Village Forest Management As a Way to Protect Biodiversity in Tanzania

Village Forest Management as a way to protect biodiversity in Tanzania

Authors: Heini Vihemäki (World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi, Kenya) and Charles Leonard (Tanzania Forest Conservation Group, Tanzania)

The experiences from around Tanzania suggest that Community Based Forest Management (CBFM) has had promising results in terms of forest recovery and maintenance. Local people also conceive that CBFM has decreased forest threats. Yet, further studies are required to verify the findings (e.g. Blomley et al. 2008). In this paper, we analyze the effects of CBFM, especially the Village Forest Reserves (VFR), for conservation of biodiversity, and the challenges facing their continuity. We draw from the results of a botanical survey and bird survey covering a gradient from Village Forest to agroforests and to more open land uses, conducted in the ‘biodiversity hotspot’ of the East Usambaras as a part of the CIFOR-ICRAF research collaboration, Landscape Mosaics project, and from field observation and secondary material. The results confirm the importance of VFRs for biodiversity conservation, in terms of species composition, but also indicate that the continuity of their management is at risk, e.g. due to dependency on externally funded projects. In the end, we discuss the challenges facing continuity of the management of village forest reserves and identify ways of improving the continuity.

Key words: biodiversity conservation, village forest management, Tanzania 1. Introduction The need to conserve tropical biodiversity outside the strictly protected areas, in areas that are more or less intensively used by humans, has became acknowledged in the global conservation and development debate within the past years (Zuidema & Sayer 2002, Wiersum 2003, Sayer et al 2005). The research on biodiversity values of land uses outside the strictly protected areas has increased, but there are still gaps in our knowledge on their biodiversity values and contribution to conservation of rare species (Zuidema & Sayer 2003). Some have suggested that agroforestry areas can harbor substantial levels of bird diversity (Thiollay 1995, cited in Zuidema & Sayer 2003), and that local people may maintain or even consciously preserve endemic species outside the protected forests (Wiersum 2003, 37). In spite of the growing recognition of the importance of landscape approach to conservation (e.g. Sayer et al. 2005, 418-419), in which the idea is to optimize land use for a range of services and products instead of (only) maximizing the protected areas, the best strategies to conserve biodiversity in specific ecological and socio-economic conditions are still debated.

As in many other forested developing countries (Sunderlin et al 2005), the forest area under the ‘ownership’ or control of communities has increased considerably in Tanzania during the past 15-20 years (Blomley & Ramadhani 2007). Community-based approaches to forest management and conservation have been promoted as a potential ‘win-win’ solution to address the livelihood needs of local communities and contribute to conservation, as well as to improve the governance of forests by making it more democratic and accountable locally (e.g. Brockington 2007).

So far, there is some evidence about positive outcomes for forest recovery and maintenance in Village Forest Reserves, that are managed by a community, such as village, or group of villagers

1 given the managed duty, in different parts of Tanzania, (e.g. Kajembe et al. 2005, Mustalahti 2006, Blomley et al. 2008, Zahabu et al. 2008), as elsewhere in Africa (e.g. Gobeze et al. 2009). Yet, the knowledge on the effects of community-based forest management for forest quality in Tanzania is still inadequate (Blomley et al. 2008). There are also relatively few studies on their contribution to biodiversity conservation objectives, probably because many of the first community-based forest reserves have been established in the areas that are not targeted for biodiversity conservation (such as miombo woodlands), where other management objectives have been given priority.

In East Africa, much of the early experience from community involvement in forest management is from robust woodlands rather than closed evergreen forests (Rodgers et al. 2002). There is also ongoing debate as to whether participation of communities in management of forests ‘works’ for biodiversity conservation objective in Tanzania (Rodgers et al. 2000, Newmark 2006, Woodcock et al. 2006). For instance, national level forestry officials have previously opposed the sharing of management responsibility with communities in the case of the Eastern Arc Mountains (Rodgers et al. 2002). The Eastern Arcs are famous for their high level of biodiversity and number of endemic and near endemic species (Rodgers & Homewood 1982; Burgess et al. 2007). They are also considered to belong to the global biodiversity hotspots by Conservation International. Newmark (2006, 132) suggests that protection of primary forests within protected areas in the Eastern Arc Mountains is critical for conserving many of the rare and threatened bird species found in the area. Burgess et al (2002) argue that in the Uluguru Mountains of Tanzania that belong to the Eastern Arcs, much of biodiversity would have been lost without protection of forests in the government managed forest reserves.

This paper contributes to the discussion on the potential of Village Forest Reserves and other areas outside the government forest reserves to enhance biodiversity conservation in the East Usambara Mountains that also belong to the Eastern Arc Mountains in Tanzania. We approach biodiversity in a limited sense, in terms of analysis of species diversity of plants and birds, and Shannon index of plants in different land uses outside the government forest reserves. We draw mainly on results from the botanical and bird surveys carried out in three Village Forest Reserves (VFRs) and their surroundings in the East Usambara Mountains. In addition we review case studies from other parts of Tanzania. The biodiversity survey was conducted as a part of a research and development project named Integrating Livelihoods and Multiple Biodiversity Values in Landscape Mosaics , also known as Landscape Mosaics . The project is a partnership between CIFOR and ICRAF, and works in four additional sites1. In Tanzania, it is implemented by the Tanzania Forest Conservation Group 2 (TFCG) in partnership with ICRAF. The project aims to improve both the livelihoods of the rural people and biodiversity values in the tropical landscape mosaics.

1 The project is financed by Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, and other donors. 2 TFCG is an NGO supporting and implementing conservation activities in different parts of the country. Its history is related to the growing activism among the conservationists working in the Eastern Arc Mountains in the end of the 1970s. 2

2. Village Forest Reserves in Tanzania

2.1.Policy context and formation of Village Forest Reserves In Tanzania, the size of forest area managed by communities has grown considerably since the 1990s (Blomley & Ramadhani 2007), and the forest policies support the goal of devolving forest management and, to a more limited degree, conservation of forests to the communities and other stakeholders. In Tanzania, Participatory Forest Management (PFM) is the overall approach, and community based forest management (CBFM) and Joint Forest Management (JFM) as the two main approaches. CBFM is to be implemented in forests in village lands, and it means that the communities, or sometimes groups of people, ‘own’ and manage the forests, e.g. decide about the rules of management and can collect revenue from permits or fines. The ownership is not totally exclusive, however, as all land belongs ultimately to the state in Tanzania. JFM is an approach that is mostly designed for the management of the central or local government forest reserves, in which case the managed responsibilities and revenues are shared.

CBFM is implemented in the forests or woodlands under the authority of a village. In the Tanzanian forest policy framework, Village Forest Reserves (VFRs) consist of (1) Village Land Forest Reserves, (2) Community forest reserves that are created out of village forests and (3) Forests on village land that are not reserved and which are managed by the village council, that are the lowest level with decision-making authority of the government. Sometimes only the first category (Village Land Forest Reserves) is referred to as VFRs.

