analysis of pastoralists and farmers in northern part of tanzania … · 2009. 3. 25. · analysis...

Analysis of Pastoralists and Farmers in Northern part of Tanzania from Land

Administration perspective

Athuman Jumanne Msuya March, 2009

Analysis of Pastoralists and Farmers in Northern part of Tanzania from Land Administration

perspective

by

Athuman Jumanne Msuya

Thesis submitted to the International Institute for Geo-information Science and Earth Observation in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Geo-information Science and Earth Observation, Specialisation: (Geo Information Management with emphasis on Land Administration)

Thesis Assessment Board:

Chairman: Prof.Ir P. (Paul) van der Molen External Examiner: Prof. J.W.J. (Jaap) Besemer First Supervisor: Drs. J.C. de Meijere Advisor: Ms. Monica Lengoiboni

INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR GEO-INFORMATION SCIENCE AND EARTH OBSERVATION ENSCHEDE, THE NETHERLANDS

Dedication

This thesis is dedicated to my parents Jumanne Athuman and Gladness J. Msuya, my children Jamess Athuman and Gladness Athuman, without forgetting my brothers and sisters who always encouraged

my pursuit of my education.

Disclaimer

This document describes work undertaken as part of a programme of study at the International Institute for Geo-information Science and Earth Observation. All views and opinions expressed therein remain the sole responsibility of the author, and do not necessarily represent those of the institute.

i

Abstract

Tanzania has witnessed over the last four decades conflicts between farmers and pastoralists over access to the natural resources like land for grazing and farming purposes and water for livestock and irrigation. This study was carried out in Ruvu Ward in the western part of Same District. There are two ethnic groups, Maasai who are pastoralists and Pare who are predominately farmers. The objective of the study was to understand how farmers and pastoralists use and share natural resources and analyze the causes of conflicts.

A comparative case study approach was used in order to understand pastoralists with their grazing practices and farmers with their cultivation practices within three communities. Primary data collection involved the use of structured questionnaires for farmers and pastoralists. Spatial data was collected using a hand held GPS and through participatory mapping whereby pastoralists drew their migratory routes and farmers drew the location of their farmlands. Secondary sources such as government reports were also used

Already in 1975 a land use division was agreed whereby farming lands were separated from grazing lands and livestock corridors were well defined.

In Ruvu Ward, pastoralists with their herds cross the farmlands everyday via livestock corridors to the river to drink water. Encroachment of farmers on the livestock corridors has reduced the corridor widths leading to frequent conflicts whenever pastoralists access the river. There are institutional ways to mitigate these conflicts such as discussions, agreements and payment of disciplinary fines.

The study shows that the institutional setting plays a major role in conflict mitigation. The highest level is the Village Assembly and the lowest the hamlet. The types of conflicts include conflicts between farmers and pastoralists and sometimes conflicts among herders.

This research indicates that the pastoralist move with their herds in the wet season. This is opposite to the movement as described in most literature. Also pastoralists move over shorter distances than in other studies. Land seems to be sufficient for farmers and pastoralists and land rights seem to be well defined. Major problems occur with the livestock corridors which pastoralists use to access water with their cattle. A new threat for the pastoralist is the official allocation of land rights (and water) for commercial farming purposes to people from outside the traditional communities.

Keywords: Pastoralists mobility, farmers, livestock corridors, Land division, conflicts

ii

Acknowledgements

First of all I thank GOD for the opportunity he has given me and the care he had taken upon me because he has never left me alone.

It is my sincere pleasure to thank the Director General of National Bureau of Statistics, Tanzania Ms Albina Chuwa for allowing me to attend the course.

I thank the JJ/WBGSP for providing a scholarship to me in the MSc programme at the International Institute of Geo Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC), Netherlands.

I am very grateful to my first supervisor Drs Johan de Meijere for his tremendous support and inspiration and suggestions right from the commencement of this research. I thank you very much Johan and GOD bless you.

Thanks to Ms Monica Lengoiboni my Advisor. Thank you very much Monica for your constructive comments, guidance and suggestions from the beginning of this study, this has made possible to shape this study in a more scientific way.

I further extend my appreciations to ITC lecturers and staff for their knowledge and help.

I thank the Same District Agricultural and Livestock Development Officer (DALDO) Eng. Herieli Mjema and District Executive Director Mr Juma Iddi for their permission and guidance to undertake my fieldwork in Ruvu ward. I further thank Mr Muze Msangi, Mr Omary Mhina and Mr Karim (Ruvu WEO) for providing me with necessary services, data, information and taking care of me in Ruvu Ward.

I extend my thanks to my fellow GIMLA and GEM students for 2007-2009, Roamuna Sanga (Tanzania), Edward Kurwakumire(Zimbabwe), Betty Alosa Mulianga(Kenya), Nyaradzo Chaminama (Zimbabwe), Anietie Ekpo(Nigeria), Prince Gyapong(Ghana), Theodomir Mugiraneza(Rwanda), Ary Sucaya( Indonesia), Inoka Badalge(Sri Lanka), Manoko Boshomane(South Africa), Fernando Sierra (Colombia), Le Hoang Phuong( Vietnam), Florence Lamptey(Ghana), Nab Subedi (Nepal) and Gandhi Subedi(Nepal) for their cooperation and time we spent sharing ideas.

Moreover, many thanks to my fellow Tanzanians at ITC whom we shared news, views and jokes about our nice country Tanzania, these made us feel home away from home.

GOD bless you all. Amen

iii

Table of contents

1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................11.1. Land Administration ...............................................................................................................11.2. Pastoralists ..............................................................................................................................21.3. Distribution of pastoralists in Tanzania..................................................................................21.4. Pastoralists and land tenure ....................................................................................................31.5. Trends in Tanzanian pastoralism and Land tenure.................................................................31.6. Justification of the study.........................................................................................................41.7. Research problem ...................................................................................................................41.8. Research objectives ................................................................................................................51.9. Research questions..................................................................................................................51.10. The spatio-temporal setting of the research............................................................................51.11. Research design ......................................................................................................................7

2. Literature Review.............................................................................................................................82.1. Pastoralism..............................................................................................................................82.2. Pastoralism and Mobility........................................................................................................92.3. Pastoralism and LA...............................................................................................................102.4. The Tanzania Land and Village Land Acts of 1999.............................................................122.5. Livestock migratory routes and crossing corridors...............................................................12

3. Fieldwork and Study Area..............................................................................................................143.1. Study area .............................................................................................................................143.2. General characteristics..........................................................................................................153.3. Fieldwork ..............................................................................................................................153.4. Summary of existing situation in the field............................................................................15

4. Research Methodology...................................................................................................................174.1. Case study.............................................................................................................................17

4.1.1. Definition and justification of the case study...................................................................174.2. Selection of the study area....................................................................................................174.3. Data collection procedure .....................................................................................................18

4.3.1. Field observation ..............................................................................................................184.3.2. Data collected via interviews ...........................................................................................184.3.3. Participatory Mapping......................................................................................................194.3.4. Camera..............................................................................................................................194.3.5. Data obtained....................................................................................................................194.3.6. Sampling...........................................................................................................................19

�� Data validity and quality control ..........................................................................................20�� Data processing.....................................................................................................................20�� Limitations of field data collection methods ........................................................................20

5. Analysis and findings .....................................................................................................................215.1. Community 1- Ruvu Mferejini .............................................................................................22

5.1.1. Institutional setting...........................................................................................................225.1.2. Resource base ...................................................................................................................245.1.3. Demography and Education .............................................................................................25

iv

5.1.4. Socio –economic Characteristics..................................................................................... 265.1.5. Livestock routes and Conflicts ........................................................................................ 28

5.2. Community 2- Maasai Tribe in Ruvu Jiungeni.................................................................... 315.2.1. Institutional setting .......................................................................................................... 315.2.2. Resource base .................................................................................................................. 325.2.3. Demography and Education ............................................................................................ 325.2.4. Socio –economic Characteristics..................................................................................... 345.2.5. Livestock routes and Conflicts ........................................................................................ 35

5.3. Community 3- Pare Tribe in Ruvu Jiungeni ........................................................................ 375.3.1. Institutional setting .......................................................................................................... 375.3.2. Resource base .................................................................................................................. 375.3.3. Demography and Education ............................................................................................ 385.3.4. Socio –economic Characteristics..................................................................................... 395.3.5. Livestock route and Conflicts.......................................................................................... 40

6. Summary of findings ..................................................................................................................... 417. Discussion and Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 47

7.1. Discussion ............................................................................................................................ 477.2. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 51

8. Limitations of the research, and recommendation for further research ...................................... 528.1. Limitations of the research .................................................................................................. 528.2. Recommendation for further research ................................................................................. 52

References ............................................................................................................................................. 53Appendices ............................................................................................................................................ 58

v

List of figures

Figure 1-1: Relationship between man and land in LA. ..........................................................................1Figure 1-2: Tanzania: Distribution on pastoralists...................................................................................3Figure 1-3: The spatio-temporal setting for mapping conflicts between Farmers and Pastoralists. ........6Figure 1-4: Research design.....................................................................................................................7Figure 3-1: Study area ............................................................................................................................14Figure 5-1: Ruvu Ward communities....................................................................................................21Figure 5-2: Village Institutional setting .................................................................................................22Figure 5-3: Ruvu Mferejini- Land division, Routes and Water points ..................................................23Figure 5-4: Social facilities present in Ruvu Mferejini .........................................................................26Figure 5-5: Ruvu Jiungeni - Land division, Routes and water points....................................................31Figure 5-6: Social facilities present in Ruvu Jiungeni ...........................................................................33Figure 5-7: Livestock drinking water in Pangani River .........................................................................36Figure 5-8: Livestock drinking water in the water holes .......................................................................38Figure 7-1: Ruvu Ward Grazing Areas, Livestock Corridors and location of Communities.................49

vi

List of tables

Table 4-1: Data obtained from structured questionnaires ..................................................................... 19Table 5-1: Level of education among surveyed pastoralist’s house hold heads in Ruvu Mferejini ..... 25Table 5-2: Level of education among surveyed farmer’s house hold heads in Ruvu Mferejini ........... 25Table 5-4: Farm size per surveyed household....................................................................................... 28Table 5-5: Level of education among surveyed pastoralist’s household heads in Ruvu Jiungeni........ 33Table 5-7: Farm size per surveyed household....................................................................................... 35Table 6-1: Summary of all cases ........................................................................................................... 42

vii

List of abbreviations

LA Land Administration DALDO District Agriculture and Livestock Development Officer DED District Executive Director WEO Ward Executive Officer ARU Ardhi University IRA Institute of Resources Assessment GPS Global Positioning System GIS Geographic Information systems VEO Village Executive Officer URT United republic of Tanzania VLC Village Land Council DC District Commissioner

ANALYSIS OF PASTORALISTS AND FARMERS IN NORTHERN PART OF TANZANIA FROM LAND ADMINISTRATION PERSPECTIVE.

1

1. Introduction

1.1. Land Administration

Land (LA) administration is defined as the processes of determining, recording and disseminating information about the tenure, value and use of land when implementing land management policies (UNECE 1996). The processes of land administration includes the regulating of land and property development, the use and the conservation of the land, the gathering of revenues from the land through sales, leasing and taxation; and the resolving of conflicts about the tenure and the use of the land (Dale and McLaughlin 1988). Cadastral surveying and land registration form a significant system for effective LA in a market economy. Cadastral systems contribute to social and political stability through improved tenure security. Increased security of tenure arises out of reduction inland related conflicts (Barry and Fourie-McIntosh 2001). In Tanzania, the cadastral surveys are more intense in urban areas for economic purposes than in rural areas. In the rural perspective, individual tenure systems upheld by titles have regularly been implemented with the object of improving agricultural outputs in developing countries (Shivji 1998).

Figure 1-1: Relationship between man and land in LA.


2

1.2. Pastoralists

Pastoralists are people whose livelihood depends on keeping large number of animals. These animals (termed as domesticated animals) are donkeys, horses, cattle, sheep, goats and camels, which provide meat, milk, trade and transport. The pastoralists (also known as nomads) follow a seasonal migratory pattern that can vary from time looking for water and forage for their herds. This tradition is common in rangelands where in general vegetation is very low with forage supply and its quality varying over time (FAO 1991).

Toulmin (1983), defines pastoralism as a system of production in which human and livestock live in symbolic relationship, making use of natural pastures on an extensive basis, the human population the greater part if its support from the animal kept, both directly from milk and meat and indirectly through the exchange of livestock products for other goods.

