The Role of Local Perceptions and Priorities in Establishing Sustainable Livelihood Opportunities around Mt Mulanje, Malawi
Clemmie Borgstein 920411101090
MSc student of Forest and Nature Conservation Supervisor: Verina Ingram Department of Forest and Nature Policy
Wageningen University and Research Centre May 2017
Photo – Ruo Valley, Mulanje (Borgstein, 2016).
Table of Contents Overview ...... 3 Figures ...... 3 Tables ...... 3 Abbreviations ...... 4 Acknowledgements ...... 4 Abstract ...... 5 Introduction ...... 5 Background ...... 7 Scientific objectives ...... 15 Problem statement ...... 15 Research questions...... 17 Theoretical framework ...... 17 Grounded Theory ...... 18 Sustainable livelihoods approach ...... 19 Community in conservation ...... 22 Conceptual Framework ...... 25 Definitions of key words ...... 26 Methods ...... 27 Results ...... 36 What are local people’s perceptions of conservation of Mulanje? ...... 36 What are local people’s perceptions of their own natural resource use & livelihoods? ...... 41 What livelihoods do people envision for themselves without use of the mountains resources? ...... 51 Discussion ...... 53 Reflection on results ...... 53 The bigger issues ...... 58 Influence of methods on findings, & limitations ...... 62 Concluding Remarks ...... 64 Bibliography ...... 65 Appendix ...... 70 Appendix 1 ...... 70 Appendix 2 ...... 74 Appendix 3 ...... 76
2 Overview
Figures Figure 1 – Location of Mt Mulanje on a map of Malawi. The inset shows Malawi’s position in Africa Figure 2 – Maize fields and one of the rivers running of Mulanje, in front of Chambe Peak, rainy season (Borgsteinm 2017). Figure 3 – topographical satellite image of Mulanje from a southerly perspective (http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/view.php?id=44017) Figure 4 – Women from the focus group in Nessa Village (Borgstein, 2016). Figure 5 – The SLA framework as used by Allison & Horemans (2006) Figure 6 – Hierarchical structures within a district in Malawi. Figure 7 – Conceptual framework outlining the present situation, the desired focus of the thesis research, and the prevalent theories relevant to the model. Figure 8 - Focus group in Makuluni Village, (Borgstein, 2016) Figure 9 – TA Mkanda at her house in front of Chambe Basin, (Borgstein, 2016) Figure 10 - Breakdown of in what form the natural resources were mentioned by each village. Blue is for subsistence, red for cash, and green if it was unspecified. Figure 11 – Livelihoods as mentioned in the form of subsistence (blue) or cash (red) per village. Figure 12 – Differing livelihood types per village. Figure 13 – Focus group in Msikita Village, with Susan (far right) (Borgstein, 2017) Figure 14 – Tea picker, Sayama Estate (Borgstein, 2017) Figure 15 – River pathways coming off Mulanje (Borgstein, 2017) Figure 16 - Grass harvested from the mountain plateau, carried down and being dried to make brooms to be sold, Nessa Village (Borgstein, 2016). Figure 17 – Man selling pineapple and avocado pears from Nessa Village (Borgstein, 2016). Figure 18 - the information gathered from my research fitted into an SLF. More in-depth understanding of people’s livelihood assets and the strength/influence of each category could help in implementing more informed livelihood strategies. Figure 19 – The ‘crater’ on the southern edge of Mulanje, pictured from Sayama Estate (Borgstein, 2017)
Tables Table 1 - Overview of village perspectives of conservation; purple represents yes (Y) and green represents no (N). Blank cells represent no data. No. 1.1 – 1.6 represent the first set of focus groups per location and 2.1 – 2.6 represent the second set. Table 2.1 - Overview of natural resources mentioned by each village, in a gradient of use from purely subsistence to purely cash. Blue represents resources used for subsistence, purple shows resources used for both subsistence and cash, and red represents those used only for cash.
3 Table 2.2 – an overview of the main livelihoods came up with by each group during the activity in the focus groups with livelihoods summarised into categories of subsistence (blue) cash (red) or both (purple) Table 3.1 - livelihoods without the use of the mountain’s resources, separated as subsistence/cash (purple) or just cash (red).
Abbreviations
DF department of Forestry FG focus group GEF Global Economic Forum GVH group village headman LVH livelihoods MAB Man and Biosphere MMBCP Mulanje mountain biodiversity conservation program MMCT Mulanje Mountain Conservation Trust MMFR Mulanje Mountain Forest Reserve MJ Mulanje NR natural resource NRU natural resource use NTFP non timber forest products TA traditional authority VFA village forested area VH village headman VNRMC village natural resource management committee
Acknowledgements
First of all a huge thank you to my supervisor Verina Ingram who guided me through the many stages of this process. Secondly, Carl Bruessow for his guiding of the more practical aspects, as well as offering me many forms of support and help in Mulanje itself. The whole team of MMCT were invaluable and made my time in Mulanje even better than it would already have been. Susan Pota, dear friend and facilitator with an endless smile, words of encouragement and without whom of course my field work would not have been possible. Also to all the people who have contributed something to this research, all the focus group participants as well as the village headmen, group village headmen and TAs who gave me their time and attention. And finally my parents and siblings, whose love and guidance is boundless and continues to always give me strength! 4 Abstract
Mt Mulanje and it’s Forest Reserve offer a vast range of natural resources, a seemingly ideal support system for the many impoverished communities living primarily subsistence-based lives around its base. This thesis presents information on how these local communities perceive their interaction with the mountain; from their understandings of who is conserving the mountain, to the sustainability of their use of the mountain’s resources. Establishing the extent of their dependence on the mountain’s resources is difficult. Issues such as empowerment, responsibility and law-enforcement emerged as critical points from the communities. This thesis provides information on what is necessary for a more integrated study to assess the situation around Mulanje using a sustainable livelihoods framework, as well as an enhanced understanding of the heterogeneity of communities, and thus more effective implementation of future livelihood activities. This could help ensure the survival of the mountain’s resources.
Key words: Livelihood, sustainable livelihood, exploitation, natural resource use, communities, and perceptions
Introduction
Numerous African countries have populations with large percentages under the poverty line. Such areas often support a reliance on natural resources for daily survival. This dependence on natural resources has been shown to be far more prominent in situations of poverty (FAO, 2016). With Sub-Saharan Africa having the largest percentage of extreme poor - 388.7 out of 766.6 million, as estimated by the World Bank in 2013 (World Bank, 2016) - the area offers many examples of communities reliant on natural resources (Hill, 2017). Forests offer support in a multitude of ways – from the obvious (shelter, food, water) to removable products (timber, and non-timber forest products) many of which translate into both cash and subsistence livelihood supports (Angelsen et al, 2014). According
5 to the World Bank the livelihoods of over 1 billion people are in one form or another dependent on forests (World Bank, 2004).
Malawi Such a dependence on forests can be clearly exemplified by the situation in Malawi. Already densely populated, Malawi’s population has been on the increase for many years - from roughly 14 million in 2008 (FAO, 2010) to 17million estimated in 2015 (CLGF, 2015). Much of this growing population continues to live rurally (GoM, 2010). Coupled with the fact that Malawi has seen mass forest loss in past years (FAO, 2016) and that forests are known to offer provision of multiple services to Malawians (Bandyopadhyay et al, 2011) it can naturally be inferred that there is a large dependence of these rural communities on natural resources, and that Malawi’s economy in general has a strong base on environmental services (Meijer et al, 2016). There are 80 designated forest reserves throughout the country, however they only account for 22% of the country’s forest cover, the rest is a combination of national parks and game reserves (27%), customary forest land (47%) and plantation forests (4%) (FAO, 2010).
Mulanje A more in depth example is Mount Mulanje, sitting at the heart of one of the most densely populated regions of the country, a rich source of resources to those living around it (Thompson, 2013)). Known as the ‘island in the sky’, Mulanje covers an area of 650km2, has steep sides rising to a plateau 1800-2000m high, with the highest mountain peaks reaching 3000m (Wisborg & Jumbe, 2010). A granite inselberg, the mountain is a unique biosphere. The deep gorges and valleys across the mountain are home to a high level of biodiversity, many species of which are endemic to the mountain (Hecht, 2006). The Mulanje Mountain Forest Reserve encompasses the mountain, the border stretching a few kilometres past the foothills. On the lower slopes Miombo woodland can be found; a common vegetation type in Malawi, comprising of indigenous Brachystegia trees, known to be a source of useful resources (Fisher, 2004). Higher up the forests turn to afromontane variations (Fisher, 2010) with
6 grasslands on the plateau (Thompson, 2013). Therefore Mount Mulanje was acknowledged as an area that needs conserving.
Figure 1 – Location of Mt Mulanje on a map of Malawi. The inset shows Malawi’s position in Africa.
Background
History The area was tribal land occupied by the Mang’anja and Yao tribes (McCracken, 2012). With the British Protectorate occupation in 1890 the Lomwe tribe also moved in. The new British government afforded land to Europeans for the first tea and coffee estates, created around the southern slopes of the mountain. In 1927 the Mount Mulanje Forest Reserve (MMFR) was established around the mountain encompassing an area of, estimated in 2006, 56307ha - although it originally would have been larger (Bouvier, 2006). It was created under a wider set of regulations focused on preventing soil erosion, deforestation and bush fires, as well as conserving watersheds, and protecting tree species of high value that the British aimed to use (Kamoto, Dorward & Shepherd, 2008). The mountain is an important water catchment area, supplying fresh water to many villages and people in the districts that encompass the mountain. In combination with the other resources offered, the mountain is a unique and important provider to one of Malawi’s most densely populated districts.
7
Before establishment of the forest reserve, in the early 1920’s Village Forested Areas (VFAs) were established countrywide as areas inapt for agricultural use but from which natural resources (both timber and non timber forest products) could be extracted. They were placed under the control of Traditional Authorities (TAs), and later following the establishment of the Department of Forestry (DF), technical staff and forest guards from the local communities were appointed to regulate and control the areas, one of the first examples of community-based forest management in the area. Revenues went primarily to the local council (Kamoto, Dorward & Shepherd, 2008).
Political history & forest policy Independence came in 1964 under Prime Minister Dr. Kamuzu Hastings Banda, later to become “president for life” and lead under a one party system until the mid 1990s (Thompson, 2013). Along with this political change came a shift in approach to natural resources governance and use. Forest policy began to focus more on plantations, and forest officials were replaced with agricultural extension workers who knew less about forests and were far more agriculturally focused. This caused the collapse of the VFA system, and combined with population growth and increased use of land for agricultural purposes caused pressure on firewood resources to start building (Mauambeta, 2008).
The next political shift was to democracy and a multi-party state and this again created a change; up until that point integration of communities into conservation had been growing - however the National Forestry Policy drafted in 1995 was exclusive of community input (Kamoto, Dorward & Shepherd, 2008). Later a Forest Act was drafted, incorporating more community participation, but at the end of the process incorporation of TAs input – representative of communities - was not included. This resulted in a general overall lack of engagement with communities when it came to natural resource management. As a result the changes in governance’s approach to natural resources went alongside changes in people’s personal approaches.
8 The sections of the Forest Act/Policy relevant to Mulanje allowed for controlled harvesting of certain types of timber from the mountain, granted and paid for through a system with the Department of Forestry. Harvesting of dead wood from trees is also allowed. The reality is that illegal activities continue to happen on the mountain, including; hunting, making charcoal, cutting live green trees for poles and timber, cutting down trees for firewood, burning the bush (mostly for hunting), clearing trees to open farms within the forest reserve boundary (encroachment). For a more integrated look at policy regarding the mountain and harvesting systems, see Thompson (2013).
Communities Over 500,000 people live in the districts of Phalombe and Mulanje, surrounding the mountain and forest reserve. They are mostly subsistence farmers, however there is little available land left to cultivate, which often leads to encroachment into forested areas (Fisher, 2004). There is an interesting interplay of high populations, poverty and forest dependence. Much of the country’s rural population are dependent on forest-given provisions (Fisher 2004; Jumbe & Angelsen 2007; Meijer et al 2016). Globally the rolls, activities and knowledge regarding forest use has been shown to differ between genders (Sunderland et al, 2014) and the situation was found to be similar in the case of Malawi too (Meijer et al, 2016).