The village council, the lowest level of government’s administrative organization, is responsible for managing the VFRs, but often special committees, called Village Forest Committees or Natural Resources Committees are elected to take care of the management duties (Katila 2008). The committee is supposed to draft the management plan, including rules of management. These rules are not legally binding. For legally binding rules for the VFR, the village council is entitled to draw village bylaws. After the village assembly has agreed to declare a VFR and has approved the management plan and by-laws, they are to be submitted to the district for approval (Katila 2008).

Participatory Forest Management is officially aimed to contribute to both livelihoods and forest management and conservation goals. Conservation of biodiversity does not appear as a key objective in the national level for the village forests. Yet, within the past years, community participation has increasingly been promoted in areas of high biodiversity value.

2.2.Conservation outcomes and effectiveness of management in VFRs

In Tanzania, biodiversity conservation objective has been traditionally promoted in the central government forest reserves, and more recently in the nature reserves. The key sites for biodiversity conservation are located in the Eastern Arc forests and the coastal forests. Most of the VFRs have been established in miombo, coastal and acacia woodlands (URT 2008). In Miombo woodlands, utilization through harvesting is a central management goal (Isango & Mhoro 2009), and thus biodiversity concerns have received less attention in them.

Yet, within recent years, VFRs have been increasingly established also in areas considered of high biodiversity value, often with support from NGOs or donor supported conservation projects. Some projects promoting PFM have focused on facilitating the establishment of CBFM regimes, e.g. mapping the village forests, creating rules and organizations for community-based management, whereas others have gone further and supported and developed mechanisms to forest monitoring by the communities.

There is some positive evidence and assessments of the contribution of VFRs to forest conservation, mainly through more effective control. Blomley et al. (2008) studied the effects of PFM in three cases in Tanzania, including some of the Eastern Arc forests. The coastal forests and Eastern Arc forests managed through PFM showed a greater number of trees per ha, and mean height and diameter of trees compared to three otherwise similar forests under state management. Furthermore, Zahabu et al, (2008) assessed biomass and carbon in six community managed forests from 2005 to 2008, including one in the East Usambaras, and concluded that the stocks were increasing, and thus the managed was efficient within that period. In an evaluation on management effectiveness of different types of forest reserves in the Eastern Arc Mountains, the village forests were also assessed to have better management effectiveness than the other forest categories (Madoffe and Munishi 2005). The experiences of different stakeholders involved in the Landscape Mosaics project in the East Usambaras also suggest that through the development of forest rules and enforcement of village bylaws, illegal timber harvesting from village forests has decreased, improving effectiveness of conservation (Tanga LMP Interception workshop 2008, unpublished project report).

One of the early ‘success stories’ of community involvement in forest management is the Duru Haitemba forest (Brockington 2007). According to Kajembe et al (2005), the VFRs in Duru- Haitemba (with the total area of 9 045ha) that have been under community management by eight villages since 1990s are effectively controlled by the communities. Yet, in terms of biodiversity at the species level, the forest is not of very high value, as it consists of miombo forest (Rodgers et al 2002). There are 20 tree species per ha in average and the forest is reported to be “over- dominated” by Brachystegia microphylla species, that covers three thirds of the volume (Kajembe et al. 2005, 9).

In other areas, where impacts on biodiversity of CBFM have been explored, there is not yet clear evidence of positive change in terms of increased diversity at species level. In a study conducted by researchers of Tanzania Forestry Research Institute in CBFM and JFM miombo woodlands, the growth of the forest improved from 2002 to 2005. Results on tree biodiversity in four study sites indicate that the species diversity remained constant within the study period 3 (Isango & Mhoro 2009, 176-178). The value of Shannon’s diversity index, that combines species richness and evenness, varied from 0.83 (in old fallow site) to 1.50 (in old miombo site) in 2005.

One of the early PFM trials in Tanzania is the MEMA (Matumizi Endelevu ya Misitu ya Asili) Project, which has supported the implementation of PFM in the Iringa District between 1999 and 2003 with funding from Denmark. It introduced participatory forest monitoring in 2002, with focus on resource extraction and disturbance, both of which impact biodiversity (Køie Poulsen et

3In this case, Species Diversity Index, Shannon Weiner’s species diversity index and Simpson’s dominance index were used to study the diversity of species and patterns of dominance. 4 al. 2005). Reduced threats, such as a reduction in the frequency of animal traps by more than 50 per cent; improvement in forest quality as perceived by villagers; and increased frequency in wildlife encounters have been reported (Topp-Jørgensen et al 2004, cited in Woodcock et al. 2006). Forest protection activities conduced through the MEMA are suggested to have indirectly conserved species. Yet, firm conclusions regarding conservation impact are difficult to draw due to the short period of PFM (Woodcock et al. 2006), and lack of systematic assessments at species level.

A recent review on PFM in the Eastern Arcs also argues that there is a clear decrease in forest threats, such as occurrence of fire or illicit logging, in areas where PFM (mainly in the form of VFR) has been facilitated by TFCG (Woodcock et al. 2006). The review suggests that the reduced threats may have positive effects on the state of biodiversity. Yet, this review is largely based on accounts by villagers and not on systematically collected information on species composition. In general, there is evidence on improved effectiveness of management through the involvement of villages in management, but little systematic information on their biodiversity, or changes in it.

3. Methods and Materials

3.1.Characteristics of the East Usambaras Landscape The East Usambara Mountains are one of the 13 mountain blocks that comprise the Eastern Arc Mountais in Tanzania and Kenya. The East Usambara Mountains cover an area of 1,082 km 2 and are located in three districts of Tanga region in Tanzania, between coordinates 4°45´ and 5°20´ S and between 38°26´ and 38°48´ E. The altitude of the East Usambaras ranges from 130 m a.s.l in the lowlands to 1,506 m a.s.l in the highlands (Burgess et al. 2007). Rainfall is greatest at higher altitudes and in the south-east of the mountains, increasing from 1,200 mm annually in the foothills to over 2,200 mm at higher altitudes.

The East Usambaras support unique forests, rich in endemic species. The East Usambara Mountains has a high number of Eastern Arc endemic/near-endemic trees (40 species) and about 35 Eastern Arc endemic and 42 near endemic vertebrates, excluding fish. In addition there are 7 vertebrate species that are endemic to the East Usambara Mountains (Burgess et al. 2007). The East Usambara Mountains also contain six out of the 19 Eastern Arc endemic bird species and 13 out of 26 near endemic bird species (Burgess et al. 2007). The East Usambara Mountains supply water to Sigi River, a vital source of water for the local communities as well as the Tanga city. Local people mainly depend on small-scale farming, including subsistence and cash crop farming. The proportion of recent forest loss in the East Usambara Mountains is quite high compared to other Eastern Arc blocks. A recent study by Forestry and Beekeeping Division (FBD 2006) indicates that the proportion of forest loss between the 1970s and the 2000s to be 12%. Another recent study suggests that as much as 33 % of the forest would have been lost between 1975 and 2006 (Leonard et al 2010, draft). The difference is likely to be partly related to different definitions of forests. Mostly, the deforestation has taken place outside the government forest reserves, in village or general land.

