access to and use of the forest. Village councils create bylaws and other rules that govern the use and management of village land forest reserves. Village forest reserves can be managed jointly by two or more villages if the forest crosses village boundaries, in which case they establish joint village forest management committees for this purpose. Forest management plans are required to ensure sustainable use of forest resources (but are not required for small private forest lands), and these must be reviewed at least every five years at the district and national levels. About 1.2 million hectares of forest land in Tanzania are said to be currently managed under community-based forest management agreements with some 1,500 villages (again, the reliability of this source is unknown) (PCPFM nd).

The benefits of PFM are hoped to be many. It enables communities to feel more empowered by democratizing forest management and giving them responsibility for the management of local forest resources. In parts of Tanzania where PFM has been adopted, there are reports of decreases in forest destruction, increased protection and sustainable use, and more active forest management and restoration activities (Wily 1998, Wily & Dewees nd). Villages

15 are building institutional capacity for governance, and the cost to district and central governments for managing forests should decrease. Ideally, PFM also promotes gender equity and improves community development. Annex 6 contains a list of documented examples of PFM in Tanzania.

16 Section 2: Issues, Findings, and Recommendations

Issue 1 Forests in the Tarangire River headwaters – specifically, in the Salanka, Isabe, and Kome Forest Reserves and in the Irangi Escarpment Proposed Forest Reserve – are degrading, and there is concern about the ecological and biophysical effects of forest degradation on the Tarangire River watershed.

Findings

Deforestation and forest degradation, primarily due to land clearing for agriculture, fuelwood harvesting, and overgrazing have been identified as a widespread problem in Tanzania in the miombo woodland vegetation type (Kajuna, 2004). Villagers in the majority of our meetings mentioned that the forest reserves as well as other forest areas were becoming more open. Our observations within the Salanka and Isabe reserves and on land surrounding villages confirmed the villagers’ observations that forests were degraded and understocked, with limited natural regeneration.

Degradation in semi-arid forests is the result of over harvesting and overgrazing, with unsustainable harvesting of wood for cooking, charcoal production, and brick burning identified as the major threat to Tanzanian forests (Kajuna, 2004; Mung’ong’o et al., 2004). Timber-, pole- , and sapling-sized material are harvested for fuelwood, poles, lumber, and other building material (e.g., roofing and wall material, fencing, trellising, etc.). Overgrazing removes seedling and sapling-sized vegetation, damages the roots of larger trees through soil compaction and root breakage, and increases the rate of soil erosion. Collection of dead woody material, down to fairly small branches for fuel also removes a source of organic matter that usually is decomposed. This decomposed organic matter is incorporated into the soil and maintains the porosity and water holding capacity characteristic of forest soils.

Increased erosion, due to the lack of forest canopy and to degradation of properties of forest soils that maintain soil stability and water holding capacity, will permanently alter soil conditions and make it difficult, if not impossible, to maintain a forest ecosystem. As forests become more open and soil structure changes, competition from grass and other sun-loving vegetation will reduce the ability of some tree species to regenerate naturally. At some point in this process, the affected site may irreversibly transition from woodland or forest to degraded savannah or shrub communities. Evidence that this process is occurring has been noted in the Irangi Hills (see chapter 8 in Christianson and Kikula, 1996). In a worst case scenario (observed in several tropical areas by a member of this mission), “badlands” develop that will not support native vegetation, and are either devoid of vegetation or are sites where non-native invasive plants become established.

This ongoing degradation is reducing the ability of the forested areas to intercept and absorb rainfall. This in turn reduces groundwater recharge, increases erosion rates, and causes shorter, higher intensity stream flows. Most of the villages we visited mentioned reduced flows from springs and streams and more intense but shorter duration stream flow following rains as one of the environmental changes they have noticed. We saw numerous washed out bridges and

17 culverts as we traveled between villages, especially in the Lower Irangi area, which may indicate increased stream flow. On the other hand, we also saw several instances of recently constructed water bars on roads and water breaks in roadside ditches in some areas above the escarpment, which indicates some mitigation is being attempted by the road department.

Numerous studies have been made on natural resource conditions around Kondoa (see Issue 5 for a more details on these studies). The majority of these centered around the Kondoa Eroded Area (KEA), which covers about 10% (1256 km2) of the Kondoa District and includes most of the Irangi Hills area (see Fig. 1). Much of the KEA is not within the Tarangire River watershed. However, it is contiguous with the watershed and contains the same forest types, landforms, and land use patterns. The KEA is an area that has been subjected to repeated cycles of degradation, the most recent of which began in the early 1900s. Both the earlier colonial and the current independent government initiated conservation projects in the area; the most ambitious of these was the formation in 1973 of the Hafadhi Ardhi Dodoma (HADO) project, which translates to “soil and water conservation in Dodoma Region” project. The HADO project was initiated by the Government of Tanzania, and was supported by the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA) from 1973 to 1995. This project conducted numerous soil conservation projects, many based on limited understanding of the social, geological, or ecological relationships in the area (Mung’ong’o et al., 2004). In 1979, the government took the radical step of removing all livestock from the KEA. This provided an opportunity to study the recovery of the vegetation and soil in the KEA up to the mid-1990s, when HADO administration of the area began to break down (see below).

In general, studies in the KEA found that much of the denuded area had revegetated with a fairly representative mix of indigenous species, with a concomitant reduction in the rate of soil erosion, during the 20+ years that followed the removal of grazing and agricultural operations. However, severe reductions in funding for the HADO project in the 1990s and an apparent breakdown in governmental decision-making processes have resulted in unregulated agricultural and grazing operations in the KEA that are starting yet another cycle of degradation. During our trips through the area, we observed cattle grazing and newly cleared agricultural fields in the KEA.

There is evidence from research studies and from anecdotal observations that degradation of forests in the Irangi Hills and along the Irangi Escarpment is occurring and is contributing to reductions in watershed function. In addition, the declining stocking levels of the forests are reducing the supply of all forest products, from timber and fuelwood to fruit and honey from flowering trees. This is occurring concurrently with deforestation as a result of expanding agricultural operations and subsequent loss of watershed function through erosion from these areas. At the same time, some land clearing from urban development is occurring within the area. All of these activities are contributing to a decline in the health of the watershed.

We were told by Augustine Martin, District Forestry Officer, that there were no forest inventories or ecological surveys for either the forest reserves or other forested areas. Likewise, there do not appear to be any soil surveys, or hydrologic or weather stations, in this area. As a result, the actual impact of forest degradation on watershed function is difficult to separate from other factors in the watershed. Similarly, the impact of forest degradation on the supply of

18 fuelwood, timber, and other non-timber forest products (or vice-versa) is difficult to assess accurately, although these are obviously declining.

Baseline data on forest conditions, water yield, and weather would improve the effectiveness and efficiency of conservation projects and monitoring systems for these factors and would help assess the impact of future environmental changes on the project area.

Recommendations

• Develop a forest inventory/ecological survey system and conduct a survey to assess the current condition of forest reserves and other forest areas in the project area. This recommendation is consistent with the desires of the Kondoa District Forestry Officer, who requested an ecological assessment of the forest reserves in order to identify what forest resources exist there, and restoration needs. It is also one of the steps in the PFM process. This should be designed to be compatible with any national ecological survey/inventory system that currently exists, but could also collect additional information as needed. If no national survey exists, assistance or expertise could be obtained from FAO or the USDA Forest Service in designing a system.

• Determine the need and/or feasibility for a hydrologic or weather monitoring network for the project area. Monitoring weather conditions and water supplies will help provide an understanding of ecological relationships in the region and could eventually be used to help predict water availability in the Tarangire National Park. In the U.S., weather data collected by schools and volunteers helps augment government-operated facilities. This may be a possibility in this area, especially if some equipment could be provided and coordination could be arranged with the appropriate government agencies.

19 Issue 2: People living in villages in and around the Tarangire River headwaters in the Kondoa Irangi hills and the Irangi escarpment are dependent on forest resources for many uses, but these uses may be having a negative impact on watershed health.

Findings

People living in villages in the Tarangire River headwaters depend on the forested Irangi hills and escarpment for many uses: water supply from springs and streams (for drinking, household use, agriculture), fuelwood (for cooking, firing bricks that houses are made from), grass for thatching roofs and fodder, bee keeping, stones for building materials, forage for livestock, timber, charcoal, poles for construction purposes, soil for planting nursery plants and fertilizing crop seeds in agricultural fields, and the gathering of nontimber forest products such as traditional medicines and wild fruits. Wild fruits that are valued for eating and that may also be sold commercially in local markets include Vitex mombassae or mchumbau in Kirangi, Ximenia caffra or mjengu in Kirangi, Ficus spp. or mkuyu in Kirangi (figs), Vitex doniana or mpuru in Kirangi (black plum), Azanza garckeana or matwa in Kirangi (snot apple), and Adamsonia digitata or mbuyu in Kiswahili (baobab). Not all of these uses are allowed in the government forest reserves, but take place anyway. Hunting is not an important forest use because game animals are scarce. The wildlife that were reported by villagers as occurring in local forests were bushpigs (Potamochoerus porcus) and baboons (Papiocynocephalus anubis) which are viewed as pests because they invade agricultural crops, antelopes such as the dik dik (Madoqua kirkii), snakes, and rarely leopards (Panthera pardus).

People also value forests for ecosystem services. In the villages we visited in the upper catchment (along the Great North Road), there was a common perception that the adequate rainfall they receive each year that is so important for agricultural production is tied to the presence of forests in the hills. People perceive that the forests bring rain, and conversely, that forest destruction threatens good rainfall. This perception was partly explained by the fact that there is much less rainfall down on the Irangi Plain and Maasai Steppe than up in the hills, and also there is little forest cover on the plains. Some also saw a connection between forest cover and flooding, and believed that protecting forest cover would help to prevent quick runoff of rains and potential floods down in lower Irangi.

Some villages have set aside and protected forest areas on village lands as religious sites. In Masawi for example, one of the village forests is protected for ritual purposes like circumcision ceremonies, and making religious offerings, with no other uses allowed.

Annex 7 contains a list of villages in the lower and upper catchment areas. During our mission we visited nine villages located adjacent to the Salanka and Isabe Forest Reserves: Mnenia, Kwadinu, Humai, Bukulu, Masawi, Kandaga, Filimo, Itundwi, and Kolo. We asked the people we interviewed in these villages about their issues and concerns related to forest management.

Perhaps the biggest concern related to forest use and management expressed by people we interviewed focused on fuelwood. Fuelwood is by far the main fuel used for cooking; the use of

20 charcoal is limited in villages, and occurs mostly in Kondoa town. Regulations (for the forest reserves and for many village forests) stipulate that only dead and down wood should be collected for fuelwood. However, such wood is increasingly hard to find and women – who are responsible for gathering fuelwood – must go further and further from their homes in order to obtain an adequate supply. Many people expressed an interest in finding ways to reduce their dependency on fuelwood. Of the villages we visited, only Kolo and Mnenia had households that had adopted more fuel-efficient stoves. The other major use of fuelwood relates to house construction. Houses in the villages of the Tarangire River headwaters are made from mud bricks, which must be fired. One study from the village of Mondo, near the Irangi Escarpment Proposed Forest Reserve, estimated that the fuelwood equivalent of three hectares of natural forest are needed for brick burning during one season in this one village (Yanda and Kangalawe 2004). This estimate gives a sense of the magnitude of the problem.

Although charcoal is rarely used for cooking in local villages, villagers expressed concern about the “theft” of trees from forests by charcoal makers and timber harvesters. Charcoal preparation occurs mainly in the rainy season. Brachystegia species are preferred for making charcoal. It is sold in cities like Kondoa and Arusha, with trucks coming to villages in the catchment from those places to buy it. Trees are also removed for timber, the preferred species being Brachystegia speciformis and Pterocarpus angolensis (mninga in Kiswahili). Villagers expressed concern about the illegal harvest of these trees from government and village lands, and also expressed frustration over their efforts to prevent it. Some villages have tried to curtail illegal tree harvesting through their environment committees, but said this is difficult to do because they lack weapons and transport, there is little cooperation between villages, and illegal harvesting usually takes place at night. Tree theft has caused the removal of many of the big trees from the Salanka and Isabe forest reserves.

The trip report prepared by the USFS-AWF team that went to Kondoa District in the summer of 2005 stated that fire is a major problem in the forest reserves, and must be stopped. Fires may be set intentionally by hunters to open the understory, by bee keepers to drive away bees so that their honey can be gathered, by livestock herders to stimulate new grass growth, and by farmers clearing forest areas for cultivation. They may also start accidentally. Our conversations with villagers found that, contrary to what was reported by the former team, most people did not identify fire as a problem in the forest reserves. Although fires do occur, near most of the villages we visited it had been years since a fire had burned. Some people said they didn’t see fire as a threat because there is no fuel to carry fires. Where grasses grow tall in the forest there is the possibility of having fires catch and carry. In most areas, however, there is little grass to carry fires. During the British colonial period, grazing was reportedly allowed in the reserves from July to December (the dry season) to reduce fuels and prevent fires. In 1979, under the Hifadhi ya Ardhi Dodoma (HADO) project, livestock were removed and grazing was prohibited in much of the Kondoa Irangi hills. As a result, grass started growing high again, increasing the danger of forest fire. Although grazing is currently prohibited in the forest reserves, small herds of livestock have returned to the area and sometimes graze in the reserves. Several people thought the colonial policy was a good policy and that it should be reintroduced as a way of reducing the risk of fire.

21 Water was also an issue of concern. Many villages do not have functioning wells or water systems, and therefore rely on streams and springs to obtain water for household uses. During the dry season, when streams and springs have reduced flows or dry up entirely, villagers (mainly women and children) must walk up to several kilometers distant to obtain water.

Agricultural encroachment has also occurred in forested areas, especially in the Kome Forest Reserve and in the Irangi Escarpment Proposed Forest Reserve, where people have cleared forest high up on the escarpment to grow finger millet, which apparently doesn’t grow well down in lower Irangi on the sandy village soils. Agricultural encroachment was also a concern in some village forest areas. It appeared to be a minor problem in the Salanka and Isabe forest reserves.