Management The Mulanje Mountain Conservation Trust (MMCT) was established in 2000 with the intention of effectively managing the mountain’s resources and conserving its biodiversity. MMCT is an endowment fund, whose purpose is to address threats to the Mount Mulanje Forest Reserve. There is an on-going approach to incorporate communities into their conservation efforts. The Mulanje Mountain Biodiversity Conservation Project (MMCBP) was established by the World Bank to run from 2002-2008 with GEF funding, as a means to carrying out the MMCT’s goals. Their efforts have included co-management schemes, awareness and education schemes of natural resources and the mountain, and maintenance of the mountain ecosystem with regards to biodiversity and ecological services (Wisborg & Jumbe, 2010). 9
Mt Mulanje was also established as a global biosphere reserve in 2000, and has since become part of the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere sustainable development approach. The concepts of this approach underlie the MMCT’s work. Biosphere functions focus on conservation in combination with sustainable resource use in collaboration with local people and their own understandings. Working with the local communities in the districts of Mulanje and Phalombe, situated around the base of the mountain, MMCT has facilitated the implementation of various livelihood programmes, including small-scale irrigation schemes, aquaculture and bee-keeping among others (Wisborg & Jumbe, 2010).
Over 1200 households are estimated to be involved in the beekeeping scheme, and the result is the largest collective beekeepers association in the country. However it has been suggested that livelihood enterprises require more linking to the issue of forest management, and if the two were to go more hand in hand, they could benefit from each other (Wisborg & Jumbe, 2010). Understanding of the notion of ‘conservation’ however varies. To local Malawians, it is somewhat of a foreign concept. Existence and survival on a day-to-day basis take priority, resulting in Malawians having a shorter-term view to the use of natural resources (Mawaya & Kalindekafe, 2010). As a result conservation is not a priority. Through it’s conservation efforts, the MMCT aims to build up livelihood resilience. This in itself is a challenge, however even more so in the context of climate change. Climate is impacting people and their livelihoods around the mountain drastically, and therefore the mountain’s resources are an easy coping mechanism for people. In this sense the MMCT is attempting to climate-proof the mountain (MMCT, 2016).
10
Figure 2 – Maize fields and one of the rivers running of Mulanje, in front of Chambe Peak, rainy season (Borgsteinm 2017).
MMCT attempts to work closely with the Department of Forestry however this has led to some challenges due to a sub-optimal working relationship between the two, with capacity constraints and slow bureaucratic action on the part of the DF (Remme et al, 2015). This results in limitations to some of the MMCT’s work, and no doubt the ineffectual relation means the opposite is true too. This can have ensuing effects on the communities subject to the workings of these bodies. One such example came with one of the goals under the MMBCP - whereby it was decided that the removal of invasive species was necessary in order to prevent their aggressive dispersal and competition with indigenous flora across the mountain. This included the Mexican weeping pine (Pinus patula) which for the following 10 years was felled from the mountain in an attempt to prevent further natural propagation. There were miscommunications regarding use of the pine, and ultimately it ended up being a situation of misunderstanding and miscommunication between the communities and the managerial bodies (MMCT & DF)(Wisborg & Jumbe, 2010).
11 The opportunity for jobs is much anticipated in this densely populated region where income sources are limited. This situation provides a good niche for conservation and management schemes that can involve livelihood opportunities as a form of collaborating with locals. Gender roles too play a part in the use of natural resources in Malawi. Women are often considered as a marginalised group, and their access to natural resources is often limited. Men hold the position of household head, and women require their authorisation for use of such resources (Mawaya & Kalindekafe, 2010). Tradition is strong in Malawian culture, and above the household level authorisation for access to resources lies with local authorities (Mawaya & Kalindekafe, 2010). Local level hierarchies are complex and involve many people, however women rarely hold positions of decision-making power, and therefore there is a need to address gender roles and potentials for empowerment. These issues are additionally being addressed by MMCT’s projects.
Within this environment, one example of a highly valued keystone species indigenous to the mountain is the Mulanje Cedar (Widdringtonia Whytei). Declared the national tree of Malawi in 1984 by Kamuzu Banda (Chapman, 1995) the cedar’s natural growth can only be found on Mulanje and is under severe threat from deforestation. Although originally discovered by an explorer called Cleland (Jenkins, 1986), the tree was first described in records by Whyte (1893). Mulanje Cedar is classified by the IUCN red list as Critically Endangered (Farjon, 2013), and Whyte very clearly elucidates the reason for this “the pale reddish [wood is] straight grained, works easily, is fragrant and is highly resistant to attacks by termites, borer and fungi”. He mentions the importance of the cedar timber to locals due to its “general utility”, which explains the current problem of reduced-population (Bayliss et al, 2007). Commercial harvesting was initiated in 1898 and continued for many years. Approximately 25 years ago it was decreed that only the harvesting of dead trees was allowed. Licences from the DF were required for seasonal harvesting. In 2007 licences stopped being issued (H. Chinthuli, pers. comms) as deforestation, in combination with the occurrence of human-induced fires, had resulted in a 37% reduction in cedar populations over the past 28 years (MMCT, 2016). However illegal harvesting of cedar continued to occur (Thompson, 2013). 12 This species provides a small representative of people’s interaction with the mountain. Unique and special, market demand has regardless driven the mass overexploitation of this tree, leaving little of it remaining on the mountain. Despite the potential extinction of a species, the harvesting of cedar is having an ensuing cascade of ecological effects, including soil erosion and flooding. The Mulanje cedars have been a re-occurring theme in the MMCT’s biodiversity conservation efforts, and lately a more livelihoods-focused approach has been adopted. The MMCT and DF together established a Cedar Management Plan in 2014 to prohibit all logging and undertake large-scale ecological restoration of the species. However harvesting continued, therefore in 2016 the Domestication of the Mulanje Cedar for Improved Livelihoods Darwin Initiative Project was established, in an attempt to re-propagate cedar. Community-run cedar nurseries were set up as an alternative stable income (livelihood) for locals, to determine the optimal growing conditions of cedar, and to reduce unsustainable exploitation and habitat loss of natural cedar stands.
The project was established by the MMCT, in collaboration with Botanic Gardens Conservation International (BGCI) and the Forestry Research Institute of Malawi (FRIM). This is an example of a project aimed at improving livelihoods of communities around the mountain meanwhile targeting the over-harvesting of one of the mountain’s indigenous species, which in turn could protect other species. The nurseries themselves provide employment, generating long-term income for people in the area, with an additional focus on generating knowledge and providing business and horticulture skills. This aspect of the project targets a core issue – the fact that the majority of the communities around the mountain are poor and livelihood opportunities are limited.
13
Figure 3 – topographical satellite image of Mulanje from a southerly perspective (http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/view.php?id=44017)
Dependence on forests and poverty alleviation go hand in hand with much scientific debate. It is uncertain whether communities around Mulanje depend on the forest reserve as a safety net and coping mechanism in times of shock or stress, or whether forests can be a poverty trap, a prevalent debate around forest-dependent communities (Angelsen & Wunder, 2003). Dependence itself can be hard to establish; the degree to which people are dependent and for what reason (cash or subsistence) can aid in the understanding of the role forests play in the lives of local rural communities.
Creating protected areas can have negative impact on poverty. Projects that seek to integrate conservation and development have tended to be overambitious and underachieving (Adams, 2004). The links between biodiversity and livelihoods and between conservation and poverty reduction are dynamic and locally specific. Regardless, Adams is adamant that biodiversity conservation and poverty reduction should be tackled together (Adams, 2004). One way to approach this is to look at livelihoods. Adams (2004) suggests 4 approaches
14 towards poverty and conservation. The situation on Mulanje is representative of the fourth – that poverty reduction depends on living resource conservation. It outlines that poor or marginalised people’s livelihoods are dependent on living species, and therefore the solution is sustainable use of resources – this tackles both the issue of conservation but also contributes to poverty reduction through improving their livelihoods. The policy recommendations for such a situation tend towards management plans that involve common pool resources and controlled harvesting of certain species, as opposed to full biodiversity preservation (Adams, 2004). This is mirrored by the Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Management plan currently being worked on for Mulanje. MAB status was achieved many years ago however a full management plan incorporating all the MAB conditions was never fully set in place. UNESCO recently re-assessed their conditions for MAB reserves therefore a new management plan for Mulanje is being currently established by the Department of Forestry in combination with the US Forestry Service and the MMCT.
Scientific objectives
This thesis aims to get a better understanding of: • local perceptions of conservation of the mountain • how the local communities use natural resources from the mountain, and their main livelihoods • local perceptions of possible livelihoods without access to the mountain’s resources in order to enhance understanding of local people’s own perceptions of their interaction with the mountain and therefore contribute to more informed decision making when it comes to livelihood projects around the mountain.
Problem statement
Control over the mountain and it’s resources is not optimal. Management plans are not being respected, and as a result overexploitation of the mountain’s resources is happening fast. People are dependent on the mountains resources, 15 and with climate change, this dependence is becoming a coping mechanism for survival. However this contributes even more to the demise of the mountain. In order to ensure the resources are not overexploited, a switch to livelihoods that do not require dependence on the mountain is advisable. Such a switch needs to be done along lines of understanding what people already have, rather than simply introducing new, alien concepts that are unlikely to be maintained, for instance once whatever project that is supporting them stops. The challenge is how to work with the mind-sets and understandings the people already have (i.e focusing on things that you know are already important to them/ in their ways of thinking/ in their minds) in order to introduce livelihood opportunities that a) draw them away from overexploitation and b) enhance understanding of consequences of overexploitation and the unsustainability it presents for any future, especially their own. The focus needs to be multi-faceted; a combined approach of understanding the complexities of and working effectively with communities, meanwhile using their knowledge and understanding to make more informed strategies towards improving livelihoods.
Figure 4 – Women from the focus group in Nessa Village (Borgstein, 2016).
16 Research questions
Taking into account local perceptions of natural resource use and livelihoods, what is needed in order to enhance future success in the implementation of sustainable livelihoods around Mt Mulanje?
What are local people’s perceptions of conservation? What do they understand by it, who do they perceive to be (responsible for) conserving Mulanje and do they believe it is working? What are local people’s perceptions of their own natural resource use and livelihoods? What are the resources most used, what are their prioritised livelihoods, what is the perceived sustainability of their NRU, their dependence on the mountain, and perception of what might happen if the resources were to run out. What livelihood opportunities do people envisage for themselves without use of the mountain’s natural resources?
Theoretical framework
In order to support my research objectives, and contextualise the situation outlined in the problem statement, the following theoretical concepts are used: - grounded theory - sustainable livelihoods approach & framework - community in conservation The framework built by these concepts further supports the choices made towards my methodology and respective methods. Grounded theory was used to guide methodology, communities in conservation was used as a way of approaching the concept of working with communities, to guide an understanding of who they are and effective ways of working with them. The SLA&F are used analytically as a way for guiding recommendations for the future and for future work. The research was done under the idea of understanding natural resource-based livelihoods and people-environment interactions.
17 Grounded Theory Grounded theory is an approach to conducting qualitative research, developed by Strauss and Glaser in 1967. Two core concepts sit at the heart of it, descriptive of how theory can be constructed from a base in data; 1- “concepts…are derived from data collected during the process and not chosen prior to the research” 2- “the research analysis and data collection are interrelated” (Corbin & Strauss, 2015).
The approach is unique and allows for the data to ‘speak’, in turn influencing the continuation of the data collection. In terms of analysis, the data is disseminated into small pieces, which are then compared. Similar data are grouped under one concept, and different concepts are grouped as themes. The themes form the surroundings of the core concept of the study, all of which then structures the theory of the research. It’s a long-ago evolved theory that takes into account cultural sensitivities and is applicable to differing profiles of people, from individuals to groups or societies. It was chosen as an approach towards this theses methodology for these reasons, as well as the following, outlined by Corbin & Strauss (2015); - showing new insights into old topics as well as new and emerging ideas - elucidating the beliefs and meanings that might be behind actions or behaviours, showing the rational and non-rational aspects, and demonstrating how a combination of logic and emotion influences people’s responses to situations - and finally the theories that emerge after applying Grounded Theory to research provide a strong basis for further quantitative work, something this thesis is aimed towards.