In the conservation literature, population growth and expansion of small-scale agriculture are considered as the major threats to the forests (e.g. Newmark 2002). Among the direct causes of loss of forest habitats in the East Usambara are fires, clearance of forest for agriculture, commercial fuel wood collection, pitsawing, harvesting of trees for building materials and mining. Yet, underlying these are broader institutional, political and economic factors, such as land tenure, markets of different products and governance issues.

Figure 1. Location of the Shambangeda, Misalai and Kwatangi Village Forest Reserves and other forest reserves in the East Usambaras. Map produced by PhD Jaclyn Hall (University of Florida) for the Landscape Mosaics project.

About 75% of the forests have been reserved (Newmark 2002), mostly under the Central Government as Catchment Forest Reserves. Rest of the forest is on village and private lands. There are presently 32 forest reserves in the EUM, including two nature reserves, ten Central Government Forest Reserves, eighteen Village Forest Reserves and two private forests with a total area of nearly 328 km 2 (figure 1). Since the end of the 1980s, different projects and organizations, including the World Conservation Union, WWF, TFCG, and the East Usambara Conservation Area Management Program (EUCAMP, previously named EUCFP) have supported forest conservation in the East Usambaras. One of their objectives has been to enhance the connectivity between the existing government forest reserves. Establishment of new VFRs in the ‘gaps’ between the government reserves has also been targeted towards this goal (Rantala et al. 2009, draft). The size of the VFRs is generally small in the East Usambaras, from a few hectares to few hundred ha, compared to some other areas in Tanzania, such as Duru Haitemba. 3.2.Study sites and Methods The biodiversity surveys conducted as a part of the Landscape Mosaics project aimed at assessing biodiversity of different land cover types and also to track the value of the biodiversity to local people. The surveys were conducted by a team of researchers from the Tanzania Forest Conservation Group, including the field botanist, ecologist and the ornithologist. Most biodiversity surveys conducted earlier have concentrated on the Central Government Catchment Forest Reserves and the Nature Reserves (Leonard et al. 2010, draft).

The study villages cover a mosaics of different forested and non-forested land uses, including village forest reserves, agroforestry, monoculture fields (e.g. of maize or tea), as well as fallow lands . In the study villages, the establishment of the VFRs has been facilitated and promoted by the TFCG within the past few years (Rantala et al. 2009, unpubl.). The organisation has also educated villagers on the importance of forest conservation. For instance, in Kwatango, the villagers decided to establish the VFRs in their area after being educated by the TFCG on the importance of conservation. The sizes of the VFRs studied were all rather small, and varied from few hectares to 25 ha (table 1).

Table 1. The sizes and past use of the VFRs in the study villages. Sources: Data collected during the Landscape Mosaics project, and VFR management plans.

Village Size History of the land area Kwatango 25 ha Some of the land used to belong to individuals Misalai 23 ha Some of the land used to belong to individuals Shambangeda 4 ha No specific uses before the establishment of the VFR

The botanical surveys were conducted in the landscape surrounding Misalai, Shambangeda and Kwatango villages from September 2008 to February 2009. Twelve 10x200 m vegetation plots were established in the village landscapes (table 2). Within these plots, 1x40 m sub-plots were established for saplings with less than 10 cm dbh, 5x40 m for trees with greater than 10 cm and less than 30 cm dbh and 10x200 for trees with greater than 30 cm dbh. Species identification was

8 conducted for each individual plant including trees, saplings, herbs 4, shrubs 5 and climbers. Also the dbh and height of the plants were recorded. Specimens difficult to identify in the field were collected for further identification in the herbarium. The plot sites were selected so that they cover the range of different land use types in the landscape studied, but excluding strictly protected forest reserves. Out of the twelve vegetation plots, three were within the village forest reserves, one for each village. The characteristics of the land uses are described below:

Agroforestry – land covered by mixed crops (subsistence crops and/or cash crops plus timber tree species Fallow – land which was previously cultivated and is currently left unattended/without crops for up to 3 years Forest – land which has been dominated by indigenous trees and the land should be set aside purposely for certain activities such as protection or production purposes. Mixed farming – land which is occupied by two or more crops Monoculture – land which is dominated by one type of crop Plantation – land dominated by planted timber tree species Table 2. Frequency of vegetation plots in different land cover types. Land Cover Type Number of plots Forest (within village forest reserves) 3 Agroforestry 3 Fallow land 2 Mosaic of fallow, agroforestry and mixed farming 1 Mosaic of mixed farming and monoculture 1 Mixed farming 1 Teak plantation 1

From the data, we analyzed species diversity by aggregating the total number of species found in different land uses. In addition, we calculated the number of tree species per hectare found in each plot, and averages for the different land uses (accounting only the land uses with 2-3 plots). We also calculated the Shannon index to estimate the diversity of the plant species recorded in each plots, taking into account the distribution of individuals between the species 6. The following formula was used to calculate the Shannon index:

S H’ = - ∑ p i ln p i – [(S-1)/2N] I=1

In which, H’ is Shannon's diversity index, S is total number of species in the community (or sample plot), pi is proportion of S made up of the i th species and N is the total number of individuals.

4 Herb is defined as any seed-bearing plant which does not have a woody stem. 5 Shrub is defined as a woody plant with a dbh of less than 10 and possibly accompanied with several main stems arising at or near the ground. 6 Shannon's index accounts for both abundance and evenness of the species.

Two methods were used to assess the bird fauna of the three village landscapes: Mist netting and Timed Species Count (TSC) (table 3). The surveys were conducted in the vicinity of the vegetation plots. Timed Species Counts were conducted in nine vegetation plots outside the VFRs while mist netting was conducted in the vicinity of the three vegetation plots established inside the VFRs.

During the mist netting, ten nets were placed in a continuous line in each of the three sites for three days. The nets were opened early in the morning, checked frequently throughout the day and closed at dusk. Each captured bird was identified. Each capture was marked by a marker pen on the bill, as this made it easy to recognize recaptures. A total of ten mist nets were placed in the three landscapes for a total period of nine days giving an average of 660 net meter hours per full day of mist netting. Mist netting proved to be a good method in capturing birds which sometimes tend to be difficult to detect and identify visually. Table 3. Summary for sampling intensity for bird survey. Village Net meter Number of Period (mist netting and TSC landscape hours TSC days respectively)

Misalai 660 2 3/11 – 5/11/2008 and 15/02 – 16/02/2009

Shambangeda 660 2 25/10 – 28/10/2008 and 17/02 – 18/02/2009

Kwatango 660 2 30/10 – 01/11/2008 and 19/02/ - 20/02/2009

TSC was conducted by field team by walking quietly for a period of 60 minutes at each plot, stopping frequently to identify and record all birds seen or heard calling. Approximately an area of 1 km 2 was covered at each site. Notes were recorded in order to compile a species list. A checklist of bird species recorded through mist netting and Timed Species Counts across the three village landscapes was prepared. Then, their forest dependency was found as well as their threat status according to IUCN and their degree of endemism.