Pastoralists require large grazing areas because they keep a large number of herds. They usually represent a minority of the national inhabitants in most countries, claiming huge areas of land in states where the majority is often threatened by land shortages (Salzman 1994). Moreover, pastoralists believe that large number herd size is essential to get through the drought years (Agrawal 1995).

Pastoral mobility is the way herders have traditionally managed uncertainty and risk on arid lands (Scoones 1995). The seasonal migrations are vital for pastoralists, as rainfall and temperature patterns result in marked spatial and temporal variations in livestock grazing resources. This mobility depends on lands that are used temporarily, familiarity of ecosystem productivity potentials, and availability of pasture, water sources and migratory corridors.

Despite meeting the household’s needs, pastoralists also need large number of livestock as a means of building social alliances through transfer of livestock to friends as kin of loans. Individual families whose herds were lost to drought could be supported in replenishing their breeding stock (Cassanelli 1982).

1.3. Distribution of pastoralists in Tanzania

The Maasai are the largest pastoralist tribe in Tanzania, followed by Sukuma, Ilparakuyo and Datonga and they are mainly found in arid and semi arid regions. These regions are located in the central and northern parts of the country. In these regions, the rainfall is marginal for farming and droughts are common. Furthermore, rainfall inconsistency, both in space and time, causes irregular and unpredictable forage supply (Le Houérou and Hoste 1977; Herlocker and Dolan 1980). In recent years, these nomads are being migrating to the southern pasts of Tanzania where the annual rainfall is high to accommodate the demand of water and forage for their herds (Figure 1-2).


3

Figure 1-2: Tanzania: Distribution of pastoralistsSource: Data from Government of Tanzania- country report

1.4. Pastoralists and land tenure

Since pastoralists are found in arid and semi arid areas, they practice the spatio-temporal land use in different seasons (wet season and dry season) through mobility in search of water and forage for their livestock. They often dwell in lands within a tribal territory that are often partitioned into wet and dry season ranges (Cassanelli 1982). Wet season ranges are the result of seasonal rains and they are dominated by annual vegetation and remain waterless and uninhabited. On the other hand dry season ranges are very important areas and include pockets of highlands, riparian ecosystems, flood plains /lake shores and the tsetse infested ranges, usually considered as ‘drought grazing reserves (Oba and Lusigi 1987).

1.5. Trends in Tanzanian pastoralism and Land tenure

Tanzania became a British colony in the late 19th and early 29th centuries consecutively. From these colonial times, there is an extensive belief that pastoralism is unproductive and harmful to the region’s wild life (Goodman 2003). The increase in population of Maasai (as the largest pastoralists ethnic group in Tanzania) widened this belief, something which led to their keeping out from their traditional land and a breakdown in their land management strategies (Goodman 2003).


4

The Tanzanian land law is a result of the 1923 Land Act, drawn up by the British colonial administration. This formed the basis of Tanzania’s land legislation, granted secure land tenure to economically productive holdings while leaving the majority (the peasants and pastoralists) with community lands under customary tenure. This has led to pastoralists continual lose of land as well as the option to shift to other places when forced to do so by drought (Kaijage and Tibaijuka 1996).

The freedom of movement to graze livestock over large areas of land and access to water is very essential for pastoralists but they suffer challenges from large scale cultivation and irrigation, national boundaries, population increase tourism and conservation policies i.e. establishment of natural game reserves (Waters-Bayer and Bayer 1994). These may lead to the occurrence of conflicts due to conflicting goals and interest over the same land.

1.6. Justification of the study

The incentive of this study is how pastoralists with their perception of rights manage their cattle and the relationship between nomadic resources with farming resource.

As pastoralists follow a seasonal migratory pattern that can vary from year to year these timing and destinations of migrations are determined largely by livestock’s needs for water and fodder (Ellis and Galvin 1994). Normally pastoral societies do not create permanent dwellings, but rather they live in easily constructed residences the year round (Galaty 1990).

Historically, communal land use and freedom of movement to drought season grazing areas ensured freedom of access and use rights across wider areas, as mobile pastoralism requires. However, in Tanzania, pastoralists are currently facing shortage of grazing lands and insecurity of tenure which are driven by the expansion of agricultural farming. When land is potentially fruitful, customary title is often lost to private title (Goodman 2003).

Moreover, cadastral parcel rights which are suited for sedentary land use have been introduced to pastoralists. This has hindered seasonal migrations because ecological viability within the parcel is not sustained through out the year, bearing in mind that pastoralists keep huge herd sizes. Depletion of vegetation and ecologies which are not sustainable within cadastral parcels creates need to seasonal migrations as influenced by varying climatic conditions. This movement is not supported by cadastral parcel rights, and interaction between mobile pastoralists and sedentary land users often leads to conflict.

1.7. Research problem

Most of inhabitants in Same District are engaged in Agricultural farming and pastoralism. Ruvu ward is one of the wards located within Same District which is suffering from conflicts between farmers and pastoralists. These conflicts have been occurring since 1975 after villagization process. Both pastoralists and farmers blame each other instigating the problems.


5

Local governments from village level to District level have tried to solve these conflicts several times through discussions as well as disciplinary fines yet the conflicts persist. Many conflicts were associated with the competition of natural resources like farming and grazing lands and access to water. This involved all villagers who were mostly farmers and pastoralists.

The study is therefore intended to know where the farmers cultivate, where pastoralists graze throughout the year, types of conflicts they encounter and how do they share natural resources. Therefore, the research wants to investigate:

� The characteristics of farmers with their farming practices (in time and space); � The characteristics of pastoralists with their grazing practices (in time and space); � The nature of interactions between farmers and pastoralists in time and space ; And � How farmers and pastoralists manage their conflicts.

1.8. Research objectives

The overall objective of this research is to understand how farmers and pastoralists in Ruvu Ward share and use the natural resources. The research is sought to achieve the following sub- objectives:

1. To identify the livestock management and farming management. 2. To understand the spatio-temporal interaction patterns of farmers and pastoralists. 3. To identify the livestock routes and conflicts 4. To understand the procedures for conflicts managements and mitigation.

1.9. Research questions

(i) What institutional settings exist within the communities? (ii) What resource bases exist within the communities? (iii) What are the spatio-temporal interaction patterns of farmers and pastoralists? (iv) What types of social economic characteristics exist within the communities? (v) Are there conflicts between farmers and pastoralists? Where do these conflicts

occur? When do these conflicts occur? And; what kind of conflicts? (vi) What are the alternatives for conflicts mitigation?

1.10. The spatio-temporal setting of the research

This research focuses on the use of spatio-temporal setting to study on how pastoralists and farmers share natural resources in Ruvu Ward. This will help to map the pastoralists with their grazing practices (in time and space) and farmers with their farming practices (in time and space). This is because in space and time apparently there are conflicts of interests.


6

We have to understand what conditions needed to be fulfilled to enable resource sharing among farmers and pastoralists within a non conflicting manner.

Figure 1-3: The spatio-temporal setting for mapping conflicts between Farmers and Pastoralists.


7

1.11. Research design

The research activities were divided in three phases namely pre-field work, field work and post field work as shown in the diagram below:

Figure 1-4: Research design


8

2. Literature Review

2.1. Pastoralism

Pastoralists depend mainly on mobile livestock keeping as a livelihood strategy for survival in arid and semi arid lands. They move through places and seasons with their herds for the purpose of having sufficient pasture and water in any destination. According to Chang (1994), Chang and Koster (1986) and Dyson-Hudson and Dyson-Hudson (1980), pastoralists live in places with noticeable seasonality as a strategy for providing year-round food for their herds, and opt to shift livestock to pasturage rather than bringing fodder to herds.

Apart from meat, milk and blood for nutrition, livestock also offer pastoralists means for financing basic needs expenditures such as grains, equipment, clothing, school fees or medical charges through livestock sale or exchange of livestock products (Barrett and Luseno 2004; Bellemare and Barrett 2006; Franklin 2007). All of these profits take place on the arid and semi arid land which are dry and not profitable.

In order for them to continue to exist in arid and semi arid lands, harsh and changeable physical environment, most of East African pastoralists use range management techniques, such as pasture rotation and grazing reserves so that they can save forage for critical periods (Macopiyo 2005). According to Jacobs (1980) and Niamir (1991), the Maasai of East Africa expand their grazing radius and delay inflowing dry season areas. They also adopt opportunistic grazing practices whereby a number of livestock and stocking rates are adjusted as the wet period unfolds to best match accessible grazing resources (Hazell 1999). Some of the pastoralists split their herds into young ones like calves from the adult ones to improve productivity in the range lands. The Tigre of Eritrea, for example, regularly separate large livestock from small ones; calves and other small animals are herded near the homes on reserved pastures, while adult ones are grazed further off within daily travel (Kahsaye 2002). Herd splitting methods among the Maasai herders has resulted in reduced grazing competition amongst livestock and dispersion of grazing pressure as each type of stock was taken to the most suitable pasture (Jacobs 1980; Spear and Waller 1993; Sieff 1997).

Pastoralists normally occupy large areas of communal land and utilize kinship ties for common herding and defense (Mkutu 2004).They usually accumulate large number of livestock as a symbol for wealth status (Kandagor). Large herd sizes are also well thought-out as insurance against drought losses, thus strategy to manage and survive drought (Hidore 1977) based on theory that the large herd size a man has the better the likelihood that more of his herd will survive a drought (Oba and Lusigi 1987). In spite of the fact that, the livestock products like meat, milk, skin etc are sold in the domestic market and some are exported; the contribution of pastoralists in the economy of the country is not recognized. Most of the literature put emphasis on the failures of pastoral economies and other negative effects of pastoralism such as soil erosion due to overgrazing etc. Moreover, political and policies have opposed pastoralism because it has been viewed as environmentally destructive.


9

In 1990s, State planners in Tanzania described the migratory Maasai livestock keeping economy as being unproductive (Fratkin and Mearns 2003). The Maasai were controlled from grazing their livestock on lands converted to national game reserves created by the British, including the Serengeti Park and Ngorongoro Crater in Tanzania in 1954, and the Nairobi, Amboseli, Tsavo, Masai Mara, and Samburu National Parks in Kenya in 1948-1964 (Homewood and Rodgers 1991). In Tanzania, more severe policies were then practiced under the socialist policy of ujamaa (villagization), where Maasai engangs (homesteads) were burned, cattle confiscated, and populations forced into “livestock villages” controlling grazing and water resources (Hodgson 2001).

2.2. Pastoralism and Mobility

Pastoral mobility is one of the major habits in which African herders have historically managed uncertainty and risk in arid lands (Bassett 1986; Scoones and Graham 1994). The rain distribution in these areas is so irregular that it affects pastoralism especially in dry seasons due to insufficient supply of pasture and water. “In order to cope with the varying rainfall and forage distribution, both nomads and their animals must possess a high degree of mobility. Two aspects of mobility should be recognised. Resource exploitation mobility is undertaken in response to unpredictable forage and water availability. Escape mobility involves long distance migration to escape drought conditions. In either case, the primary objective is usually to maximise livestock survival”.(Oba, Lusigi et al. 1987)

According to Niamir (1991), pastoral seasonal mobility is one of the best adapted and useful

means of obtaining what livestock need in an ever-variable environment. Since pastoralism is adapted to variable forage supplies and water distribution, the ability of pastoralists to survive in these marginal lands is attributed to their opportunistic mobility and diversified livestock husbandry. Rainfall unpredictability, both in space and time, causes uneven and unpredictable levels of forage productivity (Le Houérou and Hoste 1977; Herlocker and Dolan 1980; Mortimore 1998).

Moreover, mobility is an advantageous tool that serves several aspects of livestock production simultaneously. One gain is the provision of both pasture and water to livestock at minimal labour and lower cost. In an extensive livestock keeping, taking livestock to feed and water, is less costly than bringing feed and water to livestock, because of lower labour demand, and lower inputs (Niamir 1991).

As the productivity in arid ecosystem is spatio-temporal in nature and highly random, mobility enables the opportunistic use of resources (Niamir-Fuller 2000). Seasonal migration of livestock helps to lessen the effects and impacts of droughts, and being able to utilize underused pastures distant from settlements, or those that are only seasonally available.


10

Despite assurance of forage and water through mobility, the pastoralists can have access to a variety of markets, symbiotic interactions with farming communities (for example, exchanging manure for feed), and cultural gatherings where livestock are part of the sociopolitical transactions. Seasonal migratory is thus, an adaptive tool that serves several aspects of livestock production simultaneously.