In sum, villagers residing in the Tarangire River headwaters of Kondoa District depend on forest resources to meet many of their basic needs. Interviewees expressed a concern that forest resources were being used faster than they could be replenished, and noted that population growth did not help this situation. Unsustainable forest use in the catchment basin may well have negative implications for the health of the Tarangire River watershed.

Recommendations

The Kondoa District Forestry Officer, HADO Project staff, and AWF have already recommended implementing the participatory forest management approach outlined in the Forest Policy and the Forest Act to address forest management issues and concerns in the Tarangire headwaters. Indeed, this is how the Tanzanian government has proposed to address the problem of unsustainable forest use and forest degradation nationwide. We concur with these recommendations. However, instituting participatory forest management alone will be insufficient for addressing the problem of unsustainable forest use. It is also important to take actions that reduce existing demand for forest resources. We discuss these recommendations in more detail in the following issue sections.

22 Issue 3: There is a need to assess the potential for implementing participatory forest management in villages located in the forested Tarangire River headwaters – specifically in villages adjacent to the Salanka, Isabe, and Kome Forest Reserves, and around the Irangi Escarpment Proposed Forest Reserve – as a strategy for promoting forest protection.

Findings

Forests in government reserves and on general lands in Kondoa District suffer from the same management problems that have been noted for the country as a whole (see Background and Context section). Forest resource use concerns are described under Issue 2 above. There are regulations that govern what uses can and cannot occur in government forest reserves, and district by-laws that regulate what uses can occur in the Irangi Escarpment Proposed Forest Reserve, but there are no forest management plans for these forests. Forest use occurs on an open access basis, meaning anyone can and does engage in permitted (and unpermitted) activities inside these forests, and forest use is essentially unregulated. Although villages recognize customary forest use areas within the reserves associated with each village, according to our interviews, no one respects the boundaries of these areas. There is one District Forest Officer (currently acting as District Natural Resource Officer) responsible for forest management in Kondoa District, and he has roughly 17 forest guards working for him. Six of these forest guards are assigned to the Salanka, Isabe, and Kome forest reserves (which together total 41,100 acres in size). Transport and funding to implement protection activities and enforce regulations are limited, however. All these factors suggest that the area could benefit from participatory forest management to address these problems.

Tanzania has developed a participatory forest management step-wise process. The first step in the process is to identify villages and forest areas suitable for PFM, where demand and interest exist, by visiting the villages that border the candidate forests. Initial discussions with villagers are conducted to get a broad overview of forest management issues, and to plant the idea of PFM and see how they react. Our mission could, to some extent, be characterized as having undertaken this step. A number of factors contribute to making a place a good candidate for PFM. Below we discuss opportunities and constraints associated with implementing PFM in the Tarangire River headwaters villages and forests successfully, based on the findings.

Political Will

One of the lessons reported to us by Mr. Kavishe, Land Management Program (LAMP) staff in neighboring Babati District (Manyara Region) where PFM has already been implemented, is that strong political will and support are needed to make it work. On our mission we found that the political will and support for PFM are strong at the Kondoa District level. The District Forest Officer is eager to get the process started. Participants in the workshop we held – nearly all of whom work in natural resources at the district level (see Annex 4) – expressed support for PFM, and a readiness to try it. During visits to the nine villages we made on our mission, Mr. Martin explained PFM to the village leaders we met with, and asked what they thought of the concept and whether they would be willing to work with the district to implement it. In every village leaders expressed an interest and willingness to cooperate and try PFM.

23

However, one concern that came up in a number of villages related to the fact that under PFM, villages are responsible for formulating and enforcing bye-laws relating to forest management. People were concerned about taking on the enforcement role. They said most people have been born and raised in these villages, and if they go out into the forest and observe other village members engaging in illegal activities, those people are likely to be their own relatives or friends. How can you arrest your relative or friend? Another issue is, people need to make a living. If you have cattle for instance, and the village has not designated any village land for grazing (which several have not), your only option is to graze your cattle illegally inside the forest reserve. Or, if someone needs to build a house and wants wood for construction, how can you stop him? It is difficult to punish someone for trying to feed and shelter his or her family.

Several people also commented that it is important to provide incentives for forest conservation under PFM. For example, they thought that people who work as forest guards will want to be paid. Several people also said in the workshop that they thought people would need to be paid to patrol the forest. Experience elsewhere in Tanzania has found that villages do expect tangible benefits from PFM – either in the form of access to forest products for harvesting, or payment for forest management activities. It is difficult to determine how these benefits can be provided in protection reserves, where economic incentives for sustainable forest management are limited since people can’t harvest timber. Unfortunately, no system exists for paying people to protect ecosystem services. The question of how to motivate people to protect forests through PFM must be addressed.

We found that villages adjacent to the Salanka and Isabe reserves had different levels of dependency on forests in the reserves. Some villages have forests within their village boundaries that they use to obtain products to meet their daily needs. These forests are generally demarcated within village land use plans, and village by-laws pertain to their use. Depending on how close people live to village forests versus government forest reserves, and on the size and condition of village forests, people may be more or less dependent on government reserves for their daily needs. This level of dependency could affect their level of interest in joint forest management for the reserves.

In many of the villages we visited, interviewees expressed a desire to have active participation by and support from the district forestry office if they implement PFM. They stressed the importance of communicating to villagers that PFM is something being promoted by the district, regional, and national governments, and that it is being tried in many parts of Tanzania. They also wanted the district to back them up with the enforcement role. They requested assistance with educating villagers about PFM and how it can benefit them.

Previous Experience

Interestingly, PFM has already been introduced in Kondoa District by the Hifadhi ya Ardhi Dodoma (HADO) project. The HADO project was originally implemented in Kondoa District in 1973 in what was designated the Kondoa Eroded Area of the District, which is 1,256 square kilometers in size. It encompasses a portion of the Tarangire River headwaters and villages. The

24 initial purpose of the project was to combat extreme soil erosion in the area which was thought to be caused by deforestation, overgrazing, poor farming practices, and overpopulation; to implement land rehabilitation and environmental restoration projects; and, to promote better land use practices. The HADO project achieved some successes in increasing the amount of arable land in the district, in controlling sheet and gully erosion, in encouraging revegetation and reforestation, and in educational outreach.

In 2002 the HADO office initiated community-based forest management in at least ten villages in the Kondoa Eroded Area, which includes the Irangi Escarpment Proposed Forest Reserve. The villages they are working with are Dalai, Madaha, Goima, Jenjeluse, Tandala, Busi, Sambwa, Isusumya, Chandama, and Keikei (also Tomoko, Mafai, and Pahi?). We did not visit any of these villages during our mission. HADO has worked with these villages to develop forest management plans, six of which are now ready for approval at the ward level. The HADO staff members we met with said that there had been a very positive response to the PFM process in the villages where they had developed forest management plans.

It has taken a long time to develop these plans due to lack of resources. From 1973 through 1995 the HADO project was funded by the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency. Since then it has been supported by the Tanzanian government; however Tanzania does not have the financial resources to support the workload. The 2006/07 to 2009/10 HADO Project Development Plan calls for implementing participatory forest management as a central project activity, and is seeking donor funding to support it.

In Babati District, Manyara Region, just to the north of Kondoa District, PFM has been in place for over a decade (see Annex 6). Some of the HADO staff members were aware of these efforts, as was the Kondoa District Forest Officer. However there has been little exchange of knowledge and experience between the two districts.

Institutional Structure

As has been noted by other authors, the institutional structure is already in place to implement participatory forest management at the village level in Tanzania. Villages in Tanzania have the authority to manage natural resources within village boundaries, and to create by-laws regulating natural resource use. Indeed, experience from elsewhere in Tanzania indicates that villages need to put forest management rules and regulations into by-laws so that they can be upheld by the courts, and thereby, enforced. Each village has committees that are a part of the village government and are responsible for finance, social services, land use planning, and environmental protection. The village environment committee is a logical starting point for discussions about PFM.

Boundary Demarcation

A lesson that has emerged from experience with participatory forest management projects elsewhere in Tanzania is that the process can be greatly facilitated if villages have already undergone the village boundary demarcation and land use planning process supported by The Land Act 1999 and the Village Land Act 1999. This is because border conflicts can be a

25 problem; if villages haven’t had their borders surveyed and demarcated, there can be conflict about where their borders lie, and consequently, how to delineate village forest reserves for community-based forest management. Our mission found that most of the villages in the Tarangire River headwaters of Kondoa District have had their boundaries surveyed and demarcated. Even if this hasn’t happened, people recognize customary forest use areas associated with villages. Many villages also developed village land use plans in the early 2000s that have either been approved already by the district and central governments, or are in the process of being reviewed for approval. Nevertheless, as was pointed out in the workshop, just because boundaries have been demarcated and surveyed doesn’t mean that there won’t be border conflicts, or that people will necessarily respect these boundaries.

Funding

The literature indicates that the Tanzanian government has been unable to implement PFM unless there has been external donor support to do so, because it doesn’t have the financial resources, technical expertise, or mechanisms needed to do it on its own. The same observation was expressed by HADO project staff, who have been frustrated in trying to implement PFM without external funding. To date, PFM projects in different parts of Tanzania have been supported by organizations such as the Danish International Development Agency, the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, and The World Bank. External support must be long term (at least five years) because in many cases, it has taken several years to get joint forest management agreements and community-based forest management agreements into effect. The PFM process is slow and should be treated as a development process.

Another reason that it is important to seek external funding targeted to support PFM is that villages have many development priorities. Needs like education, health care, and water systems compete for resources, and may be a local priority for investment over forest management. The Tanzania Social Action Fund – set up to support village-level development projects – is one potential source of funding to support PFM or interventions that could reduce dependency on forest resources (such as more efficient stoves, tree nurseries), but most villages would rather use such funds for other kinds of projects.

A concern expressed in the workshop related to what happens once donor support for PFM is withdrawn. Is PFM totally dependent on donor support to operate at all, or just to get started? Their experience is that they have seen projects start in the district and once the donors pull out, those projects grind to a halt. There was strong sentiment that if PFM is to be implemented with donor funding, there should be a strategy for how to keep it going once the funding runs out.

In sum, there is high potential for implementing PFM in Kondoa District, as most of the conditions that enhance its success already exist there.

26 Recommendations

AWF should seek financial support for implementing PFM in Kondoa District.

Obvious local partners for implementing PFM are the Kondoa District Forestry office and the HADO office. The HADO office has already been involved with PFM in the Kondoa Eroded Area. Perhaps that office could continue to focus on implementing PFM in villages around the Irangi Escarpment Proposed Forest Reserve. The district forestry office could focus on implementing PFM in villages adjacent to the Salanka and Isabe forest reserves.

There are some caveats to partnering with HADO, however. The HADO Project was originally implemented in a top-down manner. For example, grazing was prohibited in the Kondoa Eroded Area, and 19 villages were forced to destock and send their livestock (some 90,000 head) elsewhere (Kikula 2004). People were also compelled to adopt practices such as construction of contour bands for farming, to avoid cultivation on steep slopes and in hilly areas, and to plant trees. Because it imposed a number of land use regulations and restrictions on villagers, the HADO project was controversial. A large rift developed between project managers and communities, and hostility was expressed through actions like arson in project plantations, the killing of a project staff member, and rampant illegal tree cutting (Mung’ong’o 1990, Kikula 2004). The HADO project has now shifted its approach to conservation from one of top-down regulation to one of community-based collaboration, and it supports PFM. Nevertheless, the HADO project was still perceived skeptically in some of the communities we visited because past experience has made villagers concerned that conservation is not a democratic process. Our impression was that there is still a fair amount of trust-building needed between local villages and HADO.

Despite the fact that PFM is about local empowerment, there is a risk of it being perceived as one more natural resource management policy that is being imposed from above. Given that implementing PFM is now national policy in Tanzania, and that the impetus to implement it in Kondoa is coming from the district level, PFM is in fact a policy that risks being imposed on local communities against their will, even though its purpose is to transfer forest management authority and responsibility to local communities. This fact underscores the importance of scoping in advance to assess whether there is interest and political will to support it in forest communities. When beginning the PFM process with villages in the district, it may be useful to point out that the National Forest Policy and Forestry Act of 2002 were not developed by the national government alone; they grew out of forest management initiatives that had been developing in Tanzanian villages since the early 1990s. Thus, the Policy and the Act were built from ground-up experiences with community-based forest management.

The Tanzania government has developed a set of step-by-step guidelines for implementing PFM at the village level which are an excellent resource, and should be used to initiate and guide the process.

Training should be an important component of the assistance package. As indicated in Annex 6, there have been many attempts to implement PFM elsewhere in Tanzania, both through joint forest management agreements for managing government forest reserves, and through

27 community-based forest management plans for managing village forest reserves. Babati District, which neighbors Kondoa District, is one of the places where a pioneering project has been carried out in this regard. At the very least, people responsible for implementing PFM in Kondoa District should spend some time in Babati working with the LAMP project staff and touring villages and sites where PFM has been ongoing to learn from their experiences. The LAMP coordinator in Babati, whom we interviewed, offered to share his expertise and experience with Kondoa District officials. In addition, it would be quite beneficial to hold a workshop that includes people from other parts of Tanzania that have participated in PFM to discuss lessons learned and obtain their advice and insights on how to undertake PFM successfully in Kondoa. Training will also be required at the village level to familiarize village members with the PFM process and how to go about it.

28 Issue 4: There is a need to identify and implement strategies for reducing human pressure on forest resources.

Findings

Forests in Tanzania and elsewhere in Africa face enormous pressure from human populations. As mentioned in Issue 2, demand for fuelwood for cooking and for charcoal and brick making was identified as a major concern in the villages we visited. These concerns are consistent with numerous studies that identify the unsustainable use of wood for fuel as a key factor in forest degradation throughout the region (Kajuna, 2004; Mung’ong’o et al., 2004).

Degraded conditions in the government forest reserves along the Irangi Escarpment are partly the result of illegal activities. While these activities are the direct result of weak enforcement of existing laws and regulations, they are also a result of the underlying problem that the forest resources on village and general land ownerships are not sufficient to sustain either the subsistence needs of villages around the reserves, or the commercial demands of the larger rural and urban populations farther from the reserves. Unless this underlying problem can be addressed, little progress can be expected in improving watershed function. Any gains in improving conditions solely by reducing use through greater enforcement efforts in forest reserves will likely be offset by increased degradation from increased harvesting and use of other forest areas.