The discussion on the prospects for continuity of VFRs draws mainly from a review of previous works, including research conducted by scientists and conservation organizations on social and economic aspects of Village Forest Reserves and participatory forest conservation in the study landscape, in the Eastern Arc Mountains and more broadly in Tanzania. In addition, project documents of agencies working in the study area provided a source of material. In addition, we conducted participatory observation while working in the East Usambaras (partly during the Landscape Mosaics project, and partly during a separate research project). One of the authors studied social dynamics of protected area managed in the East Usambaras previously (2003- 2008), and then interviewed forest authorities, NGO representatives and villagers involved in forest management.

4. Results

4.1.Results of botanical survey

In total, the survey recorded 164 plant species from 68 families across the different land use types in the three village landscapes (table 4). Of these species 59 (or 45 %) occurred in the Village Forest Reserves, and 45 (27 %) in agroforestry systems. About one third of the plant species found in the agroforest are also found in the forest reserves. To some degree, the higher number of species in the VFRs and agroforests compared to other land uses is related to the higher number of sample plots in these areas (n=3), but it does not explain all of the difference, as indicated by the table that compares the number of tree species per hectare in all the different plots, and the Shannon index values.

Table 4. Total numbers of plant species and tree species recorded in different land uses in the three village landscapes of the East Usambaras. Vegetation/land cover Number of plant Number of plant Number of tree type species recorded species recorded also species recorded in the VFRs Village Forest Reserves 59 - 49 (n=3) Agroforests (n=3) 45 13 24 Fallow lands (n=2) 31 4 17 Mixed farming plot (n=1) 13 1 11 Mosaic of monoculture, 11 1 9 fallow & agroforestry (n=1) Mosaic of monoculture 14 0 6 and mixed farming (n=1) Teak plantation (n=1) 16 13

The number of tree species per hectare was generally higher in VFRs than in agroforestry, fallow and mixed farming areas, as extrapolated from the tree saplings and big trees recorded in the sample plots (table 5). Yet, the fallow land in the lowland village of Kwatango supported a high number of tree species, close to that of the VFRs. In addition, the tree species diversity varied between the different VFRs, from 85 species per ha in Misalai to more 160 species per ha in Shambangeda.

Table 5. The estimates on number of tree species per hectare (calculated from the plot level data) and Shannon index derived from all plant species recorded in each plot. Land use type N of tree species/ha Shannon index

Village forest Reserve (Kwatango) 110 1.108

Village forest Reserve (Misalai) 85 0.692

Village forest Reserve (Shambangeda) 165 1.027

Agroforestry (Kwatango) 45 0.748

Agroforestry (Misalai) 65 0.904

Agroforestry (Shambangeda) 10 0.745

Fallow (Kwatango) 80 0.938

Fallow(Misalai) 25 0.898

Mixed farming (Kwatango) 60 0.982

Mosaic of mixed farming and monoculture 1.073 (Misalai) 30

Mosaic of monoculture, fallow and agroforest 0.668 (Shambangeda) 15

Teak plantation (Kwatango) 65 0.828

In addition, several endemics, near endemics or threatened plant species were recorded (table 6). The survey recorded two East Usambara endemic plants: Cynometra engleri and Cynometra longipedicellata . Both species were recorded in the village forest reserves of Misalai and Shambangeda . In addition, seven Eastern Arc endemic plants and twelve Eastern Arc near endemics were recorded, most of them also in the VFRs. Valuable timber species, such as Newtonia buchananii and Pterocarpus tinctorius were also recorded in the VFRs.

Table 6. Endemic and near endemic species found in the botanical survey and respective land use types. Species Endemic status Where recorded Cynometra engleri EUM endemic VFR Cynometra longipedicellata EUM endemic VFR Allanblackia stuhlmannii EA endemic VFR & Agroforests Albizia schimperiana var. EA endemic Fallow amanuensis Alchornea hirtella EA endemic VFR Cephalosphaera usambarensis EA endemic VFR Pavetta usambarensis EA endemic VFR Rinorea angustifolia EA endemic VFR Rinorea ferruginea EA endemic VFR Agelaea heterophylla EA near endemic VFR Bersama abyssinica EA near endemic VFR Dasylepis integra EA near endemic VFR Drypetes usambarica EA near endemic VFR Mesogyne insignis EA near endemic VFR Vepris simplicifolia EA near endemic VFR Antiaris toxicaria ssp. EA near endemic VFR, Fallow land welwitschii var. usambarensis Dialium holtzii EA near endemic VFR, mixed farming Alsodeiopsis schumannii EA near endemic Agroforest Aoranthe penduliflora EA near endemic Agroforest Rawsonia reticulate EA near endemic Agroforest Dombeya kirkii EA near endemic Teak plantation

Threatened plant species, both classified as vulnerable, included Allanblackia stuhlmannii (in Shambangeda VFR and agroforests), and Albizia schimperiana var. amaniensis (in fallow). Allanblackia stuhlmannii, known locally as msambu, is an economically important species, as its seeds are collected by farmers to be sold to Unilever company, that processes oil of the seeds.

In relation to regeneration of trees, there were more saplings in the village forests than in other land cover types. Few species were commonly represented in each plot. In Misalai VFR, most of the saplings recorded were Sorindeia madagascariensis. In Shambangeda VFR, Rinorea angustifolia dominated whereas in Kwatango VFR Acalypha species, Cynometra longipedicellata and Diospyros mespiliformis were most common.

4.2. Results on bird survey

A total of 89 bird species were recorded in the three village landscapes. The banded green sunbird Anthreptes rubritorques is the only Eastern Arc endemic bird species that was recorded. It was recorded outside the VFRs in agroforest and other agricultural land. In addition, six Eastern-Arc near endemic species were recorded (table 7). Of the one Eastern Arc endemic and six Eastern Arc near-endemic bird species, all were found in agforest, mosaic of different agricultural land uses, fallow or plantation whilst only two were also found in the VFRs.

Table 7. Eastern Arc endemic and near endemic species and where they were recorded. Mosaic refers to the plots consisting of (1) monoculture and mixed farming and (2) monoculture, fallow & agroforestry.

Species Common name Village in which Land uses recorded

Andropadus Shelley's Agroforest, mosaics, VFRs Shambangeda, Misalai masukuensis greenbul

Anthreptes pallidigaster Amani sunbird Shambangeda Mosaic

Banded green Agroforest, fallow, mosaic Anthreptes rubritorques Shambangeda, Misalai sunbird

Long-billed Agforest Artisornis moreau Misalai tailorbird

Shambangeda, Mosaic, VFRs Batis mixta Forest batis Kwatango

Kenrick's Fallow, agroforest Poeoptera kenricki Kwatango starling

Misalai, Shambangeda, Agroforest, fallow, mosaic, Stactolaema olivacea Green barbet Kwatango mixed farming, plantation

Artisornis moreau, a critically endangered bird species (IUCN 2008) was only recorded in the agroforest plot in Misalai village landscape. The bird species was previously known to occur in the Nilo Nature Reserve and the Amani Plateau in Tanzania and in the Njezi plateau of northern Mozambique. Other threatened bird species and where they were found are listed in table 8 below.