The pastoral seasonal mobility has proven to be the best form of land use of the highly variable and heterogeneous pastoral lands in the arid and the semi-arid regions as well as the mountain regions due to the fact that it enables the livestock to graze the diffuse and scattered vegetation of the regions’ rangelands, or to take refuge to more favorable sites during droughts (Biber-Klemm and Rass).

2.3. Pastoralism and LA

The UN Land administration (LA) guidelines (UNECE 1996) define LA as the processes of determining, recording and disseminating information about the tenure, value and use of land when implementing land management policies. Land administration processes include regulating of land and property development, utilization and conservation of land, collection of revenues from land through sales, leasing and taxation; and resolving of conflicts relating to the ownership and the use of the land (Dale and McLaughlin 1988).

According to van der Molen (2002), both these LA definitions cover the notion of ownership, value, land use and management, for the purpose of serving the society with land policy being implemented through land management activities. Land policy consists of the entire complex legal and socio economic prescription that dictate how land and benefits from land are to be allocated (Land administration Guidelines 1996). It is part of national policy on promoting objectives as well as development, social justice and equity, and political strength (Enemark 2005). These objectives are associated with security of tenure, land markets, real property taxation, sustainable management and control of land use, natural resources and environment, the provision of land for the poor, ethnic minorities and women, and measures to avoid land speculation and to handle land disputes.

As land forms a core source for livelihood and development in society, the norms and rules relating to land are very important for the growth and sustainability of a society. Security aspect is very significant that the right holder feels secure with regard to his/ her rights. Hanstad (1998) makes clear that, a landowner has security of tenure if he/ she perceive little or no likelihood of losing physical control of the land within some future time period. Yet, insecurity occurs in situations of raising probability of losing rights to land, which occur when society’s rules of tenure change or when the power of one group to protect its rights decreases while that of competing group increases. Cadastral surveying and land registration form an important system for efficient LA in a market economy. In this context LA is considered to comprise land registration and cadastral surveying and mapping (legal cadastre), fiscal and multi- purpose cadastres whose information is used to support the land use planning and valuation/land taxation systems (FIG,1995)


11

According to Fourie and Africa (2002), where the cadastre do not exist, there is also no proper planning, sustainable land use, valuation, tax, and cost recovery on services.

Generally, communal land is owned by pastoralists in a socio- spatial organisation which is composed of the household, the neighbourhood, and the section. For the case of Maasai in Tanzania, land areas have been controlled through clans, group of neighbourhoods or prophets (Laibons) with areas of different sizes. Since these areas are arid and semi arid in nature, the pastoralists migrate with their livestock in search for pastures and water, as they need to access wider areas for optimum productivity. Therefore, resource base of pastoralist’s land is not an individually owned capital, but to a certain extent a flexible asset with specific uses and access mechanisms (Sandford and Habtu 2000).

Furthermore, another issue that contributes to the marginalization of Pastoralism as an economic activity is that politicians are not eager to focus on exploring pastoral tenure issues because pastoralists are minorities whose habitat comes under uncertainly defined rules of customary tenure (Rugadya 2005). Pastoralists are simply displaced, the situation that marginalizes them further. The knowledge of how pastoral land tenure and management work and how pastoralist livelihoods strategies are positioned within this tenure have been undermined. Indigenous communities are always pushed into game reserves or onto the least productive and most difficult terrain (Kisamba-Mugerwa 1992). Adequate sources of water and forage determine sustainability of pastoralism as a form of production and a way of life; so far land is a factor over which pastoralists have no control.

Seasonal pastoral migrations are commonly high, and the associated complexities of perennially renegotiating temporary and flexible access to resources are made more problematic in a landscape that is progressively being surveyed, demarcated and allocated (Homewood 2004). Pressure over the access to land and the related issues increases competition for key resources, whether through population growth or the political economy of resource distribution. In Tanzania there are considerable tensions and conflict issues around pastoralists and agricultural farming areas.

Currently, policies and laws on game conservation and utilization through farming activities were introduced in the beginning of 1920s in Tanzania, from which land rights of resident pastoralists to graze freely were reduced through the alienation of National Parks and conservation areas, whereas alienation of land for settler farmers especially large scale wheat farming saw large tracts of land taken away from the pastoralists (Mwaikusa 1993). For example, Maasai of northern Tanzania were forced to abandon their dwelling areas under the pressure from international wildlife interests and the colonial administration, and most of them moved to the areas where grazing lands, water supplies were promised as compensation (Boesen, Fadahunsi et al. 1986). Nevertheless, even after independence of Tanzania from British colonialists in 1961, further encroachment of pastoral lands done by cultivators led to further reducing available grazing land for resident pastoralists while degraded land resulting from overgrazing was blamed on pastoralists (Mwaikusa 1993).


12

2.4. The Tanzania Land and Village Land Acts of 1999

The two new acts (the Land Act and the Village Act of 1999) were voted for and approved by the Tanzanian Parliament in April, 1999. Comprehensive studies were carried out and published before the two new acts of 1999 were enforced (McAuslan 1998; Tenga 1998; Wily 2000; Manji 2001).

With respect to Tanzanian Land Act of 1999, Tanzanian land territory is at present divided into general land (Government land), reserved land and village land. Village land refers to land with properly established and demarcated boundaries set through legal or administrative procedures mainly during the Villagization programme of 1973 and 1976.

According to (Gastorn 2003), the law divides the village land into three main categories:

(i) Communal and public use land, which is occupied and used for occupation and groups of people on a public basis.

(ii) Land for individual or family or group use under customary law

(iii) Land reserved for future communal or individual use. It should be clear that any land usually used, under customary law, for communal use, shall continue to be so even if that land territory is reserved or individually owned. This implies that interests of the community should be more important than individual interest.

Moreover, the Land and Village Land Act 1999 aimed at the decentralization of land matters (Manji 2001). The Acts attempt to regulate the methods of allocation of land by the State and the purchase of land in the market and to encourage the villages to care for their lands. Concerning the village boundaries, the land is owned individually by custom or held as common property by a group of people. The village council is responsible for adjudication, as well as for the process of registration in the Village Land Register. Village titling is carried out by Commissioner’s office and is overseen by the Village Council (Gastorn 2003), (Manji 2001) and (Wily 2000). The Council can as well enter joint land use agreements with two or more villages on shared common resources (e.g. pasture & water resources) (NLUPC 1998).

2.5. Livestock migratory routes and crossing corridors

In order for livestock keepers with their herds to be able to move from time to time in search of water and pasture, proper migratory routes and crossing corridors should be well defined so as to avoid conflicts especially when they cross farmlands. In Sahelian regions pastoralists need to roam across the southern areas which are wetter and have long established livestock corridors (Thébaud and Batterbury 2001).


13

Prohibiting of pastoralists from water and pasture, and the failure to support migration routes for pastoralists is potentially dangerous, given that they are so dependent on free movement for their animals, especially during drought (Mkutu 2004). In some parts of Pangani basin the settlement of farmers in areas that were held in reserve for livestock keeping have interfered with livestock stocking routes to cattle watering points (Mbonile 2005). Policies therefore need to guarantee that flexible movement responses to a highly spatially and temporally variable resource base are possible (Scoones 1995)

In Pangani River Basin in the North East of Tanzania, pastoral migration has led to serious water conflicts due to the convergence of pastoralists and farmers, traditional irrigation systems and large scale irrigation systems in the basin (Mbonile 2005). When the water shortage becomes permanent, and if water conflicts among stakeholders intensify, it may lead to higher mortality due to internal conflicts or to more widespread migration as is the case with the Maasai in Tanzania(Madulu, Mbonile et al. 1993; Mbonile, Mwamfupe et al. 1997) .


14

3. Fieldwork and Study Area

For this study, both primary and secondary methods of data collection were used. GPS, participatory mapping and photography as used in data collection are detailed in chapter 4 based on their applicability and usefulness towards achieving the research objectives. Study area and its characteristics are also described in this chapter.

3.1. Study area

The study area is Ruvu ward which is one of 25 wards forming Same District in Kilimanjaro Region, Tanzania. It is in the low lands of Mount Kilimanjaro. It is located between Nyumba ya Mungu Dam and junction of Ruvu River and Mkomazi. Within this ward there are two villages named Ruvu Mferejini and Ruvu Jiungeni. Furthermore, Ruvu ward is surrounded by Ruvu maasai and Kitwai Game Controlled Areas to the west bounded by Ruvu/Pangani river and to the east it is about 25km from Same township and 500km from Dar es Salaam.

Figure 3-1: Study area


15

3.2. General characteristics

Ruvu ward is relatively dry with a rainfall range of 400 and 1500 mm annually. Longer drought and short rains are the main characteristics of these areas.

According to United Republic of Tanzania 2002; census report, Ruvu Ward population was 7881 with 1959 house holds. The major ethnic groups living in the study area are Pare and Maasai. The Maasai are traditionally pastoralists while some of Pare practice pastoralism and others farming. The types of livestock that are kept by Pastoralists are cattle, goats, sheep and donkeys whereas farmers cultivate Maize, sunflower, Onions, Water melons, pepper, and beans for both food and cash purposes. Both farmers and herders depend on the Pangani/Ruvu River for irrigation as well as source of water for pastoralist’s herds. This area has been suffering from conflicts about land and water especially in dry seasons. In these conflicts, pastoralists and farmers reach the extent of fighting. These conflicts have brought a great challenge which has led to the establishment of discussions in order to build up consensus as well as to enable the users and stakeholders of water to continue with their activities in a better way while contributing to the improved water use.

3.3. Fieldwork

Pre-field work involved preparation of a checklist to be used in interviewing farmers and pastoralists separately. Data collection commenced on 15th September 2008 involving collection of information on the situation about conflicts between farmers and pastoralists. This took place at the Institute of Natural Resources (IRA) at the University of Dar es Salaam, Ministry of Lands and Human Settlements, Ardhi University (ARU), Land Use Commission and collecting Topographic maps from Surveys and Mapping Division.

This was followed by collection of data in Same District Kilimanjaro Region. Permission to collect field work in Same District was obtained from District Executive Director (DED) and District Agriculture and Livestock Officer (DALDO). Meetings were arranged with 10 local leaders, 5 from pastoralists and 5 from farmers from both villages where the purpose for the study was explained. The leaders facilitated collection of data from their areas/hamlets. Local leaders and members of other households were interviewed. The field work was completed on 18th October 2008.

3.4. Summary of existing situation in the field

� In the study area there are well defined livestock corridors of 100m width (known as Mapalio ni Kiswahili) which cross farmlands to the river. These are used by pastoralists to take their herds to the river for drinking water as well as for seasonal migration. These corridors were defined by Village Governments


16

together with Villagers (farmers and pastoralists for the purpose of reducing crossing conflicts).

� The land use division has been done in the village; farming lands are separated from grazing land. This also was done by Village governments together with village members.

� Pastoralists in Ruvu Jiungeni village have their own water holes/wells dug in their grazing areas hence they do not depend on the river as the source of water for their livestock.

� Pastoralists migrate at the start of rains from December to April to the wet season grazing areas and return to their home grazing areas at the end of rains from May to November. This is because the dry seasons are longer than rainy seasons therefore they stay with their families for long time in dry seasons.

� Farmlands are located along the river where irrigation farming is practiced.

Farmers cultivate the land throughout the year.

� The most current conflicts led to fighting and injuries and some of the pastoralists are still in jails. The source of this conflict is the extension of irrigation canal crossing the grazing areas to farming areas owned by an Indian farmer. Part of irrigation land was allocated to the Indian farmer by the Village government but due to drought he decided to work together with other farmers in constructing the irrigation canal. The pastoralists do not want this because they fear that the water will flow to their lands which will make the area greener. This may cause them to be pushed away for agricultural activities.


17

4. Research Methodology

Case study approach is employed as the study consists of three units of analysis which are communities within two villages.

4.1. Case study

The aim of case study in this research is to facilitate the understanding of pastoralists with their grazing practices (in time & space) and farmers with their cultivation practices (in time & space) within three well defined communities in Ruvu ward. For the purpose of this study, these cases are analysed separately because of their differences in location and backgrounds.

4.1.1. Definition and justification of the case study

Case study method is an empirical investigation that looks into a contemporary phenomenon within its real life context, when the boundaries between the phenomenon and its context are not clear, and which multiple sources of evidence are used (Yin 1994). This description fits appropriately to this research. According to Glesne (1999), case based research is ideal for the reason that it allows the use of various methods to obtain data, or in data analysis.