Reducing human pressure on the forest reserves must be achieved in order to sustain and improve conditions at these sites. Steps must be taken to reduce demand for forest products through more efficient utilization of wood or developing substitutes for wood products. At the same time, steps must be taken to increase the supply of wood produced on village land or other areas by more effective agroforestry or forest management practices.

Reducing Demand

Reduction in demand for wood products can be addressed at several levels. For instance, charcoal seems to be a national cultural preference for cooking in urban areas, even among people whose income levels allow the use of alternative fuels and where alternative fuels are available. A national public awareness campaign to stress the unsustainable use of charcoal and promote alternative fuels, combined with taxation or some fee system to raise the cost of charcoal, may ultimately reduce demand for this product.

Wood used for charcoal is usually harvested at little or no cost from village or general land (or illegally from these lands and forest reserves), making it a very low cost resource for producers. (Commercial harvesting for timber appears to be done in the same manner.) This results in an artificially low cost (or high profit) for charcoal that helps sustain demand (or encourage production). Regionally, issuing and charging for licenses or permits for charcoal production or sale and setting regional or local fees or price structures to increase the price of wood harvested for charcoal, would raise the cost and encourage more efficient use of this product.

29 At the village level, firewood is used for cooking and brick making. We saw improved wood stoves and charcoal braziers in the village of Mnenia that were claimed to reduce firewood or charcoal use by about 50%. These stoves were made from clay by a local women’s collective. The charcoal-burning stoves sold for 1,500 TSh (under $2.00); we did not record the price for wood-burning cook stoves. We did not find these stoves in use in the other villages we visited except for Kolo. Elsewhere, villagers interviewed expressed a desire for more efficient cook stoves, and some requested training on how to make these stoves. Local techniques for brick making appeared to be inefficient in terms of fuel use, compared to brick making techniques described in other regions of the world.

Reducing demand for wood obviously involves a combination of cultural, political, and technical issues that interact at various scales. Many of the possible solutions are outside the scope of work for this mission. However, the willingness of village and district personnel to engage in PFM activities, as discussed in issue 3, indicates there may be both the political will and the institutional structure necessary to implement some local and regional initiatives to reduce demand, especially for firewood.

Increasing Supply

Increases in the value or quantity of wood and other forest products can come from village forests through improved management of natural stands and plantation establishment. Increases can also come from agroforestry systems on agricultural land. Improvements in beekeeping techniques can increase honey production on both forest reserves and village land.

Several of the villages we visited had prepared forest management plans for their village forests and, as stated earlier, HADO is developing PFM agreements, which include forest management plans, with six villages in the KEA. We did not review these plans, but discussions indicated they may focus more on administrative procedures than on aspects of actual vegetation management, such as harvesting guidelines or silvicultural treatments to improve and sustain the forest. As also stated earlier, there are no management plans for the forest reserves.

All villages we visited had small nurseries run by individuals or women’s groups. These produced primarily Grevillea robusta along with a few Cedrela (probably odora), Cassia (probably fistula) and fruit trees. Tree seedlings sold for anywhere between 500 and 1000 TSh (under $1.00). Many of these seedlings were used to fulfill a District government requirement imposed the previous year that each household in the village plant 10 trees per year. All of the nurseries used loamy topsoil high in organic matter (usually collected from forests) with black plastic sleeves about 15 cm tall for containers Seedlings were apparently grown to about 0.5 m in height and then outplanted. All of the seedlings we saw had been newly transplanted into the containers and were about 5-10 cm in height. Some Grevillea seedlings appeared chlorotic, but we were told they would grow out of this.

Many villagers who had started nurseries complained that they were constrained by their ability to obtain the supplies needed to grow seedlings. The main limiting factors appeared to be the black plastic which is used to form containers for the seedlings, and water. The HADO project once supplied these nursery containers but no longer does. Rolls of black plastic required

30 are expensive, and not easy to obtain locally. Regarding water, people who live in villages that lack a nearby dry-season water supply may have to walk several kilometers to fetch the water for their seedlings, making nursery production a labor-intensive activity, and limiting the number of plants they can grow.

Agroforestry practices in villages we visited were mainly limited to alley cropping using Grevillea. This species is grown for timber, but is also routinely pollarded at 3- to 4-meters, resulting in clusters of adventitious branches that were harvested for fuel or other uses. Interestingly, although the District Forestry Officer said eucalyptus were not favored for plantations because of their high rate of water uptake, a study by ICRAF (Rumley et al, 2006) indicates that Grevillea also has a high rate of water uptake and may reduce crop yields in some agroforestry systems. We did not observe any forest plantations except for some HADO eucalyptus trials, and one 5 ha plantation in Bukulu that was established in 1986 with support from the International Labor Organization. Several of the villages we visited expressed a desire for more information on nursery culture and on ways to improve agroforestry and forest management practices. Some people also plant fruit trees around their houses, and trees valued for lumber – e.g. Brachystegia speciformis and Pterocarpus angolensis. Villagers stated that tree planting in the immediate area of the escarpment was difficult because of the steep, rocky terrain, and that the dry conditions there limited success.

Discussions with the HADO staff and the District Forestry Officer revealed that few forest plantations were established on village land in recent years, aside from Grevillea plantings in agricultural areas. Further, they appeared to have received little current information on agroforestry or nursery culture.

We were not able to devote a lot of time to examining the condition of either the forest reserves or village forest lands to determine how they were being managed on the ground. However, our overall impression was that little was being done to increase the productivity of forests for wood products, and that agroforestry practices were not as effective as those described in some other areas of the country (Mbwambo, 2004). If this is the case, opportunities exist to improve the supply of wood products in the area through better forestry and agroforestry techniques.

Recommendations

Reducing demand

• Determine why more efficient cook stoves and charcoal burners are not being more widely used in the region. This would seem to be the quickest, easiest, and cheapest way to reduce demand for firewood in the villages around the reserves, and would have the added benefits of reducing the primary cause of respiratory problems in women, and reducing the amount of time and work women devote to gathering wood. A finding from all of the villages visited was that people want information about cheap, effective, alternative energy sources and technologies.

• Determine if more efficient methods exist to fire brick. A quick Web search located several references to improve brick making. USAID may have information on this

31 subject that it could provide. Alternative house-construction materials could also be explored (e.g., concrete blocks) which require less wood to manufacture.

• Assess the feasibility of developing alternative fuels such as biogas in conjunction with zero grazing livestock culture. The livestock specialist at our planning workshop used a biogas generator in his home to reduce his charcoal use by about 50%. He claimed he paid for this investment in less than a year.

• Survey the fees charged by villages for wood commercially harvested for charcoal or timber to determine if they are getting actual market value for this material.

Increasing supply

• Implementing PFM should improve the regulation and management of both the forest reserves and village forests. However, we are not sure the forest management plans require silvicultural recommendations for improving the productivity of forest resources. If they do not, then a process needs to be developed to provide these recommendations, along with training on how to implement the actions recommended.

• Determine species needs for reforestation and agroforestry practices. If possible, integrate more high value native or exotic timber species into the reforestation effort to improve returns. Villagers interviewed expressed interest in learning about new kinds of seeds and trees they could try.

• Develop demonstration areas to evaluate different species and management practices, especially for fuelwood production and high value timber species or non-timber products. This could be done with the cooperation of the International Center for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF) based in Nairobi, the Tanzania Forest Research Institute in Morogoro, or Olmotonyi Forestry Training Institute in Arusha. The villages involved in these demonstrations should participate fully in their planning and establishment.

• Improve the capacity of village nurseries to grow seedlings. Lack of supplies such as containers, watering cans, and wheelbarrows were cited in many of the villages as limiting nursery production. Information on nursery management and new species to produce was also requested. A micro-loan program to allow nursery operators to obtain this equipment might allow more seedlings to be produced. Training and assistance on improving nursery operations could improve the efficiency of nurseries, and propagation information and seed supplies for different species (once identified) would improve the variety of material available.

Conditions needed for seed germination and initial growth are more demanding and difficult to maintain than those needed in later stages of growth. Seed for many species that may be desirable for planting are also not readily available to villagers. Developing a central facility that could provide village nurseries flats of newly germinated seedlings that they could transplant and grow out at their facilities may encourage use of a larger variety of species for village use.

32

Issue 5: There is a need to assess what information is available already, and what the current capacity of communities and district staff are, for implementing alternative strategies to reduce human pressure on forest resources; and, what information is needed, and what capacity needs to be built, in order to implement these strategies effectively.

Findings

One of the first challenges we faced in this mission was locating information on the natural resources of the Kondoa region and determining whether information was available to develop strategies for improving the forest conditions and watershed function of the area.

Many of the scientific studies in the HADO project area were the result of the Man-Land Interrelations in Semi-Arid Tanzania (MALISTA) Programme supported by the Swedish Agency for Research Cooperation (SAREC). This programme lasted from 1991 to 1998. The main academic participants included the University of Dar es Salaam, the University of Stockholm, and Uppsala University. Lund, Linkoping, and Newcastle Universities were also cooperators. The programme included studies of the biophysical, ecological, and socio-political aspects of the processes of land degradation and resource conservation in the area. The overall findings are summarized in a monograph by Mung’ong’o et al., 2004 and in Regional Soil Conservation Unit Report No. 13 by Christiansson and Kikula, 1996. These publications also include a good discussion of the lessons learned by the successes and failures of the HADO project and recommendations for future actions and policies to improve sustainability in the area. As mentioned earlier, Dr. Idris Kikula, University of Dar es Salaam, provided copies of many of the publications from this project for our use.

There have also been resource assessments and conservation plans developed in the Babati District just to the north of the Kondoa District (Kahuranangua, 1992 and 1992a), although we did not have a chance to review these documents. An evaluation of the Land Management Programme in Tanzania (Havnevik et al., 2000) is a very good critique of the procedures, practices, and results of several LAMP projects and this information will be helpful in developing and implementing a project on the Tarangire watershed.

Similarly, our investigations of available literature and information made before, during, and after this trip indicate considerable information could be found from a number of sources on techniques and methods for both improving utilization of existing wood supplies and also for increasing the production of wood in agroforestry systems or plantations. For example, information from ICRAF on agroforestry systems seems particularly pertinent. The Tanzania Forestry Research Institute in Morogoro also seems to be a logical source of information on forest management for this area.

Annex 5 contains a list of some of the literature we found or examined in the course of this assignment. However, we feel there is a much larger body of information and expertise that should be assessed in order to develop and implement strategies to reduce the pressure on forest resources in the Tarangire watershed.

33 Our conversations with Kondoa District natural resources staff and HADO staff indicated they do not have access to much of the information mentioned above. This includes the results of many of the studies conducted in the KEA by the MALISTA Programme (in spite of the fact that the HADO staff assisted in the field work for these studies), as well as information on the LAMP project in Babati, and ICRAF agroforestry technology.

Conversations with village councils and officials indicated a need for information and assistance on forest management, agroforestry practices, and nursery management.

Overall, capacity to develop and implement programs to improve forest management strategies in the area is probably adequate in terms of staffing at the district level and committee organization at the village level. However, it appears information needs to be located on forest management, agroforestry, and nursery management. This information then needs to be transferred to the district staff, which can then provide training and assistance to villages.

Lack of operating funds is currently limiting district staff assistance to villages, and villages lack funds and expertise to implement forestry and agroforestry practices independently.

Recommendations

• Utilize in-country expertise, such as the Tanzania Forestry Research Institute or the University of Dar es Salaam, as well as the HADO staff, to locate and evaluate information and develop strategies to reduce pressure on forest resources.

• Develop study tours or workshops that bring together participants of successful forest management or agroforestry projects and Kondoa district and village personnel.

• Establish demonstrations in several villages in the area to evaluate and promote various aspects of forest management or agroforestry. If possible, select villages that have some expertise or experience in the project areas.

34 Issue 6: The Kondoa Irangi Hills and Irangi Escarpment contain prehistoric rock paintings that are several thousand years old that not only have heritage value, but are the only notable tourism attraction in the District. The sites are threatened by vandalism. The Tanzania Department of Antiquities does not have the resources to adequately protect and manage the sites, and local residents are not actively protecting or managing them because they don’t derive any benefits from them. There has been no tourism development associated with the rock paintings that benefits local communities.

Findings

There are 186 inventoried sites that contain rock paintings located inside government forest reserves and on village lands in the Tarangire headwaters of Kondoa District. Most of the paintings represent animals or human figures. The rock art is considered to be the northern-most extension of the southern African hunter-gatherer rock art tradition (UNESCO 2006).

According to Maulid Rauna, Antiquities Officer, Kolo, from 1,500 to 2,000 visitors a year come to see these rock paintings, including 60 to 70 foreigners per month on average. Four staff people are employed at the Department of Antiquities office in Kolo. When visitors come, they must first stop in to register at this office and obtain one of the staff members as a guide. One of the factors constraining visitation is accessibility; many of the rock paintings do not have roads to them, and those that do typically feature challenging roads that require a four-wheel drive vehicle like a land rover. Visitors pay 2,000 TSh (less than U.S. $2) each if they are foreigners, and 500 TSh (about U.S. 40 cents) each if they are Tanzanian residents. This money is collected and sent to the central Department of Antiquities office in Dar es Salaam. Another staff member reported that the Kolo office rarely collects over 100,000 TSh per month from tourism (about U.S. $83).

To date, villagers living adjacent to the Salanka and Isabe Forest Reserves have not been involved in heritage tourism relating to the rock paintings. We assume the same is true for villagers living adjacent to the Irangi Escarpment Proposed Forest Reserve, though we didn’t conduct visits there. This lack of engagement was viewed negatively by many of the village members we met with. A common perception was that tourists occasionally appear on village lands to view rock paintings, then leave. They do not announce themselves, ask permission, or have any interaction with villagers. This may partly be explained by the fact that the paintings are generally far from village centers and it may not be necessary to pass through the main village in order to see them. Interviewees felt strongly, however, that their villages should receive some compensation when tourists view rock paintings on village lands. Because they feel they derive no benefits from the rock could potentially occur under the auspices of village environment committees. It wasn’t clear paintings, they see no incentive to help manage or protect them, even though such protection exactly how much in need of protection the rock art sites are; my impression was that people more or less ignore them, not going out of their way to either protect or defile them. However, Leakey (1983) reported vandalism as a problem.