The authors take on a constructivist approach, “though readers of research place their own interpretations on data, the fact that these are constructions and reconstructions does not negate the relevance of findings nor the insights that can be gained from them”. I find this an important approach towards research, a broader and somewhat holistic method that opens to much possibility and understanding. As a result this was the mind-set adopted towards the 18 methodology but also analysis of the collected data for this thesis; the data was coded using a combination of inductive and deductive approaches, as suggested by grounded theory.
Sustainable livelihoods approach Originally defined by Chambers & Conway (1992), “a livelihood is sustainable which can cope with and recover from stress and shocks, maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets, and provide sustainable livelihood opportunities for the next generation…”. In the Brundtland Commission the notion of integrating ecological issues with socio-economic development and policy was initiated, which set the ball rolling with regards to sustainable livelihoods as a way to tackle poverty issues. The definition of what makes a livelihood sustainable was later enhanced and transformed into the concept of Sustainable Livelihoods Approach (SLA), by the Institute for Development Studies (IDS) and the British Department for International Development (DfID); “A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (including both material and social resource) and activities required for a means of living. A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks, maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets, while not undermining the natural resource base.“ (Scoones, 1998; Krantz, 2001).
The core of SLA, as outlined by Krantz (2001) is an integrated holistic approach to poverty eradication, incorporating a range of factors that encompass more than simply the notion of low income defining poverty. Rather, the approach includes 5 types of capital; namely natural, human, economic, physical and social (Scoones, 1998).
The approach directs attention to different factors at different levels that influence livelihoods in situations of poverty, thereby creating an understanding of the causes for poverty. Additionally its multifaceted style allows for a framework within a project adopting an SLA that covers both the indirect and direct effects on livelihoods (Krantz, 2001). Such a framework provides a way of observing the trends, and potential shocks and stresses to a livelihood in the current context but also allows for predicting how such vulnerabilities may be in
19 the future, and thereby gaining insight into effective action (Morse et al, 2009). SLA focuses on and requires the involvement of people, more specifically the very people intended to benefit from the approach. In this sense it is a very hands on participatory approach that facilitates learning between stakeholders. Its flexibility in approach allows it to mould around each unique context in which it is used.
However SLA also has its limitations. Aside from needing big inputs of time and (human & financial) resources, once used the SLA provides a vast amount of information that then requires dealing with effectively (GLOPP, 2008). Yet, it still remains a simplification of a real situation, therefore links to context and the bigger picture are essential for positive impact. Social structures and relations in place within communities are not always addressed, such as position in the community and gender (DFID, 2000). Both can have prominent influences in society and thus are worth addressing when looking at livelihoods.
SLAs draw on the assessment of a situation of poverty, developing a multi- faceted practical framework targeting the vulnerable aspects, with the aim of seeing results and evidence-based change both on the local and policy level (Morse et al, 2009). There is high potential (and necessity) for the SLA framework (SLF) (Fig. 5) to be applied to the situation of resource exploitation and livelihoods in the Mulanje district, an area of such high poverty and overexploitation. Through this research I hope to explore the potential for the SLF to be applied. “Use of an SLF at least provides a common structure for comparing unquantifiable impacts and demonstrates an approach that seeks to get close to ‘development impact’ according to local perceptions” (Ashley, 2001).
The SLA takes into account many things; perceptions, empowerment and priorities are not explicit in the framework however can provide an extremely useful addition to an SLA (Ashley, 2000). Therefore the scope of this data is to collect information on local people’s own understandings of their situation, as “local priorities vary: outsiders cannot assume knowledge of the objectives of a given household or group” (Ashley, 2001). The aim is for this thesis to contribute unique and interesting data that can therefore provide a baseline for a full SLA 20 and framework to be applied to the situation later on. It could not only ensure longer time livelihood opportunities for the Malawians, but also empower them and encourage them to take responsibility for their own future as opposed to simply depending on external help. Ashley (2001) elucidates the importance of understanding current livelihood strategies before carrying out an SLF. Therefore in identifying the locals’ own perceptions and understandings of their interaction with the mountain, and assessing this through the framework, more informed decisions can be made about possible future sustainable livelihoods for Mulanje’s communities. More specifically the important assets identified and assessed were social, natural and financial capital, as they encompass the core issues of the research; social factors and influences, natural resources (translated to livelihoods) and the financial effects/ benefits of the natural assets.
Figure 5 – The SLA framework as used by Allison & Horemans (2006)
The SLF outlines the livelihood strategies and activities chosen by a household, based on the assets available to them. This occurs in the context of influencing policies, institutions & processes, as well as vulnerabilities. The resulting livelihood outcomes then feedback into the loop, affecting the assets (Hogarth, 2014). The scope of the SLF goes further than this research, however the data collected will fill in certain components of the framework, in order to establish where gaps in the framework still lie and can be targeted as points for potential further research. 21 Community in conservation Here we address the role of community in conservation. Agrawal and Gibson (1999) explore the way “community” is looked at in conservation and resource management, and highlight the weaknesses of the conceptual origins of what defined a community; “a small spatial unit, as a homogeneous social structure, and as shared norms”. They make suggestions on a more effective perspective and understanding of communities. One of these suggestions will be addressed here, namely looking at communities as complex heterogenic structures, with “differences in interests, perspectives and power” (Schmink, 1999). These structures are composed of many systems and levels. Different levels present positions of differing power and responsibility. Therefore “natural-resource claims of social actors positioned differently in power relations may be highly contested” (Leach et al, 1999) and people’s approach or access to natural resources differ highly with regards to their position. This holds true too for the benefits of conservation development work, the distribution of which may be complex and occasionally inequitable, often with those in higher positions of power obtaining the most benefits (Berkes, 2004).
Berkes (2004) suggests some questions, more frequently asked by political ecologists, which could be explored further by community-based conservation (CBC), such as “What is the distribution of benefits and costs? How do different actors relate to the resource in question? How do power relations at the local level derive from differences of class, ethnicity, and gender?” In order for a community based conservation project to be effective it needs to address and include the interests and positions of different stakeholders (Agrawal & Gibson, 1999) especially when it comes to equitable distribution of incentives in relation to power. Taking into account such information could be a very useful contribution to information used in the SLF, giving additional depth to the context.
Due to the fact that majority of Malawi’s population still lives rurally, tribal and traditional culture remains strong, and within this is the formation of distinct communities. For this reason it seems important to take into consideration the hierarchies formed within communities (which can mostly be demarcated as 22 villages) when looking at the demographics of rural life. As addressed by the literature above, position in the community can determine access to resources but also benefits of conservation schemes. This research will not directly address position in community as an issue, but attention will be drawn to the heterogeneity of social structure in communities to incorporate it into the research in order to be able to observe whether or not trends can be identified between different levels. It also addresses the social category of ethnic group or tribe, with the same reasoning. Focus groups will incorporate a variety of community members, some holding positions of responsibility and some not. It will be interesting to see how perceptions, understandings and opinions differ between members of differing status.
There are many separate tribes within Malawian culture, the most prominent being the Lomwe, Yao and Mang’anja in the Mulanje region. The tribes differ in kinship systems and authoritarian organisation (Cammack et al, 2009) however customary law and enforcement comes down to a hierarchy of Chiefs, who are highly autonomous and not tribally selected. They are responsible for carrying out district level rule and are selected by the government. They are responsible for settling disputes, managing conflict and preventing crime within and between villages. Thus their position seems an important factor to take into consideration, as it is possibly the most effective form of governance as well as the strongest connection to the people (Eggen, 2011). The Chief’s Act (developed in 1967) is set in place by law, and allows for legal standing and governance at a district level. However within this system customary law comes into practice, with more traditional customs remaining prevalent at the village level (Cammack et al, 2009). This research will not surpass the district level as then it gets more complicated with regards to legal position and bodies in place.
23 District level DC
TA level TA / SC ADC
Group level GVH GVH GVH VDC VDC VDC
VH VH VH VH VH VH VH Village level Other village Commi ees
Village
House House House hold hold hold
Villager Villager Villager Figure 6 – Hierarchical structures within a district in Malawi.
Figure 6 gives an overview of a hierarchical structure at the district level in Malawi. It was made based on (limited) literature and the author’s own representation. Having this overviews gives an understanding of the positions of power in a district community.
Villagers make up households, which make up one village. Each village has a village headman (VH), several VHs fall under one Group Village Headman (GVH). Several GVHs fall under one Traditional Authority (TA) (or a Senior Chief, which is one ranking higher than TA) (Delaplace, 2010; Cammack et al, 2009). Becoming a chief is mostly hereditary – which holds legal standing, and in most cases is recognised by the government. Some chiefs are also elected by TAs or other less formal means, however they still hold power within the community. Therefore the position of chief, and obtaining it, can be relatively ambiguous and differ per situation. The Chiefs act (1967) gives official legal status to Traditional Authorities (TA), and there are multiple within each tribe. The Act recognises group village headmen and village headmen, however only the SC and TA are given the title of Chief. However any of the above may be referred to as chief (Afumu) by the community, which is important to be aware of. At the village level there are a range of committees which provide people with a slight status, such as the environmental committee (village natural resource management
24 committee), police forum, agricultural committee (Kayambazinthu, 2000) (Campbell & Shackleton 2001).
Knowledge of this system is also essential to planning a methodology, knowing which structures are in place and how best to work along them. Following the advice of Agrawal and Gibson, a thorough understanding of the systems around which a community(ies) function is needed in order to work effectively with such communities.
Conceptual Framework The information above formed by the theoretical framework can be transposed into the following conceptual framework:
Sustainable Natural Thesis goal Resource Use
Sustainable Livelihoods
Mt MJ present Forest and Biosphere Sustainable Reserve Livelihoods management governance Framework
exploitation Department Government, Traditional of Forestry, Grounded MMCT Theory Authorities
Communities
Communities in Conservation
Figure 7 – Conceptual framework outlining the present situation, the desired focus of the thesis research, and the prevalent theories relevant to the model.
25 The red arrows illustrate the interaction between each stakeholder group and the mountain. The Department of Forestry (DF) and MMCT are the main players involved in management of the mountain, the communities around the mountain are the exploiters, and the government and Traditional Authorities (TAs) are responsible for policy regarding the mountain. The outcome of combined action of all stakeholders and their influences on the mountain are sustainable livelihood opportunities to ensure sustainable natural resource use for the future. The understanding of the influence between communities and management stakeholders (green arrow) is essential for applying an SLF in order to work towards the desired goal. The green boxes elucidate where the theories guiding this research have their focus and influence.
Definitions of key words
- Livelihood is defined as “capabilities, assets and activities required for a means of living” (Chambers & Conway, 1992). - Sustainable Livelihood is a continuation of Chambers & Conway’s definition; “a livelihood is sustainable which can cope with and recover from stress and shocks, maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets, and provide sustainable livelihood opportunities for the next generation; and which contributes net benefits to other livelihoods at the local and global levels and in the short and long term.” - Exploitation is defined as the use/utilisation/harvesting of and benefit from resources - Overexploitation implies the use of a renewable resource to a point of diminishing returns - Unsustainable exploitation implies the process leading up to overexploitation - Natural Resources include any natural thing as used by people living around Mulanje. Examples are firewood, grass, mushrooms, timber, water etc. - Natural Resource Use explains the utilisation of the resources by people - Sustainable Use suggests restricted use that does not result in over- exploitation
26 - Dependence is used in the context of people needing and relying on the use of the resource in the long term - Local Communities are groups of Malawians living in the districts of Mulanje and Phalombe around the mountain. The definition incorporates the view laid out by Agrawal & Gibson(1999) and focuses on the “multiple interests and actors within communities, on how these actors influence decision making, and on the internal and external institutions that shape the decision making process” (Agrawal & Gibson, 1999). - Perceptions are the perspectives, ideas and thoughts of local communities in this case regarding their interaction with the mountain.
Methods The general approach was to obtain information in the form of qualitative data from diverse sources in a targeted representation of the population around Mulanje. The whole population nears 500,000 therefore a fully representative sample was difficult however the idea was to sample groups illustrative of the heterogeneity of each village thereby technically being extendable across the whole region. The research design was to hold two focus groups in six locations around the mountain, triangulated with interviews from four Traditional Authorities (TAs) of the areas as key informants, and contextual information from three MMCT staff members. The focus groups directly answer the first three sub research questions. The information obtained from the TA interviews and MMCT adds depth of field, to validate or contradict issues brought up in the groups. This contributes to answering the overall research question to see potential for implementation of livelihood projects that facilitate long-term involvement of locals, and consequentially reduce dependence on Mulanje’s resources.