Moreover, according to Scholz and Tietje (2002), embedded case study is preferred because it is a suitable method for studies containing many units of analysis, where the purpose is to combine details of each unit of analysis into one single research. Kumar (2005) also pointed out that, the case study approach rests on the assumptions that the case being studied is typical of the case of a certain type so that, through intensive analysis, generalisations may be that will be applicable to other cases of the same type. Therefore, it is the hope of the researcher that, the results derived from this study, will also be applicable to other communities with similar characteristics to these of Ruvu ward.

Furthermore, the ‘how’ and ‘why’ types of research questions are best answered by the survey research. According to (Yin 2003), case studies are the preferred strategy when “how” or “why” questions are being posed, when the investigator has little control over events , and when the focus is on contemporary phenomenon within some real- life context.

4.2. Selection of the study area

After introducing the objective of the research to the DALDO, the researcher came to an agreement with DALDO to conduct the research in Ruvu Ward. This is due to the fact that, there is ongoing conflict between farmers and pastoralists about the construction of the irrigation canal which passes through grazing areas while pastoralists oppose this activity to pass across their grazing areas.


18

4.3. Data collection procedure

Data was collected between September 2008 and October 2008. The data were collected from both secondary and primary data sources. Literature review was done as secondary data sources to get District & ward records and statistics, reports, maps and all records related to the research subject. Primary data was collected through questionnaires and interviews. According to Kumar (2005), the primary data sources were chosen based on suitability, applicability and social economic- demographic behavior of the study population. For this study, several social economic and demographic features such as occupation, seasonal movement of herders, level of education and annual income were taken into account.

Considering the nature of the study, that focuses on the pastoral rights to access water, participatory mapping which facilitates the representation of the local peoples spatial knowledge as explained by (Corbett, Rambaldi et al. 2006) were employed. Maps are instrumental in dealing with local land use conflicts (Poole 1995). Moreover, the data was collected trough interviews, photography and GPS was used to record the locations of water points, and Education facilities, Worshiping facilities, Health facilities and markets. In participatory mapping farmers and pastoralists participated in drawing their farming areas, grazing areas and livestock crossing and seasonal migratory routes respectively on the maps.

Structured questionnaires were used to collect data from both farmers and pastoralists. For the case of Government officials, the questionnaires were not structured. �

4.3.1. Field observation

Fieldwork observation was conducted so as to validate the data collected from the interviews and participatory mapping. The researcher went to the areas where the livestock’s routes to the river or for crossing has been reduced by farmers, the location of water points, health, education and worship facilities with GPS for recording the coordinates of these facilities. Moreover, the researcher went to see the ongoing construction of irrigation canal which across the grazing area where there is an existing conflict. The camera was used to take photographs of water holes/wells used as water sources for herders. This activity gave the researcher live situation existing in the study areas. �

4.3.2. Data collected via interviews

Structured questionnaires were used to collect data from both farmers and pastoralists. This was done as follows through both open and closed ended questions. Farmers were asked questions about their farming calendars, main drivers of conflicts, opinion about the existing land use, and relationship to pastoralists, land tenure status, average monthly income, encounters (conflicts & peace) and opinions about land registration.

Through both open and closed ended questions, pastoralists were asked questions about presence and idea of conflict, main drivers of conflict, opinion about existing land use,


19

community growth & its future, relationship to farmers, whether they move over the same route, presence of water points along the routes, characteristics of original and destination grazing areas for pastoralism, overgrazing issues, pest and diseases, herd size, extension supports and markets. However, some of the Maasai could not speak Kiswahili language therefore an interpreter was used when interviewing the group.

However, unstructured questionnaires were used to interview Government officials. Through open ended questions, the Government officials such as District Agricultural and Livestock Development Officer (DALDO), Wards Executive Officer (WEO) and Ward Livestock Extension Officer were asked questions on the frequencies of occurrences of conflicts, measures to solve conflicts, types of conflicts that are caused by farmers and pastoralists. �

4.3.3. Participatory Mapping

This was done by both pastoralists and farmers. Through participatory mapping, pastoralists drew their migration routes for both wet and dry seasons on the 1:50,000 topographic maps. Farmers were also able to show on the map their farming areas. �

4.3.4. Camera

A Camera was used to capture photographs.

4.3.5. Data obtained

The data obtained from structured questionnaires are shown in the table below

Table 4-1: Data obtained from structured questionnaires No No. of questionnaires From Village name. 1 15 Farmers Ruvu Mferejini 2 15 Farmers Ruvu Jiungeni 3 10 Pastoralists Ruvu Mferejini 4 10 Pastoralists Ruvu Jiungeni- Pare tribe 5 9 Pastoralists Ruvu Jiungeni- Maasai Total 59

Likewise, the route map, photos and coordinates of public amenities are in place (See Appendix 6 &7)�

4.3.6. Sampling

Sampling consists of selection of a few parts of population to observe so that one can estimate population parameters and draw conclusion about the population (Heckman 1979; Gilks and Wild 1992; Glesne 1999). A survey might be complete, covering the entire


20

intended population, or incomplete when the population is large and it would be too expensive to question everyone (Pratt and Loizos 1992).

For this study, households were sampled randomly by the local leaders. Both villages had four hamlets therefore four households were chosen from each hamlet for both farmers and pastoralists. Generally sampling units have many attributes, one or more which are relevant to the research problem (Frankfort-Nachmias 1996) �� Data validity and quality control��

The fieldwork notes made during interviews and focus group sessions were written out and compared with findings from the questionnaires. Additionally, the comparison was made to the secondary data sources on the particular topic in order to remove doubts. In the data processing, different types of checks and comparisons must be a regular practice (Teppo, Pukkala et al. 1994).

�� Data processing��

The data collected by questionnaires as well as GPS coordinates were entered in the spreadsheet. The GPS coordinates of social services together with their attributes were converted into Dbase 4 format so as to establish a spatial connection into ArcGIS software. Digitization process of livestock routes, farmlands and grazing areas were also done at this stage by using ArcGIS software. It was then possible to visualize the farming and grazing areas, livestock migration routes and corridors, spatial distribution of water points and social services facilities.

�� Limitations of field data collection methods�

Due to the fact that, some of pastoralists from Maasai tribe could not speak Kiswahili, it was necessary to employ an interpreter for the whole exercise. In this situation, it is likely that the responses given were not correct. For example, people from this community believe that, when they reveal the number of their herds, their livestock will die hence they will end up with poverty.

Secondly, some of people from the target group refused to respond to the questions. These people complained that several researches had been conducted into their areas but yet they did not see any changes or developments in their areas brought by those researches.

Although there were limitations as stated above, enough caution was taken in collecting the mainly suitable data as was possible within the constraints of the research setting. The analysis and results derived from the data is presented in chapter five.


21

5. Analysis and findings

Three Pastoralists communities were identified as units of analysis for this study. One from Ruvu Mferejini Village and two from Ruvu Jiungeni Village (figure 5-1).

Figure 5-1: Ruvu Ward communities


22

5.1. Community 1- Ruvu Mferejini

In this community, there are pastoralists whose tribe is Maasai and farmers who are mostly from Pare tribe. The community is located in Ruvu Mferejini village which is 25km from Same Township. Since the Village is near the urban area, the transport infrastructure like roads is in good condition and passable throughout the year.

The major economic activities in this community are farming and pastoralism.

5.1.1. Institutional setting

Ruvu Mferejini falls within Ruvu Ward. The village is headed by the elected village Chair person who executes his/her duties with the help of equally elected hamlets chair persons. There is also Village Executive Officer (VEO), a District Council employee who performs Village administrative duties in cooperation with village Chair. Village leadership reports to the Ward Executive Officer (WEO) who is also an employee of the District Council deployed at the ward level. A Ward Councillor elected by residents of the ward represents ward affairs at Same District Council. Studies by Ojalammi (2006) about Land disputes in Semi arid parts of northern Tanzania found a relatively similar institutional setting.

As shown in the figure below, the smallest administrative unit in the village is Hamlet whereas the highest level is the Village Assembly.

Figure 5-2: Village Institutional setting

The Village Land Council which is formed under the Land Act and Village Land Act 1999 deals with all land related disputes where conflicting parties are mediated so as to reach a


23

mutual understanding (URT 1999). However, if no mutual understanding is reached at this level, disputes are forwarded to the ward level for further action.

A village council is authorized to maintain a register of village land in accordance with any rules which may be prescribed by the Minister from time to tome, and the VEO will be responsible for keeping that register. Village Land Advisory Committee which falls under village council, deals with all issues related to Village land from adjudication to registration. Both pastoralists and farmers are found in Ruvu Mferejini village. Since the major land use is farming and pastoralism, there is a land use division done by farmers and pastoralists with the support of the Village Government in order to separate grazing land from farming land. This land division was done in the year 1975 during villagelization, where the farmers were given land which is close to the river while pastoralists were given the dry land with very few water points (figure 5- 3). Arrangements between farmers and pastoralists were also done to define a livestock route of 100m width (known as Mapalio ni Kiswahili) to the river for drinking water or shifting during rainy season.

Figure 5-3: Ruvu Mferejini- Land division, Routes and Water points


24

5.1.2. Resource base

In Sandford and Habtu (2000) and Thébaud and Batterbury (2001), it is highlighted that the resource base of pastoral land is a flexible asset with explicit uses and access mechanisms but not individually owned asset.

Area names The original communal grazing (home) area is known as Terite with an area of about 30,000ha where the pastoralists graze in dry seasons starting May to November. They graze in this home area during this dry season (which is mostly longer than wet season) so as to spend much time with their families. The wet season area (destination communal area) is known as Bagamoyo with an area of about 17,000ha and the grazing period during rainy seasons is normally between December to April.

Additionally, in some years, there are occurrences of very long droughts which cause the herders to shift before the rains begin. At this time, there is no pasture hence the only solution is to shift to the Game Controlled Areas by crossing the Ruvu/Pangani River.

Livestock The types of livestock kept by this community are cattle, sheep, goats and donkeys which provide milk, meat, transport and money to the herders.

Diseases and pests From the field surveys most of respondents said that the major problem affecting their livestock is pest and diseases. Sieff (1999) on the study about the effects of wealth on livestock dynamics among the Datoga pastoralists of Tanzania, came out with similar observation. These diseases are brain fever, lung diseases, foot & mouth diseases and tick borne diseases. Moreover, there are no livestock extension services provided by the government thus when the livestock gets sick, the only solution is either slaughtering or selling. Some of these diseases are not curable especially brain fever.

Farms The farms are located along the river (figure 5- 3) with customary tenure status. According to studies done by Mwangi and Dohrn (2006), similar observations were found showing that dry land cultivators are usually located close to water resources (rivers, wells, reservoirs. This situation has also been seen in this case study that farmlands are close to the river.

From the field survey, most of the farmers responded that the soil fertility in their farms is affected by some minerals which are brought by floods hence causing crops not to grow. They added that prolonged farming is another factor that contributes to loss of soil fertility. Smaling and Nandwa (1997) conducted a research and observed the similar situation that farmers continue to deplete soil nutrients provided that the land provides them enough food and money to make it through the year. This is comparable to my case as farmers do not apply either fertilizer or manure during their farming activities.


25

Water The major source of water in Ruvu Mferejini for both farmers and pastoralists is Ruvu/ Pangani River. Mbonile (2005) obtained a similar observation in a study about migration and intensification of water conflicts in the Pangani Baisn-Tanzania. There are also three protected wells with pumps as a water source for domestic purposes which are located within the settlements.

Climate As Ruvu Mferejini has a relatively dry area (see chapter 3) it is characterised by long droughts and short rains.

5.1.3. Demography and Education

Population According to the United Republic of Tanzania (URT 2002) census report, Ruvu Mferejini’s population was 4181 with 1048 households and the average household size was 4 people. This is the total population of both farmers and pastoralists.

Education and Infrastructure The findings from the field surveys show that, the majority of household heads have some primary education and some of them have no education at all. According to Table 5-1, at least 60% of the surveyed household heads for pastoralists have primary education and 40% heads reported having not being to school. For the case of farmers, at least 80% of surveyed household’s heads have primary education and only 20% with no education (Table 5-2).

Table 5-1: Level of education among surveyed pastoralist’s house hold heads in Ruvu Mferejini Level of education(Pastoralists) Frequency Percent Primary 6 60 Secondary 0 0 No schooling 4 40 Total 10 100

Table 5-2: Level of education among surveyed farmer’s house hold heads in Ruvu Mferejini Level of education(Farmers) Frequency Percent Primary 12 80 Secondary 0 0 No schooling 3 20 Total 15 100

In Ruvu Mferejini, there are 4 Primary schools, 1 Nursery school, 6 Churches, 1 mosque and 3 protected wells with pumps (Figure 5-4).