Constraints to producing local benefits from heritage tourism in the area include:

35 • Low visitor fees, which do not cover the cost of running the Kolo Antiquities Department office (staff salaries, transport, etc.), together with a policy to send the revenue earned from tourism to the central government office in Dar es Salaam. • Low visitation, because the Kondoa Irangi Hills and escarpment are off the beaten tourist path. The closest national park – Tarangire – is approximately a three-hour drive from Kolo. • The combination of low visitation and low visitor fees means that the amount of money available from tourism to contribute to local villages is paltry; it does not even cover basic staff operations. • Access is difficult, as there are few roads on village lands that lead to the sites.

In July 2006 the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) designated the Kondoa Irangi Rock Paintings as a World Heritage Site. This designation acknowledges that the site has outstanding universal value to humanity. It also encourages the preservation, protection, and management of the site with participation of the local population, and raises public awareness about its value. There is hope that this new designation might be accompanied by increased tourism development in the area, and access to financial resources from the World Heritage Fund, which supports conservation, management, training, education, and protection of World Heritage Sites.

Recommendations

Mr. Rauna, and the Kolo villagers we met with, had the following recommendations for how to generate some community benefits from prehistoric rock paintings:

• Train villagers to be guides • Improve roaded access to sites to increase visitation in villages • Construct a shelter next to the Antiquities Department office in Kolo where local people can display and sell craft items to tourists • Raise visitor fees to 5,000 TSh per person, and give a portion of the revenue generated to a fund for local village development projects, such as planting village woodlots to help provide fuelwood, or to local village governments. Money to benefit local villages could also be raised by putting a donation box inside the Department of Antiquities office. • Develop and run a local campsite for tourists on village lands.

Some of these suggestions would be fairly easy to implement, while others would require an investment of resources or a policy change. Forest management planning through the PFM process should address the issue of rock paintings and how to protect them.

36 Section 3: Steps to Operationalize Recommendations

Forest degradation and unsustainable resource use are symptoms of more fundamental social, economic, and political problems and processes. We did not, in the course of a two-week visit, identify what these were in this particular area. A better understanding of these underlying structural issues would help in identifying appropriate solutions to forest management problems in Kondoa District. Doing so would require research, however, and may be outside the scope of this technical assistance.

In any case, the first step to operationalizing the recommendations made in this trip report is to identify a holistic strategy for addressing the forest management problem in the Tarangire River headwaters of Kondoa District that includes both on-the-ground implementation of the Tanzanian government’s participatory forest management process, and specific interventions that would reduce demand for, and increase supply of, forest products. We have suggested what some of these interventions could be in this report. More work needs to be done, however, to investigate how specifically these interventions should be designed. The second critical step is to secure funding from donors to support implementation of this strategy.

Participatory Forest Management

Regarding PFM, we recommend four next steps to take in order to develop an action plan for operationalizing it in communities around the Salanka/Isabe Forest Reserves and the Irangi Escarpment Proposed Forest Reserve.

(1) Several documents have been written that lay out, step by step, how to go about initiating PFM in communities adjacent to government forest reserves and around unreserved forest lands (ie. MNRT 2001, Veltheim & Kijazi 2002), and that also provide examples of joint forest management agreements and community-based forest management plans. These documents should be gathered and consulted when developing a specific plan of action. There is no need to reinvent the wheel.

(2) A training, workshop, or study tour should be organized for Kondoa District personnel and AWF partners who will be responsible for implementing PFM in Kondoa. It would include people from other districts who already have experience with PFM so that their projects and experiences can be discussed and learned from, and their recommendations incorporated into the action plan. Potential participants include LAMP project staff from Babati, Kiteto, Simanjiro, and Singida districts; FARM Africa staff from Babati and Mbulu districts; and MEMA project staff from Iringa District, as these people all have experience with PFM in miombo woodland ecosystems. Liz Wily, a consultant based in Nairobi, also has extensive experience with the PFM process and could be brought in as an advisor/trainer.

(3) As the guidelines for PFM point out, an initial step in the PFM process is to conduct ecological and social assessments that provide a foundation of information for designing the best

37 strategy for implementing PFM, and for developing forest management plans. These assessments should be conducted and used to base the action plan on.

(4) The HADO project staff has already begun implementing PFM in ten villages around the Irangi Escarpment Forest Reserve over the past few years. It would be useful to visit the villages where they have been working to assess how the process has been going, how well it has been received, how HADO is viewed by villagers, and what can be learned from this experience. These findings could be used to make any needed adjustments to the process in those communities, and to help design the action plan.

Some data-gathering activities should also be initiated in the District to obtain baseline and future hydrological monitoring information. This information will shed light on whether the activities undertaken as part of this project are having an effect on water flows in the Tarangire catchment basin. These activities would include gathering weather data (temperature and rainfall) and stream flow data. Equipment should be inexpensive, and data gathering straightforward. It could be accomplished using school schildren for example, as a class project. Assessment of the best locations for setting up weather and hydrological stations could be included in the ecological assessment recommended above. As for monitoring the status of forest resources over time, the MEMA project in Iringa District should be consulted to provide the best model, because a monitoring system has been set up there as an integral part of the PFM process.

It may be possible to use remote sensing methods to meet some monitoring and assessment needs. The Climate Land Interaction Project – East Africa is a consortium of researchers looking at the interaction of climate and land use/cover change in East Africa. This consortium is currently developing regional models to assess the linkages of these factors. Information on this project is available at their web site: http://clip.msu.edu/index.htm. The University of Dar es Salaam is a participant in this project.

Addressing Supply and Demand for Forest Resources

Regarding supply and demand for forest resources, before concrete steps can be taken, an information-gathering phase is needed to design what the best interventions would be. Tanzanian partners should be identified to take on this activity and could likely be found at the Olmotonyi Forestry Training Institute in Arusha, the Tanzania Forest Research Institute in Morogoro, ICRAF in Nairobi, and/or the University of Dar es Salaam. Workshop participants also recommended consulting villagers first before designing interventions to find out what they are already doing to alleviate pressure on forest resources, and how those efforts could be supported; and to find out what specific interventions they would like to see and consider feasible. We accomplished some of this assessment work on our mission, but more could be included as part of the social assessment recommended above.

Once appropriate interventions are identified, workshop participants recommended that they be introduced in at least four demonstration villages in the project area, with different activities taking place in different communities. Technical assistance would be needed to work

38 with villagers in implementing the interventions. And, monetary assistance should be provided to compensate villagers involved in these trials who are assuming the associated risks.

The primary source of technical assistance for these interventions will be the District Forestry staff and the HADO staff. Additional training will need to be provided for these groups. As pointed out earlier, they do not appear to have access to a lot of current information on agroforestry and forest management techniques.

Based on our observations, some appropriate interventions may include:

• Introduction trials of additional tree species for agroforestry systems and forest plantations, including high-value native and exotic timber species and fuel wood species. • Agroforestry techniques that would increase the production of fuel wood and high-value timber • Silvicultural/management techniques to improve stocking and yield from village forests, including yield of non-timber forest products • Silvicultural techniques to improve regeneration and stand restoration on forest reserves • Improved bee-keeping methods – HADO is beginning to disseminate information and improved hives within the District, but this could be accelerated • Improved tree nursery management practices, including propagation protocols for additional tree species • Developing micro-loan programs for improving nursery and beekeeping operations, and fuel efficient stoves • More fuel efficient brick burning techniques • More fuel efficient cooking stoves and use of alternative fuels, e.g. biogas generators • Use of alternative building materials

It is difficult to know whether a strategy for undertaking forest protection should be developed prior to securing funding to implement the strategy, or vice versa. There is no point in investing time and resources in developing a strategy if its implementation has no prospects for funding. On the other hand, it is difficult to know how much it will cost to implement a strategy until one has been developed. We recommend that AWF secure a commitment to fund this effort from USAID or another donor at the outset, and work closely with them throughout the process of developing the strategy so that the donor has a chance to provide input, and so that AWF and its partners know what any limitations and constraints are on the project as they design it.

39 Section 4: USFS Support for Implementation and Next Steps

We have recommended next steps in Section 3. What role might the USFS play in supporting these steps? The USFS could play a role in many of them, along with AWF and in- country people. Appropriate roles for USFS range from serving in a technical advisory/consultant role as a strategy for operationalizing PFM and implementing interventions to reduce pressure on forest resources is developed, to direct participation in conducting on-the- ground assessment work and project implementation.

If USFS personnel play an advisory/consultant role in developing a strategy for operationalizing PFM, it would be important for them to be involved in the workshop/training/study tour in order to benefit from the knowledge and discussion that take place there. AWF could organize this event, and USFS could play a facilitator role, also documenting and synthesizing the lessons learned as input into strategy development.

The USFS has the expertise to conduct both ecological forest assessments and social assessments. It is also familiar with hydrological monitoring procedures. USFS personnel could work with in-country people familiar with the local area, and having expertise in ecological and social assessment work, to carry out these activities. Having mixed teams conduct this work would provide an opportunity to share and integrate knowledge and expertise, and facilitate mutual capacity building while drawing on local knowledge and familiarity with the district. USFS personnel could also serve on a mixed team that assesses the experience to date with PFM around the Irangi Escarpment Proposed Forest Reserve.

The USFS also has expertise in nursery development and management, forest management, and agroforestry, and could contribute this expertise on mixed teams that work to develop and implement alternatives that reduce pressure on natural forests. Technical experts who have experience with nurseries, village woodlots, agroforestry, and forest restoration and management in East Africa should be included on these teams because of their locally-specific knowledge.

40 Literature Cited

All of the literature cited in this document is listed in Annex 5, along with other pertinent references which we think are relevant to this project.

41 Annex 1 - Itinerary

08/06/06

Depart Portland, Oregon (Charnley) and Indiana (Overton)

08/07/06

Arrive in Nairobi, Kenya, and overnight in Nairobi at the Fairview Hotel.

08/08/06

Depart Nairobi, arrive Arusha, Tanzania. We are met by Davis Mziray, a driver for African Wildlife Foundation. It is Nane Nane, Farmer’s Day, a holiday, so offices are closed and people aren’t working, so we can’t accomplish much work today. We go check in at the Impala Hotel, take a walk into Arusha, look around. Frank Melamari, a program officer from AWF met us at the hotel in the PM and we had some initial discussions about our itinerary and the purpose of the trip. Frank doesn’t explain much beyond what we already know from the statement of work. He brings us a collection of electronic documents that he has gathered for our reference, mainly on participatory forest management and copies of relevant government policy and legislation. Charnley met with Idris Kikula, a colleague from the Institute of Resource Assessment at the University of Dar es Salaam, in the evening. Kikula brought a pile of books to loan us about Kondoa District, the history of conservation and development interventions there, and the HADO and Man-Land Inter-relations in Semi-Arid Tanzania Project.

08/09/06

Depart Impala Hotel at 8 AM. Go to AWF office in Arusha. First we meet with Dr. James Kahurananga, Program Director in Arusha. He explains to us his vision for our mission, which is essentially to advise them on how to implement participatory forest management with villages surrounding forest reserves in the Kondoa Irangi hills, following the model that has been prescribed by the 2002 Forest Act. USAID has expressed interest in working with AWF to support PFM in the area. A central purpose of our visit is to gather the information necessary to help AWF put together a proposal to USAID to solicit funding for PFM in the Kondoa Irangi hills. He wants us to address questions like, what would be the time scale necessary to implement PFM? What support, resources are needed? What is the potential? What strategy would we recommend for getting PFM off the ground and who would be involved?

Another piece of the assignment is to assess what some activities are that could be undertaken in villages to encourage alternate forest uses where peoples’ needs could be met in ways other than using the natural forest, and also could provide alternative income generation activities. Also, what are the needs for tree planting in the villages and what species would we recommend? Agroforestry strategies? Another question – what kind of ecological data are currently available and what needs are there for resource assessment and monitoring to assess the state of the forest?

42 And another issue – how do the rock paintings fit into all this? How could the rock art be protected but also used as a basis for generating tourism? USAID is thinking of putting money in its FY2007 budget to support PFM in the Kolo Hills area.

Next we met with Mercy Kyamba. She is a lawyer who works for AWF and one of her areas of experience is in drawing up Joint Forest Management agreements, a process she started in Monduli for the Lesiminguri Forest working with the Maasai and Arusha peoples, but this ended when resources ran out to support implementation. She was originally planning to accompany us on this trip but was given another assignment at the last minute so is not coming. She and Frank went to Kondoa a week or two prior to our mission to set things up for us. Her impression is that the district people want to understand better what the steps are in putting together a management plan for the forests in the headwaters; and how PFM and the development of a forest management plan go together. She also thinks that our charge is to help figure out how PFM can be implemented in the area, how to move forward? Is there a strategy we can develop for doing this that can be marketed to donors to get support for the process? She says a written proposal that the district and the villages will support is needed before they can go look for money.

After our talk with Mercy we briefly met the AWF President and CEO Patrick Bergin who is American and based in Washington DC but who also spends a lot of time in the Arusha office, as he has a house in Arusha.

Then we went to Arusha to do errands, then took off for Kondoa. En route we stopped in Babati town, Babati District, Manyara Region where they have already implemented several PFM projects under the auspices of the Land Management Planning process funded by SIDA, the Swedish international development organization. We talked with Mr. Kavishe, a technical advisor for LAMP working with the Babati District council, about the PFM projects they have done there, challenges, lessons learned, etc. These could serve as a model for Kondoa.

We arrived in Kondoa around 6:30 PM and settled in at the New Geneva in Africa guest house. Had dinner, went to bed.

