eduzhai > Life Sciences > Agricultural >

Management of farmland and trees outside the protection area in the east of usambala mountains in Tanzania

  • sky
  • (0) Download
  • 20211029
  • Save
https://www.eduzhai.net/ International Journal of A griculture and Forestry 2013, 3(7): 284-293 DOI: 10.5923/j.ijaf.20130307.05 Farmland Trees Governance outside Protected Area in Eastern Usambara Mountains, Tanzania Bwagalilo Fadhili1,*, Evarist Liwa2, Riziki Shemdoe 3 1Department of Geography, St John’s University of Tanzania, P. O. Box 47, Dodoma, Tanzania 2School of Geospatial Science and Technology, Ardhi University, P. O. Box 35124, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania 3Institute of Human Settlement Studies, Ardhi University, P. O. Box 35124, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania Abstract Management of forests by strict protection is facing a great cha llenge of conservation and meeting people needs. While farmland trees management has the potential to help integrate protected areas with their surrounding landscapes, and med iate the livelihood demands of co mmunit ies with the conservation goals of protected areas, still there is little support to it. Research on farmland trees focuses on private tree p lanting basing on types of tree species and marketability, but very seldo m on policy and institutions that shape farmland tree management. Therefore assessing the policy and institutions that govern farmland trees manage ment is important as to identify the gaps and opportunities for farmland trees manage ment given by the available po licies and institution. This paper provide an highlight on farmland trees governance outside protected areas with an assumption that, better management of trees on farms min imize pressure on protected areas forest resource of the east Usambara mountains. The eastern Usambara mountains are characterized with forest reserves, plantations as well as communit ies involved in s mall scale farming. Data were collected through Focus Group Discussion, in depth interviews using structured questionnaires, and checklist questionnaires. All were conducted in three villages namely; Misalai, Shambangeda and Kwatango, a total of 100 respondents were interviewed. Furthermo re, data were also collected at the ward, district, regional and min istry levels. The findings have identified and documented different policies and institutions governing farmland trees at different levels. Challenges and opportunity are also identified in relation to existing policies and institutions and land tenure Keywords Farmland Trees, Po licies and Institutions (Governance) 1. Introduction Tree on farms are very important for land and biodiversity conservation because they offer great opportunities to create habitats for wild species in agricultural land. Further- mo re they save for different socio-economic needs of the people. They are more important in area that harbour the world’s biologically richest and most threatened ecoregions, including the most of the global biodiversity hotspots[1]. The trees serve for both food and cash needs of the peo ple of Africa. Moreover almost a quarter of the world’s population depends solely on farmland trees. According to the World Bank[2] almost 1.6- b illion people in the world rely on forest resources for their livelihood and 1.2 b illion people in developing countries use trees on farms[3]. The knowledge of co mplex ro le of t rees in farmland has increased substantially over the past three decades. As a result, the potential for farmland trees to transform lives and landscapes is grasped now more than ever before. However, * Corresponding author: bwagalilo@yahoo.com (Bwagalilo Fadhili) Published online at https://www.eduzhai.net Copyright © 2013 Scientific & Academic Publishing. All Rights Reserved the potential contribution of farmland trees in the implementation of environment and development policies has not been fully harnessed[1]. Rather the emphasis is put much on establishing central managed forest resources. In Tanzania alone for examp le this is manifested by the proliferation of protected areas such as nature reserves and national parks which total about 14.5 million hectares as forest reserves including those within national parks and therefore managed by the government. This figure reflects the question of broadening and diversifying forest management which has internationally emerged as a key in the forest policy scheme. It has also emerged as an international politica l agenda since the 1992 Rio conference on environment and development[4]. Forests have also been addressed in a wide range of internationally agreed conventions and instruments like Convention on Biological Diversity, United Nations Forum fo r Forest, and United Nation Framework Convention for Climate Change (UNFCCC) et cetera and at national levels within national forest programmes (NFPs) and similar policy frameworks. Increasingly, high-level polit ical priorities for fo rests are issues related to human well-being, such as poverty reduction and sustainable livelihoods, food security, human health, climate change and conflict mitigation[5]. All of International Journal of A griculture and Forestry 2013, 3(7): 284-293 285 these are policy and institutions related matters and are the marks of Tanzania forest management status today. Tanzania has about 33.5 million hectares of forests and woodlands, which is about 39.9% of the total land of Tanzania. Out of this total area mo re than 25% of Tanzan ia forest is in protected areas as described by IUCN[6]. A lmost two thirds of the forest consists of woodlands on public land which is in intensive pressure from hu man activities [7]. Besides, this form of management is facing a great challenge of conservation and meeting people needs[8]. To strike the balance between conservation and meeting people needs, promoting farmland trees manage ment will be of a solution. The manifestations of farmland trees impo rtance are reflected fro m the service they provide to a household as well as biodiversity conservation. Tanzania’s concern on forest conservation is reflected by the policies, Acts and programmes that are meant to protect forest resources, for instance the national environmental policy 1997, the national fores t policy 1998, the national environmental management Act 2004 and the national forest programme 2001-2010. These policies do not operate in isolation; they reflect international agreements on forest resources conservation. Of