Primary data sources included focus groups attendants and interviewees. Secondary sources included relevant literature, and MMCT annual reports and project documents. Contextual information and understanding was obtained through conversations with locals in Mulanje and informal talks with people. This has not been recorded.
27
A translator/facilitator (Susan Pota) was used for the key informant interviews and focus groups. All were recorded using a voice recorder, in combination with written notes. Recognition beforehand was put to the risks of using a translator (misinterpretation of words and information, things getting ‘lost in translation’). A concerted effort was made to learn more than a basic level of Chichewa (the national language and most prevalent of the tribal languages) in order to be able to understand/follow the discussions, thereby increasing the validity of the translations. This proved highly useful, especially in being able to make initial contact/dialogue with the focus groups. It increased rapport to be able to introduce myself and explain why I was there in Chichewa and have basic dialogue.
Chichewa has a limited vocabulary meaning many words have multiple meanings and are used interchangeably. Additionally, direct translation of English phrases into Chichewa is very difficult. Much work with Susan was done pre data collection, to establish as accurate translations as possible for focus group and interview questions. Susan is a Malawian who lives in the Mulanje area and teaches English at a local secondary school. She has also done environmental work with the Wildlife and Environmental Society of Malawi. These skills sets made her very useful to work with, in combination with her very clear understanding of local context and dynamics specific to the Mulanje area, and an astute understanding of the necessary decorum for approaching chiefs, village headmen, and whole focus groups. Her help was invaluable.
Together we Chichewa would be best suited to represent their English counterparts were identified to be used. During the first 2 focus groups a Peace Corps Volunteer (PCV) who had been living in one of the study villages for the past two years (and as a result speaks fluent Chichewa) was present, and I used that as a way of testing the validity of Susan’s translations. Being both fluent in English and Chichewa, the PCV confirmed the accuracy of Susan’s translations. Her effective translating combined well with a thorough understanding of the research, the messages of the discussions, but also what things not to do (prompt answers, make suggestive remarks). When I noticed her doing such things I was 28 able to point them out and she made sure not to do it again. I believe her translating was very efficiently done.
Focus Groups There are 6 main access points to the mountain, and purposeful stratified sampling (Guetterman, 2015) was used to select two villages at each access point. One village was where an alternative livelihood project had been established (namely, a cedar nursery), and the focus group attendees would be people involved in the nursery. The second selected village was where no such project has been established, with similar demographics to the first. Demographics were established from an MMCT database of village profiles. Villages were selected based on village size (no. of households), and proximity to the village with a livelihood project at the same access point.
The MMCT’s focus zone encompasses the entire circumference of Mulanje. They have worked in and with many of the hundreds of villages and communities. Over the years they have established more and better rapport with some villages than others, and so there are some villages where they have had a longer and more influential presence and collaboration. This isn’t something I initially took into consideration however it inadvertently became a factor because the MMCT was responsible for selecting the villages in which to have the cedar nurseries. As half of my focus groups were to be held with cedar nursery groups, this predetermined the areas in which those focus groups were to be held.
Organising the focus groups involved working along the very-present hierarchical local governance system in Malawi. The 5 relevant TAs first needed calling and then approaching. Often due to political disputes or delegated power, organisation of the FGs would be passed to a sub-TA or Group Village Headman and occasionally even to the Village Head of the relevant village. Villages selected for the first set of focus groups (with no alternative livelihood project) were: Mangombo, Nande, Nyambalo, Nyani, Khamula and Makuluni. Those selected with an alternative livelihood project were: Gambeya, Makolera, Nessa, Nakhonyo, Msikita and Nkhulambe.
29 Participant selection for the first set of focus groups (villages with no livelihood project) used the method of maximum variation (heterogeneity) sampling (Suri, 2011). Based on the advice of Adler and Adler (cited in Baker et al, 2012) the presence of varying statuses within the villages implies it is important to clarify the stratification hierarchy of the village setting. Groups of 8 people were aimed for, with one VDC representative, several members from other village committees, and 3 villagers not necessarily part of a committee. Each group was to have a 50:50 male to female ratio to endorse a balanced male female input., with one VDC member, two VRNMC members and 3 others. The range of participants per group covered 8 – 12. For the most part the male to female ratio was 50:50 but not always. A diverse group of organisations/committees from within each village were represented too, including members from the agricultural committee, police forum, health committee.
For the second set of focus groups, the participants were the members of the established nursery group. Some were previously formed groups (2 nursery groups were already established, and one group was a local drama group who collectively decided to become a nursery group). However, all people (groups or individuals) had volunteered to take on the nursery project. These focus groups tended to have more people, as the whole nursery group in each village is comprised of 15 people. We asked for a group of 8 representatives (again, half male half female) but often more members joined.
30
Figure 8 - Focus group in Makuluni Village, (Borgstein, 2016)
The focus group structure comprised of 4 main questions, each with several sub- questions/prompts for issues to be discussed (see appendix 1). However, if relevant or interesting topics came up, they were followed with ‘unplanned’ questions. After the questions an activity was conducted. The group was split into two; one group had to discuss and come up with a prioritised list of main livelihood practices important to them and the village, including use of the mountains resources. The other group had to discuss and come up with a prioritised list of main livelihood practices they would do if they no longer had any access to the mountains resources. Each group presented their list to each other, and could ask questions to each other. This activity was based on the participatory tools developed by Frans Geilfus (2008), and is an integrative approach that involves including the villagers’ participation in the process of decision-making. The intention is to allow the villagers themselves to vocalise their own ideas and perspectives to each other, analyse the situation, and as a result come to decisions of future action.
31 Attention was paid to the risk of group dynamics, people acting under the ‘influence’ of others; not feeling open or not willing to speak their mind. It was addressing at the start of each group – emphasising that everyone should feel free to speak openly, especially as the reason for the meeting was just to learn from them and understand their everyday lives. Who said what was noted and quieter characters were encouraged to speak out. Focus groups and interviews were planned and conducted using strategies suggested by Newing (2010).
Key informant interviews As a form of triangulation interviews were conducted with several Traditional Authorities of the area. Any new project being set up in an area is discussed first with the TA, however it is rare that they are ever directly involved in the projects themselves (unlike the Group Village Headmen who are often more involved). Yet they have a good overview of things happening in their areas. I conducted short 30 – 60 minute semi-structured interviews with four TAs, three female (Mkanda, Mkhumba and Nkhulambe) and one male (Mabuka). The interview outline can be found in Appendix 1 although as with the FGs, with interesting topics additional questions were added in each interview. Interviews were recorded in combination with note taking. Methods of reducing response bias were adapted from Newing (2010).
MMCT interviews A series of short meetings were had with three MMCT members; Carl Bruessow (Director), Moffat Kayembe (Program Officer for Forest Co-Management and Sustainable Livelihoods) and Henry Chinthuli (Program Officer for Monitoring and Evaluation) documented through voice recordings and notes. Necessary/applicable reports and documents containing relevant information were also collected, such as MMCT annual reports, and project progress documents and reports.
32 An interview guideline for each was drafted, based on information gaps to fill (i.e specific issues or events), or in order to clarify issues brought up in focus groups. However for the most part I just let them speak and only slightly guided them. All focus group and interview outlines can be found in the appendix.
Focus groups Questions were asked by me in English, translated by Susan into Chichewa to the group, answers given in Chichewa, and translated back again to English. Recordings were transcribed writing up the question I had posed and the answer in English given back to me from Susan, as well as who had said it.
Four main questions comprised the core of the discussion; regarding conservation, natural resources being used (and how) and main livelihoods. The Chichewa counterparts of these words and their re-translation into English are as follows: - Conservation – kusamalila – to take care of something - Natural resources – zachilingedwe – natural things - Livelihood – njira zopezela zosowa zathu zatsiku ndi tsiku – ways of getting our day to day needs - ntchito – job/work - zochita zopezetsa ndalama – activities which can give us money - Sustainable – kugwiritsako ntchito zina ndikutsala – using some and some remains
The first question asked was what conservation meant to them, as an open starting question, not directed towards anything specific, and how they were practicing it in their own lives. Because conservation in Chichewa is not specifically geared towards nature, answer’s ranged from taking care of the house to taking care of the children, and some even mentioned trees. It was followed by the more specific question of what they thought of conservation of Mulanje Mountain, were they ‘taking care’ of it, were other people, and if so whom and were these practices working?
33 After this they were asked what natural resources they were using from the mountain and if they were being used for their livelihoods. This was followed by addressing if they thought the resources could be used in a sustainable way – i.e in a way that they wouldn’t run out, or as said in Chichewa, used in a way that some will remain. Finally they were asked if they thought it conceivable that the mountain’s resources could run out, and what would happen if they did in terms of the livelihoods people would have to switch to. Finally they were asked how dependent they thought they were on the mountains resources, mainly for subsistence or for cash. I believe this question was phrased more as whether or not their daily activities (I,e livelihoods) were more related to the mountain or to things in the village.
Due to the comparative nature of the research, analysis involves comparing the answers between and within focus groups. Answers to the sub research questions were compared between all groups in order to get an overview of varying (or similar) responses around the mountain. Comparisons between perceptions of groups involved in the alternative livelihood project and groups not. Grounded theory (as proposed by Corbin and Strauss) that allows for both deductive and inductive approaches (Bernard, 2006) was the basis for the approach to coding.
Core themes from the research questions were established and used as the main overlying themes under which to place codes. Supporting or disputing theories derived from conceptual framework formed the basis of a preliminary list of themes to select out from the data. In order to include inductive analysis (and allow the emergence of non pre-conceived themes) several focus groups were reviewed for arising common themes. Issues that emerged, such as responsibility and empowerment, local law enforcement, political issues, climate change, corruption were assigned codes under the main themes of Mulanje, Livelihoods, Livelihood Projects, Natural Resource Use, Conservation, Historical and Other. The data was coded using ATLAS.ti.
34 Perceptions regarding resource use and livelihoods, opinions and thoughts were backed up with resulting quotes in the results. Overview tables were made for all natural resources and livelihoods mentioned. Natural Resources mentioned were categorised according to the context they were mentioned in; subsistence use, cash use, or unspecified. The same was done for livelihoods. Livelihoods were also categorised as forest activities, mountain activities, cash-based forest & mountain activities, employment, farming, business and professions. Discrepancies or trends were looked for within each group regarding consistency of context NRs and LVHs were mentioned in.
Key Informant Interviews Similar structure was followed as with the focus group discussions. Similar questions were asked and through the same process of translation. TAs were asked about their perception’s of their people’s interactions with the mountain as well as their own opinions on natural resource use and livelihoods. The interviews were also entered into ATLAS.ti and coded using similar codes as those used for the focus groups, as much of the information obtained from the TA’s will be useful as supporting evidence to things said by villagers.
Figure 9 – TA Mkanda at her house in front of Chambe Basin, (Borgstein, 2016)
35
Information obtained from the project This information is contextual information, and gives a lot of background information on historical events, but also a good overview of the work done by the MMCT in the past 10 years. Sustainable livelihoods have always been a focus so the history of their work and successes/failures is interesting as supporting evidence. The interviews revolved around the same issues as addressed with villagers and TAs, also used to clarify and explicate (triangulate) issues brought up that were unclear or seemed very opinionated. They were transcribed and coded with the same code set. The MMCT publishes annual reports that contain overviews of all their initiatives and work, as well as report documents for projects done with external organisations (such as USAID), and these provided extra additional information used in triangulation too.
Focus group quotations are used in the results section. The quotes are of the translator’s direct translation of an answer given in Chichewa. Quotes are cited by the person’s initials followed by the village they were from e.g (X.Y, Gambeya).
Results
What are local people’s perceptions of conservation of Mulanje?