08/10/06

Our first activity today was to go to the Kondoa District office and meet with Augustine Martin, who has been the District Forest Officer here since 1983 and is currently also acting Natural Resources Officer, as the previous one retired and has not yet been replaced. He however was in a meeting in a village this morning so we began by talking with the District Lands Officer, Abrogast A. Mhumba. He gave us a general overview of the political geography of Kondoa District, focusing on the area around the Forest Reserve. Kondoa District has 8 divisions, 35 wards, and 178 villages. The wards that lie on the upper side of the catchment for the government forest reserves in Kolo Hills are Haubi Ward (Mondo Division), Kolo Ward (Kolo Division), and Bereko Ward (Bereko Division). The wards that lie on the lower side of the catchment are Kikore, Kisese, and Masange Wards in Bereko Division, and Mnenia, Pahi, and Busi Wards in Pahi Division. According to a list we are given by AWF there are a total of 21 villages on the lower side of the catchment and 13 villages on the upper side of the catchment. He showed us one district map that indicates villages, but no ward or division boundaries. Our

43 list of villages in the catchment area is not completely accurate; for example, Humai village is in the upper catchment and not on the list. We brought, but they also had, an assortment of 1:50,000 scale topo maps for the area, which were made in the early 1960s.

He also gave an overview of the status of village land use planning in the District. In the early 2000s the villages went through a boundary demarcation exercise. Many villages had their boundaries measured and demarcated. The District has put on trainings on land law and land use planning for ward management teams (who act as extension officers), village executive officers, and land committees to teach them how to do land use planning locally in their villages; this is the responsibility of the village land committees.

Mr. Martin arrived around 1 PM and we began conversations with him to get a general overview of forest management issues. There are some maps in the district office that show the forest reserve boundaries, and there is an official book that describes the boundaries.

In the afternoon we went to the village of Mnenia, where we met with roughly 15-20 members of the village council. This was a meeting that Frank had set up in advance following the recommendation of the previous USFS mission to this area to see if Mnenia village could be a demonstration village for sustainable forestry practices. We discussed issues related to forestry with the villagers and explained the joint forest management process to assess their interest and support for the concept. Then we got a tour of the village to see a nursery, woodlot, and fuel efficient stoves. It was a good meeting altogether but having so many people there in one meeting makes it difficult to get into the issues in depth, and many people don’t get a chance to speak.

We returned to Kondoa in the evening, ate, talked about the day and assessed our strategy for the next few days, discussed some emerging issues. Although the previous mission recommended that one village in the area – Mnenia – be selected as a demonstration village for sustainable forest management, our readings of the participatory forest management process indicate that it is necessary to work with a group of villages at once because the forest to be managed will inevitably be divided into smaller areas for which different villages are responsible for participating in management. We decided that it would be fruitful on this trip to visit several villages that are the most likely participants in the PFM process for the Salanka and Isabe forest reserves, villages that are adjacent to their boundaries. We didn’t know if Mnenia had been identified by the previous mission as a good place for a demonstration project because it was the only village visited on that trip and it seemed like a good candidate; because they thought it was the most interested, progressive, best organized, and most likely to succeed; or if there were other criteria for selecting it. It’s clear however that this is a big forest with many villages around it and if PFM is to be implemented here, it will be necessary to include many villages. So we decided through consultation with Augustine that it would be a good idea on this trip to do an initial assessment of the villages that surround the Salanka and Isabe Forest Reserves, and then evaluate afterwards where and how to begin implementing PFM. Augustine identified the following villages as the priority villages for initiating this process: in the upper catchment, Kolo, Kwadinu, Humai, Bukulu, and Masawi; in the lower catchment, Mnenia, Chungai, Itundwi, Filimo, Masanga, Kandaga.

44 08/11/06

Today we went with Augustine to visit 3 villages in the upper catchment: Kwadinu, Humai, and Bukulu (Humai is not on our map but is in between Kwadinu and Bukulu). The main purpose of our visit was to do the general equivalent of 1(a) in the Participatory Forest Management Step Wise Process: identify villages and forest areas suitable for PFM, where demand and interest exists, by visiting the villages that border the forest and having some initial discussions to get a broad overview of local forest management issues, and to plant the idea of PFM. In Kwadinu we met with five people: the village chairman, village executive officer, and three members of the village council; of these, one was a woman. In Humai we met with 6 people: the village chairman, village executive officer, and four members of the village government, all of whom were men. In Bukulu we met with 5 people: the village chairman, village executive officer, and three people from the village council, all of whom were men. None of these visits had been prearranged. We decided based on our experience in Mnenia that we didn’t need to have big, formal meetings with entire village councils to discuss PFM at this point in our mission (step 1b in the PFM stepwise process) because we are still doing a basic assessment of the potential for PFM, and having discussions in small groups might yield more information than trying to have a discussion with a big group. One drawback of this approach however is that the village council members who are on the environment committee – who might be most useful to talk with – are not always available; and, women were not typically available because they tended to be engaged in housework, kids, etc. So we basically talked to the handful of village government representatives and leaders that could be gathered together at the spur of the moment. However, these people were very informative. Our visits typically consisted of a 1-2 hour discussion with the village representatives, followed by a walk around the village to look at nurseries and woodlots.

8/12/06

Today we followed the same program as yesterday, visiting two villages – Masawi in the upper catchment, and Kandaga in the lower catchment. We also drove down the Irangi escarpment to get from Masawi to Kandaga on a road that cuts through the Salanka Forest Reserve, and thereby had a chance to experience the forest, stopping for lunch there. In Masawi we met with several people: a HADO (Hifadhi Ardhi Dodoma) project officer who is stationed there, two chairmen from 2 of the 4 subvillages (vitongoji) that comprise the village; 2 village council members, and one elder. A few other people wandered in during the course of our discussions and I never got who they were. Of the group, only one was a woman and she had to leave early to tend to a child. In Kandaga we met with the village chairman, village executive officer, and 3 members of the village council, all of whom are on the environment committee. Of these one was a woman, head of the environment committee. Augustine went with us.

8/13/06

Today is Sunday and most people rest on Sunday so we did not try and go to villages to hold meetings. Instead we went to meet Mr. Rauna who works at the Antiquities Dept. office in Kolo village. In July of this year this area was designated a world heritage site due to the presence of 186 sites in the region having prehistoric rock art. He took us on a tour of 3 of the Kolo sites that

45 have rock art dating from 800 to 3500 years BP. We saw the art and also got an overview of resource management issues relating to the rock art in the district. Augustine went with us. We returned to Kondoa mid-afternoon and spent time thinking about and preparing for the upcoming workshop.

8/14/06

Our day began today with a driving tour around the southern half of the Tarangire River headwaters in Kondoa district. We left Kondoa, drove east, and instead of turning north on the Great North Road we crossed it and continued east. This road crosses through the old HADO (Kondoa Eroded) area and then goes down the Irangi escarpment and through some of the villages that are located along the road in the lower part of the catchment: Tandala, Busi, Sambwa, Kinyasi, Kinyasi Majengo, Kiteo, and Pahi. I am distinguishing the southern and northern halves of the catchment by using the road that connects Kolo on the Great North Road with Mnenia at the bottom of the escarpment. Most of the forest in the northern part of the catchment area is contained within the Salanka, Isabe and Bereko forest reserves. The hills and escarpment to the south also have substantial forest cover (miombo woodland) but none of this land is reserve land, except for the Kome central government forest reserve, which is small. One can see signs of cultivation on the mountains and the upper escarpment that appear as bare patches where people have practiced shifting cultivation for millet. To date our attention has not focused on the southern half of the catchment, but clearly it should be included in any strategy to protect the Tarangire River watershed. According to Augustine, the District proposed creating a local authority protection reserve in this area, the Irangi Escarpment Proposed Forest Reserve. However this was never approved and he was skeptical that it would be due to lack of citizen support. But, the forest is managed according to district bylaws. The morning excursion was very helpful in giving us the lay of the land and an understanding of the extent and nature of forest within the catchment.

In the afternoon we visited three different villages to hold meetings with village council members, similar to previous village meetings. First we went to Filimo at the lower side of the catchment. There we met with seven people, all male, who included the village chairman, village executive officer, and 5 members of the village council. After talking with them for some time we went in search of honey to buy. Next we went and met with people at Itundwi, a neighboring village in the lower catchment. There we talked with 8 villagers, again all male, who included the village chairman, village executive officer, and 4 members of the environment committee. We toured a cooperative nursery project after our meeting. Finally, we climbed back to the upper catchment and had a meeting in Kolo. This was a meeting we had arranged the day before, and we were two hours late in arriving. Nevertheless, it was a big turnout: 15 people, including the village chairman, village executive officer, several members of the environment committee, one teacher, one current and one retired antiquities dept. staff member, one ward agricultural officer, and the remainder members of the village council. This was a very lively meeting as some issues came up that struck a nerve – in particular the issue of managing the rock art, and the issue of applying for grants to support local development projects. Ron gave them a soccer ball when we finished, they were very gracious, and we returned home at 6:30 after a long day of travel.

46 08/15/06

We planned to stay in Kondoa today so that we could prepare for tomorrow’s workshop on participatory forest management. In the morning we went first to greet the district executive officer (acting) – a formality that we neglected when we first arrived – to inform the person in charge of the district government what we are doing here. The woman who is in this position was traveling.

Then we met with Augustine and Frank to plan tomorrow’s workshop, go over the draft agenda and adjust it, decide on what materials to distribute, print, copy, etc. and generally we worked on organizing materials for the workshop. We also spent time talking to Augustine more in depth about some of the issues/questions that arose during the course of our week here. He provided us with some information and resources that we hadn’t seen before.

08/16/06

Today we held a workshop on participatory forest management at the Kondoa District office, which was one of the tasks we were charged with on this visit. An agenda for the workshop can be found in Appendix of this report, together with a list of participants. Roughly 20 people attended, most of them from the district office and working in the arena of natural resource management. Frank did an excellent job of logistics – ie preparing handouts, notebooks, pens, etc for everyone plus arranging for catering – two bouts of tea and a big lunch. The challenge for us was language barriers – clearly Kiswahili was the language of choice, meaning that the whole meeting was conducted in Kiswahili. I gave my own presentations in Swahili which of course didn’t go over as clearly as if they were in English, and I caught probably 80 percent of the discussion. Here again Frank did a great job of helping facilitate. Given language barriers and the fact that we had very little advance guidance regarding what we were supposed to do in this workshop, I would say it was a success. All but one of the invitees attended, they all engaged and contributed, if nothing else they became familiar with the PFM process. We got some good ideas on how to proceed with implementation and understood better some of their issues and concerns re PFM. I was very happy with how it all turned out.

08/17/06

We spent the morning at the HADO office in Kondoa to find out what kinds of projects they are involved in now. There we met with Zaccharia Matari, acting Regional HADO Project Manager, and 5 of the HADO staff members also sat in. Mr. Matari gave us an overview of the HADO project, including its history, accomplishments, and future direction. Then we had a chance to ask questions and have a discussion with the group. Afterwards we went and looked at their small library to see what kinds of information they have there (not much), and then we toured their bee keeping facility. They are constructing many “modern” bee boxes as they believe it is important to introduce improved beekeeping techniques in villages. A key area of focus of the HADO project is now to try to implement participatory forest management in villages around the Irangi Escarpment Proposed Forest Reserve. They gave us a sample forest management plan that they had developed for one of the villages there. The HADO project seems to be focusing on many of the same objectives that we have with our project.

47

After this meeting we departed Kondoa around noon, stopped in Babati for lunch, then went on to spend the night at Serena Manyara lodge, observing and discussing the AWF Manyara Ranch project en route. We wanted to have the opportunity to view Tarangire National Park and the Tarangire River on Friday, which is driving conservation interests in the Kondoa Irangi Hills, but unfortunately there was no room at the Tarangire safari lodge. So, Frank suggested staying at Manyara instead. Got in shortly before dark and walked along the escarpment, enjoying the view.

08/18/06

Got up before the sun to depart the Manyara lodge and head for Tarangire National Park. We spent the morning driving around the park looking at the landscape, the watershed, the river, and the animals. Had lunch at the Tarangire Safari Lodge, then drove to Arusha in the PM. Did a bit of shopping, spent the night at the Impala Hotel.

08/19/06

Today is our departure day. Our flights out of Kilimanjaro are not until afternoon/evening, so we spent the day tying up loose ends and gathering and organizing information. Departed to Nairobi from where we caught a midnight flight to Brussels.

08/20/06

Arrived in Brussels in the AM. Charnley flew on to Washington, DC and spent 2 nights there before returning to Portland, OR on 08/22/06. Overton spent the night in Brussels and returned to Indiana on 08/21/06.

48 Annex 2 - Scope of Work

Below is the original scope of work we were given for this mission.

USDA Forest Service Technical Assistance in Collaboration with the African Wildlife Foundation on Management Planning for the Kolo Hills Forest Reserve, Tanzania

Draft Scope of Work – April 2006

1. Background The USDA Forest Service (USFS), through the Office of International Programs, is an implementing partner in the US Agency for International Development (USAID)/Tanzania’s Natural Resources Management Strategic Objective (SO13), “Biodiversity conserved in targeted landscapes through a livelihood driven approach.” The role of the USFS in this SO is as a provider of targeted technical and capacity building assistance aimed at assisting lead implementing NGOs and government partners on each of the landscapes to improve natural resource management.

The African Wildlife Foundation (AWF) and the USFS have a long-standing partnership aimed at mobilizing USFS technical expertise to support AWF in the achievement of their biodiversity conservation and sustainable natural resource use objectives in northern Tanzania. To date this assistance has focused on performing analyses of the Lake Manyara and Tarangire River watersheds, and on land use planning on the Manyara Ranch. Based on the results of previous USFS technical assistance in the region, AWF targeted priorities, and the existing capacity of partners, the focus for continued collaboration will be on providing assistance in the development of a management plan for the Kolo Hills Forest Reserve, at the headwaters of the Tarangire River.

As the headwaters of the Tarangire River, the Kolo Hills Forest Reserve has been identified as an area of high importance which AWF would like to target as a demonstration region for effective resource management. AWF would like the USFS to assist by providing a workshop on forest planning and public participation, in collaboration with the Tanzanian Forest Department and the local district authorities.

Toward this end, the USFS will send a technical assistance team to work in collaboration with AWF, the Tanzanian Forest Department and Kondoa District government to guide the process of creating a management plan for the Kolo Hills Forest Reserve, and to provide recommendations on improving the health of the forest as a catchment for the Tarangire River and a source of valuable resources for local communities. This USFS team will consist of two individuals with a combined expertise in creating forest and/or watershed management plans and social/community forestry. This team will travel to Tanzania at an as yet to be agreed upon date (likely in June or

49 July) for a period of approximately two weeks, and will coincide with another USFS team of two who will be working on a watershed assessment of the Ngorongoro Crater.