all these polic ies, the uncertainty arises on the position of farmland trees management as one of the strategies for forest management and how strongly is it supported by the existing policies and institutions. Source; Unive rsity of Dar es Salaam, Geography Department 2009 Figure 1. Study area (Map) 286 Bwagalilo Fadhili et al. : Farmland Trees Governance outside Protected Area in Eastern Usambara M ountains, Tanzania Despite of the both global and national level efforts and strategies to conserve forests and to implement sustainable forest management (SFM), deforestation and forest degradation have continued over the last decades[4, 5]. The interplay between va rious economic, social and development factors are causes of forest degradation. Similarly act ivities meet ing local needs for instance the expansion of subsistence agriculture to feed the expanding population locally has also been the cause of deforestation[9]. Population gro wth, poverty, market and policy failure are some of the major underlying causes of deforestation in Tanzania, wh ile agriculture, charcoal making and pit sawing activities being very significant. This is supported by the MNRT that about 37.4% of Tanzania forest and woodland habitat have been degraded between 1990-2005[10] Moreover defo restation is increasingly driven by increasing global demand for different global traded co mmod ities including soy, palm oil, beef and timber. The problem is also exacerbated by the worlds growing demand fo r bio fuel,[11]. Therefore these needs have to be enhanced and made sustainable in a way that reduce pressure on protected areas, that is by promoting on farm’s trees management. Farmland trees management is described as, ‘a dynamic, ecologically based, natural resource management systemthat, through the integration of trees on farms and in the agricultural landscape, diversifies and sustains production for increased social, economic and environ mental benefits for land users at all leve ls [12]; it is a deliberate management of trees on farms and in agricultural landscapes[13]; fro m Leakey and Ashley definitions, farmland trees management seem to be one of the way that seeks to sustain and stabilize rural livelihoods and in conjunction with biodiversity conservation by reducing pressure on existing protected natural resources. This notion is relative to the fact that protected areas such as nature reserves, national parks and game reserves are entrenched fro m strict surveillance surrounded by buffer zones that does not integrate people and ecosystem. Ho wever, to strike a balance of conservation and sustenance of rural livelihoods, there is a need to understand people and institutions as core components of ecosystems and landscapes[14], all these are policies and institutional related matters. Farmland trees management has much to contribute to tropical biodiversity conservation through reducing pressure on natural forests, creating or conserving habitat for wild biodiversity, or as a land use that enhances landscape connectivity. It also has the potential to help integrate protected areas with their surrounding landscapes, and med iate the livelihood demands of communit ies with the conservation goals of protected areas [12]. The pract ice aim at making sustainable use and management of trees, and the outcomes are d irectly or indirectly shaped by different actors including indiv idual perceptions as well as existing policies and institutions. However, effect ive integration of farmland trees management ‘is a major policy and institutional challenge’ [15] that needs to have great attention. Local Govern ment Authorities (LGA) p lays a great role in forest resources management as backed up the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA, 2004). There are also programmes like the National strategy for growth and reduction of poverty (2005), Nat ional forest and bee keeping programme (2001-2010) wh ich stress on forest resources conservation. The existence of Nongovernmenta l organizati ons such as Tanzania Forest Conservation Group (TFCG), Wildlife Conservation Society of Tan zania (WCST) for example d irectly or indirect ly affects forest utilization and management[16]. All these together have a role to play in farmland trees management relative to the projected importance of farm trees. To understand a link and roles of existing policies and institutions governing farmland trees, a study was conducted in eastern Usambara Mountain. The area offers a great interp lay between forest, farm estates and communit ies. Therefore, this paper aim at assessing local and national policies and institutions that shape farmland tree management outside protected areas and identify their constraints by: 1.1. Identify ing most important policies, institutions (including ru les, regulations and norms) and socio-economic that determine indiv idual and collective action in fluencing tree and forest resource management 1.2. Identifying the status of farmland trees management relative to land tenure and dependency level on forest res o u rces 1.3. Investigating constraints that the policy scope poses for achieving biodiversity conservation through tree and forest management outside protected areas, including potential gaps or inconsistencies between agricultural and forest policies. 2. Material and Methods 2.1. The Study Area The East Usambara Mountains are located in the d istrict of Muheza, Mkinga and Korogwe, covering an area of about 1300km2 in Tanga reg ion1. Three main land use categories existing in the east Usambara, wh ich are territorial forest reserves (“central government forest reserves), forests on un-reserved lands; and forests on land with t itle deeds [8] The East Usambara Man and Biosphere reserve2 include among other forest blocks the Amani nature reserve, Nilo forest reserve and Mlinga forest reserve. The latter was formally under the local government until 1998 when the management was shifted to the central government with the aim of improving the management of the reserve. Two types of 1 The description of the East Usambara Mountain is available in http//www.easternarc.or.tz/eusam 2 Biosphere Reserves are defined as areas of terrestrial and coastal ecosystems, which are internationally recognized within the fram ework of UNESCO’s Man and Biosphere Program and its global network, This has over 400 Biosphere Reserves. The basic idea behind these areas is to conserve the diversity of our living biosphere while, at the same time, meet the