1.1. Who do local people perceive to be (responsible for) conserving Mulanje?
Opinions about who was responsible for conserving the mountain differed between groups, with responsibility being placed on a range of different parties, some of which included the villagers themselves and some not. Most groups (8/12) felt they themselves were conserving, and for those who didn’t, they had a reason for it. For example, as expressed by one villager in Makuluni, it was because they believed the responsibility lay elsewhere “we the villagers are not taking care of the mountain because there are other people from the Forest Department who are” (E.S, Makuluni). The villagers of Gambeya made clear that the reason they weren’t conserving was because they were not being paid to do 36 so by the government. An emphatic woman in Makolera explained how in the past they were taking care of the mountain’s resources until the company Muli Brothers (a mutli-faceted company self proclaimed as innovating the business world in Malawi and providing poverty eradication to rural communities (Thompson, 2013) but who are also known to be heavily involved in the timber trade) took over Tinyade estate that lies between Makolera and the mountain, “when we were going there to do our usual work we were blocked by the guards of Muli. So we stopped going there to work because as of now the part where we were going to conserve is now being conserved by Muli, but a lot has been destroyed on the mountain” (F.N., Makolera). Finally in Msikita they felt they were no longer conserving because they had destroyed so much already on the mountain. However they did feel responsible to conserve.
Almost all the villages identified the Department of Forestry as being responsible for conserving the mountain. Nyambalo, Nessa, Msikita and Nkhulambe also recognised the MMCT as conserving. However the group in Mangombo had a negative view towards the MMCT and claimed they were in fact responsible for destroying the mountain, exemplified by the issue of the pine removal. These opinions were strongest among several of the older men, a farmer and a carpenter aged 55 and 38 respectively, who were very vocal in general. In Nande a similar view was put to the DF, that they were conserving but “they were the same ones who destroy some of the resources” (C.A., Nande).
As TA Mkanda said, “it should be both the DF and the community, they should be working hand in hand and be empowered and know what their roles and responsibilities are on the mountain” (Mkanda). All the villages who believed they were conserving also thought the DF was conserving, supporting Mkandas statement emphasising the importance of joint action.
Other people considered to be conserving were some chiefs, the government, the soldiers deployed by the DF and MMCT to patrol against cedar cutters, and MOBILISE (an MMCT project). In general, understanding that the department of forestry holds responsibility was prevalent, and identification of the MMCT as an important player was also clearly established. However although they were 37 recognised as being in charge, that didn’t necessarily mean their position was respected. Similarly, although it was understood that the DF were responsible, their actions were not always fully seen. The men were in general most vocal during discussions about conservation, and were more opinionated.
1.2. Do they believe conservation is working?
Within villagers’ understanding of the situation of the mountain and whether or not conservation efforts were working, opinions differed per village but were again validated by specific examples. Most groups believed conservation of the mountain wasn’t working. In Mangombo the pine issue was re-iterated as an example of why. In Nyambalo their reasoning included negative perspectives of MMCT “the MMCT is just cutting down the trees and they are not replacing the trees which they have cut” (B.N., Nyambalo). In Makuluni it was the opinion of several men and women that the bad relations between the village and the government were the reason conservation of the mountain was not currently successful,
“as of now the relationship between the government and the villagers is not good. Because in the past the government planted trees on the mountain and when they were old enough they harvested that. After harvesting the government did not replant the trees. And due to overpopulation in the villages, or the population growth rate is increasing so it made some people not to have enough land and they went in those areas where there were trees and started farming there. The government even though its asking them to go back, but they cannot go back because they don’t have enough land to grow” (E.S., Makuluni).
They also believed the DF had had ownership over certain planted trees but once those trees had been harvested ownership was lost, suggesting that new and other trees were then public property, and as a result the DF has lost control over the harvesting of trees. In Gambeya they believe conservation is not working because the DF is employing people from other areas further away from the mountain to help them take care of the mountain and as a result the villagers
38 of Gambeya don’t feel it is their property to protect. This was mostly iterated by the men of the group.
In Makolera the failure of conservation was put down to politics, both on a government and village level. “The FR has been destroyed due to the type of leadership which we have in the country” (A.B., Makolera); the shift from a one party system to democracy under the current government and the resulting lack of job opportunities drove people “to go back on the mountain” (A.B., Makolera). And in addition it was suggested that stronger bylaws needed to be set in place and up kept by chiefs. These answers are supported by both TA Mkanda and TA Nkhumba who both agreed conservation was important but restricted, “It’s my desire to conserve a lot of thing but these days we are having problems of overpopulation….There are problems in conserving them {natural resources in the mountain} because there are people who are just destroying them” (TA Mkanda). “Mulanje Mountain is being conserved but its not enough” (TA Nkhumba). TA Nkhulambe had a similar view, iterating the very basic challenge of enforcement; “I make sure that I tell people in the village o how to conserve the mountain, but there are some who adhere to whatever I say but there are some who do not” (TA Nkhulambe).
In Khamula they were proud “that some of the measures we are practicing are working because by looking at this side of the mountain there are a lot of trees unlike other areas where they have cut all the trees. We are proud because we still have these forests” (R.D., Khamula).
Examples of conservation efforts villages mentioned they were doing included; nurseries from which seedlings are planted onto the mountain (Nande, Nessa, Nakhonyo), conservation awareness campaigns from village groups (Nande), and helping in making firebreaks (Nande, Khamula, Makolera, Nessa, Nakhonyo). Many people suggested the importance of trees being conserved and not being cut down.
The information above contributes to the overall understanding of the villagers’ perception of conservation of the mountain. The majority of people are aware 39 that the Department of Forestry are the main body in charge, however this doesn’t correlate with acceptance; their rules are still disobeyed. Biases against the MMCT are numerous, especially on the northern side of the mountain. The issue of pine removal created much uncertainty and misunderstanding among people. In general importance is placed on conservation but there is overall scepticism of its implementation and success on the mountain. This in turn raised issues of management, law enforcement (or lack of), overpopulation and corruption. The villagers of Makuluni particularly were very vocal and had strong opinions, especially among the women, who held the majority of the discussion. In general however the more critical statements with regards to conservation and how it was working were made mostly by men across all the groups.
Conservation Mt Mj FG # are they are others DF MMCT conservation conservation
conserving? conserving? conserving? conserving? working? important?
Y/N Y/N Y/N Y/N Y/N Y/N Mangombo 1.1 - - Nande 1.2 Nyambalo 1.3 - Nyani 1.4 - - Khamula 1.5 - Makuluni 1.6 -
Gambeya 2.1 - Makolera 2.2 Nessa 2.3 - Nakhonyo 2.4 - Msikita 2.5 - Nkhulambe 2.6 -
Table 1 - Overview of village perspectives of conservation; purple represents yes (Y) and green represents no (N). Blank cells represent no data. No. 1.1 – 1.6 represent the first set of focus groups per location and 2.1 – 2.6 represent the second set. 40 What are local people’s perceptions of their own natural resource use & livelihoods?
2.1. What natural resources are used around the mountain? There were 22 natural resources stated in total by all groups, and the range mentioned by each group stretched from 4 to 15. Each village’s uses are summarised in Table 2.1. A full overview list of the resources can be found in Appendix x. The shading in Table 2.1 shows whether resources are used mainly for subsistence (blue), cash (red), or both (purple), however Graph 2.1 groups the resources as they are used for each village specifically, so as either subsistence (blue), cash (red) or unspecified (green). Resources mentioned and their type of use differ slightly between all villages and there is no pattern noticeable either between the 6 focus group location sites, or between villages with differing distances to the main road or major markets. (Village profiles can be found in Appendix x). Medicine, fruits, firewood and mushrooms were the most commonly mentioned resources, and natural pools the least. Of the villages that mentioned fruits, 6 also mentioned firewood, mushrooms and medicine, with 2 more villages mentioning a combination of 3 of the 4. Charcoal was mentioned once whereas hunting animals (also an illegal activity) was mentioned by the majority of villages. Resources were brought up by both men and women during the FGs with no distinction made between gender-specific use. “the truth on the ground is that people are really burning charcoal. They cannot remove that point because that’s the truth of the matter…this all started because the forest and other organisations which are supposed to protect the mountain are the ones who are encouraging in this so other villages also joined in charcoal burning. …its hard to say that its not happening while we know that its really happening” (D.M. Nyambalo).
41 NR Mangombo Nande Nyambalo Nyani Khamula Makuluni Gambeya Makolera Nessa Nakhonyo Msikita Nkhulambe Wind X X Rain X X Water X X X X X X X Grass thatch X X X X X X X X Bamboo thatch X X X X X Trees for hoes/ mortars X X X Trees for timber X X Birds X Medicine X X X X X X X X X X Fruits X X X X X X X X X Firewood X X X X X X X X X Mushrooms X X X X X X X X X Animals X X X X X X X X Wild veg X X X X X Hot springs X X Grass brooms X X X X X Whole mt (porters) X X X X Charcoal X Crystals X Cedar for timber X Natural pools X
Table 2.1 - Overview of natural resources mentioned by each village, in a gradient of use from purely subsistence to purely cash. Blue represents resources used for subsistence, purple shows resources used for both subsistence and cash, and red represents those used only for cash.
42 Breakdown of type of natural resource use by Village (n=12) 16 14
12
10 8 unspecified
Frequency 6 cash 4 subsistence 2 0
Villages
Figure 10 - Breakdown of in what form the natural resources were mentioned by each village. Blue is for subsistence, red for cash, and green if it was unspecified.
For all villages the majority of resources stated were done so in the context of subsistence and each village mentioned a differing combination of resources. All the ones mentioned in the context of cash (i.e selling or using to make money) were ones also used for subsistence.
2.2. What are the main current livelihoods? The main livelihoods mentioned in each village during the activity at the end of each focus group varied by each village. An overview can be seen in Table 2.2 however a complete list can be found in Appendix x. The main livelihoods mentioned across all villages were harvesting trees for timber, collecting NTFPs, hunting and vegetable/crop farming. Livelihoods brought up in discussion during the focus group were not always consistent with livelihoods mentioned during the activity. When categorised as subsistence or cash based, the majority of villages’ livelihoods are subsistence based, as can be seen in Graph 2.2.1. The focus of livelihoods more towards subsistence or cash is not reflected equally in natural resources used for the livelihoods. Graph 2.2.2 gives an overview of
43 livelihoods used per village categorised in different forms; forest activities (i.e harvesting of forest products), mountain activities (harvesting of resources that are from the mountain but not forest products), cash-based forest & mountain activities (the sale of the resources mentioned in the previous 2 categories), employment (differing jobs), farming (fruit, vegetable, crop & animal farming), businesses, and professions (skilled vocations such as being a tailor or builder). Each village mentioned a slightly different combination of the above-mentioned livelihoods, showing a broad overview of the kinds of livelihoods used in general around the whole mountain.
Overview of type of livelihood by village (n=10) 14
12
10
8
6 Cash Subsistence 4
2
0
Figure 11 – Livelihoods as mentioned in the form of subsistence (blue) or cash (red) per village.
44 Livelihood profiles of Villages (n=10) 14 Profession 12
10 Business
8 Farming 6
FRequency Employment 4
2 Cash-based forest and mountain activities 0 Mountain activities
Forest Activities
Villages
Figure 12 – Differing livelihood types per village.
45 LVH Nande Nyambalo Nyani Khamula Makuluni Gambeya Makolera Nessa Msikita Nkhulambe harvesting timber X X X X X X collecting firewood X X X X subsistence harvesting NTFP X X X X X harvesting other mt NRs X water X X X selling timber X X selling firewood X X selling NTFP X X X X subsistence selling other mt NRs X & cash hunting X X X X X charocal burning X X X fruit farming X X vegetable/crop farming X X X X X X animal farming other farming * X X beekeeping X cash businesses X X professions X X employment X X X X
Table 2.2 - an overview of the main livelihoods came up with by each group during the activity in the focus groups, with livelihoods summarised into categories of subsistence, (blue) cash (red), or both (purple).
46 2.3. Do they believe sustainable natural resource use is possible?
The general consensus from all groups was that sustainable use of natural resources from the mountain was possible; however in 4 groups examples were also given of specific resources they believed weren’t being used sustainably (and therefore would run out one day). In Khamula it was cedar, pine, masuku trees and any trees after charcoal was made from them. There were no individuals with a distinct opinion about sustainable use being possible in general or not. In Makuluni it was animals and grass, for the reason that a decline in both was noticeable “in the past you could find grass which we could use for making brooms but now because people are destroying the grass with the fire so there is less” (E. S., Makuluni). A villager in Gambeya also mentioned how there were now so many people coming on the mountain that there was uncontrolled killing of animals, therefore not sustainable. And in Makolera it was observed that trees disappearing had ensuing effects, namely less mushrooms. Cedar was mentioned by another man who observed, “one day it will run out” (C.M., Makolera). Examples of almost all previously mentioned resources were given as ones being used sustainably.