2. Objectives The objectives for this USFS mission to the Kolo Hills Forest Reserve are as follows: 1) Provide practical guidance to AWF, the Forest Department and Kondoa District authorities on the process for creating a management plan for the Kolo Hills Forest Reserve. This guidance will take the form of a x day workshop and will include a discussion of minimum data needs, public participation in the planning process, goal/objective setting, establishing rules/guidelines for use of the reserve, and implementation and monitoring of the plan and its effectiveness. 2) Assist AWF, the Forest Department and the Kondoa District in developing plans for a Tarangire Headwaters village based demonstration project (see box below from Al Todd report of December 2005) which would illustrate effective and sustainable natural resources management practices at the local level and could be used as an example for other villages in the region.

Potential for a Tarangire Headwaters Project The establishment of one or more village -based “demonstration projects” would be a good approach for trying to manage the competition of people, forests and water. A demonstration should illustrate village leadership of natural resources management and protection and serve as an example for training and education such a demonstration could include: - land use zoning -regulation of water use -farmland agro-forestry such as alley cropping + buffers -woodlot development -gully restoration and replanting of corridors – priority areas - A local tree nursery for raising conservation stock – tree planting - Education of local adults - Work for water

The Village would need technical assistance on an ongoing basis to carry out the projects. FS specialists could provide additional technical assistance with various aspects of the individual projects.

This participatory village-government-NGO partnership could yield excellent results and be used as a model to educate other villages. Mnenya may be a good candidate for a demonstration project of this kind due to an active local environmental group and Natural Resource Committee.

The forests of this area have added cultural significance (rock paintings) that should reinforce their protection value.

3. Tasks

#1: Recruitment, selection, and mobilization of a USFS technical assistance team: a) Recruit a watershed management expert who is knowledgeable in planning processes for multiple use forested landscapes.

50 b) Recruit a social/community forester with experience assisting communities to manage their resources in a sustainable fashion while improving their livelihoods. Responsible party: USFS

#2: Provide a workshop for AWF, the FD and the Kondoa District on the processes of creating a management plan for the Kolo Hills Forest Reserve, providing guidance on minimum data needs, public participation in the planning process, goal/objective setting, establishing rules/guidelines for use of the reserve, and implementation and monitoring of the plan. Responsible party: USFS

#3: Provide assistance to local partners for the development of a village based demonstration in this Tarangire headwaters region to illustrate effective and sustainable natural resources management practices at the local level. Responsible party: USFS

#4: In-country logistical support: a) Inform Forest Department officials charged with management of the Kolo Hills FR and Kondoa District authorities of team’s arrival and purpose of their engagement in region. b) Identify key participants for the workshop on management planning for the FR. c) Identify location for this workshop and arrange necessary logistics and materials. d) Arrange for in-country transportation and necessary lodging reservations. Responsible party: AWF

#5: Prior to the arrival of the team, identify a village (or several candidate villages) to engage with in a demonstration project. The village would ideally have some form of existing structure to engage with in working toward effective resource management, such as an environmental or resource committee. Responsible party: AWF

#6: Prior to the arrival of the USFS team, AWF will gather all available and relevant information on the Kolo Hills FR and its surrounding area for the team to review to allow them to adequately prepare for the work to be done while in-country. As much as possible, this information should be sent to the USFS team electronically prior to their arrival. Any documents not available in an electronic format should be made available to the team upon arrival. Responsible party: AWF

4. Deliverables

The USFS team will produce a report detailing activities during the mission and all results and findings of the work toward the accomplishment of those objectives listed above. This report will include but not be limited to:

51 a) A proposed timeline of activities that should be completed by the Kolo Hills FR management authorities and their partners in order to complete a management plan for the reserve. b) An outline of a proposed approach for engaging with a local community for a village based demonstration program, as described above, including prioritized activities to take place in the village chosen by AWF and their partners. c) A discussion of resource and technical assistance needs for the completion of the FR management plan and the sustainability of the village demonstration program, including any future role for USFS technical assistance.

52 Annex 3 - People Contacted

Note: The contacts listed below are people that we had formal discussions or interviews with during the course of our trip. See Annex 4 for a list of people that attended the workshop we put on, who should also be considered as people contacted.

Arusha

We met with 3 employees of the African Wildlife Foundation, Arusha office:

Frank Melamari, project officer, who accompanied us throughout our trip Dr. James Kahurananga, Program Director Mercy Kyamba, lawyer, who was supposed to accompany us to Kondoa but did not due to another last minute obligation

We also met AWF President and CEO Patrick Bergin, who is based in Washington, DC but spends quite a bit of time in Tanzania.

Babati

We visited the (LAMP) project office, which is funded by the Swedish International Development Cooperation Authority, and talked with Mr. Kavishe, a technical advisor for LAMP who works with the Babati District council as a technical advisor in support of participatory forest management. We discussed the participatory forest management projects their office is involved in in Babati, Singida, and districts.

Kondoa District

Augustine Martin, District Forest Officer and acting Natural Resources Officer, Kondoa District. Mr. Martin accompanied us throughout our stay in Kondoa District as our host there.

Abrogast A. Mhumba, Kondoa District Lands Officer

The Acting District Executive Officer

Zaccharia Matari, acting Regional Hifadhi ya Ardhi ya Dodoma (HADO) Project Manager, and 5 of the HADO staff members based at the district office

Kondoa Villages

Mnenia Village council (roughly 15-20 people)

Kwadinu: the village chairman, village executive officer, and three members of the village council

53 Humai: the village chairman, village executive officer, and four members of the village government

Bukulu: the village chairman, village executive officer, and three people from the village council

Masawi: a HADO (Hifadhi ya Ardhi ya Dodoma) project officer who is stationed there, two chairmen from 2 of the 4 vitongoji that comprise the village, 2 village council members, and one village elder

Kandaga: the village chairman, village executive officer, and 3 members of the village council, all of whom are on the environment committee

Kolo: Maulid Rauna, head of the Antiquities Department 15 people, including the village chairman, village executive officer, several members of the village environment committee, a teacher, one current and one retired employee of the Dept. of Antiquities, one ward agricultural officer, and the remainder members of the village council

Filimo: the village chairman, village executive officer, and 5 members of the village council

Itundwi: the village chairman, village executive officer, 4 members of the village environment committee, and 2 other members of the village council

54 Annex 4 - Workshop Agenda, Participant List, and Notes

Workshop Agenda

Workshop Purpose:

1) To discuss and create understanding of how to implement participatory forest management on forest lands in the Tarangire River catchment area, Kondoa District, under the Forest Act 2002 2) To discuss and recommend strategies for developing alternatives in local communities to help reduce pressure on forests 3) To identify what resources and support are needed to move forward with implementing sustainable forest management in the Tarangire catchment area of Kondoa District so that AWF/USFS can develop a proposal to obtain support

0900-0915 Welcome – Frank Melamari, Augustine Martin Introductions: each person states name, affiliation, location Review workshop purpose – Frank

0915-1000 Each person states their role in relation to forest management in the district, and issues and concerns they have in relation to forest resources, watershed health, and community development in the Tarangire catchment area – Ron Overton

1000-1030 Overview of relevant government policies and legislation – Susan Charnley, Frank

1030-1100 Chai

1100-1130 Participatory Forest Management: An overview of the concept, examples from other parts of Tanzania, lessons learned – Susan

1130-1200 Management of forests on government lands: forest reserves What are their management goals for the forest reserves, who do they think should be responsible for managing the forest reserves, what role should district vs. communities play, overview of Joint Forest Management Agreements, potential for JFAs for Salanka, Isabe, Kome reserves – Susan

1200-1230 Management of forests on village lands How should the ungazetted forests on govt. lands be managed? How to address management of forests on village lands?

55 Overview of community-based forest management, potential for implementing CBFM in communities – Susan

1230-1330 Lunch

1330-1500 The participatory forest management approach – discuss steps in the approach (meetings with villages, assessments, boundary issues, forest management plans, enforcement) – Susan, Ron, Frank

1500-1530 Chai

1530-1630 What should be done to reduce pressure on forest resources by communities in the catchment area? What strategies could be developed to meet peoples’ needs in other ways? What has been tried, by whom, with what success? What are the recommendations for community projects that would reduce pressure on forest resources that should be implemented simultaneously with PFM? Resources needed? How to get started – ie the demonstration village concept, other approaches? – Augustine

1630-1700 Develop an outline of an overall strategy for implementing sustainable forest management in the Tarangire watershed, Kondoa District – how to begin implementing participatory forest management for forests inside and outside reserves on government land, and for forests on village lands? What is the priority for getting started? What resources are needed? These ideas will be used by USFS to develop a proposed action plan – Ron

Closing remarks

56 Workshop Participants

S/N Name Organization/Dept & Contact Title Address 1. Said Twalib District Natural Resources Beekeeping Office Extension Officer Box 91 Kondoa 2. Leonard H. Mollo District Agriculture Office Land Use Planner Box 200 Kondoa 3. Jordan Protas District Beekeeping Office District Beekeeping Box 1 Kondoa Officer 4. Sadi H. Singana District Land Office Survey Technician Kondoa 5. Wasiwasi Baharia District Natural Resources District Game Office Officer Box 91 Kondoa 6. Josephine V. Mrawa Farmers Field School Agricultural Field District Agriculture Office Officer Box 200 Kondoa 7. Mohamed Thawa Tanzania Social Action Fund VFC-TASAF (TASAF) Box 1 Kondoa 8. Maulid Rauna Antiquities Dept. Antiquities Officer, Box 144 Kondoa Kolo 9. S. G. Ngoti For DALDO Agriculture Officer Box 200 Kondoa 10. Alesia Philipo Box 262 Kondoa Community Development/Gender Officer 11. Augustine Martin District Natural Resource District Forestry Office Officer Box 91 Kondoa 12. Lylmo Myusuph Box 85 Kondoa Assistant AWE 13. Ibrahim Mkangalla Box 344 Kondoa Engineer 14. J. M. Kusimula Box 1 Kondoa Agriculture DT 15. Dominique Sanga Box 144 Kondoa HADO - Head Station Masawi 16. Elias Sweti HADO Project District Project Box 144 Kondoa Manager 17. Ali Mruma Kondoa District Council Agriculture DED 18. Ibrahim Sejaluma Kondoa District Council DCDO 19. Ahimidiwe Mrikario KTA Agriculture TEO

57 Workshop Notes

Note: We are including Charnley’s notes from the workshop here. They are unedited, rather choppy and somewhat incomplete as the workshop discussion was active and took place entirely in Kiswahili. However, they contain some valuable information and represent participants’ perspectives on PFM, development interventions, and forest management issues in the district. Frank Melamari may also have some workshop notes.

Notes, Participatory Forest Management Workshop, Kondoa District, 16/08/06

Introductions

Forester – Hado They have a big concern about soil & water conservation in the Irangi highlands. Communities are their target because they use natural resources for building, firewood, grazing, They’ve tried to put by-laws to protect the environment but people are breaking the laws. They’ve tried to teach them to plant gardens around their houses and in their farms. They’ve gotten stuck tho because the money has dried up, donor money has dried up so they depend on the govt. Also to see what villagers can do themselves and to help them protect the degraded area. How can they help them protect?

She’s from the family and childrens dept. They are trying to address problems of Firewood is a huge problem for women, they would like to help women get firewood by planting trees to get firewood more easily. Also to implement use of stoves that don’t use so much wood. These are the things to cooperate with villages so each HH will plant trees so they can have enough firewood. People haven’t planted trees, big prob.

Water dept person – they are trying to prevent livestock from destroying water. Help people put fences around water sources so that they don’t degrade it. They should also stay away from the degraded area so it can recover.

HADO person – they’ve tried to get villagers to plant trees, and protect Salanka Isabe. Problems he sees with forestry is people are taking trees without a permit. Dry firewood and grasses they can get for free anywhere in the forest. If they think the forest is theirs they will protect better. But people need an income so it makes it hard to protect the forest. They need a sense of ownership.

Kilimo officer – They want people to plants lots of trees because the trees can be used for food and feeding livestock. Irrigation is an issue – without trees water will dry up. They want to prevent people from cutting trees when they expand their farms. How can they prevent people from cutting forests for kilimo; but they are also prob of removing trees to get rid of ndoroboro but then it destroys the environment. They don’t have other means – they need to cut lots of trees to get firewood and useful products. They don’t have money to take care of their sick people so they need to make money somehow, forests can help.

58 Womens group: They are trying to help people improve ag, they see that there is no way of protecting the forest. They need money for planting trees. A program started 2001, they got help from WWF/Tarangire 8 villages got help. They started coops of people for planting forests there. They taught people to plant trees so they would start nurseries. Now they are planting many trees. How to get them to continue planting trees. This should help protect Tarangire watershed a lot.

Kondoa District officer – is interesd in protecting wild ans and their environments. They see that our forests are the source of water for ans. To reduce problems about protecting forests and wild areas the office of natural resources – they are trying to move out people who are using forests for businesses and who are moving in there for ag – so they are trying to prevent people form converting to other uses.

Land officer – they are measuring boundaries of lands so that when they plan land uses they can separate out areas for forests in the forests. They are trying to record what areas will be used for what, they do surveying for land use plans so that the borders won’t move. But you see later that borders have moved – villagers need to protect land use areas without moving/changing borders.

District bee keeping officer – beekeeping in TZ depends on forests so there’s an important relation between forests and beekeeping. What they want to do in the forest reserves is to help protect them to support beekeeping, its an imp relationship. Bees depend on flowers that bloom in the forest. Protecting forest then will sustain beekeeping. But indirectly we remember that bees also help forests. The situation tho is that the history of the forest escarpment areas is that honey production was established very well long ago – but now human activities like grazing thr production of honey has gone down. What theyd like to do then is to have a new policy for beekeeping to pass for protecting forests that community bee reserves could be identified in forests. These areas would be identified and protected in forests to support bees. This is imp because it generates income that reduces poverty in these areas. Thus they support PFM. Presently there are people that have already started to organize and apply this concept for taking care of bees in groups and they are trying to start bee reserves.