material needs and aspirations of an increasing International Journal of A griculture and Forestry 2013, 3(7): 284-293 287 forests are found in Eastern Usambara, wh ich are lo wland and sub mountain rain fo rests. These are among the Eastern Arc Mountains with high b iological diversity and endemism is included in the list of 24 "biologica l diversity hot spots" of the world[14; 19]. The mean of annual rainfall is 2200mm, with ranging between 20.6°C and 26°C for the upland and lowland respectively The soils originate fro m biotite -hornblene garnet generic rocks with many quarts. The soils are more acidic, h ighly leached and have low fert ility particu larly in the upper altitude above 800m above sea level. The alt itude ranges fro m 250m in coastal plains to 1506m at the highest peak. Except for Kwatango village which is located at the lowland the other two villages of the area studied are located in the uplands of the East Usambara Mountain, the villages are Misalai and Sha mbangeda. 2.2. Data Collection Methods In this study different approaches to collect data and informat ion were adopted. Data collect ion methods included Focus Group Discussion (FGD), structured questionnaire and Checklist. Under FGD data on forest resource accessibility and use were collected, not only that rules and regulations information that governs community interaction with the forest was also collected. Structured questionnaires were used to collect data on socio economic status of the households and household’s management of on farms trees. Checklists in this study were used to collect data at administrative level on policies, ru les and regulations governing farmland trees outside protected area. Moreover checklist was used to collect data on challenges and opportunity facing the institutions on governing forestry at large. 3. Results and Discussion 3.1. Res pondents Characteristics 3.1.1. Age, Se x, and Education Leve l of Respondents and 52% of respondents were male farmers. Since the samp le was randomly selected this small difference to the sex of respondents suggests equal representation of the populatio n of the study area in terms of sex. 3.1.1.3. Education Level o f Respondents Almost every ward of the east Usambara has one secondary school and more primary schools. However all three villages of the study the sample have shown a huge percentage of respondents ending at primary school level, 78% are primary school leaver, 5% with secondary education and only 1% with tertiary education while 16% have not attended school at all. The reasons to the significant number of primary school leaver had been noted as the distance of the villages to the secondary schools, most of the secondary schools are located in wards centres, not only that, but also reluctance of parents in taking their children to school contributed greatly to this status. 3.2. Origin of Respondents There are a significant number of immig rants in the area, 39% of the respondents are not natives of the east Usambara and some few natives of east Usambara are not residence of respective villages of the study. Most of the immigrants are the result of job opportunities from the plantations of tea and sisal estates. However, 61% of the respondents were found to be natives of the study area. However some o f the natives do not belong to Sambaa tribe wh ich is historically proven to be the indigenous of the area. 3.3. Househol d Size A total number of 100 households were samp led for representation of three selected villages having an average household size of 4.6. The majority of household surveyed (63%) had household size of 1-5 peoples, 27% had households size of 5 peoples and above inclusive of very few households with more than 10 peoples. Table 4.3 presents person per household relative to 2002 national population census results on household size of Muheza district. 3.1.1.1. Age The majo rity o f respondents 62% were less than 50 years old. Least responses were from respondents with less than 25 years 6%, wh ile a reasonable number of response 32% came fro m respondents of more than 50 years of age. The insignificant number of respondents of less than 25 years is caused by the absence of young people in the villages who most of them work on tea estates as well as in the ongoing teak harvest. 3.1.1.2. Sex Distribution of the Respondents The study area has a population of more than 16600 of both males and females and has more than 3600 households (30). This is the summation of population of t wo ward s where the study was conducted. However fro m the drawn sample respondents 48% of respondents were fe ma le fa rmers 3.4. Primary Occupation of Res pondents The majority of respondents were farmers; those who had other activities also are engaging in farming. Generally results shows 28% o f farmers per se, 19% agricu lturist and other informa l e mp loyment, 19% Agricu lturist and Business (non- farm business), 9% formal emp loy ment and another 9% agricu lture and butterfly keeping, 8% agricu lture and livestock keep ing, 6% agriculture and fishing, 1% unemployed the other 2% self emp loyed that is 1% in business per se and another 1% formal employ ment (Teaching, Nursing, etc). 4. Results and Discussion 4.1. Policy and Institutions Influencing Farml and Trees Manage men t 288 Bwagalilo Fadhili et al. : Farmland Trees Governance outside Protected Area in Eastern Usambara M ountains, Tanzania 4.1.1. Policies and Institutions There are many policy documents that aim at ensuring better management of Tan zania’s natural resources but the main policies are; the national Agriculture policy 1997, the national environ mental policy 1997 and the national forest policy 1998. The tables below provide short description of policies on the sections that directly affect farmland trees manage ment. Table 1. Aspects of Agriculture Policy on Farmland Trees Management Agriculture policy 1997. Environmental issue (Pg 71-78) It is crucial for the long term future of the country that Tanzania’s natural resources (Soil, water, forest, wildlife) be managed so that agricultural production is sustainable and negative externalities are kept to a minimum Policy statement (iii) and (V) (iii) the government will implement measures which will minimize encroachment in public land including forest, woodlands, wetlands and pasture (v) The government will promote agroforestry and organic farming Although they appear to have a common interest in forest and trees issues still there are inconsistencies in the way how