26

Figure 5-4: Social facilities present in Ruvu Mferejini

5.1.4. Socio –economic Characteristics

From the survey, most of respondents said they live together as neighbors in the same village. The pastoralists get maize from farmers and farmers get milk and meat from pastoralists. Similar outcome was obtained by Thébaud and Batterbury (2001) in their study about Sahel pastoralists, which shows that in dry seasons herds provide low milk yields, hence forcing herders to sell livestock at local markets in order to purchase cereals.

In addition, both farmers and pastoralists always participate together in all development activities like construction of schools, health facilities, churches and mosques etc

Economy Economic and income generating activities within Ruvu Mferejini include agricultural farming, pastoralism and small business activities like retail shops, restaurants and gardening.


27

1. Livestock Management

Types and size As we have seen earlier (in Section 5.1.2 about Livestock), the types of livestock kept by this community are cattle, sheep, goats and donkeys with the average herd size of about 83 livestock ( Appendix 3).

Livestock routes and ManagementAccording to the discussions from a focus group, pastoralists tend to shift from one place to another in different seasons as influenced by climatic conditions. This has been also seen in the literature review chapter. Pastoralists shift at the start of rains in order to reserve the pasture to be used in dry season at their home grazing areas. The route length to the destination area (Bagamoyo) is about 20km and they move through different routes.

Furthermore, most of the respondents mentioned that there are some long-standing droughts like the one which occurred in the year 2005 which caused the deaths of a large number of livestock. When this happens, herders migrate to Ruvu Maasai Game Controlled Areas by crossing the river (figure5-3).

Marketing and Income According to field survey, frequency of selling livestock seems to be very irregular. This is in line with Turner and Williams (2002) in their study on Livestock Market Dynamics and Local Vulnerabilities in the Sahel. Livestock market is located at Ruvu Jiungeni Village in the place known as Kombo, about 20km from Ruvu Mferejini.

In accordance with the pastoralists’ economy and income (Appendix 3): � The prices of cattle range between TShs 400,000 to TShs 500,000 � The household monthly income range from TShs 60,000 to TShs 250,000 � The average household income is TShs 124,000 per month

Pastoralist’s future Pertaining to the opinion about the pastoralist’s future, the respondents claimed their future is affected by conflicts, pests and diseases. These pests and diseases kill a number of livestock hence contributing to the shrinking of pastoralist’s economy. A similar study was conducted by Duany (1999) who found a relatively similar situation that pastoralists of East Africa practise non-pastoral income strategies to meet consumption needs and to support themselves against risky shocks caused by climatic fluctuation, animal disease, improper market, and insecurity.


28

2. Farming Management

With regards to cultivation periods, most respondents said that they practice irrigation farming and they cultivate throughout the year. Studies have stated that Smallholder irrigation in Pangani basin ranges from traditional furrows through enhanced furrows to much more modernized irrigation schemes (Turpie, Ngaga et al. 2005). Major crops cultivated are maize, sunflower, onions, water melons, pepper and beans for both food and commercial needs.

Table 5-4: Farm size per surveyed household Farm size in ha

Frequency Percent

1-5 6 40 6-10 5 33 Above 10 4 27 Total 15 100

Marketing and IncomeFrom discussions with focus groups, the majority said that prices of their farm produces are very low compared to production costs. There is only one local market which is located in the District Township. This market is small with few customers who are mostly District Council employees. As cultivation is practiced throughout the year, there is a flux of farm produce in the market that leads to inflation as there are fewer customers than suppliers. This situationhas shrunk the farmer’s earning further. From the fieldwork data, the following has been observed about farmer’s income in Tshs:

� Household monthly income range from 25,000/= to 250,000 /= � Average income of 97,000/= per month (This is lower than that earned by

pastoralists).

Farmer’s future From field surveys, farmer’s future is affected by conflicts, floods and poor selling prices of their farm produces.

5.1.5. Livestock routes and Conflicts

According to the data from both primary and secondary sources, it has been clear that pastoralists and farmers encounter conflicts.

Grazing and irrigation conflicts From field surveys, 93% of farmers encounter conflicts during their farming activities. Respondents said pastoralists tend to graze into the farms which are left to fallow without the permission of the owners.

In average, 73% of farmers own land ranging from 1 to 10ha and 27% have more than 10 ha who mostly are the earliest inhabitants.


29

Moreover, it has been clear from the field interviews that the main group which takes care of livestock to the river or grazing areas is children. Due to childhood negligence or size of the flock; they fail to take good care of livestock from encroaching into other people’s farms. Mandara (2007), observed the same situation when she was studying on conflicts over pastoral resources in Babati- Tanzania.At the time of fieldwork, there was a conflict which had led to fighting and injuries and some of the pastoralists were still in prison. The source of this conflict was the ongoing project whereby indigenous farmers support an Indian farmer (the stranger) to extend an irrigation canal which crosses the grazing areas to the farm owned by the Indian. The Indian farmer was given a farmland far from the river hence there was a need to construct a canal so as to practice irrigation farming. Pastoralists did not want this canal to pass through their grazing areas because they feared that their land would be green hence causing them to be pushed away for agricultural activities. Turpie and Ngaga (2005) in their study on the values of water resources in the Pangani basin found the same that the arrival of agriculture community led to the construction of a first furrow in 1976 which later led to the loss of grazing land. The area was similar to this case study.

Crossing conflict Secondary data from DALDO, WEO and VEO show that farmers tend to reduce the width of livestock grazing corridors (as defined in chapter 3) so as to enlarge their farmlands, thus causing problems in crossing because the large number of herds cannot be accommodated. As a result, some of the livestock pass across the farms and destroy crops as well as irrigation infrastructures. This situation contributes to the conflicts at some point at the time of crossing farmlands to the river for water and during seasonal migrations as well.

From the field survey, most of respondents also said they encounter conflicts at the crossing point in December when the pastoralists shift, in April when they come back to their original grazing areas and every day in the dry period ( especially when there are crops in the fields) when they go to the river for water.

Management of conflicts The village community in the study area has the Village leadership, social structure and system (figure 5-2) that administer their general lives. According to the Tanzania Land Act and Village Land Act on conflict resolution, the Act makes special provisions for the establishment of a Village Land Council “to mediate between and assist parties to arrive at a mutually acceptable resolution on any matters concerning village land” (s. 60). For some reason, its jurisdiction has been limited to cases related to land sharing arrangements with other villages (s. 11), or land sharing arrangements between pastoralists and agriculturalists (s. 58). The Village Land Council shall consist of seven people, to be nominated by the Village Council and approved by the Village Assembly. Three of the members shall be women. The Village Land Council is not a village land court like the Elders’ Land Council recommended by the Land Commission (Baraza la Wazee la Ardhi). Firstly, its jurisdiction is severely limited, and secondly, it only functions in a mediating capacity. Its brief is to assist


30

the aggrieved parties to arrive at a mutually acceptable solution. In the event that this is not possible, the conflict may be referred to the courts. In other words, the parties to the dispute are not compelled to follow the recommendation of the Village Land Council. It is also noteworthy that the Act explicitly states that: “No person or non-village organization shall be compelled or required to use the services of the Village Land Council for mediation in any dispute concerning village land.” (s. 61 (6)) (URT 1999).

The most common practice found in the study area is to charge disciplinary fines to those who disobey the Village bylaws on land use. The measure to charge fines is conducted by VEOs and WEOs on behalf of District Council. Although the VEO and WEO are responsible for resolution of Village land conflicts, some times the District Commissioner participates in conflict resolution meetings.

Another practice includes negotiation between conflicting parties with local leaders and Village Land Council (VLC). All conflicting parties meet for discussion and negotiations over the conflicting matters. After discussions, the party found on the wrong side of the law is warned not to repeat the mistake again. However, when one party is not satisfied on the measures taken, the discussion is repeated on the same day or another date depending on the availability of time and evidences. Studies by (Mkutu 2004) found the same in northern Uganda, where the Karimojang leaders makes decisions through decisions and debates in order to solve communal conflicts. Furthermore, according to studies conducted by Duany (1999) in Nuer- Sudan came out with relatively comparable observations that, in some parts of Africa traditional systems of negotiation and conflict resolution continue to function.


31

5.2. Community 2- Maasai Tribe in Ruvu Jiungeni

The pastoralists in this community are from Maasai tribe and farmers are mostly from Pare tribe. The community is located in Ruvu Jiungeni village which is about 51km from Same Township. The transport infrastructure like roads is not in good condition but passable throughout the year.

The major economic activities in this community are farming and pastoralism.


As Ruvu Jiungeni falls within Ruvu Ward, the institutional setting is like in the first case

Figure 5-5: Ruvu Jiungeni - Land division, Routes and water points


32

5.2.2. Resource base

Area names The name of home grazing area for this community is Meserani with an area of about 20,000ha where the pastoralists graze in dry seasons starting May to November. The name of wet season grazing area is Lalilai in Simanjiro District (Game Controlled Areas) with the area of above 30,000ha. They normally graze in this area during rain seasons which is from December to April (figure 5- 5).

Livestock The types of livestock kept by this community are the same as those kept in community 1.

Diseases and pests The diseases and pests affecting pastoralism in this community are the same as in community 1.

Farms Like in case 1 with additions that extensive farming is without applying manure or fertilizer during cropping contributes to the loss of soil fertility. Studies by Hilhorst and Muchena (2000), came out with similar results that high loss of nutrients through leaching and volatilisation are common features of some intensive farming in Europe.

Water Sources of water for this community are similar to case 1 with slight difference that there are two protected wells (with pumps) for domestic purposes.

Climate The climate is similar to that of community 1 since these communities are located in the same Ward.


Population Ruvu Jiungeni’s population was 3700 with 911 households with the average household size of 4.1 people (URT 2002).

Education and Infrastructure With regard to field surveys, most of household heads have primary education and some of them have no education at all. According to Table 5-5, at least 56% of the surveyed household heads for pastoralists have primary education and 43% heads reported having not been to school. For the case of farmers, all respondents had primary education.


33

Table 5-5: Level of education among surveyed pastoralist’s household heads in Ruvu Jiungeni Level of education (Pastoralists) Frequency Percent Primary 5 56 Secondary 0 0 No schooling 4 44 Total 9 100

In Ruvu Jiungeni, there are 2 Primary schools, 6 Churches, 2 protected wells (with pumps), 1 mosque and 1 livestock market (Figure 5-6)

Figure 5-6: Social facilities present in Ruvu Jiungeni


34


The Socio- economic characteristics in this community is the same as in case 1.

Economy The economic and income generating activities within this community are similar to community 1.


Types and size The types of livestock are similar to those found in case 1 with the average herd size of about 91 livestock (Appendix 4).

Livestock routes and ManagementLike in case 1, the slight differences are that their home grazing area name is Meserani and the wet season grazing area name is Lalilai in Simanjiro District (which is a Game Controlled Area). The length of the route from Meserani to Lalilai-Simanjiro is about 40km.

Marketing and Income Frequency of selling livestock and the location of market are similar to that of community 1.

Concerning income, the findings (Appendix 4) from the field survey show that: � The average prices of cattle ranges between TShs 400,000 to TShs 500,000 � The household monthly income ranges from TShs 70,000 to TShs 300,000 � The average household income is TShs 141,111 per month

Pastoralist’s future Majority of the focus group said their future is threatened by the drought, and diseases which contribute to the mortality of calves and adult cattle. The herders added that, their sustainability is affected by the death of calves when they walk for 4 hours in search of water in severe drought season. They sometimes use bicycle to take them (calves) to the water points and back home. Studies by McCabe (1987) about “Drought and recovery” in Turkana Kenya came out with an observation that the mortality rate of calves and adult cattle is high because of droughts and diseases.


The farming and management are the same as in case 1 with minor differences in farm sizes as indicated in table 5-7.


35

Table 5-7: Farm size per surveyed household Farm size in ha

Frequency Percent

1-5 2 13 6-10 7 47 Above 10 6 40 Total 15 100

Marketing and Income This is like in case 1 with some minor differences in income.

From fieldwork data, the following has been observed about farmer’s income in Tshs: � Household monthly income range from 30,000/= to 250,000 /= � Average income of 100,000/= per month (This is lower than that earned by

pastoralists).

Farmer’s future The farmer’s future in this community is the same as that of community 1. However, the focus group added that they perceive the conflicts between them and pastoralists as uncertainty to their farming activities. This may cause hunger and sometimes killings among the community members since they will engage in fighting rather than farming and livestock keeping.