Officer is – is in charge local sectors crops of forests want to help protect forest. The problem is ufumbuzi.

Works in the extension officer of bee keeping – they want to help teach people that they should protect the forest and put their beehives there. They also want to teach bee keepers to practice good techniques and get them to reduce pressure on forests; areas that have gotten tired for crops can still be used for beekeeping because it doesn’t need fertilizer etc. They are also getting people to save those areas so they can recover for later use –

Kilimo & land use planning – if you look at the escarpments you see that there are shambas; people shouldn’t put them up high on the escarpments they should do it down below. But they need infrastructure like irrigation and soils 2002 they participated with nat resource people to do research about why are people going high up to make shimbas. It was because they saw you couldn’t plant uleze down below because the soil wasn’t good enough. Down low the soil

59 wasn’t good for millet. So they are trying to teach them how to improve the soil down below to be able to grow millet.

TASAF officer – his purpose is to promote community development projects and initiatives. This work is like buildings, ags, grazing, nat resources. Bad luck, this district depends a lot on the escarpment 50% of the people in the district live on and below the escarpment. The ability to get water 60% of the district comes from the escarpment. There is perm settlement and intensive ag there. But there’s not easy way of changing land use there because 90% of the fuelwood comes from the forest there. It’s necessary to try and get a sustainable resource use plan. Good luck TASAF has an env officer now who will help villagers prepare mitigation measures and projects for improving the environment.

Antiquities officer in Kondoa – They have now gotten agreement with UNESCO to officially gazette areas for conserving rock art. They want to protect forests not just for wood; they are going to ask money from UNESCO to help them protect forest. 15 communities they are working with to help them in relation to UNESCO? To reduce fuelwood.

The building officer – building roads will help reduce pressure There are potholes and things like that that are making it difficult to They see that planting trees would help; there are things in his dept.

Money dept – They take care of the money for the forestry dept. The produce data about how much money has been spent, they do budgeting and use EPIC computer accounting system. 2004-05 they got hati safi. They do accounting for all departments.

Development and family office – their work is to participate with villages to plan development projects. The relationship between people and forests is big because people are very dependent on forests for their needs and work, use forests every day. For isabe Slaanka they see that what are some of the methods they can use to protect forests – maybe put together committees, education, he sees that there is a good possibility to help villagers make plans for protecting forests themselves.

-- End introductions --

There is no secretariat to record these conversations.

Irangi Escarpment prop reserved in on general land – it is governed by by-laws of the district. The HADO people hae worked there They were planting rees there to prevent erosion etc. So they made destocking rules, they have district rules for management under hado but its been hard to control. IT’s an area of the district. KEA borders on the forest. They have already started to deal with the eroded area. Peplehave depended on Kome for a long time. But HADO has tried to help them and some of the forest has been passed by the villages. They have village plans. There are 8 villages there that have already written plans passed by DC. 2001 – 2004 they have pursued this. But bad luck Kondoa District – DANIDA wanted to support that, but TASAF came and they are looking for TASAF money to continue this work.

60 They’ve started with this in the Irangi escarpment area. They started the effort but no money to continue – got grants from forest and bee keeping division. CBFM was a top down approached. 2002 the villagers were not educated about the process so it

Extension workers are told to use the approach, but even though it is PFM they go out to the villages to try and implement its still coming from above, like a top down approach. SNV people already came here, left a document about this approach. Now they are being forced to do PFM.

The HADO project did study tours etc for implementing PFM but then there was o money to implement. You need money to get out to the villages. How to you get oil for the pikipiki. Vilagers shouldt have to depend on the project money because then when the money phases out the project stops.

Although they tried to implement it there in Isabe esc really it wasn’t a real JFM approach because people didn’t understand that it was their power to manage the forests. What’s the entry point for this. We have policy, laws to support this approach but in the committee of environment it can also support this movement. Maybe they madiwani should agree what areas should be started for this process with agreement of the environment committee to make a plan. We should talk to the district env office and they are the ones that should help decide on the approach.

At first the HADO people were like police. Now HADO is trying to do participatory management – in peoples’ eyes the HADO people are like police forcing people to do this so they aren’t the right people to implement this project because they haven’t had a history of a participatory approach. Maybe now things are different – but laws haven’t been passed yet in any of the villages to proceed with JFM because they people still don’t believe that this is wanted. And villagers are now getting forced into this process – by-laws are there but they haven’t been approved by the ward district development council because they don’t understand what will be the outcome of the process; what will be the benefit to them.

Maybe people need to begin together with more education about the process.

What areas have the most water and are most imp for watershed values? Isabe Salanka would be the place perhaps to start because nothing has happened there yet.

We have seen that many things have a relationship with protecting ans. What should be the criteria for deciding what areas are the most important to start with in implementing forest protection? Like what area contributes the most to the watershed of Tarangire and its water flow.

Ikome forest is one that is important because HADO people have started there and they don’t think we should start to implement projects in another place, because its better to continue where you have already started. We should add resources to finish the work where we have started. Every place contributes to the watershed though. The areas that

61

But Isabe Salanka has a good environment for this process; villages already have land use plans. The forest is already protected and we can support that; plus it has rock art.

We should include all the areas. It is important to help both. Other people in the district in other sectors can help the district forest officer do his job so if we begin with a big area we can divide up the work.

Isabe salanka is getting destroyed; people are ruining it and entering illegally so it does need to be protected. Kome is a place that people have already entered. From Irangi Escarpment to Isabe Salanka the priority area. They don’t want to just protect one area, they want to protect all the areas because they are all important and they all have something to offer.

Let’s see if we can get some information based on the experience of the HADO person to see if the villages have an interest in protecting this area. They have done some participatory rural appraisals of some of the villages that were done. We have instruments to use and we have some info from earlier work – let’s see what info we have that can help. Maybe if we draw on the district info that can help us move forward.

ON the problem of what benefit will they get from PFM – one doesn’t think it will be a problem, they see that they get honey, firewood, etc. so they know it is important to protect the forest. So they should be motivated to protect their own forests. They use the forests for many benefits; they see it’s a source of water. People already know it’s important but there should be a basket of solutions.

Like today people are cutting green trees for firewood, whereas long ago it was easy to find dry firewood everywhere. People want to see both short and long term solutions. They think that you need to introduce a variety of solutions. You need to do the exercise as a package deal, not just PFM but other community development activities too.

In areas that were inside the HADO area they already planned buffer areas around the forest which were turned back to management by village councils. Now are they being conserved by village councils for protection – let’s look at this effort and see how it’s working.

We can save areas for natural resources – if a person doesn’t go into the forest for firewood he’ll go into the forest for other economic benefits. They need some more efficient agriculture – intensify agriculture so that people don’t need to spread into the forest.

About firewood, there are stoves that only use a little bit of firewood; they’ve started doing this in Kolo. These stoves save heat. We should try to include spreading this stove technology in their plans to help save kuni. Together with planting trees.

People are also cutting trees to burn bricks. These people in the forest dept are issuing permits to burn brick so people are confused about what they are allowed to do – some things you need permits for and so they think if you get a permit you’re allowed to do that activity.

62

You can plant trees in your shamba, you should have fast growing trees to use for wood fuel. What kinds of species can we use to feed to livestock?

People really understand that this is their forest and it provides them with benefits so that they should be ready to participate in its protection. But how do we start to plan then – how do we put all of these ideas into a good plan.

Ron: Has the research been done already to know what are the best spp of trees to plant to meet these various needs. HADO knows what species are best for diff uses but they try to get farmers to choose what they like. But eucalyptus is a problem, it is fast growing but you can’t plant it on cultivated land – its better for marginal land. Native trees they have used – lucina, nim. Casiasimea.

A big problem is building houses with bricks. This uses a hug amt of firewood. What would be another fuel to use to burn bricks – could they use mabua from their shambas to prepare bricks? How could you burn bricks more efficiently? Research has been done to show how to improve this technology but it hasn’t been used yet. Biogas stoves could also be an alternative. Is this a possibility here? One guy here uses biogas and it isn’t expensive. It isn’t difficult to introduce this, if you have an example others can see. You use biogas for cooking and other things too. Things are out there but people haven’t seen them.

There is lots of sun and wind also at the base of the escarpment that could be a source of energy. Why not utilize this? OR is it too expensive? Maybe the new office that they are building in the Kolo for rock paintins is a place where they could display wares and sell traditional things.

The people who are using forests the most and destroying it are people who go there for business, ie timber and charcoal.

But there are fruits in the forest but people just eat them, they don’t process them and sell them, it could be that forest fruits could be a better source of income. Maybe they could cultivate these valueable ntfp trees to increase that as a source of income, and get people to learn how to process them, so there could be cash crops and not just food crops from forest fruits. Maybe also with mtama.

What about irrigated ag right in small gardens around their homes with water from the forest, that if they do irrigated ag maybe they will value the water more.

But before introducing anything you should assess what the impacts are going to be because it could go either way.

There is one area erenaia? Where there is a problem, lots of ag land is not very fertile so people need education about how to use their composting to increase fertility of soil. Should be composting crop residues.

63 They should get some people from the env committee fo the district and get them to go to babati to see how the PFM is working there and to learn from there, what have they been doing and can we learn from them. All of the houses in this area is made of bricks and this burns lots of trees, is their an alternative?

People use different paths, they want to increase their ag but also they want to increase their livestock. The livestock causes erosion and they are finishing the feed so necessary to go into the forest to find grass. How to get an alternate source of income – from milk and doing zero grazing, encourage people to do zero grazing and to benefit more from milk sales. Will help them not to move around herds which is hard for them too.

What about fish? There’s a lot of water that comes down but how are we going to capture it? All the water goes to manyara and tarangire and people here don’t get very much.

Try different projects in diff villages, don’t go one place and try all of your ideas there but spread your trials around to different villages so you can see diff. But are we trying to impose our own ideas about what should happen there and introduce them on the ground? Or should we go and see what people are already doing on their own and how we can support that – so that its more from the ground up. You should go into villages and see what they want and then help them.

One village is not enough, its better to go to 4 village s or so so people have a better chance of copying because it is a big area. Money is one thing but you also need expertise, skills, etc. so how do you transfer that expertise. We have lots of villages here, how can they all learn from one or even 3 villages because how will they get there and be able to see what it is going on. One demo village is not enough, at least 4.

We can talk but we need everything. At least 4 villages should be started for providing assistance, but for JFM we should start everywhere. Both Irangi escarpment and Isabe/Salanka.

IF the govt is removing the responsibility of managing forest from the district people will villagers really be able to do it because will they really make rules to prevent these uses? They see this could be difficult. How will a village arrest someone? Who will then issue the harvesting permits? Committees will take on this work. Who will be in charge of issuing permits etc?

It’s a long process, people can be tired. You have to go spend a lot more time in the villages. It is very time consuming but this is the cost of democracy. But people shouldn’t worry about the time it takes if the final result is good.

Someone else things it’s good because yearsago we were with big trees. Now we don’t have enough experts, but if we do this in lots of villages there will be lots of people to help protect forests and extpertise will increase and so we will be building capacity in villages and the result will be more people helping to conserve forests and developing capacity and expertise. It used to be that people thought the govt or HADO reduced the forest, now they have to take responsibility.

64 It will help not just with forest management it will help with protecting the environment more widely and everyone will help, not just one person.

Who keeps the process going once the support has left? We are starting over again at the beginning; if the support leaves, we’ve often seen that things stop. How can it be continued without support? Places can be separated out and used, but if someone who is in charge leaves it collapses. How to make it endure?

Villages will have councils to enforce and keep it going. TAsaf?

It sounds like no one has interacted much at all with Babati to learn about how the process is working there. But even if we go there and see what they are doing and get good ideas we still don’t see how to make it stick so that down the road problems of deforestation will start again and you’ve returned to the beginning.

TASAF can provide support but the request has to come from the village, not from the district; will the villages want this?

They think that it would be a good idea to go to Babati and learn about what they are doing. To plan forest uses is hard its discouraging with tree planting activities because most species take a long time to harvest and so you use the forest while you wait – people are discouraged because it takes a long time.

Would it be possible? They have doubts about the sustainablility of the forest. If you dont get paid to patrol the forest you won’t do it, you will do it until you stop. You need to pay the patrol team to do its job or they will get tired. Everyone has other jobs and responsibilities so how to get them to do this work. People get tired of patrolling. How will you pay them? Right from the beginning you need to plan how you are going to generate funds. Maybe there is a plan that in the village they can figure out – but they also want to have other village development plans for support. How can this be part of a village development plan? People who have volunteered for the service of patrolling should be excluded from having to contribute to other village development activities. They should be excluded from other village responsibilities.

We should at least start the process and find some compensation for them. Most villages have already done their village boundaries but they don’t have village land use plans. It is not all villages that have had their boundaries already measured; people in villages know where their boundaries are. But it hasn’t already necessarily been made official. All villages have boundaries that have been surveyed. But there are boundary problems out there. Even if boundaries have been surveyed people can argue over them. And not everyone respects boundaries. But demarcation exists. Some have put beacons inside the forest in some places but that’s for the village forests but not inside the govt reserves. But people do feel that they have village boundaries that extend inside of the forest reserves and recognize customary use areas and boundaries inside of forests.

65

Break out groups

We asked people to respond to 5 different questions in break out groups:

1) What strategy do they recommend for implementing PFM in the Salanka/Isabe Forest Reserves?

2) What resources are needed to begin implementing these strategies?

3) What strategy do they recommend for implementing PFM in the Irangi Escarpment proposed forest reserve?

4) What resources are needed to begin implementing these strategies?

5) What information do we already have, and what information is needed, to be able to effectively develop alternative strategies in villages that relieve pressure on forest resources?

Group 1

Q1 – Create awareness among village councils about PFM and its purposes, what will they get from it. It’s a forest (Salanka/Isabe) that hasn’t gotten an intro to this process yet. After having a meeting with village council, meet with village assembly to introduce PFM. Then form a forest planning team and conduct training about how to implement it. Then ID roles for the forest planning team and develop the participatory forest management plan. Present the plan to community members, village assembly, then after presenting the plan to community members.