Table 8. Threatened/near-threatened bird species recorded in the three village landscapes. Mosaic refers to the plots consisting of (1) monoculture and mixed farming and (2) monoculture, fallow & agroforestry. Species Common name Village Land uses IUCN 2008 landscape Threat Status Artisornis moreau Long-billed Misalai Agroforest Critically Tailorbird Endangered Anthreptes Amani sunbird Shambangeda Mosaic Endangered pallidigaster Anthreptes Banded green Misalai and Agroforest, Vulnerable rubritorques sunbird Shambangeda fallow and mosaics Circaetus Southern banded Shambangeda Mosaic Near fasciolatus snake eagle Threatened Tauraco fischeri Fischer’s turaco Misalai, Fallow, mixed Near Shambangeda farming, Threatened and Kwatango agroforest, mosaic

All the threatened bird species were found in mosaics of agricultural land, agroforest, fallow or plantation. To some extent this result reflects the difference in sampling intensity whereby the VFRs were only sampled using mist netting whilst other land uses were sampled using timed species counts. Nonetheless, this does suggest that the agricultural landscape, including agroforests, is providing habitat for a significant number of threatened and restricted range bird species.

5. Conditions affecting continuity of management of VFRs

In this section, we address factors that are likely to affect the continuity of forest conservation by local communities, and related experiences and findings from the study area as well as from interventions and research in other areas. Our focus is on (a) motivation and attitudes, (b) cost and benefit sharing and (c) institutional aspects.

5.1.Attitudes and motivation

Often, involvement of communities in forest control in the East Usambaras and other Eastern Arcs has been supported, or even ‘pushed’ by external actors in the study area, such as conservation organizations and projects funded with donor money (e.g. Woodcock et al. 2006, Zahabu et al. 2008). Without the support and incentives from the projects, such as facilitation of meetings at village level, training of villagers in conservation and provision of alternative income generating activities, the continuity of villagers’ involvement in forest management and conservation activities may be at risk when the projects end. There is some evidence of degrading management after the end of project support in the case of Makanya Village Forest Reserve in East Usambaras, that was supported by the IUCN in the early 1990s (Vihemäki 2009), although this VFR was not formally established. Changes in the leadership or members of

15 forest committees responsible for managing the forest or village council (with decision-making authority), or the relationships between these bodies, may also change the situation if the new leaders are not supportive to conservation, or if new conflicts emerge.

In spite of the high influence of external organizations and conservation projects in promoting forest conservation in the biodiversity rich areas, in certain regions and cases in Tanzania, the initiatives of the local people have contributed to the establishment of the pilot projects to protect the forest through community-based initiatives (e.g. Kessy 1998, Brockington 2004; communication with K. Havnevik, May 2008, Uppsala). Local groups have typically mobilized themselves to push for forest conservation when they shared enough common interests with other actors, such as NGOs (Brockington 2004), or conservationists. This is also illustrated in the case of Mpanga forest in the East Usambaras. Mpanga used to be a traditionally protected forest, but its conservation was first undermined by the village leadership that started to co-operate with forest officials and businessmen in timber harvesting (Kessy 1998, 103). Then, other villagers became concerned with the destruction of the forest and approached the EUCFP/EUCAMP project, which led to a process of establishing the Mpanga VFR. The completion report of EUCAMP (2002, 49) summarized the experience of the project regarding VFRs as follows:‘… if the idea of establishing a VFR originates from the villagers themselves, the whole exercise runs smoothly, compared to forests where conservation ideas originated from outside the villages’.

The review of the TFCG facilitated PFM projects in the Eastern Arc Mountains suggests that the villagers are generally keen to manage the local forest (Woodcock et al. 2006). In the southern part of the East Usambaras, many villagers living next to protected forests are also explicitly positive about and supportive towards forest conservation. Yet, conflicting interests related to harvesting of timber or collection of some NTFPs still exist among the villagers, and there are different views regarding the optimal level of regulation (e.g. Vihemäki 2009).

In the Landscape Mosaics project, it was found that the individuals mostly involved in forest and environmental management, such as the leaders and members of the forest committee, seem really committed to the forest conservation agenda (Rantala et al. 2009, unpublished). The expressed feeling of ownership over community-based conservation institutions is strong among those villagers who are directly involved in management. There is yet variation between (and sometimes within) the communities on willingness to participate in forest management and conservation even within a relative small geographic area (Reuterswärd & Vihemäki 2007, Vihemäki 2009). For instance, in the West Usambaras, in one village, a larger percentage of villagers preferred to leave the management decisions to experts whereas in the neighboring village, the dominant view was that the village should have an active role in managing the forest (Reuterswärd & Vihemäki 2007).

5.2.Challenges in cost and benefit sharing

The cost and benefit sharing also affects the continuity of the management of VFRs, and how motivated communities, or some groups among them, are in getting involved in forest conservation and management activities. In terms of costs, there are costs from the establishment of the VFRs (e.g. demarcation of boundaries, resource assessment, agreeing on the rules and preparing the management plan), and from the management activities conducted in the forest and

16 possibly costs deriving from lost opportunities or access (e.g. through increased regulation or increase in number of animals destroying crops on farms).

According to Zahabu et al (2008), the costs of establishing VFR are nearly 30 000 $, about half of which are costs for the facilitating organization, and half ‘allowances’ for the communities from their participation. Yet, the sum depends on the size of the area, facilitating organization, and whether and how the communities are compensated for their time in planning. The costs of establishing the reserve are also likely to be high in cases where the land tenure is unclear. In such cases, the process of marking the boundaries of a VFR is often difficult and lengthy, as experiences of TFCG from the East Usambaras indicate (Woodcock et al. 2006, Rantala et al. 2009, unpubl.). Without clear records and maps this is time consuming and needs resources and facilitation from the responsible authorities. In addition, if there is no initial interest among the villagers, the organization promoting VFRs may need to invest a lot of resources to ‘sensitization’ in order to change the prevailing attitude.

One of the motivations for the communities to participate in management is the benefits they receive from various forest products and services. For instance, Rodgers et al (2002) argue that if local people recognize how they can benefit from the forest, they will be motivated to modify their resource and land use practices and to invest time and effort in forest conservation activities. The benefits can be divided into tangible benefits (e.g. quantifiable products or allowances for the forest committee members) and intangible ones e.g., value of biodiversity conservation (Kumar 2002), which are usually harder to quantify.