each policy stresses on the issue. The agricultural policy 1997 for instance states on promoting agroforestry but it does not present an exp licit mechanis m on how to attain that goal. On its environmental issues the policy only states on managing soil, water, forest and wildlife so that agriculture production is sustainable and min imizes the negative externalities. A lthough the policy document calls for implicit measures to minimize encroachment on forest still it does not give explicit strategies for it. The national environ mental policy 1997 in contrast recognizes the threats towards forest and biodiversity as well as loss of wildlife habitats puts forward strategies to conserve forest resources and put forward instruments to protect these resources, one of the instruments is afforestation. Forest policy on the other directly and clearly states and support forest conservation through farmland trees management. Table 2. Aspects of EnvironmentalPolicy on Farmland Trees Management National environmental policy 1997 Objective three; to conserve and enhance natural and manmade heritage, including the biological diversity of the unique ecosystems of Tanzania Sectoral policy Forest; Section (e) Farmers, business communities, nongovernmental organizations (NGO’s), schools and other will be motivated to embark on tree planting. Financial and other incentives will be encouraged Table 3. Aspects of National Forest Policy on Farmland Trees Management National forest policy 1998 Policy statement (chapter four); forest land management Objective ; Ensure sustainable supply of forest products and service by maintaining Sufficient forest area under effective management. Subsection 4.1.3 on private and community forest Private and community forest involves forestry o lease hold and village lands including farm forest… Policy statement (7); private and community forestry activities will be supported through harmonized extension services and financial incentives. The extension package and incentives will be designed in gender sensitive manner. 4.1.2. By laws and Institutions Affecting Farmland Tree In all three villages of the study it was observed that, farmland tree are valued relatively to their importance in daily people livelihoods. This is reflected by the rules and regulations set by the villagers themselves to govern trees on their farms either deliberately planted or a natural gro wn one. Harvesting of trees and trees products have specific procedures to follow. Table 4. Bylaws affecting farmland trees and their local perceptions Law/ bylaws Not to harvest native tree species Not to burn farms, any needto have to preceded by report (it dates 10 years back); Not to farm near or in water source areas Not to mine in forest areas and water sources No setting of fire in the forest area in any circumstance, if caught the fine is20,000T zs or six month jail sentence Only two times in a week, that is for women to collect firewood from the forest , not to cut down even a dead plant which is a fire wood Not to hunt wild animal. E.g. wild pigs Local perception Its good , it gives a way forward for management of farmland tree, it encourage the construction of modern houses by limiting uses of trees Good; help to protect fire outbreak to other farm and the nearby forest Some consider it bad as constrains them by denying income generating opportunity. Good ; without thisthere could be lots of damage in our resources part icularly sources of wat er Good; help prevent forest fire, it’s now about 3-4 years’ time, there is no fire In farms and forest, very good it retain the natural forest Bad; we don’t get enough from the forest, Good; it prevent fire outbreak in the forest, because most of traditional hunters use fire Origin/ date It was made by the villagers it dat es like 5 years back It dat es 10 years back It dates like three years back It dat es 5years back It dat es for years back International Journal of A griculture and Forestry 2013, 3(7): 284-293 289 Table 5. Summary of Community Participation in Making Forest Bylaws Trust le vel of the byl aws 63% of respondent s agreed that the bylaws are obeyed by everyone in the villages, 21% were very certain that some people do not obey the rules but most do obey and the 16% don’t know about it Respondents opinions to whethe r the bylaws are helping conse rving forest/trees 90% accepted that the bylaws are very helpful in conserving forest/trees while 10% did not accept. Bylaws applicability to the vill age Respondent freedom of speech during village meeting 83%agreed on applicability and non excludability of the bylaws, that the bylaws set are equally functioning to everyone disregarding of one’s status, 13% were not sure whether the bylaws are equally functioning or not. The other were not sure of this applicability 59% proved to have that freedom of speech (a very good and strong freedom), 30% said to have no freedom at all that they cannot give their opinions in village meetings. 11% said to be free in giving their opinions but in a little bit. Participation in making forest byl aws 72% of the respondents did not participate in making of their own forest bylaws For instance in all villages of the study, village governments plays a greater role in managing farmland trees. For either a native or exot ic tree species, no farmer is allowed to harvest a tree before consulting the village govern ment. According to discussion with samp le villagers the environmental/forest co mmittees, any farmer who needs to harvest a tree from the farm has to send a formal request to the village government specifying the reasons for the harvest of the tree, the village govern ment through its environment al/forest committee will meet and evaluate the application and will ma ke a physical survey to the location of the tree to be harvested. When the committee is satisfied with the application and the reason given, a farmer is granted a permission to harvest the tree (either cutting it down or harvesting of poles and withers). Furthermo re a farmer is subjected to one step ahead, if the reason of cutting down the tree is of commercial purpose a farmer will have to consult the district forest officer At this stage a farmer is given a license to transport and sell the products to the market of his/her choice. However it was also exp lained that most farmers do not take the logs to the market on their own, buyers come in their villages and buy the trees. Buyers are also responsible for apply ing for a right to harvest, transport