Additionally, through discussions with the focus group, it was revealed that farming activities depend on the level of water in the river; if the level is low farmers are affected because the water for irrigation will decrease and subsequently poor harvests.

5.2.5. Livestock routes and Conflicts

Like in the case of community 1, pastoralists and farmers also encounter conflicts as explained below.

Grazing and irrigation conflicts 94% of farmers encounter conflicts during their farming activities.

Crossing conflict Conflicts in this community are similar to that of community 1 with slight difference that pastoralists in this community migrate by crossing the farmlands and river through corridors while community 1 does not. Figure 5-7 shows livestock drinking water in the river.

According to table 5-7, 60% of farmers own land ranging from 1 to 10ha and 40% has more than 10 ha.


36

Figure 5-7: Livestock drinking water in Pangani River

Management of conflicts The management of conflict in this community is the same as that of community 1 since they are found in the same ward.


37

5.3. Community 3- Pare Tribe in Ruvu Jiungeni

The pastoralists in this community are from Pare tribe and most of farmers are also from Pare tribe. The community is also located in Ruvu Jiungeni village which is about 51km from Same Township.

The major economic activities in this community are farming and pastoralism as in other discussed communities.


The institutional setting of this community is the same as that of community 2 since they are within the same village. 5.3.2. Resource base

Area names The home grazing area is known as Tiftif with an area of about 200,00ha where the pastoralists graze in dry seasons starting from May to November. The wet season grazing area is the same with community 2.

Livestock The types of livestock kept by this community are like that kept by community 1 and 2.

Diseases and pests According to field findings, diseases and pests affecting livestock in this community are the same as that affecting other discussed communities.

Water The major source of water in this pastoralist community is water holes drilled within the grazing area (Figure 5-8). Herders take one flock at a time for water in the holes. There are also two protected wells (with pumps) as water sources for domestic purposes.


38

Figure 5-8: Livestock drinking water in the water holes


Population Population is the same as that of community 2 since they are within the same village.

Education and Infrastructure The findings from the field surveys, 100% of respondents from household’s heads in Pare pastoralist’s community reported to have primary education.


39


Socio-economic characteristics are similar to the previous discussed communities.

Economy The economic and income generating activities within this community is like that of community 1 and community 2.


Types and size The types of livestock kept by this community are the same as that of community 1 and community 2 with the average herd size of about 88 livestock (Appendix 5).

Routes and ManagementPastoralists in this community shift in the same period like community 2. Their home grazing area is known as Tiftif and wet season grazing area is the Lalilai which is about 60km away.

Marketing and Income Like in case 1 and case 2, frequency of selling livestock looks to be very irregular.

Concerning the income, the findings from the field survey (Appendix 5) show that: � The average prices of cattle ranges between TShs 400,000 to TShs 500,000 � The household monthly income ranges from TShs 45,000 to TShs 2500,000 � The average household income is TShs 150,500 per month

Pastoralist’s future From the opinions about the pastoralist’s future, the factors affecting their future are like in case 2. They added that there is no livestock extension service in their grazing areas as well as along the routes. They spend a lot of money to buy some medicine and injections for treating their livestock themselves. Their future could be better if livestock extension services could be provided by the Government.


The farming and management are the same as in case of community 2 since they are in the same village.


40

5.3.5. Livestock route and Conflicts

Like in community 2, farmers and pastoralists encounter conflicts.

Grazing and irrigation conflicts

From the field surveys, farmers encounter conflicts during their farming activities. When there is no pasture in grazing lands in dry seasons, pastoralists tend to bring their herds into farmlands during the night and leave early in the morning. Farmers added that, some of the leaders of the village council are bribed by the livestock keepers in order to allow them to graze in the farmlands. Moreover, like in case 1 and case 2 the main group which takes care of livestock to the river or grazing areas is children.

Discussions with pastoralists’ focus group revealed that, sometimes the farmers tend to cultivate in the grazing areas that are reserved for dry season. When pastoralists come back and find crops in these grazing lands, they continue grazing because it is the farmer’s fault.

Field findings have shown that, sometimes conflicts arise amongst different pastoralist’s communities from the same village. These communities come to an agreement on the date to migrate to the wet season grazing areas at the start of rains. Some of them tend to violate this agreement and shift earlier than the others so that their herds can benefit more from the available pasture in the destination. This violation of the agreement contributes to conflicts in the wet season grazing area (Lalilai- Simanjiro).

Crossing conflict

Crossing conflicts are similar to that of community 1 and 2 with a bit difference that they encounter conflicts only at the crossing point in December when the pastoralists shift and in May when they come back to their home grazing areas. This is due to the fact that they do not go to the river for water every day since they have their own water holes.

Management of conflicts The management of conflict in this community is the same as that of community 2.


41

6. Summary of findings

This chapter summarises the findings from the study areas and brings them together in an overview. Similarities and differences will be discussed thereby finding answers to the research questions. Then a discussion is presented considering limitations of this study.

The findings are summarised in table 6-1. The first column relates to the (main) research questions and covers

1. Institutional setting 2. Resource base 3. Demography and education 4. Socio economic characteristics and resource use 5. Routes and conflicts 6. Conflict management

The discussion on each of these themes will allow drawing some conclusions for the general objective of the research which was to understand how farmers and pastoralists in Ruvu Ward share and use natural resources.

AN

ALY

SIS

OF

PA

STO

RA

LIS

TS A

ND

FA

RM

ER

S IN

NO

RTH

ER

N P

AR

T O

F TA

NZA

NIA

FR

OM

LA

ND

AD

MIN

ISTR

ATI

ON

PE

RS

PE

CTI

VE

.

42

Tabl

e 6-

1: S

umm

ary

of a

ll ca

ses

No

Cha

ract

eris

tics

Com

mun

ity 1

C

omm

unity

2

Com

mun

ity 3

1

Inst

itutio

nal s

ettin

g

Res

ourc

e ba

se:

Hom

e (d

ry s

easo

n)

graz

ing

area

Terit

e.

Hom

e ar

ea g

razi

ng: 3

0,00

0 ha

D

ista

nce

to ri

ver:

9

km

Farm

ing

area

1

3,00

0Ha

Mes

eran

i H

ome

area

gra

zing

: 20,

000

ha

Dis

tanc

e to

rive

r: 1

4km

Fa

rmin

g ar

ea

12,

000

Ha

Tifti

f H

ome

area

gra

zing

: 20,

000h

a D

ista

nce

to ri

ver:

23km

Wet

seas

on g

razi

ng a

rea

Bag

amoy

o: 1

7,00

0Ha

La

lilai

- Gam

e co

ntro

lled

area

, Sim

anjir

o: A

bove

30,

000h

a

2

Wat

er so

urce

for l

ives

tock

Riv

er.

W

ater

hol

es/w

ells

dug

in th

e gr

azin

g ar

eas.

Popu

latio

n is

418

1 w

ith 1

048

hous

ehol

ds.

Popu

latio

n is

370

0 w

ith 9

11 h

ouse

hold

s.

Past

oral

ists

: 60%

hav

e pr

imar

y ed

ucat

ion

and

40%

hav

e no

edu

catio

n.

56%

hav

e pr

imar

y ed

ucat

ion

and

43%

hav

e no

edu

catio

n.

100%

of p

asto

ralis

ts h

ave

prim

ary

educ

atio

n.

Past

oral

ist’

s Tri

be: M

aasa

i Fa

rmer

s tri

be:

Pare

Pa

stor

alis

t’s T

ribe

: Par

e

Farm

ers t

ribe

:

Par

e

3 D

emog

raph

y an

d E

duca

tion

Farm

ers:

80%

hav

e pr

imar

y ed

ucat

ion

and

20%

has

no

educ

atio

n.

100%

hav

e pr

imar

y ed

ucat

ion.

AN

ALY

SIS

OF

PA

STO

RA

LIS

TS A

ND

FA

RM

ER

S IN

NO

RTH

ER

N P

AR

T O

F TA

NZA

NIA

FR

OM

LA

ND

AD

MIN

ISTR

ATI

ON

PE

RS

PE

CTI

VE

.

43

Ave

rage

her

d si

ze ra

ge fr

om 8

3 to

91

lives

tock

.

Past

oral

ists

: Ave

rage

hh

inco

me

rang

es fr

om T

Shs 1

24,0

00 to

TSh

s 150

,500

per

mon

th.

4 So

cio-

eco

nom

ic

char

acte

rist

ics

Farm

ers:

Ave

rage

hh

inco

me

rang

es fr

om

TShs

97,

000/

= to

100

,000

/= p

er m

onth

.

Con

flict

s whe

n pa

stor

alis

ts c

ross

farm

land

s dai

ly to

the

river

. C

ross

ing

durin

g se

ason

al

mig

ratio

n.

Con

flict

s due

to m

igra

ting

earli

er th

an th

e ag

reed

dat

e.

5 R

oute

s and

Con

flict

s

Con

flict

due

to c

onst

ruct

ion

of ir

rigat

ion

cana

l acr

oss g

razi

ng a

reas

.

6 C

onfli

ct m

anag

emen

t Th

ere

are

inst

itutio

nal w

ays o

n ho

w to

man

age

the

conf

licts

.


44

Institutional settings exist within the communities

Ruvu Ward is composed of two villages which are Ruvu Mferejini and Ruvu Jiungeni. Each village is headed by the elected village Chair person who executes his/her duties with the help of equally elected hamlets chair persons. In each village there is also Village Executive Officer (VEO), a District Council employee who performs Village administrative duties in cooperation with village Chair. Village leadership reports to the Ward Executive Officer (WEO) who is also an employee of the District Council deployed at the ward level. A Ward Councillor elected by residents of the ward represents ward affairs the District Council.

The smallest administrative unit in the village is Hamlet whereas the highest level is the Village Assembly which is formed by all adult members of the village. A Village Assembly is the supreme power on all matters of general policy-making in relation to the affairs of the village as such, and is responsible for the election of the village council and the removal from the council of any or all of the members of the council and for the performance of any other functions conferred upon it by law.

The Village Land Council deals with all land related disputes where conflicting parties are mediated so as to reach a mutual understanding and if no mutual understanding is reached at this level, disputes are forwarded to the ward level for further actions.

A village council is authorized to maintain a register of village land in accordance with any rules asprescribed by the Minister from time to time, and the VEO is responsible for keeping that register. Village Land Advisory Committee which falls under village council, deals with all issues related to Village land from adjudication to registration.

Both pastoralists and farmers are found in Ruvu Ward. Since, the major land use is farming and livestock keeping, there is a land division which has taken place in order to separate grazing land from farming land. This was done in the year 1975 during villagelization programme where the farmers were given land which is close to the river while pastoralists were given the dry lands away from the river. All parties accepted the land division since they participated in the process and it has contributed to the reduction of frequency of conflicts occurrence.

There are also well defined livestock corridors of 100m width to the river for drinking water or shifting during rainy season.

The institutional setting exists and works properly in the study area also to mange conflicts which occur from time to time.

Resource bases existing within the communities

Ruvu Ward has a relatively dry area which is characterized by long droughts and short rains. The major source of water for both farmers and pastoralists is Ruvu/ Pangani River.


45

Communities 1 and 2 depend on the river for their livestock whereas Community 3 has their own hand dug water holes/ wells along their grazing areas. At the start of rains, communities 2 and 3 migrate to Lalilai- Game Controlled Areas by crossing the river while community 1 move to Bagamoyo.

The types of livestock kept by these communities are cattle, sheep, goats and donkeys which provide milk, meat, transport and money to the herders. However, the major problem affecting livestock is pests and diseases like brain fever, lung diseases, foot & mouth diseases and tick borne diseases.

The farms are located along the Ruvu/Pangani River with customary tenure status. Most of farmers practice irrigation farming and cultivate throughout the year.

The farmers from the area do not seem to wish to expand their farm lands. The water is the limiting resource which only with great effort and costs can be brought to areas further way from the river.

The division of land for cultivation by farmers and for pastoralists was decided already by 1975. The amount of pastoralist land is sufficient for the pastoralist communities as homestead areas. They leave the areas in the wet season so that grass and shrubs can grow to be a resource for the dry season. Pastoralists count also with the resource base in the target areas. These are not explicitly mentioned in the land division as agreed but are accepted in the communities based on old traditions and as customary types of rights. The fact that some of these target grazing areas became part of the National Park (in 1980s) did not change the habit of the pastoralist to move to these areas during the wet season. This seems to indicate that they consider these areas still as accessible by customary rights and traditions.