In some areas, such as miombo woodlands of Tanzania, CBFM has provided tangible benefits through revenue to forest-local people through collection of taxes from harvesting of the forest products (Lund 2007). In other areas, such as the Eastern Arc forests, CBFM tends to focus on smaller areas that have less production value (or harvesting of forest products is not allowed or is very restricted), and which are more degraded (Woodcock et al. 2006). In such areas, the direct benefits that communities get from participating in management of VFRs derive mainly from small fees from fines (on illicit activities) or ecotourism (Zahabu et al. 2008). In case of Handei VFR, the monetary benefits have been around 55 $ in year, and the money has been used to cover the management costs, but still committee members have to conduct most work on a voluntary basis. In some villages in the East Usambaras, people have also benefited from the Income Generating Activities that have been initiated in the villages by organizations facilitating VFRs (or other conservation projects), such as bee keeping or butterfly farming in some of the villages where TFCG works. Collection of seeds of allanblackia (msambu ) also creates temporary income for some of the villagers.

Most of the benefits communities conceive to get from the VFRs in East Usambaras are related to environmental services, such as secured rain fall and conservation of water sources (Rantala et al. 2009, unpubl.), as well as training in some cases (e.g. Zahabu 2006). Thus, they are largely not ‘tangible’ benefits, which can form a constraint for the continuity. Many local people conceive that in the future, the VFRs may be a source of timber and other forest products, as the access to forest products is likely to decrease in the non-reserved lands (Rantala et al. 2009, unpubl.). This implies that in the future, there can be more pressure to allow harvesting of forest

products in the VFRs, and the managed rules need to be modified to balance between the different interests.

The sharing of the benefits and costs within the village, and among different social groups, has not always been easy or even, as suggested by Meshack (2003), and Bildsten (2002). Meschack (2003) found out in a study on CBFM in the West Usambaras that the involvement of communities in forest management may lower transaction costs incurred by the government. However, the costs for the community (in this case referring to the costs from attending meetings and voluntarily participating in management activities) were mostly borne by the poorer households in the village where are the richest households benefited most (through collecting diverse forest products), indicating unevenness in the economic outcomes. The benefit sharing is also linked to the operation of the local institutions and their transparency and inclusiveness. Bildsten (2002), who explored the case of Mpanga VFR (the establishment of which was discussed previously), found that some important user groups living nearest to the forest were excluded from the control and the sharing of benefits.

Another challenge related to the cost-benefit sharing especially in cases where there are no direct benefits from the forest (or they are few), are the emerging economic opportunities that are in contrast with conservation. Such opportunities to access tangible benefits can change the people’s behavior in relation to the natural resources very soon, as the case of gold rush that occurred in the East Usambaras implies (e.g. Vihemäki 2009). Many local people engaged in gold mining activities in search of quick income, and mining also spread within the ANR, that is in principle managed jointly by 18 villages and the forest department.

5.3.Institutional issues: Capacity, participation and transparency

Several articles reviewing the experiences of PFM in Tanzania, published in Arc Journal , suggest that in general, there are still many challenges facing community involvement in forest conservation. They include limited understanding and capacity among the districts (supposed to facilitate PFM), weak legal literacy among the villagers and lack of benefits to them (Meschack & Raben 2007; Blomley & Ramadhani 2007; Pfliegner & Moshi 2007).

In spite of the enabling formal institutional context, in many cases the control of the VFRs by the communities is not yet fully legalized (URT 2008). Villagers may develop bylaws, without a forest management plan, or vice versa. In addition, there is sometimes confusion regarding the legal process for declaring village forests – with some foresters advising villagers that approval must be given at the national level. Further work is also required to ensure that the villagers fully understand the steps required for establishing VFRs and that unnecessary bureaucracy is removed (e.g. URT 2008), and also the capacity of the districts to facilitate PFM needs to be improved.

In addition to the unclear or uncompleted legal status of some village forest reserves, the implementation of the management plans and rules faces challenges. Brockington (2007) points out that in general, there are problems in village level governance in Tanzania in terms of poor accountability of the councils towards their constituencies and transparency in using public funds. He suggests that these features of local government pose a challenge to village forest

18 management, although he does not analyze data from VFRs’ management as such. A recent review of PFM initiatives facilitated by TFCG in the Eastern Arcs (Woodcock et al. 2006) also names weak level of participation of some villagers, and lack of transparency in dealing with the revenue gathered, such as from fines on illicit activities as challenges. It also argues that little money has been made directly from PFM in these areas, but when it has there have been ‘issues of accountability or transparency’.

The persistence of ‘non-transparent’ practices in relation to resource management at the local level can potentially limit the level of participation of villagers in forest management, and there is some evidence on this from the East Usambaras (e.g. Zulu 2004). Yet, much also depends on the changes in social divisions and power dynamics in the village level, and between the village and other actors, such as government officials. The social patterns that have previously contributed to the unequal resource access and benefit sharing among the villagers, such as concentration of power, do not necessarily disappeared with the introduction of new community level institutions (Vihemäki 2009), such as management plans and bylaws. For instance, in the case of Handei VFR in the East Usambaras, the ‘imbalances’ in local power relations in favor of the small village elite contributed to the unwillingness of most villagers to participate in ‘participatory’ initiatives and follow the regulations (Zulu 2004). Some of the forest committee members were also accused of being involved in illegal logging. Yet, in some cases, the forest committees that have been created to manage VFR have arguably challenged the non-transparent practices of village leadership (c.f. discussion in Brockington 2007).

Another potential challenge for continuity is that the information and opportunities for participation do not reach throughout the whole community, or majority of people. For instance, seventy percent of the randomly chosen household survey (n=201) respondents in the three Landscape Mosaics study villages expressed that they had not participated in the decision making regarding the VFR. One fifth of the female respondents were not at all aware of the existence of a VFR in their village (Rantala et al. 2009, unpubl.). In spite of the fact that few villagers had participated in the decision-making over the management rules, many who knew about the rules were still content with them.

One of the issues that also affect the continuity of VFRs is the occurrence of conflicts and means and capacity to address them. Experiences from some PFM projects in the Eastern Arcs imply that local conflicts are best resolved through village reconciliation committees (Woodcock et al. 2006). Where there may be conflicts with outsiders, who may be aggressive, the assistance of local authorities is essential, as also suggested by Mustalahti (2006). Yet, this level of support in many cases appears to be absent (Woodcock et al. 2006), and linked to weak capacity and lack of resources in district offices.