and sell the tree product. For the natives tree species available in east Usambara like Milicia excelsa, pterocarpus angolensis, cordial Africana and the related species the only reason that can be granted for cutting them down is either the tree is dead/dried up or it’s hazardous to the nearby community. Besides a significant nu mber of the respondents are aware of the existing forest/trees bylaws in their villages, 60% are aware of the bylaws, 15% aware but not fully, 23% not aware while only 2% claimed to be not sure of their awareness to the bylaws. That’s makes an appro ximate of more than 75% of those aware of the bylaws. In all cases it was found that, managing trees on farm is taken by village governments and private institutions; to a very less extent district management is mentioned as one of the institutions that give a direct ly concerned with farmland trees manage ment . However, the issue of forest/ trees governance had an awkward look as many of respondents claimed to have not participated in the selecting the village forest committee that will represent all village matters on trees and forest management. Results shows that only 28% of the respondents proved to have participated in the elections and 48% of respondents proved to have participated in village’s general meeting. Th is is not a satisfactory representation indicator of local people’s participation in farm trees management. It gives an indication of a missing aspect between the village government and the village co mmunity. Despite the dissatisfying participation in electing village government and village forest committee, there were bylaws formulated. Tab le belo w provides a summary of co mmunity participation in making forest bylaws and applicability of the existing bylaws. This could be concluded that despite low level of local people partic ipation but the output of those few is highly acknowledged. 4.2. Farml and Trees Status Relative to land size and ownership status of the household, it was also identified that, the average tree species per household was six. There was also a difference in the type of tree species per village. M isalai and Shambangeda villages both had most of Grevillea (grevillea robusta) tree species while the Kwatango village had most of Teak (Tectona grandis) tree species and mvule (Milicia excelsa). The only tree species that had been observed to be dominant in all three villages of the study is cedrela odorata. Weather differences between the upland villages (Misalai and Shambangeda) and the lowland village (Kwatango) were observed to be one of the reasons that cause specie dominance differences. 4.2.1. Dependence on Forest Resources Almost 1.6 b illion people in the world rely on trees and forest resource for their livelihood and 1.2 billion people in developing countries use trees on farms to generate food and cash[2, 3]. Th is situation was also revealed east Usambara. The people in the study area depend variously if forest/tree resources such as fuel woods, building poles, withers, thatches, traditional medicines, fruits (allanblakia for business purpose) and 30% of the respondents proved to have generating income fro m this wild fruit, etc. Ho wever majority of respondents obtain their fo rest resources from their farms. Out of 100 respondents 45% had their fue l wood 290 Bwagalilo Fadhili et al. : Farmland Trees Governance outside Protected Area in Eastern Usambara M ountains, Tanzania coming fro m their farms, 11% fro m the village forest reserves while others had their fuel wood either fro m tea estates planted forests or other people’s farms. Building poles, withers and ropes which are very impo rtant trees resources in the villages had a very significant on farm source, 45% obtained these goods from farm trees, 14% fro m tea estates forests, 11% fro m other people’s farms. This has a very strong relationship to the existence of protected areas (forest) in this area that is the Amani nature reserve and the Longuza Tea l plantation forest. joint management agreements (URT, 1998). All these police have their concern on farm trees but the difference arises on the aim and the extent of emphasis given. For instance the agricultural policy stresses on soil and soil fertility management, wh ile in the forest policy the emphasis is given on forest biodiversity conservation. Furthermo re there are some inconsistencies, the agricultural policies encourages livestock keeping on forested areas but at the same time there are problems of overgrazing that compro mise the goal of the forest policy 4.3. Constraints that the Policy and Institutions Scope Poses for Ac hie ving Bi odi versity Conser vation Through Farml and Trees Manage ment 4.3.1. Inconsistencies between the Agricultural and Fo rest Policies There are many policy documents that are aimed at ensuring better management of Tanzania ’s natural resources, as provided above are just few policies that have direct lin kages to forest and trees. Although they appear to have a common interest in forest and trees issues still there are no consistencies in the way how each policy stresses on the issue. The agriculture policy 1997 for instance states on promoting agroforestry but it does not present an explicit mechanis m on how to attain that goal. On its environ mental issues the policy only states on managing soil, water, forest and wildlife so that agriculture production is sustainable and minimizes the negative externalities. The policy document calls for imp licit measures to minimize encroach ment on forest still it does not give explicit strategies for it. The national environ mental policy 1997 in contrast recognizes the threats towards forest and biodiversity as well as loss of wildlife habitats puts forward strategies to conserve forest resources and put forward instruments to protect these resources, one of the instruments is afforestation. The national forest policy 1998 gives policy statements that ensure that forest and forest products are kept in supply. The policy statements clearly states on promotion of landscape level of forest biodiversity conservation (by landscape the policy refers to forest/trees on every piece of land). The policy states that. “Private and community forestry activities will be supported through harmonized through extension services and financial incentives. The extension pack age and incentives will be designed in a gender sensitive manner (URT, 1998)”. The policy further gives the incentives to farmland trees that farme rs will