In Nyani, the first consensus was that it was possible to use the resources from the mountain in a way that they wouldn’t run out. Specifically with regards to trees, one man said, “for example bluegum, we can cut the trees and replant” (H.M., Nyani). However as the discussion continued it became clear that wasn’t being done, clarified by two women saying; “we don’t replace the trees” (M.J., Nyani) and “people are just cutting the trees” (D.K., Nyani), showing a discrepancy between intention and action. Despite the opinions that sustainable use could be possible, all villages except one agreed that it was possible that natural resources from the mountain could run out. TA Mkanda said, “from the way things are no, people have noticed that there is a problem with we don’t conserve the natural resources. So if the natural resources can be replaced on the mountain they can try to use them in a sustainable way that they can use part of it and the other part they should maintain it on the mountain”.
47 2.4. Do they perceive themselves to be dependent on the mountain?
Most groups said they were not dependent on the mountain; however again there were differing opinions within several of the groups. 4 groups said specifically no; Nyani, Gambeya, Makolera and Nessa. This was supported by TAs Mabuka and Nkhulambe, “most of the people in the village they depend much on farming so those people who go to the mountain are those who maybe are having serious problems” (TA Nkhulambe).
3 villages had mixed answers. When specifying the kind of dependence, 2 groups thought they were dependent on the mountain only for subsistence, one for cash, and 2 for both. There is no trend between remoteness of the village (distance from main road or main market) and whether or not they believe they use the resources more for subsistence or cash.
2.5. What would be the consequences of the resources running out?
All groups bar one were of the opinion that one day the resources of the mountain would run out. The group that disagreed was Nakhonyo; they believed there was sufficient law enforcement and effective enough by-laws to prevent the resources from ever running out.
However the rest of the villages agreed it was possible, with a range of views on the matter from villages in the different locations. Some acknowledged that there was already a problem “as of now some rocks are rolling down from the mountain which shows some of the things are not okay on the mountain. Its because the trees are no longer there” (J.B, Gambeya) and a man from Makolera believed problems were inevitable, “I wouldn’t even give it 20years, the natural resources are going to run out of the mountain, if there will be no measures to protect the natural resources” (C.M., Makolera).
In Mangombo, the villagers believed that the MMCT were responsible for the removal of resources in such a way that one-day they would cause them to run out. The issue of the pine removal was exemplified. They spoke of local police
48 forums to patrol for charcoal burners with the VNRMC/ environmental committee, as villagers were contributing to natural resources running out by cutting down trees for firewood and timber to sell, burning charcoal to sell, burning the bush – sometimes without reason and sometimes when hunting. They suggested the resources could be protected if an organisation or the DF were to hire people to protect an area. “Had it been there was an organisation who could employ people…resources could be protected” (M.K Mangombo).
In Msikita the chief – who was present in the focus group – stated that it was possible because there was no protection on the mountain. Several other villagers then brought up Cedar and mentioned how a combination of fires on the mountain (started by hunters) and logging of cedar meant it too would run out soon. A third villager believed encroachment for agricultural land would be the cause. Three of the four TAs (Mkande, Mabula and Nkhulambe) agreed, two of whom (Mkanda and Mabuka) put it down to it happening if the government wasn’t going to enforce laws. TA Nkhulambe had a differing view however, “that will not be possible because Mulanje mountain is very big and there are a lot of trees there but maybe unless if thee can be a certain crisis maybe that will happen but as of now no” (TA Nkhulambe).
The perceptions of the consequences of NR running out were that there would be big environmental problems, in a cascade effect. No trees would mean flooding and erosion, and no water would mean drought, no rain, and eventually hunger and poverty. Preventative action was raised. When asked about ways of being less dependent and measures that could be carried out to stop NR running out, answers came out about mindset changes in parents being necessary, the importance of sending children to school, planting woodlots in villages, and setting up nurseries from which they could plant out & protect seedlings on the mountain, however “with support from other organisations” (E.S. Makuluni) to teach how to plant, take care of & establish nurseries.
49 There is awareness of the ‘greater’ natural consequences of having no natural resources left, a basic understanding of the natural benefits of things like trees “they give us oxygen” (P.C. Mangombo) and more interestingly having noticed changes in the natural world over the past few years. Different groups repeated many sentences; that trees bring good air, trees help in rain formation and the mountain brings wind and good air too. TA Mabuka talked of how he tells village heads that trees are important and they help in bringing rainfall, so that they will then go and tell their people these things too.
However, many groups had already noticed changes occurring, as a result of over-exploitation “in the past there were a lot of mushroom on the mountain. And there were edible worms…but now they are no longer there” (G.M., Makuluni), and “the soil is not protected now. Most of the paths on the mountain is steep so if people are making ridges on these steep slopes that means when the water comes it washes the soil” (E.S., Makuluni). In Msikita similar things were observed, and mentioned in the context of climate change. “The rain water is just running and causing floods while when we had trees…the soil was protected by these trees” (C.A. Nande).
Figure 13 – Focus group in Msikita Village, with Susan (far right) (Borgstein, 2017)
50 What livelihoods do people envision for themselves without use of the mountains resources?
3.1. LVHs without resources from the Mt
The livelihoods people mentioned without access to the mountain’s resources were far more business & job orientated, but also with a bigger emphasis on farming in some areas. For example beekeeping and various forms of animal farming (as shown in Table 3.1) were mentioned often. Far less emphasis was put on subsistence-only activities, rather things that could be used for either subsistence or cash. Financial capital would be required for initiating many of the activities; often an activity mentioned would be followed by a statement about how help from an organisation was wanted.
Figure 14 – Tea picker, Sayama Estate (Borgstein, 2017)
51 LVH Nande Nyambalo Nyani Khamula Makuluni Gambeya Makolera Nessa Msikita Nkhulambe selling NON mountain natural resources X hunting sub/cash charocal burning fruit farming X X vegetable/crop farming X X X X X X X animal farming X X X X X other farming * X X X X X X X beekeeping X X X X cash businesses X X X X X X X X X professions X X X employment X X X X X X X
Table 3.1 – livelihoods without the use of the mountain’s resources, separated as subsistence/cash (purple) or just cash (red).
52 Discussion
This section provides a series of discussion points. It follows two lines of direction, the first is at a micro level, reflecting specifically on details of some of the results outlined in the previous section. The second is a more macro view – looking at the bigger issues that emerged during this period of research. Here, my findings are supported and compared with relevant literature and theories, including those discussed in the theoretical framework earlier. It explores community heterogeneity as a way of exploring and understating the situation around Mulanje, followed by the identification of poverty alleviation as the issue that needs to be at the core of future work in this area. From here my own methodology is reflected upon, why I found what I did or didn’t and how this can be useful to future research and work in this situation.
Reflection on results
It was important that people recognised the DF as being a main managerial body, however it has also been shown that the DF are not fully effective in the work they do, specifically noticeable in the way that they don’t impart strict (or sometimes any) punishments on people caught illegally harvesting from the forest reserve, and other examples of corrupt practices (Thompson, 2013). For this reason or other, there is discourse between the MMCT and DF (mentioned by members of the MMCT interviewed) which results in ineffective working collaboration between the two. Changes would need to come from within both structures. As elucidated by Jumbe & Angelsen (2007), “the present institutional arrangements for managing forest reserves in Malawi are not a panacea for preventing further degradation of forest resources in different socioeconomic, cultural and institutional settings.”
53 NRU & LVHs validated by lit
Despite having no information on value and importance of the natural resources mentioned by groups, the most commonly occurring ones were indeed ones known to be prevalent in contexts such as Mulanje. For example, medicines - the most mentioned – are known to be one of the most common goods collected from miombo woodlands (Lowore, 2014). Fruit, also frequently mentioned, makes sense as fruit trees are the most prevalent trees still found within villages, and wild fruit trees (such as masuku) grow on the lower slopes of the mountain in indigenous woodland, and are known to be left standing even when land is being cleared for farming (NRC, 2008) therefore explaining their prevalence. The mention of firewood is logical as it is an invaluable and heavily utilised resource by the poor (Angelsen et al, 2014). Mushrooms hold importance as they are extremely prevalent in the Miombo woodland during the rainy season (January – April) and once collected can be used for both consumption and sale (Lowore, 2006).
Figure 15 – River pathways coming off Mulanje (Borgstein, 2017)
54 It seems safe to assume that the natural resources that can be used for both subsistence and cash will be used for both if at all possible. This made establishing people’s dependence on the resources difficult, as I didn’t clearly establish a definition of dependence in advance therefore answers could have referred to dependence in terms of subsistence and or cash, explaining the differences in answers across groups. There are almost certainly differing degrees of dependence on different resources, and, as will be discussed below, differences among groups. Without having gone into more detail with them regarding their personal use, it is difficult to conceptualise a more detailed understanding of dependence from their answers.
Similar issues came up when discussing livelihoods – lack of specification in my questions left things too broad for highly representative answers to have been given. The answers in the end gave a nice general overview of many of the main livelihoods being carried out around the mountain in general, without specificity for areas or groups. What I didn’t see were any kinds of differences between women and men’s interactions with the forest in terms of the natural resources they collect and also the livelihood activities they carry out. This was surprising contextually as much literature shows the distinctions in forest use by different genders but also by different socially structured groups (Thompson, 2013; Sunderland et al, 2014; Meijer et al, 2015; 2016).
It is unusual that all mentioned slightly different resources in an ecologically and demographically similar area – shows that things mentioned were not fully representative of the actual situation, the fact that people didn’t mention something didn’t mean it wasn’t being done. This could be explained by the heterogeneity of the communities, that different people interact with the forest in different ways and use it differently, as shown by Thompson (2013), based on Rocheleau & Edmunds (1997). This should have been accounted for by having mixed gender groups and participants of differing ages, but the heterogeneity was most likely not represented effectively enough, and in combination with group dynamics, people were not expressive of their own behaviours but were thinking more collectively. Clarity of the questions could have been better.
55
Figure 16 - Grass harvested from the mountain plateau, carried down and being dried to make brooms to be sold, Nessa Village (Borgstein, 2016).
When it came to discussing the livelihoods people would adopt without having access to Mulanje, it seemed people had good ideas and interests not based around the mountain. However the need for initial financial input may make some hard to realise, as its something that people simply don’t have access to1. The fact that they felt they needed help to do this was a shame, as it suggests a kind of dependence culture that has developed around the mountain. In terms of financial capital it is understandable that it has to come from somewhere, as they don’t have it themselves, however in the context of doing things it would be amazing for these people to realise their own capabilities and skills2. It seems people need more empowerment, or to feel more empowered. This came up
1 Here the issue of poverty is made clear. It is addressed further below under socio-economic context of Mulanje communities 2 This links to the notion of pre-conceptions being placed on people, which is looked at again in the section below on the MMCT’s approach to people
56 regularly throughout all the discussions, that people wanted to feel empowerment, but also ownership and responsibility, for natural resources themselves as well as for their actions. Mistrust of other people coming in went along well with this, many times it was mentioned that people were unhappy when the MMCT or DF had brought in other people to come and do work in an area. Under the new Biosphere management scheme a core zone will be established, surrounded by a buffer zone which will be divided into co-managed areas. This may well be an effective way to give people the feeling of ownership of resource-rich or forest areas near to them. One can only hope this means they will come together to ensure it is not poached or over-exploited. Ownership was addressed by Hecht (2008) and is shown to be more complex than this, she believes the approach of communities having control over their own section of forest is not a feasible option for Mulanje, as there simply isn’t enough forest left for the needs of the population (Hecht, 2008). Therefore perhaps ownership needs to be translated into inclusion, where if there is not land to offer people ownership over, rather inclusion in idea sharing and planning and seeking for alternative solutions is a way to give people ownership over their own decision- making.