6. Discussion The results of the botanical and bird surveys conducted in the three village landscapes of the East Usambaras indicate that the village forests, and the village landscapes outside the strictly protected forest reserves in more general, are important for biodiversity conservation as they support a considerable amount of biodiversity, especially in terms of existence of many endemic or near endemic species. The number of East Usambara Mountains endemic, and Eastern Arc

endemic or near endemic bird and plant species recorded in the survey is presented in table below. Table 9.Summary on the number of Endemic and near Endemic plant and bird species recorded in the survey. Group Total number of East Usambaras Eastern Arc Eastern Arc near species endemic endemic endemic Plants 164 2 7 12 Birds 89 - 1 6

The results of the plant survey show that the number of tree species (49 in total) is higher in the VFRs than in other land uses studied, and also the diversity index is higher than in other land uses, with the exception of Misalai VFR. Compared to strictly protected forest reserves, however, the number of the plant species number is still rather low. In total, 59 species of plants were recorded in the three VFRs. In the Amani Nature Reserve (ANR) in the East Usambaras, nearly 250 species of trees and shrubs were recorded in systematic vegetation plots in a survey carried out by Frontier Tanzania (2001). The high number of species in ANR is related to the sampling (173 plots), and to the large size (8360 ha), and heterogeneous habitat of the reserve (Frontier Tanzania 2001, 61). In general, the VFRs studied are small compared to the sizes of the government forest reserves in the East Usambaras. This also implies that they are likely to support less rare (e.g. endemic or near-endemic) species (see Newmark 2002 and Burgess et al. 2007 about the connection between size of forest and number of rare species).

Yet, the existence of some endemic and threatened plant species in the village forests implies that the VFRs can contribute to the conservation of the region’s unique biodiversity. The selected VFRs support the highest number of plant species compared to other non-reserved land cover types surveyed. Apart from the VFRs, other land use types, especially agroforests and fallow lands, support a good number of species, and especially rare bird species. Some rare bird species are also found in the landscape where some disturbance, such as cutting of trees, has occurred. Yet, this should not be interpreted to mean that government protected forests are not needed for bird conservation. Newmark (2002, 96-97), who has conducted long term research on bird populations in the Eastern Arcs, argues that the bird species in the East Usambaras are highly differentiated in their response to forest degradation or disturbance. Birds that belong to terrestial insectivores group are most adversely affected by forest disturbance, where as some other groups have been shown to be more abundant on slightly or moderately disturbed forested areas (Newmark 2002). In relation to the continuity of management of VFRs, there are some risks related to the high influence of external organizations in pushing the forest conservation in villages, although the attitudes in the study area are in general supportive to forest conservation. Yet, there are few tangible benefits to the majority of the local people so far in the areas where harvesting of forest products is very limited. So there is a risk of losing the villagers’ interest in forest conservation when the ‘extra’ incentives for those people who have been involved in management (such as provision of alternative income sources, training) and project support finishes, if there are no benefits that can be accrued over long term, or they are not conceived as considerable enough.

Other challenges facing the continuity of management of VFR unequally distributed benefits, lack of capacity at village and/or district level to plan and implement rules and keep records, and transparency of the institutions that deal with benefit sharing and control. In addition, attitudes and motivation vary between the villages, and within villages, among different social groups. Thus, careful and inclusive planning that addresses different groups of people is needed to ensure better continuity.

7. Conclusions

We conclude that the establishment of VFRs is conducive to biodiversity conservation objectives in the East Usambaras landscape, where most of the forests have already been protected, and the remaining forests are under a threat of being converted to other uses or degraded. The VFRs, although often small in size, harbor relatively many species and have a higher biodiversity index compared to other land uses outside core protected areas, including rare species. In addition to the global biodiversity conservation value, the VFRs and other village lands supports local livelihoods, e.g. by providing a source of fuel wood and medicines. Because of their biodiversity value and livelihood importance, and as little forest remains outside the central government forest reserves, and the establishment of new central government forest reserves is expensive and prone to social conflicts, it is crucial to establish and support strategies that help to conserve biodiversity values in the VFRs and in other village lands.

Yet, the continuity of the management of VFRs seems to be at risk, due to the often high dependency on external funding and facilitation in their creation and management. In the areas were harvesting of forest products is regulated heavily, as in the East Usambaras, the involvement in control has not yet produced much direct benefits to the communities. The economic viability of forest conservation through VFRs does thus not seem to be very good. Therefore, creating value to the forests e.g. through testing of payments for environmental services could be one way to make them economically more viable (e.g. Zuidema & Sayer 2003, 14). In addition, facilitating accountability and transparency of the management at the village level, e.g. through building the capacity keeping accounts and improving information sharing among different groups, is also recommended to maintain VFRs. To improve continuity, there is also need to build capacity at different levels, including the districts, and ensure they have the resources and knowledge to facilitate the planning of VFRs efficiently, and help in conflict resolution if needed. This also means need for long-term commitment from and coordination of activities between the stakeholders, including government, NGOs and donors, involved in supporting CBFM.

8. References

Bildsten, C. 2002. One Forest, Many Locals: Different Ways of Managing Natural Resources in Tanzania . M.Sc. thesis. Department of Anthropology, University of Oslo, Norway.

Blomley, T. & Ramadhani, H. 2007. Participatory Forest Management in Tanzania: an Overview of Status, Progress and Challenges ahead. The Arc Journal . Issue 21: 3-5.

Blomley, T., Pfliegner, K., Isango, J., Zahabu, E., Ahrends, A. & Burgess, N. 2008. Seeing the wood for the trees: an assessment of the impact of participatory forest management on forest condition in Tanzania. Oryx 42:380-391.

Brockington, D. 2004. Community Conservation, Inequality and Injustice: Myths of Power in Protected Area Management. Conservation & Society 2(2): 411-432.

Brockington, D. 2007. Forests, Community Conservation, and Local Government Performance: The Village Forest Reserves of Tanzania. Society & Natural Resources 20(9): 835-848.

Burgess, N., Doggart, N. & Lovett, J. 2002. The Uluguru Mountains of eastern Tanzania: the effect of forest loss on biodiversity. Oryx 36:2:140-152.

Burgess, N. & Kilahama, F. 2004. How much of the Eastern Arc Mountains is protected and what needs to be done to complete the protected area network? Conservation and Management of the Eastern Arc Mountain Forests Project Project Report No.: 2004/03.

Burgess N.D., Butynski T.M., Cordeiro N.J., Doggart N., Fjeldsa J., Howell K.M., Kilahama F., Loader S.P., Lovett J.C., Mbilnyi B, Menegon M., Moyer D.C., Nashanda E., Perkin A., Rovero F., Stanley W.T. & Stuart S.N. 2007. The biological importance of the Eastern Arc Mountains of Tanzania and Kenya. Biological Conservation 134: 209 - 231.

FBD (Forestry & Beekeeping Division). 2006. Forest area baseline for the Eastern Arc Mountains. Compiled by Mbilinyi, B. P., R. E. Malimbwi, D. T. K. Shemwetta, E. Songorwa., E. Zahabu, J. Z. Katani & J. Kashaigili for Conservation and Management of the Eastern Arc Mountain Forests, Forestry and Beekeeping Division, Morogoro. 60 pp.

Frontier Tanzania 2001. Doody. K. Z., Howell, K. M., and Fanning, E. (eds.). Amani Nature Reserve: A biodiversity survey. East Usambara Conservation Area Management Programme Technical Paper No. 52. Frontier Tanzania; Forestry and Beekeeping Division and Metsähallitus Consulting , Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Vantaa, Finland.