be entitled to owner rights of indigenous species including reserved species and not only planted exot ic ones. On ecosystem conservation and management co mponent the policy through its policy statement number sixteen, states on conservation involving stakeholders for In-situ trees conservation. The policy states as follo ws, biodiversity conservation and management will be included in the management plans for all protection forest. Involvement of local community and other stakeholders in conservation and management will be encouraged through 4.3.2. Institutional lin kages and farm land trees management Policies rules and regulations do not operate on their own. In order for a policy to be imp lemented, rules and regulations need to be enforced. There are some legal aspects that have to act up on the matter[21]. For examp le the implementation of water policy is under the ministry of water at the nation level, catch ments offices at the region and d istrict level and it goes further down to the village level through water user associations. Moreover it also involves nongovernmental organizations such water Aid etc. Similarly there are also different institutions that govern forest/trees that are on farmlands. The institutions start from the indiv idual person to the nationwide. Although it goes beyond the nation levels but this paper provide an analysis of the institutions up to a nation levels. It was observed that, there are different institutions that affect farmland management, and all the observed institutions imp lements policies set for forest management, for instance the agricultural policy (1997). Forest policy (1998) and the national environ mental policy (1998) further mo re there are also local regulations that are implemented at a village level; the Min istry of Natural Resources and Tourism, is responsible for all nationwide forest/tree such as those found in nature reserves, national parks and conservation areas. Nevertheless , extension services provided goes beyond the protected areas and it’s implemented through district forest officers. Un like MNRT, the ministry of agriculture; that is responsible for farmland products was observed to have no explicit plans that support agroforestry instead the ministry have its newly formed department of environ ment. According to the ministry policy and planning office, the environmental depart ment will be directing responsible for farmland trees not only for soil conservation but with concern to biodiversity conservation. The issue of institution linkages in managing farmland trees has a very good and significant chain fro m the farmer to the village to the district and up to the region levels. Ho wever, there is an institutional gap between the local governments and the central government in the management of trees. The MNRT legislation officer explained this matter in terms of priority giving during imp lementation of national policies and programs. The district fo rest officers are imp lementing the national forest policy but they are not answerable to MNRT, instead they are for the local government that is Prime M inister’s Office, Regional Ad ministration and Local Govern ments (PM O, RA LG). Because of this organization International Journal of A griculture and Forestry 2013, 3(7): 284-293 291 structure it has been difficult to implement some conservation activities under one chain of co mmand. The district officers are responsible for local government priorities, along with that they also suppose to implement conservation activates. Nevertheless the district natural resources officer M r. John said that the district had no explicit programs in agroforestry. This situation is also similar to the agricultural sector at the nation level; According to the district agricultural officer M r. Mwezimpya, the district agricultural office has no explicit plans on farmland trees management. As it is for the local and central government on trees management issue, the coordination between the district agricultural and forest sectors is not well lin ked. Each un it is imp lementing its own activit ies. This was further stressed by the MNRT forest and bee keeping division, that they are facing difficu lties in imp lementing some forest conservation activities through districts officers because their chain of co mmand is fro m d ifferent ministry that is Local Govern ment Authority. This imp lies that the trust levels between the two min istries are very minimal. Table 6. Forest legislation officer’s statement As we have two ministries taking care of the same thing (forest management), that is the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism (MNRT) and the Prime Minister’s Office Local Government authority (PMOLGA) so there is a apparel administration. There was supposed to be one chain of command for better management 4.3.3. Market Linkages and Farmland Trees Management According to the traffic report, Dar es Salaam is still the main market for forest products particularly timber. The case is different to the farmers, although they know where the major markets for their tree products are (mainly timber) but to them it ends within their village boundaries; moreover it is dominated by middlemen who act of behalf of farmers. This is because farmers are not capable of processing and transporting logs to other market p laces. Most of buyers are middle men; it is these middle men who control the ma rket for logs in the villages. According to farmers in the focus interview; the logs bought from them by middlemen are brought to processing company within Muheza district and after processed the timber is taken elsewhere but mainly to Dar es Salaam and Zanzibar. Furthermo re, internationally the timber is mostly sold in Asian countries especially China and India. For examp le for July 2005 to January 2006, 100% Swartzia madagascariensis was sold to China and 99% India for Tectona grandis (17, 20). Despite the good availability of ma rket for timbe r products the farmer at the village leve l do not benefit fro m the efforts of taking care of the tree to the maturity. The main reason explained by the farmers is the low prices offered by buyers which leave farmers with no choices than selling their trees, price for teak (Tectona grandis) for examp le offered by buyers range from 3000 to 5000 Tshs, per a matured tree. ‘How can a tree which is more than twenty years old be sold for three thousands shillings, this is not fair.’ One of the farmers claimed on the prices offered to their tree p roducts. This has been a very discouraging factor for trees planting and has led to selection of valuable species only leaving out fast growing tree species such as Grevillea. For the village located upland of the east Usambara they have a market advantage for Allan blackia. This is a native t ree species favoured by the upland environment of the east Usambara Mountains; it is managed well by the farmers and fro m the institution that use it as a resource. This is the only tree product that has a well market arrangement fro m an institution. The farmers through organized groups collect and process Allan Blankia’s fru its and collectively take the product to village set market controlled by an institution named by Farmers as Faida Mali (Faida Market Linkages) when they collect the processed fruits farmers get paid through their groups. Like timber product and, the market chain for this fruit ends at the village, and the destination for this fruit was not identified by farmers. Faida have different activities in east Usambara. More than creating markets of Allan Blackia nuts, among others the following are some of the activit ies conducting market research to identify marketable produce for both national and international markets, Mobilizing and selecting farmers to produce the crop, designing and or co mmenting on the out growers contract developed by the buyer and translating the contract into the local language (for an agreed fee) Facilitation of meet ings between company and farmers to discuss the enterprise and negotiate contract terms, When appropriate, assist participating farmers with tailor -made training in the areas of Business Awareness, Group Formation, Savings and Credit, and Keeping Farm Records. 4.3.4. Land Ownership Farmland Trees Management Ne xus and Dependency Level of Forest Resources 4.3.4.1. Land Use, Ownership and on Farm Trees Management Land is a very important resource[18, 19], as the population increases the need of land increase for different needs (Ibid), housing, grazing, cult ivation etc. Along with these needs conservation of flora and fauna also utilize the same land. In east Usambara there are mu ltip le land use systems; land for forest reserves both central and village forest reserves, plantation forests and tea estates . Further more the land for housing schools, health canters, play grounds, agriculture etc. These mult iple land use in east Usambara co mpetes against each other. For instance forest conservation (farmland trees) is intercropped with other crops while on, an average land size per household is about four acres and this is not constant to all the villages. Those upland villages have even lesser size of the owned land as they are closer to the nature reserve. However majo rity 46% own three acres and belo w, wh ile 27% o wn between four and six acres, 12% own between eight and ten acres and only few 7% own mo re than ten acres. Although decision to plant trees in farmland results fro m d ifferent factors but there was no significant relation between the land size and the decision to plant trees in farms, but there was a relationship between 292 Bwagalilo Fadhili et al. : Farmland Trees Governance outside Protected Area in Eastern Usambara M ountains, Tanzania land ownership status and on farm t rees planting. Majority own land customarily as a result of tradit ional land ownership transfer (Inheritance), 91% of the respondents interviewed had no statutory land ownership. 62% own inherited land, 21% customarily own land they bought from local, wh ile those who rent land are only 6%. There are also those who had land long ago by just clearing forest, these occupies 1% of the sample and those who were granted land by the village council counts for 10% of the sample. With all these characteristics of land use, land ownership as well as land size, aspects, a significant relation to farmland trees management is only manifested fro m land ownership, those who doesn’t have land at all and those who rent land have no intention on trees planting. Only 1% o f those who rent land involve farmland trees planting while a significant 5% do not perform on farm trees planting. This is directly related to the ownership of land that one cannot invest in trees which takes 15-30 years to mature on land that is not permanently owned. There is also a very significant difference to those who own their land either statutory or customarily, many of them do plant trees in their farms, 68% do plant trees on their farms. This shows that land ownership has a great impact to trees planting. Great assurance of land ownership great probability of on farms trees planting 5. Conclusions and Recommendations Following this study local rules and regulat ions concerning the management of farmland trees were identified. Major policies and institutions governing farmland trees were identifies. These include National Forest policy (1998), National Agricu ltural policy (1997), and National environ mental policy (1997). The extent of forest/trees resource use of the community was also identified, fu rther the land tenure issues relative to farmland trees management were provided. The study found that the existing agricultural and forest policies are both complimenting the ro les of trees on farm. However the emphasis on community practice of farmland trees is only given by the forest policy only. The agricultural policies just mention the aspect of promoting agroforestry without giving out strategies on how to imp lement it. Along with this, the study found that there is some inconsistence between these two policies. This is seen in their objectives, while the forest policies is aiming at pro moting, maintaining and expanding forest cover the agricultural policy stress on increasing agricultural output and improving food security through expansion of farms. The study found that the bylaws set for forest/trees management in the study area are very effective and respected as being supported by private institutions like the Tanzania Fo rest Conservation Group and World Wild Fund. The role o f farmland trees in people’s livelihood was also found to be of great extent as many household depends much of tree resources that are in their o wn farmland, this was proven by restricted/ limited accessibility to forest resources under reserve. The household results for example showed that 53% of respondent got their wild food (fruits) and vegetables fro m their farm trees. The study also found the existence of apparel administration in managing forest/ trees resources. The existence of M NRT and PMOLGA ru ling at different levels brings overlaps and obstacles in implementation of forest policy. The misunderstanding that arises fro m this overlaps lowers the level of trust between MNRT and PMOLGA officers on forest/ trees management. 