The conflict that recently arose on the proposed irrigation canal for a new (large) farming area within the pastoralist area in community 1 is caused by the claim of a non-resident outsider who apparently is able to invest and get the legal documents on the land in order to become owner/user of the land. The resistance of pastoralist (and farmers) against this development is understandable. As the claim on the land seems to be formally arranged already, the only means left to object to this development is via the access to water.

Demography and education

Based from field surveys data, the tribal, cultural and social differences can be observed. The education of farmers tends to be slightly higher than of pastoralist. Also in social status the farmers seem to have a slightly higher status (and political power) than the pastoralist. The expectations forthe future of both groups seem to be quite similar. Both groups see a future in their ways of resource exploitation. Both groups use the same markets to sell their produce but complain about the absorption capacity of that market.

Social economic characteristics existing within the communities

The economic and income generating activities within Ruvu Mferejini include agricultural farming, pastoralism and small business activities like retail shops, restaurants and gardening.


46

Since farmers and pastoralists live together as neighbours in the same village, the pastoralists buy maize and farm produces from farmers whereas farmers buy milk and meat from pastoralists.

At the start of rains pastoralists migrate to the wet seasons grazing areas. Community 1 moves to areas known as Bagamoyo which is about 20km from their homes whereas communities 2 and 3 moves to Lalilai- Simanjiro District which is a Game Controlled Areas. Laliai is 40km from community 2 and 60km from community 3. The types of livestock kept by all communities are cattle, sheep, goats and donkeys with the average herd size rage from 83 to 91 livestock.

The types of crops cultivated in Ruvu Ward are maize, vegetables, water melons, sunflowers and paddy. Farmers cultivate throughout the year since they practice irrigation farming.

The average income for pastoralist’s households ranges from TShs 124,000 to TShs 150,500 per month while that of farmer’s households ranges from TShs 97,000/= to 100,000/= per month. Income for pastoralists is higher than that of farmers.

Routes and conflicts and interaction

The study shows that there are conflicts between farmers and pastoralists. These conflicts occur at the livestock crossing corridors that crosses the farmlands, inside the farmlands and inside the grazing areas. Conflicts occur when the large number of herds step over the farmlands due to small width of corridors and hence destroy crops and irrigation canals. Farmers reduce the width of corridors for the purposes of enlarging their plots. Moreover, conflicts occur when farmers graze in the farmlands that are left to fallow without the permission of the farm owner.

Pastoralists in Communities 1 and 2 move with their herds to the river everyday in dry season hence there is a possibility of occurrences of conflicts everyday at the points when they cross the farmlands. For the case of community 3 the conflicts may occur during the seasonal migrations.

The types of conflicts are conflicting interests in common property (Land and water) between farmers and pastoralists. For example, pastoralists require a 100m wide corridor while farmers reduce this width so as to enlarge their farming lands.

Sometimes conflicts among pastoralists arise between communities 2 and 3 due to violation of the migrating date in which they agreed. These conflicts occurs in Wet season grazing areas i.e. Lalilai –Game controlled areas.


47

7. Discussion and Conclusion

7.1. Discussion

Pastoralists’ grazing practices

Pastoralists in Ruvu Ward migrate at the beginning of rains. They migrate in this period because they prefer to spend the dry season (which is longer then wet season) with their families. This pattern is opposite to what was found in most literature. Pastoralists in Ruvu ward migrate to the wet season grazing areas at the beginning of rains and return to their home grazing areas in dry season. Most literature found that pastoralists in other areas of Tanzania and Africa shift during dry seasons and come back home in wet seasons. This is well explained in the literature review in chapter 2. Other studies have shown that pastoralists in the Savannah migrate during long dry seasons when there are no economic activities (Salih 1995).

Pastoralists in this study area look unique since they build their permanent homes unlike pastoralists from other parts of Tanzania and Africa whose settlements are temporarily constructed. These temporary settlements are abandoned when these pastoralists migrate to other places. Muchiru and Western (2009) found that there are high concentration of abandoned pastoral settlements in Northern part of Amboseli National Parks along Kenya – Tanzania border. In Ruvu ward this is not observed. Pastoralists have their permanent houses in the communities.

Other distinctive characteristics of pastoralists’ communities in the study areas are the tendencies of taking their children to school and participating in all development activities within the villages like construction of schools and dispensaries. This is different from other pastoralists who move with their families for a large part of the time.

Therefore, according to these practices pastoralists in the study area do not practice pure nomadism but more or less livestock keeping in developed areas.

Farmers’ cultivation practices

Farmers in Ruvu Ward cultivate all the year round since they practice irrigation farming. Farmlands are located near the river. Similar patterns are described in studies done by Turpie and Ngaga (2005)in the same Ruvu ward, describing villages with traditional furrow irrigation and cultivation throughout the year. This makes farmers in these areas to appear different from areas where farming activities depends on the availability of rains. For example the agro-pastoral areas in Makueni District in Kenya, where there are two rainy seasons which are also farming seasons but rains in both seasons are extremely variable and unreliable (Ifejika Speranza, Kiteme et al. 2008).

Conclusively, farmers in Ruvu Ward give the impression of being horticulturalists with crops as vegetables, cereals and fruits unlike farmers in other semi–arid areas who cultivate cereals such as maize only (Barron, Rockström et al. 2003). Markets for farm produces are close to the fields and means of transport are favourable. Moreover, as they cultivate throughout the year, food security level is higher in these communities than those farmers who cultivate only once or twice per year depending on the availability of rains.


48

Livestock Corridors and Routes

As seen in chapter three, in the study area there are well defined livestock corridors of 100m width to the river which cross farmlands. The crossing length varies from 2km to 4km. These corridors are used by pastoralists to take their herds to the river for drinking water as well as for seasonal migrations (figure 7-1). They were precisely defined by Village Governments together with Villagers (farmers and pastoralists for the purpose of reducing crossing conflicts). Studies by Faye (2008) in Senegal came out with similar observation that rural councils are responsible for defining livestock corridors of 100m wide and regulate their use. The situation there is comparable to the study area because pasture and farming lands are also separated.

The lengths of the migration routes in Ruvu Ward vary from 20km to 60km. These lengths are very short compared to other routes whose lengths are above 150km. Studies by (Macopiyo 2005) describe pastoralists communities that are highly mobile and can move up to 160km from dry season plains to wet seasons places.

Routes, corridors and access to water play a major role in the pastoralists’ livelihood.

Land use division

The land use division conducted in 1975 during villagization process in Tanzania separated grazing land from farming land in Ruvu ward. The main purpose of land use division was to reduce the conflicts between farmers and pastoralists which were occurring several times when the livestock crossed farmlands. Sedogo and Groten (2002) in their study on integration of local participatory and regional planning, highlighted that the planning process can generate a clear physical boundary between conflicting parties (farmers and pastoralists) and gives more security to the pastoralists.

Additionally, farmers and pastoralists have lived together for a very long time; they are not new in Ruvu Ward and the area is a bit peaceful compared to other pastoral areas. That is why the land use is somehow stable unlike other areas like Kilosa District in Morogoro Region-Tanzania where farmers and pastoralists fight because of large arrival of farmers in areas that were mainly pastoral land (Mbonile 2005).

Moreover, LA can act as a source of conflict especially when local government leaders give some of pastoral lands to large scale farmers. This happened in the study area when a non resident farmer was given a land from pastoralists land for farming purposes.


49

Figure 7-1: Ruvu Ward Grazing Areas, Livestock Corridors and location of Communities

Livestock access to water

This research indicates that there is no land problem in the study area since land rights are well defined. The problem is water and corridors for pastoralists with their herds to access water. This is due to the fact that although the livestock crossing corridors are important tools for conflict reduction, farmers and pastoralists abuse these tools. These abuses are revealed through reduction of corridor widths by farmers for the purpose of enlarging farmlands hence causing crossing conflicts. According to studies done by Blench (2001), relatively similar output was found which states that:

“The creation and maintenance of corridors reinforces co-operation between the agricultural and pastoral sectors. Corridors which are too long or too narrow tempt hungry animals to graze on the crops on either side; pastoralists have to use more labour to keep


50

their herds under control, and the potential for aggravating the conflict between cultivators and pastoralists is apparent”.

Pastoralists on the other hand abuse the livestock crossing corridor by grazing intentionally in the farming areas while these corridors are well defined for the purpose of migrating to the other grazing areas when water and forage have dried in a certain grazing area.

However, livestock crossing corridors provide protection of pastoralist’s rights to water since the grazing areas are far from the river and they have to cross farmlands everyday with their flocks to the river.

There is enough water in the river to solve water problems since the river is permanent. Studies done by Michael and Hadgu (2005) came out with similar findings showing that, in drought there is a tendency for pastoralists to shift with their herds to riverbanks to access water and forage. Communities 1 and 2 suffer most since they do not have water sources within their grazing areas for their livestock. Therefore they have to go to the river everyday in the dry season, crossing the farmlands by use of the livestock corridors.

Community 3 has its own water holes/wells dug in the grazing areas. Therefore they do not suffer from water problems. Comparable outcomes were found by Thébaud and Batterbury (2001) and Taylor (1996) stating that pastoralists ensure security of their herds in dry areas by digging their own wells and watering points. Their study area is similar to this case. Therefore, the act of digging water holes and wells in grazing areas in the areas subjected to water conflicts between farmers and pastoralists or with similar characteristics like that of Ruvu Ward, can highly contribute to a sustainable peace. Hence people can engage in development activities. Consequently in the Land Administration sphere the protection of pastoralist rights in the cases comparable to Ruvu Ward is probably better served by water rights than by land rights.

Spatio-temporal and social interactions

Since the pastoralists from communities 1 and 2 go to the river everyday with their herds for water, the spatio-temporal interaction between farmers and pastoralists is higher in communities 1 and 2 than in community 3 who do not depend on the river as a source of water. Farmers and pastoralists also interact during the occurrence of conflicts. Studies done by Hussein (1998) came with similar findings that conflict is another form of interaction that should not necessarily be seen as negative.

Furthermore, farmers and pastoralists interact in the markets during buying and selling of farm produces and livestock and livestock products respectively. Thébaud and Batterbury (2001) are in line with these observations when they found that during dry seasons pastoralists sell some of their livestock and livestock products in order to purchase cereals from farmers.

Conflict management

Since there are institutional ways on how to manage the conflicts, the corridor problem can only be solved through careful spatial planning and zoning as apparently was done in Ruvu ward and must be obeyed by both parties.

Due to the fact that corridors provide access to water, the research proposes that the water committee should be established comprising both farmers and pastoralists under the governance of the village council to monitor the width of the livestock crossing corridor. This might contribute to the reduction of conflicts which have regularly occurred. This is in line with Blench (1997) who found that committees were formed throughout Anglophone West Africa to ensure that established livestock migratory corridors were respected by both farmers and pastoralists.


51

In order to reduce the rate of crossing farmlands, the water holes/well should be dug in the communities.

Additionally, laying of water pipes from the river to the communities and farms that are away from the river could also reduce the conflicts.

7.2. Conclusion

Pastoralists and nomads are considered more or less the same. With regards to the study area, pastoralists do not behave like nomads since they move short distances, the areas are close to urban areas and they take their children to schools. For that reason, these are not nomads but pastoralists in transition. These pastoralists demonstrate a mixture of modern lifestyles with nomadic lifestyles since in these areas there are good communication facilities such as television networks with electricity, mobile phone networks, radio networks and good transport facilities with permanent roads to urban areas.

The Ruvu ward was a very interesting area to study. Land division exists as well as livestock corridors and intensive irrigation farming. Livestock management and movements and farming practices are different from what in other studies is described as “pastoralism” and “farming”.

Pastoralists in the study area migrate in the wet seasons and during this time there are grasses in the corridors. They can graze along the corridors leaving the farm plots untouched and move on to the further grazing areas. Meanwhile grasses at home can recover to be used in the dry season. It could be interesting to investigate whether this type of inverted movements is found in other areas or could be a management option for other areas.

Institutional setting existing within the communities deals with land disputes resolution through adhering to the existing land division. The factor which significantly increases the likelihood of conflicts includes the communities’ abuse of the land use division since all communities need access to water.

With respect to LA, the rights to land seem well defined. There does not seem to be a need for cadastral surveys. But there is a management problem in the livestock corridors. Efforts are necessary to guarantee water rights for the pastoralists through participatory approaches and maintaining widths of corridors. Water holes/wells could also be dug in those areas where communities suffer from conflicts. Other potential conflict mitigation mechanisms include establishment of village water committees with members from farmers and pastoralists societies which could take care of pastoralists’ access to water.