Gobeze, T. et al. 2009. Participatory Forest Management and Its Impacts on Livelihoods and Forest Status: the Case of Bonga Forest in Ethiopia. International Forestry Review 11(3):346- 358.

Isango, J. & Mhoro, B. 2009. Monitoring Community-Based Miombo Forests in Iringa and Kiteto Districts, Tanzania. In: Nshubemuki, L, Chamshama, S., Mbwambo, L. & Balama, C. (eds). Proceedings of the First Participatory Forestry Management (PFM) Research Workshop. Held at Morogoro, Tanzania, 15-16 December, 2008.

Kajembe, G.C., Nduwamungu, N. and Luoga, E.J. 2005. The impact of community-based forest management and joint forest management on the forest resource base and local people's livelihoods: Case studies from Tanzania. Centre for Applied Social Studies, University of Zimbabwe/Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies, University of the Western Cape., Commons southern Africa occasional paper; no. 8. Harare, Zimbabwe.

Katila, P. 2008. Devolution of forest-related rights: Comparative analyses of six developing countries. Doctoral thesis. Univ. Helsinki Tropic. Forest. Rep. No 33.

Kessy, J.F. 1998. Conservation and Utilization of Natural Resources in the East Usambara Forest Reserves: Conventional Views and Local Perspectives. Tropical Resource Management Papers 18. Wageningen Agricultural University.

Køie Poulsen, M., Massao, J., Burgess, N. & Topp-Jørgensen, E. 2007. Community Based Monitoring of PFM in Tanzania: Initial Experiences and Lessons Learned. The Arc Journal . Issue 21:31-33

Leonard, C., Mwangoka, M., Mkongewa, V. and Doggart, N. 2010. Assessment of the biological values of different land cover types in the East Usambara Mountains of Tanzania. TFCG Technical Paper No. 23. Dar es Salaam. Unpublished Draft.

Lund, J. 2007. Money Talks: CBFM and Village Revenue Collection in Iringa District. The Arc Journal . Issue 21:14-15.

Madoffe & Munishi. 2005. Report on management effectiveness for the Eastern Arc Mountain Forests.

Meschack, C. 2003. Transaction Costs of Community Based Forest Management: Empirical evidence from Tanzania. York University.

Meschack, C. & Raben, K. 2007. Balancing Rights, Responsibilities, Costs and Benefits in the Management of Catchment Forests . The Arc Journal . Issue 21: 6-7.

Mndolwa, M., Japhet, E. & Muuya, E. 2009. Effectiveness of Governance on Community Based Forest Management Approach: A Case Study of Iringa District, Tanzania. In:

Mustalahti, I. 2006. How to handle the stick: Positive processes and crucial barriers of Participatory Forest Management. Forests, Trees and Livelihoods 16(2): 151–165.

Newmark, W. D. 2002. Conserving Biodiversity in East African Forests: A Study of the Eastern Arc Mountains. Ecological Studies 155. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg.

Newmark, W. 2006. A 16-Year Study of Forest Disturbance and Understory Bird Community Structure and Composition in Tanzania. Conservation Biology 20(1): 122–134.

Pfliegner, K. & Moshi, E. 2007. Is Joint Forest Management Viable in Protection of Forest Reserves? Experiences from Morogoro Region. The Arc Journal Issue 21: 17-20.

Rantala, H., Lyimo, E., Powell, B., Kitalyi, A. & Vihemäki, H. 2009. Natural resource governance and stakeholders in the East Usambara Mountains. Working paper of the Landscape Mosaics Projects (CIFOR-ICRAF). Unpublished draft.

Reuterswärd, K. & Vihemäki, H. 2007. Empowerment or imposed participation? Different expectations from and practices of Joint Forest Management in the Usambara Mountains, Tanzania. In: Vihemäki, H. (ed.): Contextualising Natural Resource Management in the South. Interkont Books 16. Helsinki University Print. Pp. 62-118.

Rodgers, W.A., Nabanyumya, R., Mupada, E. & Perha, L. 2002. Community conservation of closed forest biodiversity in East Africa: can it work? Unasylva , Vol. 53, No .2 (No. 209).

Sunderlin et al. 2005. Livelihoods, forests, and conservation in developing countries: An Overview. World Development 33(9):1383-1402.

Tanga LMP Interception workshop 2008, unpublished project report of the Landscape mosaic project.

URT. 1998. National Forest Policy. Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, Dar es Salaam.

URT. 2008. Participatory Forest Management: Facts and Figures.

Vihemäki, H. 2009. Participation or further exclusion? Contestations over forest conservation and control in the East Usambara Mountains, Tanzania. Ph.D. thesis in Development Studies. Interkont Books 18, Institute of Development Studies, University of Helsinki.

Wiersum, K. 2003. Use and conservation of biodiversity in East African forested landscapes. In: Zuidema, P. (ed): Tropical forests in multi-functional landscapes. Proceedings of two seminars organised by the Prince Bernhard Centre for International Nature Conservation, Utrecht University, in collaboration with the Dutch Association for Tropical Foresters, Utrecht. Available at: http://www.bio.uu.nl/pbc/publications/proceedings/Zuidema-Sayer.pdf

Wily, L.A. & Dewees, P. 2001. From Users to Custodians: Changing Relations between People and the State in Forest Management in Tanzania. World Bank Research Working Paper. No 2569.

Woodcock, K., Meshack, C. & Bildsten, C. 2006. Review of TFCG-Facilitated Participatory Forest Management in the Eastern Arc and Coastal Forests of Tanzania. TFCG Technical report 12.

Zahabu, E. 2006. Handei Village Forest Reserve. In: Murdiyarso, D. & Skutsch, M. (eds.) Community Forest Management as a Carbon Mitigation Option: Case Studies. CIFOR. Bogor, Indonesia. pp. 16-19. Available at: http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/publications/pdf_files/Books/BMurdiyarso0602.pdf

Zahabu, E., Skutsch, M., Malimbwi, R., Ngaga, Y. & Nordholt, S. 2008. Carbon stocks and net benefits in selected forests under PFM arrangements in Tanzania and its potential in reducing rural poverty. In: The proceedings of the 15 th Annual Scientific and 22 nd General Meeting, Tanzania Association of Foresters. Morogoro, Tanzania, 6-7 November, 2008.

Zuidema, P. & Sayer, J. 2003. Tropical forests in multi-functional landscapes: the need for new approaches to conservation and research. In: Zuidema, P. (ed): Tropical forests in multi- functional landscapes . Proceedings of two seminars organised by the Prince Bernhard Centre for International Nature Conservation, Utrecht University, in collaboration with the Dutch Association for Tropical Foresters, Utrecht. Available at: http://www.bio.uu.nl/pbc/publications/proceedings/Zuidema-Sayer.pdf

Zulu, C. 2004. Problems with Participatory Mapping in Forest Management. A Case of Handei Village Forest Reserve, East Usambara, Muheza, Tanzania. Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis. ITC, Holland.