5.1. Recommendations The need for fo rest/trees conservation is of great importance, similarly the need for forest resources are also very high and of great importance. There for consideration of both needs has to be taken into strong consideration. This study has found farmland trees significance as they serve for many and different needs of household in villages outside protected areas. The existing forest management regimes will be more significant if trees on farm are also put on board by being given a strong support both politically and financially. The notion brought by trees on farm is that when a household gets all the necessary trees resources needs the likelihood of encroach ment to the reserves forest is also likely to be minimised hence forest and biodiversity conservation goals attained. Considering the market issue, strategies should be put to maximize market for other tree species; this will encourage more farmers to go for trees planting in their limited land. When this is achieved farmers will not only reduce pressure on protected areas but they will also have a way to sustainably improve their income. Furthermore harmon isations of policies are important so as to curb any opportunity for overlapping and publication of activities. This will he lp the set goals and priorities to be met in a spectacular act. Although the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism is responsible for forest extension services , private institutions such as Tanzania Forest Conservation Group and World Wildlife Fund appeared to play significant ro les than the government institutions; however still the magnitude of services provided is not adequate. To make the extension significant the govern ment and private institutions should work hand in hand to promote and encourage farm’s forest management. This should not only end at awareness creation but go further on provision of important equipments and techniques such as how and when to grow and take care of the trees. This move will increase both direct and indirect public participation in forest management hence achievement of targets on maintaining forest cover as well sustain current needs, furthermore imp rovement of people’s livelihoods will also be attained. REFERENCES [1] Elsiddig E. A (in press) The Importance of Trees and Forests International Journal of A griculture and Forestry 2013, 3(7): 284-293 293 for the Local communities in Dry Lands of Sub-Saharan Africa, available at www.etfrn.org/etfrn/workshop/degradedl ands/documents/siddig.pdf, accessed on 14/11/2008. [2] World Bank 2000. Available at, http://wbln0018.worldbank. org/news/pressrelease.nsf, www.fao.org/docrep/005/htn. Tre e outside forest towards a better understanding, accessed on 30th September 2008. [3] ILO (2002). Available at, http://www.ilo.org . Accessed on 14/11/12 integrating crop and biodiversity management (2008), available at http://www.bayercropscience.com/BCS Web/Crop Prot ect ion.nsf/id/EN_Biodiversit y _Down3/$file/B iodiv_Leaf_20080207.pdf. Accessed on 17/06/2009. [4] FAO (2005). Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005 Forest paper 140. FAO, Rome. [5] Holopinen, Jani and M arieke Wit (Eds). (2008), Financing Sustainable forest M anagement. Tropenbos International, Wageningen, the Netherlands. Xvi + 176 pp. Pandora’s Box? A groforestry today 9:5. [13] Ashley, Russell. D &And Swallow, B, (2006), the policy terrain in protected area Landscapes: Challenges for agroforestry in integrated landscape conservation. ICRAF annual report 2006. [14] M achlis G.E. and Force J.E. (1997), the human ecosystem parts I: the human ecosystem as an Organizing concept in ecosystem management. Soc. Nat. Res. 10: 347–367. [15] Schroth G., da Fonseca A.B., Harvey C.A., Gascon C., Vasconcelos H.L. and Izac A.N. (Eds) (2004), Agroforestry and Biodiversity Conservation in Tropical Landscapes. Island Press, Washington DC. [16] Swallow B., Boffa J-M . And Scherr S.J. 2005. The Potential for Agroforestry to Contribute to the Conservation and Enhancement of Landscape Biodiversity. In Rebecca M itchell and M ichelle Grayson (eds.), World Agroforestry and the Future. World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi, Kenya [6] IUCN (2003), protected areas category system. Available a [17] M athai. W, (2008), NGO alliance to tackle illegal logging. www.unep wcmc.org/protected Areas/UN_list. On 28th Available in http://www.traffic.org/home/2008/4/10/. September 2008. Accessed on 7/10/2008. [7] URT, (1998), National forest policy. M inistry of Natural Resources and Tourism [8] ECAPAPA (2005). Who’s Forest? Implications of Different M anagement Regimes for Sustainable Forest utilization and M inimization of Conflicts. Policy Brief No. 7. [9] Hermosilla. A.C (2000), The Underlying Causes of Forest Decline. CIFOR, occasional paper 30. [10] MNRT, (2007), Tanzania environmental profile. Available at, http; /www.mongabay.com, Accessed on 07/10/2008. [11] Watson, R. (2000), Report to the Sixth Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland.[Accessed 2008.] Available from http://www.ipcc.ch/press/sp -cop6-2.htm. [12] Leakey R. (1997), Redefining agroforestry – and opening [18] EUCAM P (1998), Programme/Project document phase III: 1999 – 2002. Tanga Eastern and Central Africa Programme for Agricultural Policy Analysis. [19] M beyale, G.E., (1999), Socio-economic Assessment of the factors influencing building poles Consumption, conservation and management of Amani Forest Nature Reserve. Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of M aster of Science (Forestry) of Sokoine University of Agriculture. M orogoro: SUA. [20] Roberts (1995).The quest for sustainable agriculture and land use, University of south Wales Press LTD. Sydney Australia [21] Kabudi k.j (2005) Challenges of legislating for water utilization in rural Tanzania; drafting New laws. International workshop on African water laws; plural legislative framework for rural water management in Africa, 26-28 January, 2005, Johannesburg, South Africa.

... pages left unread,continue reading

Document pages: 10 pages

Please select stars to rate!

         

0 comments Sign in to leave a comment.

    Data loading, please wait...
×