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