Q2 – Resources: we need human resources to do the job. A staff to implement it we also need funds to buy stationary, allowances for the staff, including village council members, transport so that the district committee reps can go to the villages. Also need survey equipment to ID boundaries. Then planting materials for restoration needs in the forest. Even for ag purposes you need implements, so same is true for trees. Training needs would be study visits for those staff that are responsible for implementing; maybe study visits to areas where they are already implementing PFM; seminars for villagers to train them, and the farmers field school so that education can be given about looking at how to find alternative sources of income. There is already a farmers field school program that the district operates, learn more about this and what role it could play here.

Q3 – Because in this area the already know something about PFM, meet with the village environment committee that can help to prepare by-laws. Meet also with village council and village env council to see how far they have gotten in the process. We could give them some advice about how to strengthen the process that they have already begun, and also see what their experience has been, strengths and weaknesses. Also give advice to present bylaws to the ward DC. Then demarcate the forest boundaries, gazette forest boundaries so people will know what ownership area they have and are responsible for managing.

66 Q4 – same as Q2

Q5 – they think improved stoves should be introduced to use less amount of fuel; explore the use of biogas, which is already being used for energy production by the district kilimo/mifugo? officer; improve agricultural practices to intensify agricultural production; establish individual tree nurseries or also have it done by groups of people in the village; introduce zero grazing because livestock are the biggest source of environmental destruction in the forests. Villages should have land use plans to zone areas of the village that should be used for settlement, grazing, kilimo. Then find ways to enforce the enacted by-laws.

Group 2

Q1 – The 2 forests are a part of different govt levels. Do participatory rural appraisal for JFM. Do a workshop with people from the env committee and leaders of the village government together with policy people. Then participate with all sectors that work in the area of village development like ag, family social service issues, nat resources, env etc. Then kufufua na kuendelea kuzitumia sheria za jadi/mila na sheria ndogo ndogo.

Q2 – you need money, expertise, seeds, the env committee na vitendea kazi, and travel, computers, majarida, vipepenishi

Q3 – The area there will be managed through CBFM is the proposed Irangi escarpment area. Do a participatory rural appraisal to facilitate this. You need a workshop/seminar with the people in Babati to see what they have done. Then you need to select the areas that will be included as forest reserves because the forest now is public land so they have to identify and choose the forest areas that will be needed for each village. Then you need to use village bye laws to develop regulations for forest use. Be sure to participate with the projects and mashirika that are being done for work in the vijiji husika.

Q4 – the same resources are needed but some different ones too since this is a village level management project – money, expertise, seeds, transport, computer, majavida, vipepenishi, kamati na vitendea kazi

Q5 – Need to finish and write down those rules that already exist that are customary; then see if you need to increase with by-laws. Base management approach on existing customary law for forest use. Then introduce energy efficient stoves. Then tree planting is needed for firewood, building needs. Then introduce alternative energy sources like solar and wind energy. Also teach villagers about tree nurseries so they can each have their own household nurseries and how to use them. Also teach the use of endelevu was raslimali ya misitu.

Group 3

Q1 & Q3 – the answers apply to both forests of both types so for both the activities that should take place = situation analysis to see what state they are in. Find out of assessments have been done or do them so you can build on action plans that may already exist. Also you need to involve various stakeholders at different levels in the work; stakeholders many will have an

67 interest in the area, so it is important to discuss with them before you begin the process. Need to talk also with the different committees in the village but also the small groups, whatever sectors are there in the village that participates with forestry. Then you need to explain the concept of PFM well to the stakeholders and why it is worthwhile. See what stakeholders should be involved in decision making and planning and implementation. They may have understood and begun the steps, but even if you do all this you need to find a way to institutionalize the process and get the community plans to be approved as village/district council plans so that they will endure. This will help to find ways of getting resources to sustain the plans.

Q2 & Q4 – Resources you need: facilitators to facilitate the discussion, meetings, and personnel to do the work. We need funding. But also there are logistical needs: we need transport, stationery, computers, and GPS systems for measuring boundaries/surveys. Other things too but this is some examples.

Q5- We have population data, data on water sources inside the reserves, data on tree species that grow in reserves, and environmental committees in the villages that border the reserves. Data on forest resource use is scant; we see that people go into the forest for different uses, ie grazing, firewood, wood, though little data are available on resource use levels. And we have data on innovations to reduce pressure on forest resources – like what kinds of trees can be introduced to help reduce pressure on forest resources for firewood etc. But what we need is data on information on cheap and affordable alternative sources of energy and energy saving stoves and appliances because this info it can help us reduce pressure on forests.

68 Annex 5 - Relevant Literature 1

Sources pertaining to the social and biophysical environment of Kondoa District:

Christiansson, Carl, and Idris S. Kikula, 1996. Changing Environments: Research on Man-Land Interrelations in Semi-Arid Tanzania. Regional Soil Conservation Unit Report No. 13. Nairobi, Kenya: Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency.

Eliapenda, Shadrack, 2000. Plant Ecological Studies Related to Restoration of a Degraded Ecosystem in Central Tanzania. Comprehensive Summaries of Uppsala Dissertations from the Faculty of Science and Technology 526. Uppsala, Sweden: Uppsala University.

ICRAF Document: 2006 Dry-land Agroforestry Management Systems and Strategies: Business Plan for Scaling up/out agroforestry technologies in semi-arid Tanzania http://www.worldagroforestry.org/eca/country_documents.asp

Kahuranangua, James, 1992. Lake Babati, Tanzania and its immediate surroundings. Part I- Baseline Information. Regional Soil Conservation Unit Report No. 4. Nairobi, Kenya: Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency.

1992a. Lake Babati, Tanzania and its immediate surroundings. Part II-Management & Action Plan. Regional Soil Conservation Unit Report No. 5. Nairobi, Kenya: Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency.

Kajuna, Gilbert, 2004. Tanzania’s EOTA (Environmental Threats and Opportunities Analysis): a study to inform USAID/Tanzania’s 2005-2014 Country Strategic Plan

Kangalawe, Richard Y.M. 2001. Changing Land-Use Patterns in the Irangi Hills, Central Tanzania: A Study of Soil Degradation and Adaptive Farming Strategies. Thesis in Geography with emphasis on Physical Geography No. 22, Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology. Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm Univeristy.

Kikula, Idris S. and C.G. Mung’ong’o, 1993. An Historical Review of the Soil Erosion Problem and Land Reclamation in Kondoa District, Central Tanzania. Research Paper No. 33, Institute of Resource Assessment. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: University of Dar es Salaam.

Leakey, Mary, 1983. Africa’s Vanishing Art: The Rock Paintings of Tanzania. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc.

Lyaruu, Herbert V., 1998. Seed Dynamics and the Ecological Restoration of Hill Slopes of Kondoa Irangi, Central Tanzania. Comprehensive Summaries of Uppsala Dissertations from the Faculty of Science and Technology 383. Uppsala, Sweden: Uppsala University.

1 Charnley has copies of most of these documents.

69

Mbwambo, Lawrence. 2004. Status of Arid and Semi-arid Lands in Tanzania. Paper to be presented at the Drylands Agroforestry Workshop 1st-3rd September 2004, ICRAF Headquarters, Nairobi, Kenya

Mung’ong’o, Claude G. M. 1990. Environmental Conservation as a Social Process: the Case of HADO Project in Kondoa District. A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a Master of Arts Degree, University of Dar es Salaam, Department of Sociology.

1995. Social Processes and Ecology in the Kondoa Irangi Hills, Central Tanzania. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Human Geography, Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm University.

Mung’ong’o, Claude G. M. and Idris S. Kikula. 2004. Hali ya Mazingira katika Wilaya ya Kondoa na Hatua za Marekebisho. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: Dar es Salaam University Press.

Mung’ong’o, Claude G. M., Idris S. Kikula, and Raphael B.B. Mwalyosi. 2004. Geophysical and Socio-Political Dynamics of Environmental Conservation in Kondoa District. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: Dar es Salaam University Press.

Rumley, Rachael, Catherine Muthuri, and Chin Ong. 2006. More trees with less water. ICRAF Watershed Management Research “The Difference a Tree Can Make” campaign publication. 4p.

Yanda, Pius Z., 1995. Temporal and Spatial Variations of Soil Degradation in Mwisanga Catchment, Kondoa, Tanzania. Department of Physical Geography Dissertation Series No. 4. Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm University.

Sources pertaining to Participatory Forest Management in Tanzania

Havnevik, K.J, M.Rwebangira, and A.Tivell. 2000. Land Management Programme in Tanzania. Sida Evaluation 00/4. Stockholm: Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, Department for Natural Resources and the Environment.

Kihiyo, Vincent B.M.S. 1998. Forest Policy Changes in Tanzania: Towards Community Participation in Forest Management. The World Bank/WBI CBNRM Initiative. http://srdis.ciesin.columbia.edu/cases/Tanzania-009.html.

Massao, J.F. 2005. Participatory Forest Management for Sustainable Community Development: Lessons Learnt in Conservation and Management of Udzungwa Mountain Forests, Iringa, Tanzania. Conference Presentation, Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity in Developing Countries, Copenhagen, Denmark.

70

Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism. 2001. Community-based Forest Management Guidelines. Dar es Salaam: Division of Forestry and Beekeeping.

Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism. 2005. Administrative and Financial Manual for Participatory Forest Management. Dar es Salaam: Division of Forestry and Beekeeping.

Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism. 2004. Participatory Forest Management Monitoring System. Dar es Salaam: Division of Forestry and Beekeeping.

Topp-Jorgensen, Elmer, Michael K. Poulsen, Jens F. Lund, and John F. Massao, 2005. Community-based monitoring of natural resource us and forest quality in montane forests and miombo woodlands of Tanzania. Biodiversity and Conservation 14: 2653-2677.

Veltheim, T. and M. Kijazi. 2002. Lessons Learned on Participatory Forest Management. East Usambara Conservation Area Management Programme Technical Paper 61. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, Forestry and Beekeeping Division.

Wily, Liz A. 1998. Devolution: the critical institutional change in future resource management – A case from the forestry sector of Tanzania. The World Bank. http://srdis.ciesin.columbia.edu/cases/Tanzania-004.html

Wily, Liz A. 2001. Forest Management and Democracy in East and Southern Africa: Lessons from Tanzania. Gatekeeper Series No. 95. London: International Institute for Environment and Development.

Wily, Liz A. and Peter A. Dewees. Nd. From Users to Custodians: Changing Relations between People and the State in Forest Management in Tanzania.

Wily, Liz A., and Sue Mbaya. 2001. Land, People and Forests in Eastern and Southern Africa at the Beginning of the 21st Century: The Impact of Land Relations on the Role of Communities in Forest Future. Nairobi, Kenya: Eastern Africa Programme, International Union for the Conservation of Nature, The World Conservation Union.

71 Annex 6 - Examples of Participatory Forest Management in Tanzania

MNRT (2005) lists 25 districts in 14 regions of Tanzania that are participating in Tanzania’s national PFM program with support from DANIDA and the World Bank, and anticipated support from the Finnish International Development Agency. Below are just a few examples that have been written about in some of the documents listed in Annex 5.

1) In Iringa District, Iringa Region, PFM has been implemented in five different areas through a project that was supported by DANIDA (Danish International Development Assistance) in 1999- 2003 called MEMA (Sustainable Use of Natural Resources). One component of the project focused on implementing joint forest management in and around government forest reserves in the Udzungwa Mountains; the other component focused on implementing community-based forest management in miombo woodlands on village and general lands. A total of 23 villages are involved in the project.

2) In the east Usambara Mountains, two government forest reserves are being managed under joint forest management agreements with 11 villages, and 5 village forest reserves are being managed by 11 villages. . 3) In Simanjiro, Singida, Kiteto, and Babati Districts, the SIDA (Swiss)-funded LAMP project (Land Management Programme) has supported district councils in implementing PFM. In Babati District (right next door to Kondoa District) two types of PFM have been implemented. In the Bereko Forest Reserve (a national govt. forest reserve), three villages are helping to manage the forest under joint forest management agreements and Ufiome Forest Reserve is being managed by 8 villages under joint forest management agreements. Both are protection forests reserved for watershed catchment values, like Salanka/Isabe. Bereko is more or less contiguous with the Salanka forest reserve. In Ufiome for example (5,635 ha) 8 villages have established their own village forest management areas. They have agreements drafted with the central govt that lay out the role of villages in forest management.

The Duru-Haitemba forest (9000 ha) in Babati District is being managed by 8 villages under community-based forest management arrangements in village forest reserves. This forest was suffering from serious degradation by encroachment, frequent fires, and timber harvesting. In 1990 Babati District decided to gazette this forest as a government forest reserve to try and protect it. Villagers had a negative reaction because they thought this would limit their access and began to grab what they could before it was too late. The District Forest officer realized that to help the forest survive villagers would have to be involved in its management, so they established a pilot program where the 8 villages that traditionally used it assessed damage, drew up management plans and rules for forest use and protection, and elected members of village forest committees. Appointed guards patrol the forests. This project has been deemed very successful in reducing forest destruction.

4) Joint forest management agreements are being developed with 18 villages for management of the Nou Forest Reserve in Mbulu district, Manyara Region, with support from FARM Africa

72 (Food and Agricultural Research Management). They have also worked in Babati District. See http://www.farmafrica.org.uk/programme

73 Annex 7 - Villages in the Tarangire River Headwaters, Kondoa District

Note: This list was compiled from a list given to us by the African Wildlife Foundation, an old map of the area, and information from Kondoa District staff. It may not be completely accurate.

Villages adjacent to the Salanka and Isabe Forest Reserves

Upper side of catchment:

Kolo Ward Kolo Kwadinu Humai

Bereko Ward Bukulu Masawi Salanka Bereko Puhi

Lower side of catchment:

Kisese Ward

Kisese Disa Kisese Sauna

Masange Ward

Itololo Kandaga Masange

Mnenia Ward

Mnenia Chungai Itundwi Filimo

74 Villages adjacent to the Irangi Escarpment Proposed Forest Reserve and Kome Forest Reserve

Upper side of catchment:

Haubi Ward

Haubi Hebi juu Hebi chini Kalamba Mafai Ntomoko

Lower side of catchment:

Busi Ward

Tandala ? Isusumya Busi Sambwa

Pahi Ward

Keikei Kinyasi Kati Kinyasi Majengo Kiteo Pahi

75