I found it interesting that the political changes that have occurred in Malawi over the past 60 years have influenced not only the governance approach to natural resource use from the MMFR (addressed below), but also communities’ approaches too, as was seen from the focus groups. I was surprised how often people brought up the switch from Kamuzu’s one party system to democracy. It seemed to have really affected people’s attitudes towards natural areas and their resources, and upon further investigation I found research supporting this idea, “{there was a} post independence euphoria, people moved into and cleared large areas of VFAs in the spirit of reclaiming the land” (Mauambeta, 2010). Clearly the influence of political shifts has effects on a local level through more than simply policy effects. It seems an important point to take into consideration, the vulnerability of people to their leaders influences.
57 Although it was not addressed substantially, the issue of the harvesting of cedar and subsequent drastic decline in remaining cedar populations on Mulanje is a pressing issue. Although not in the scope of this thesis, I believe the cedar issue exemplifies many of the problems around the mountain. The DI project (under which the second set of focus groups were selected for) aims at saving the cedar species, meanwhile addressing the issues of improved livelihoods for the communities around the mountain. Although their focus is species conservation, I believe the lessons learnt through this research and the supporting literature could be beneficial to their approaches towards the communities around Mulanje. I do believe they could have a more integrated focus towards their community work, thus hopefully bypassing some of the limitations that have been and are being faced by the MMCT’s work.
The bigger issues There are several overarching issues that came to me through the process of this research. There was a discrepancy between the actions and beliefs of people (not wanting to exploit but doing so regardless), as well as miscommunication between the different parties involved around the mountain, which perhaps could account partly for the discrepancy.
As mentioned above, I believe the reasons I was hearing differences in natural resources and livelihoods mentioned by people in different villages was that I had also made the mistake of not taking into account enough heterogeneity in communities. I believed that by having a range of people attend the focus groups I would somehow be accounting for a spectrum of people. However what happened was that instead the focus groups ‘hid’ heterogeneity, There was not as much individualistic expression from people as I had hoped. Therefore I believe this might have been translated into the things being heard from people.
58
Figure 17 – Man selling pineapple and avocado pears from Nessa Village (Borgstein, 2016).
Through my research I tried to target heterogeneity, and take it into account from the beginning, building on Agrawal’s theory of communities in conservation in my theoretical framework. However I noticed how difficult an issue to target it was, and how easily I lost awareness of it. People are different, this much is evident. If people’s full connection to the mountain is going to be understood so that they can be worked together with, the unique forms of interaction will need uniquely targeting. In the situation of Mulanje, people have been grouped together under this broad idea of being poor people responsible for the destruction of the mountain. In reality, each individual community is composed of different people, characters, opinions and situations. I myself am guilty of forgetting this, and homogenising groups of people, and this I believe is a big drawback to community-based conservation work. I am of the opinion that although it has been attempted to be addressed in Mulanje, however not fully successfully. There is sufficient literature to support the benefits of really understanding the heterogeneity of a community. This includes on an individual/group level, but also the overall socio-economic situation(s) in an area.
59 There is an interesting interplay between forests and the rural poor. On the one hand there is the positive feedback loop between forests alleviating poverty and the reduced pressure on forests as poverty decreases, however reliance on forest resources can also trap people into poverty (Fisher, 2004). From the results, people suggested they did not feel dependent on the mountain. It was difficult to judge the extent to which the forest’s resources were really necessary to them. My impression was that the mountain provided people with a fall back, and so was sued as a safety net. Fisher’s 2010 study supports my findings, showing the reliance of Malawian farmers on forests in situations of climate variability, with a specific focus on the MMFR. However she takes the analysis a step further, showing which groups are most reliant on the forests and under what conditions, suggesting that further research on the subject is needed.
What I found to be the core of the problem in Mulanje is poverty. People don’t want to be overexploiting, however at the end of the day, they have no other choice. Its clear the villages feel some responsibility towards looking after Mulanje and show the desire to conserve, however unfortunately this does not translate into action as the evidence is that the mountain’s resources are in decline (Hecht, 2006). Therefore despite what people say, overexploitation is occurring. This was the case with their feeling of dependence, that they perceived it to be less than was proven otherwise (through research).
I was unable to explain why I was seeing differences between what people thought and what they were doing. Meijer et al (2016) explored this interaction and offered some insights that I found to be applicable to my own findings. They suggested people continued to carry out things they had expressed that they didn’t want to do, because they often believed their own effects would be smaller than those of others (Meijer, 2016). Finally Meijer et al go a step further and come to the same conclusion as I did, “it was generally known and accepted that forests are important and cutting down trees from the forest was undesirable and harmful, poverty was mentioned as the main reason people were still actively cutting down trees and extracting tree products. This could be an
60 alternative explanation for the disconnect between attitudes and behaviour…Farmers have no choice” (Meijer et al, 2016).
Therefore the goal needs to be poverty alleviation, as well as biodiversity conservation. The focus cannot simply be on more sustainable livelihoods, but rather deeper mechanisms and solutions for relieving poverty. Therefore when looking to the future I believe poverty alleviation needs to remain the focus. Fisher (2004) suggests that an effective approach to alleviating poverty but also protecting forests would be to find alternative (low return) livelihoods for the people who would normally get these from the forest, which is echoed in the aim of projects around Mulanje.
Use of the SLA&F I applied my findings to the SLF to see where they fit in and what information they contributed to the framework. From here I’d like to see what missing information there is or what information this filled in version of the framework can contribute to a full SLA. Ideally the SLA&F need using, incorporating communities in conservation (specifically heterogeneity) for future projects, to ensure a much broader starting base for work to come.
In the case of my research the SLF was not used as an analytical framework. I had the right idea of applying the SLF, as it is a useful tool in terms of poverty eradication. However in hindsight I could have used it as an organising framework, and a way of structuring my methodology and informing my data collection. In that sense I could have used it to gain a more in-depth understanding of the situation. However it is now used as a guide to show the areas my research informs, including the additional dimension of perceptions that is not directly included in the framework but that is a useful addition to it. I had aimed to understand people’s priorities too, however this was unsuccessful. However I believe the information now present in the SLF below begins to give an overview of the complex network of issues, circumstances, processes and assets that are at play in Mulanje. It shows the different levels that need taking
61 into consideration and assessing in combination and with regards to each other, not just independently.
Figure 18 - the information gathered from my research fitted into an SLF. More in-depth understanding of people’s livelihood assets and the strength/influence of each category could help in implementing more informed livelihood strategies.
Influence of methods on findings, & limitations The data collected on natural resources used and livelihoods were not weighted, there was no value or frequency given to either, therefore information about both was simply contextual information collected to gather a broad idea of the common livelihoods and resources used by communities around the mountain. Sampling was done with the intention of allowing data to be extrapolated for across the whole mountain area.
62
Interpretation of certain questions varied, such as the possibility of sustainable natural resource use. It seemed to come down to things which people noticed were still there after parts had been used for example branches of trees growing back, mushrooms growing again the next day after being harvested. Most likely misinterpretation / limited understanding of the concept of sustainability although Susan tried to explain it. During focus group activity, ‘priority’ of livelihoods was asked however it wasn’t understood, so accuracy is low of the priority of the listed livelihoods. The situation was similar for concepts of dependence and sustainable use; limited by Chichewa and the double meanings of words.
Focus groups are useful for getting in one moment a variety of opinions from a community group, however of course through this you lack receiving information specifically on families or more individual bases. Also it was surprisingly hard to keep questions fully standardised between groups, things often went differently or there were misunderstandings, discussions went off topic, and some groups had strange vibes. The aim was to have an equal male female distribution however of course this in most groups wasn’t the case. For the most part men were the most vocal.
I found myself making the mistakes I was blaming others for; creating my own biases about the people of Mulanje. I too put them down in my head as ‘degraders’ and as a result mistrusted what they said, without real substance behind my convictions. It was important to take a step back from the data and through reading literature on the relevant issues I was able to ground myself and my impressions again.
63 What I would do differently If I were to conduct this research again, I would conduct a more in-depth and separate studies of men and women and their different uses of resources. It could be interesting to see if the gender patterns with regards to natural resource use in Mulanje mirror those summarised by Sunderland et al (2014) and Fisher (2010) as mentioned earlier it could give insight into more effective management issues for the future. However, for further research, I would recommend a more in-depth assessment of the true heterogeneity of the communities around Mulanje, which through my theoretical framework I believe the SLA&F could be beneficial for, and further work done around the mountain to be done with a deeper understanding of the area.
Concluding Remarks Although not elaborated on in this thesis, I believe the works of Ostrom (2014) and Berkes (2004; 2007) provide much insight into ways of dealing with issues like common property and collective action, that could be hugely beneficial to a place like Mulanje. The reality of the situation there is a complex web of stakeholders with differing agendas and priorities, and representing different levels of input and power. Through a series of unfortunate events, defined by the variances in these different actors, the history of conservation and community work around Mulanje offers misfortunes, as well as the successes. However I do believe there is still potential for the future; collaboration of people who are able to understand each other better, consideration for the different values each set of actors (managers, exploiters and governors) can contribute to ensuring the survival of Mulanje as a powerful and healthy ecosystem. Ostrom & Berkes’ theories, as well as the multitude of other useful inputs addressed in the literature throughout this thesis, offer starting points from which situations can be addressed accordingly and applicably. Knowledge and understanding of the insights these works offer could contribute massively to ensuring a happy future for Mulanje.
64
Figure 19 – The ‘crater’ on the southern edge of Mulanje, pictured from Sayama Estate (Borgstein, 2017)
Bibliography
Adams, W. M., Aveling, R., Brockington, D., Dickson, B., Elliott, J., Hutton, J., ... & Wolmer, W. (2004). Biodiversity conservation and the eradication of poverty. Science, 306(5699), 1146-1149.
Agrawal, A., & Gibson, C. C. (1999). Enchantment and disenchantment: the role of community in natural resource conservation. World development, 27(4), 629-649
Angelsen, A., Jagger, P., Babigumira, R., Belcher, B., Hogarth, N. J., Bauch, S., ... & Wunder, S. (2014). Environmental income and rural livelihoods: a global- comparative analysis. World Development, 64, S12-S28.
Angelsen, A., & Wunder, S. (2003). Exploring the forest–poverty link: key concepts, issues and research implications (No. CIFOR Occasional Paper no. 40, pp. viii-58p). CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.
65
Ashley, C. (2000). Applying livelihood approaches to natural resource management initiatives: experiences in Namibia and Kenya. London, UK: Overseas Development Institute.
Ashley, C., & Hussein, K. (2000). Developing methodologies for livelihood impact assessment: experience of the African Wildlife Foundation in East Africa (pp. 1- 61). London: Overseas Development Institute.
Bandyopadhyay, S., Shyamsundar, P., Baccini, A. (2011). Forests, biomass use and poverty in Malawi. Ecological Economics, 70, 2461-2471. Berkes, F. (2004). Rethinking community‐based conservation. Conservation biology, 18(3), 621-630.
Berkes, F. (2004). Rethinking community‐based conservation. Conservation biology, 18(3), 621-630.
Berkes, F. (2007). Community-based conservation in a globalized world.Proceedings of the National academy of sciences, 104(39), 15188-15193.
Bernard, H. R. (2006). Interviewing: Unstructured and semistructured. Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches, 21.
Bouvier, I. (2006). Mount Mulanje land cover time series analysis. Report to the Community Partnerships for Sustainable Resource Management in Malawi (COMPASS II), Blantyre, Malawi.
Chapman, J.D. (1995). The Mulanje Cedar. Malawi’s National Tree. The Society of Malawi. Blantyre, Malawi.
CLGF (2015) ‘The Local Government System in Malawi’. CLGF Country Profile. London: Commonwealth Local Government Forum (available at www.clgf.org.uk).
66
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory.
DFID (2000): Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets. Department for International Development. http://www.livelihoods.org/info/info_guidancesheets.html
Ellis, F. (2000).Rural livelihoods and diversity in developing countries. Oxford University Press: Oxford, U.K.
Flora and Fauna International (FFI) (2011). Integrating conservation, livelihoods & governance. Learning from experience. Report for FFI Conservation, Livelihoods & Governance Team.
Fisher, M. (2004). Household welfare and forest dependence in Southern Malawi. Environment and Development Economics, 9(2), 135-154.
Fisher, M., Chaudhury, M., & McCusker, B. (2010). Do forests help rural households adapt to climate variability? Evidence from Southern Malawi.World Development, 38(9), 1241-1250.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2010). Global forest resources assessment 2010.
FAO. (2016). State of the World’s Forests 2016. Forests and agriculture: land-use challenges and opportunities. Rome.
GLOPP (2008) DFID’s livelihoods approach and its framework. http://www.glopp.ch/B7/en/ multimedia/B7_1_pdf2.pdf.
Government of Malawi (GoM). (2010). Malawi State of Environment and Outlook Report, Environment for Sustainable Economic Growth.
67
Hecht, J. (2006). Valuing Mount Mulanje: Work in Progress. Report for COMPASS II & the Mulanje Mountain Conservation Trust, Blantyre & Mulanje, Malawi.
Hecht, J. E. (2008). When will community management conserve biodiversity? Evidence from Malawi. Field Actions Science Reports. The journal of field actions, 1, 9-17.
Hogarth, N. J. (2014). The Role of Forest-related Income in Rural Livelihoods: The Case of Bamboo in Guangxi, China (Doctoral dissertation, Charles Darwin University).
Jumbe, C. B., & Angelsen, A. (2007). Forest dependence and participation in CPR management: Empirical evidence from forest co-management in Malawi. Ecological Economics, 62(3), 661-672.
Kamoto, J. F., P. T. Dorward, and D. D. Shepherd. (2008). Decentralised Governance of Forest Resources: Analysing Devotion Policy Processes and Their Effects on Decision Making in Communal Forest Management in Malawi.
Leach, M., Mearns, R., & Scoones, I. (1999). Environmental entitlements: dynamics and institutions in community-based natural resource management. World development, 27(2), 225-247.
Mauambeta, D. (2008). Commercialisation of NTFPs in Malawi. New Crops and Uses: Their role in a rapidly changing world, 413.
Mawaya, C., & Kalindekafe, M. P. (2010). 4. Southern Malawi: Access, Control and Use of Natural Resources, a Gender Analysis.
McCracken, J. (2012). A History of Malawi, 1859-1966. Boydell & Brewer Ltd.
68 Meijer, S. S., Sileshi, G. W., Kundhlande, G., Catacutan, D., & Nieuwenhuis, M. (2015). The role of gender and kinship structure in household decision-making for agriculture and tree planting in Malawi. Journal of Gender, Agriculture and Food Security, 1(1), 5.
Meijer, S. S., Sileshi, G. W., Catacutan, D., & Nieuwenhuis, M. (2016). Farmers and forest conservation in Malawi: the disconnect between attitudes, intentions and behaviour. Forests, Trees and Livelihoods, 25(1), 59-77.
Mulanje Mountain Conservation Trust (MMCT). (2016) Annual Report 2015 – 2016.
Newing, H. (2010). Conducting research in conservation: Social science methods and practice. Routledge.
Ostrom, E. (2014). Collective action and the evolution of social norms.Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research, 6(4), 235-252.
Remme, H., Muyambi, F., Kamoto, J., Dengu, E. (2015). A technical review of community based forest management on both customary land and forest reserves (Participatory Forest Management). Draft Final Report.
Rocheleau, D., & Edmunds, D. (1997). Women, men and trees: Gender, power and property in forest and agrarian landscapes. World development,25(8), 1351- 1371.
Sunderland, T., Achdiawan, R., Angelsen, A., Babigumira, R., Ickowitz, A., Paumgarten, F., ... & Shively, G. (2014). Challenging perceptions about men, women, and forest product use: a global comparative study. World Development, 64, S56-S66.
Thompson, M. C. (2013). Re-examining the Past and Rethinking the Future at Mount Mulanje Forest Reserve, Malawi: New Directions for Local Engagement.
69
Varughese, G., & Ostrom, E. (2001). The contested role of heterogeneity in collective action: some evidence from community forestry in Nepal. World development, 29(5), 747-765.
Wisborg, P., & Jumbe, C. B. (2010). Mulanje Mountain Biodiversity Conservation Project: Mid-Term Review for the Norwegian Government.
Zulu, L. C. (2010). The forbidden fuel: charcoal, urban woodfuel demand and supply dynamics, community forest management and woodfuel policy in Malawi. Energy Policy, 38(7), 3717-3730.
Appendix
Appendix 1 Focus Group, Key Informant & MMCT Interview question templates
Focus Group 1. What does conservation mean to us? Are we practicing conservation?
2. What do we think of conservation of Mt Mulanje? Are we conserving? Are other people conserving? Are these practices working?
3. Are we using natural resources from the mountain? How are we using them? Are we using some of them for our livelihoods?
4. Do we think its possible these resources can run out? What will happen if they do?
70 Key Informant 1. Demographic information
Name - Gender - Tribe - Official position - Amount of time in position - Date interviewed -
Section 2 – specific
1. Conservation a) What does conservation mean to you? b) Do you feel you are practicing it in your everyday life? c) What do you think of conservation of Mulanje Mountain? d) Are you conserving? Are other people conserving? Is it working?
2. Natural Resource Use a) What is the history of natural resource use in your area? b) What natural resources are people using from the mountain? c) Do you think sustainable use of the mountains resources is possible? d) How dependent are people on the mountains resources? Is it mostly subsistence, or cash, or both? e) Does your position allow you to change the way other people approach natural resource use? f) What is the issue of cedar use in your area? What is the situation, your opinion, ways forward?
3. Livelihoods a) What are the main livelihoods in your area? b) Which resources do you use for your livelihoods? c) What other livelihood opportunities do you think people want/need?
71
4. Scenario a) Do you think it is possible that the resources from the mountain can run out? b) What will people do if the resources from the mountain run out? c) Will they continue to practice their old livelihoods, or move to new ones? If new, what new ones? d) What other resources do people use, other than from the mountain? e) Under what conditions do you think people will stop using natural resources from the mountain? f) What can be done to make sure NR from MtMJ don’t run out? g) Do you think these are issues people need to be worrying about? h) If not, what things should people be worrying about?
MMCT Interview guide
What is the vision and mission of MMCT, translated into practical action? Set 1: 5. What does conservation mean to you?
6. What do you think of conservation of Mt Mulanje? How is MMCT conserving? (general presence & main initiatives) Are these practices working? What is the history of MMCT management/presence around MtMJ?
7. What natural resources are people using from the mountain? Is it possible for the NR to be used in a sustainable way? How dependent are people on the mountains resources? (Mainly subsistence or cash?)
8. Do you think its possible these resources can run out? What will happen if they do? What livelihoods do you envision people living around the mountain will move to when/if the NR run out?
72
Set2: 1. What is the history of cedar, from MMCT perspective?
2. What is the main aim of the DI project with regards to communities around the mountain?
3. Why is this project important?
4. How does it work?
5. Will it save the mountain/ the cedar?
6. What was the issue of the pine on the mt?
7. Other conservation work/projects/initiatives around the mt? i.e MOBI LISE, Nkhumba project etc collaborators
73 Appendix 2
Natural resources mentioned by each village
FG location Kazembe Nande Nyambalo Nyani Khamula Mukuluni Overall location Likhubula Nessa Tinyade Lujeri Fort Lister Namaja TA Mkanda Mabuka Nkhumba Njema Nkhumba Njema prevalent tribe Lomwe Lomwe Lomwe Mang'anja Lomwe Lomwe M:F 7:4 6:4 5:4 4:5 8:5 5:4 grass - thatch water - domestic grass - thatch firewood - homes firewood - homes animals - food bamboo - thatch water - irrigation firewood grass - thatch firewood - sell animals - sell grass - brooms - mushrooms - food home animals - sell mushroom - food masuku - food water - domestic masuku - food grass - brooms - sell bamboo - thatch wild veg - food masuku - sell herbs - medicine grass - brooms firewood - homes water - domestic fruits - food grass - brooms - sell hot springs - bathing firewood - homes medicine grass - brooms - sell mushroom - food water - irrigation firewood - sell mushrooms - food fruits - food animals - food NRU charcoal animals - food chrystals - sell bamboo - thatch (whole Mt - porters) animals - sell herbs - medicine water - domestic (whole Mt - porters) wild veg - food water - irrigation wild veg - food mushroom - sell wild yams - food wind rain trees - medicine rain wind whole Mt - porters trees - mortars 74 FG location Gambeya Makolera Nessa Nakhonyo Msikita Nkhulambe Overall location Lujeri Tinyade Nessa Likhubula Namaja Fort Lister TA Njema Mkanda Njema/Mabuka Mkanda Njema Nkhulambe prevalent tribe Mang'anja Lomwe Mang'anja Lomwe Lomwe Lomwe M:F 6:4 5:3 4:3 5:5 4:4 4:4 grass - brooms - animals - food firewood home grass - thatch mushroom - food mushroom - food birds - food mushroom grass - brooms - sell firewood - homes medicine masuku - food firewood - homes grass - thatch masuku - food firewood - sell masuku firewood cedar - timber masuku masuku - sell masuku firewood medicine trees, herbs - medicine herbs - medicine herbs - medicine mango animals - look at* animals - food trees - hoes trees - hoes wild veg - food mushroom - food bamboo - thatch trees - timber grass - thatch bamboo - thatch wild veg - sell medicine water - domestic grass - thatch NRU water - domestic trees - poles grass - thatch water fruits mushroom - food fruits - food whole Mt - tourists whole Mt - tourists hot springs - fruits - sell natural pool - tourists tourists animals - protect*
75
Appendix 3 Livelihoods with and without Mulanje, per village
FG location Nande Nyambalo Nyani Khamula Mukuluni use the forest (get money from timber from charcoal burning farming trees) farming timber and firewood bamboo (thatch, sell, making timber small businesses tea farming firewood baskets) harvesting grass (brooms) collecting firewood (sell) sugar cane farming hunt animals from Mt animals (sell) use Mt water (to drink, water (irrigation) making charocal bathe & irrigate crops) worms (sell) Group 1 water (irrigate veg, sell LVH w/ beekeeping cutting timber other jobs for money) access to Mt's hunt animals employment mushrooms (sell) resources collecting firewood masuku (sell & eat)
piece work
collecting hebrs
harvesting grass (thatch)
collecting fruit (sell)
76 collect wild veg & worms as relish from Mt
animal farming (cows, farming - tea, maize, pigs, goats, chicken, bananas normal farming tea farming mushroom farming rabbit) vegetable farming (sell) beekeeping irrigation farming sugar cane farming beekeeping (tomato, cabbage, business, selling diff beans, mustard, rice, things animal farming pineapple farming banana farming maize) business - beer brewing, motorcycle & bicycle working on tea estates mending bicycles taxis fish farming business (selling fish, group 2 builder, tailor, shoe business - buying&selling mandazi, bananas, LVH w/out repairer, carpernter making mats fish farming fish mango, masuku, bricks) access to Mt's brew beer (sell) tailoring beekeeping small jobs resources sell firewood from their fruit trees burning bricks small businesses (mandazi, fish)
fish farming
establishing tree nursery establishing mushroom nursery
77
FG location Gambeya Makolera Nessa Msikita Nkhulambe farming of diff crops timber from cedar, pine timber from Cedar (sell) firewood (sell) tea farming (pigeon peas, beans) & bamboo getting trees from Mt timber from bluegum ( through govt. harvesting sell) brooms (sell) pineapple farming money from tourists system
hunt animals (sell) grass (sell) vegetable farming firewood (sell) mushrooms (eat and grass - brooms (sell) sell) grass for brooms making charcoal Group 1 roots from trees - LVH w/ medicine (sell) fruit (masuku) sell fruit farming (avo, litchi) hunting animals access to piece work (e.g tea business as a waitch Mt's plucking) wild veg doctor resources wild fruit sell mandazi
sell sugarcane
farming
78
farming (animals, tea farming (with rainfall) tea farming farming (pigeon peas, irrigation, normal) business (selling maize, groundnuts, rice, maize, pineapples, pigeon peas, piece work pineapple farming cassava, fish farming, village banks chickens, honey, tomato, chicken village woodlot avocado, goats, building nurseries (selling making gardens along farming, sweet potato, (bluegum) sell firewood houses) seedlings) the river beans) from it jobs (being a porter, working for the tea estates, government, group 2 hospital as cleaner) desired lvhs: irrigation farming selling mandasi fish farming LVH w/out access to capital for businesses businesses selling milk from cows Mt's resources animal husbandry beekeeping learning from other ppl in other areas animal farming
piece work
making juice
starting village banks
79