52

8. Limitations of the research, and recommendation for further research

8.1. Limitations of the research

The study could be better if the following data could be obtained:

(i) Data on population of pastoralists and farmers

Population of pastoralists and that of farmers could help the researcher to analyze the available natural resources within the study area e.g. size of grazing land per number of pastoralists and size of farmland per number of farmers. The researcher did not get this data because the only population data available comes from 2002 population and housing census that does not separate pastoralists and farmers.

(ii) Water use and Management

The data on water use and management is also important for this study. This could help the research to include the policy on the use of water, water rights for pastoralists and farmers and other users of water from Ruvu/Pangani River.

8.2. Recommendation for further research

After studying the existing situation about resource sharing between framers and pastoralists in Ruvu Ward, it has been clear that the problem is not land sharing but provision of access of water to pastoralists.

Even though the conclusion is that physical planning should be done so as to protect pastoralists’ rights through preventing others to invade the pastoralists land, research on that arena is required to grasp what exactly is the problem.

After identifying that the existing livestock corridors do not contribute to the reduction of conflicts between farmers and pastoralists in communities 1 and 2, solutions need to be studied. For example, in community 3 the conflicts are minimum because of the presence of water holes/wells in their grazing areas. Can it be also applicable to the cases with similar characteristics?

Moreover, this research recommends studies to be made to know whether about 50 years before establishment of National parks and Game reserves Pastoralists in Ruvu ward were moving long distances like nomads or not.


53

References

Agrawal, A. (1995). "Indigenous and scientific knowledge: some critical comments." Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor 3(3): 3-6.

Barrett, C. B. and W. K. Luseno (2004). "Decomposing producer price risk: a policy analysis tool with an application to northern Kenyan livestock markets." Food Policy 29(4): 393-405.

Barron, J., J. Rockström, et al. (2003). "Dry spell analysis and maize yields for two semi-arid locations in east Africa." Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 117(1-2): 23-37.

Barry, M. and C. Fourie-McIntosh (2001). "Wicked Problems, Soft systems and Cadastral Systems in Periods of Uncertainty." Proceedings of CONSAS: 12-14.

Bassett, T. J. (1986). "Fulani herd movements." The Geographical Review 76: 233-248. Bellemare, M. F. and C. B. Barrett (2006). "An Ordered Tobit Model of Market Participation:

Evidence from Kenya and Ethiopia." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 88(2): 324-337.

Biber-Klemm, S. and N. Rass "Solutions to securing mobility by securing the commons The WISP Land Rights Study–first results."

Blench, R. (1997). "Aspects of resource conflict in semi-arid Africa." Natural Resource Perspectives16.

Blench, R. (2001). "You can’t go home again” pastoralism in the new millennium." Overseas Development Institute, London, United Kingdom.

Boesen, J., A. Fadahunsi, et al. (1986). Tanzania: Crisis and Struggle for Survival, Nordic Africa Institute.

Cassanelli, L. V. (1982). The shaping of Somali society: reconstructing the history of a pastoralpeople, 1600-1900, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Chang, C. (1994). "Sheep for the Ancestors: Ethnoarchaeology and the Study of Ancient Pastoralism." Beyond the Site: Regional Studies in the Aegean Area: 353-71.

Chang, C. and H. A. Koster (1986). Beyond Bones: Toward an Archaeology of Pastoralism, Academic Press.

Corbett, J., G. Rambaldi, et al. (2006). "Overview: Mapping for Change–the emergence of a new practice." Participatory Learning and Action 54: 13-19.

Dale, P. F. and J. D. McLaughlin (1988). Land information management. An introduction with special reference to cadastral problems in developing countries, Clarendon Press Oxford (UK).

Duany, W. (1999). "Customary law and ways of life in transition among the Nuer of South Sudan." Managing mobility in African rangelands: The legitimization of transhumance.

Dyson-Hudson, R. and N. Dyson-Hudson (1980). "Nomadic Pastoralism." Annual Reviews in Anthropology 9(1): 15-61.

Ellis, J. and K. A. Galvin (1994). "Climate patterns and land-use practices in the dry zones of Africa." Bioscience 44(5): 340-348.

Enemark, S. (2005). Land Management and Development. FAO (1991) "Policies and Strategies to Adress the Vulnerability of Pastoralists in Sub-Sahara Africa."

Volume, DOI: Faye, J. (2008). "Land and decentralisation in Senegal." Fourie, C. and S. Africa (2002). Cadastral Reform for Good Governance and Poverty Alleviation, FIG

XXII International Congress, Washington, DC USA, April.


54

Frankfort-Nachmias, C. Y. N. (1996). "D.(1996)." Research methods in the social sciences 5. Franklin, S. (2007). Dolly Mixtures: The Remaking of Genealogy, Duke University Press. Fratkin, E. and R. Mearns (2003). "Sustainability and Pastoral Livelihoods: Lessons from East

African Maasai and Mongolia." Human Organization 62(2): 112-122. Galaty, J. G. (1990). World of Pastoralism, Guilford Publications. Gastorn, K. G. (2003). The Legal Environment for Tourist Investments on Village land Outside

Wildlife Management Areas, Tanzania Wildlife Discussion Paper. Gilks, W. R. and P. Wild (1992). "Adaptive Rejection Sampling." Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming Qualitative Researchers: An Introduction, Longman. Goodman, R. (2003). "Pastoral Livelihoods in Tanzania: Can the Maasai Benefit from Conservation."

Global Ecotourism Policies and Case Studies: Perspectives and Constraints. Hanstad, T. (1998). "Introduction to agricultural land reform." Legal impediments to effective rural

land relations in ECA Countries: a comparative perspective. Prepared for the World Bank Group, Europe and Central Asia Regional Office: 1–14.

Hazell, P. (1999). "3 Public Policy and Drought Management in Agropastoral Systems." Property Rights, Risk, and Livestock Development in Africa.

Heckman, J. (1979). "Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error." Econometrica 47(1): 153-161. Herlocker, D. and R. A. Dolan (1980). Primary productivity of the herb layer and its relation to

rainfall, IPAL Tech. Rep. No. A-3. Proc. of a Scientific seminar, Nairobi 24-27 November 1980. UNEPMAB Integrated Project in Arid Lands, Nairobi.

Hidore, J. J. (1977). "ACCELERATION OF DESSICATION AND POPULATION TRAUMA IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA 1." Journal of the American Water Resources Association 13(4): 783-794.

Hilhorst, T. and F. N. Muchena (2000). Nutrients on the Move: Soil Fertility Dynamics in African Farming Systems, Iied.

Hodgson, D. L. (2001). "" Once intrepid warriors": modernity and the production of Maasai masculinities." Gendered Modernities: Ethnographic Perspectives.

Homewood, K. (2004). "In-Migrants and Exclusion in East African Rangelands: Access, Tenure and Conflict." Africa 74(4): 567-610.

Homewood, K. M. and W. A. Rodgers (1991). "Maasailand ecology. Pastoralist development and wildlife conservation in Ngorongoro, Tanzania." CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS, NEW YORK, NY(USA). 1991.

Hussein, K. (1998). Conflicts Between Farmers and Herders in the Semi-arid Sahel and East Africa: A Review, IIED.

Ifejika Speranza, C., B. Kiteme, et al. (2008). "Droughts and famines: The underlying factors and the causal links among agro-pastoral households in semi-arid Makueni district, Kenya." Global Environmental Change 18(1): 220-233.

Jacobs, A. (1980). "Pastoral development in Tanzanian Maasailand." Rural Africana 7: 1-15. Kahsaye, W. T. (2002). The Cultural Ecology of Pastoralism in Eritrea: A Geographical Inquiry. Kaijage, F. and A. Tibaijuka (1996). Poverty and social exclusion in Tanzania, International Institute

for Labour Studies: United Nations Development Programme, Geneva, Switzerland. Kandagor, D. R. "RETHINKING PASTORALISM AND AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT: A CASE

STUDY OF THE HORN OF AFRICA."


55

Kisamba-Mugerwa, W. (1992). "Rangeland Tenure and Resource Management: An Overview of Pastoralism in Uganda." Makerere Institute of Social Research (MISR).

Kumar, R. (2005). Research Methodology: A Step-by-Step Guide For Beginners, Sage. Le Houérou, H. N. and C. H. Hoste (1977). "Rangeland production and annual rainfall relations in the

Mediterranean Basin and in the African Sahelo-Sudanian zone." Journal of Range Management 30(3): 181-189.

Macopiyo, L. A. (2005). SPATIALLY EXPLICIT, INDIVIDUAL-BASED MODELLING OF PASTORALISTS’MOBILITY IN THE RANGELANDS OF EAST AFRICA, Texas A&M University.

Madulu, N. F., M. J. Mbonile, et al. (1993). "Environmental impact of migration in rural Tanzania." Population, Environment and Development in Tanzania, Demographic Training Unit and United Nations Department of Economic and Social Development: 73-91.

Mandara, C. G. (2007). "Participatory GIS in Mapping Local Context of Conflicts over Pastoral Resources." MSc Thesis. ITC.

Manji, A. (2001). "Land reform in the shadow of the state: the implementation of new land laws in Sub-Saharan Africa." Third World Quarterly 22(3): 327-342.

Mbonile, M. J. (2005). "Migration and intensification of water conflicts in the Pangani Basin, Tanzania." Habitat International 29(1): 41-67.

Mbonile, M. J., D. G. Mwamfupe, et al. (1997). "Migration and its Impact on Land Management in the Usangu Plains, Mbeya Region, Tanzania." Report submitted to ENRECA ((Enhancement of Research Capacity in Developing Countries), University of Dar es Salaam, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

McAuslan, P. (1998). "Making Law Work: Restructuring Land Relations in Africa." Development and Change 29(3): 525-552.

McCabe, J. T. (1987). "Drought and recovery: Livestock dynamics among the Ngisonyoka Turkana of Kenya." Human Ecology 15(4): 371-389.

Michael, Y. G. and K. Hadgu (2005). "Addressing pastoralist conflict in Ethiopia." Mkutu, K. (2004). Pastoralism and conflict in the Horn of Africa. Mortimore, M. (1998). Roots in the African Dust: Sustaining the Sub-Saharan Drylands, Cambridge

University Press. Muchiru, A. N., D. Western, et al. (2009). "The impact of abandoned pastoral settlements on plant and

nutrient succession in an African savanna ecosystem." Journal of Arid Environments 73(3): 322-331.

Mwaikusa, J. T. (1993). Community Rights and State Control in Tanzania. Mwangi, E., S. Dohrn, et al. (2006). Biting the Bullet: How to Secure Access to Drylands Resources

for Multiple Users, CGIAR Systemwide Program on Collective Action and Property Rights, International Food Policy Research Institute.

Niamir-Fuller, M. (2000). "Managing mobility in African rangelands." Property Right, Risk, and Livestock Development in Africa: 102-131.

Niamir, M. (1991). "Traditional African Range Management Techniques: Implications for Rangeland Development." ODI Pastoral Development Network Paper.

Oba, G. and W. Lusigi (1987). "An Overview of Drought Strategies and Land Use in African Pastoral Systems." ODI Pastoral Development Network Paper.


56

Oba, G., W. J. Lusigi, et al. (1987). An Overview of Drought Strategies and Land Use in African Pastoral Systems, Agricultural Administration Unit, Overseas Development Institute.

Ojalammi, S. (2006). Contested Lands: Land Disputes in Semi-arid Parts of Northern Tanzania; Case Studies of the Loliondo and Sale Divisions in the Ngorongoro District, University of Helsinki.

Poole, P. (1995). "Geomatics: Who Needs It." Cultural Survival Quarterly 18(4): 1-77. Pratt, B. and P. Loizos (1992). Choosing Research Methods: Data Collection for Development

Workers, Oxfam. Rugadya, M. A. (2005). "Exploring the Intricacies of Land Tenure in Pastoral Areas: Issues for Policy

and Law Reform." Launch of a Report entitled ‘Pastoralism on the Margin’. Minority Rights International in Moroto, Uganda.

Salih, M. (1995). "Pastoralist Migration to Small Towns in Africa." The Migration Experience in Africa.

Salzman, P. C. (1994). "Afterword: reflections on the pastoral land crisis." Nomadic Peoples 34(35): 159–163.

Sandford, S. and Y. Habtu (2000). "Emergency Response Interventions in Pastoral Areas of Ethiopia." Unpublished report for DFID, London.

Scholz, R. W. and O. Tietje (2002). Embedded Case Study Methods: Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Knowledge, Sage Pubns.

Scoones, I. (1995). "Exploiting heterogeneity: habitat use by cattle in dryland Zimbabwe." Journal of Arid Environments 29(2): 221-237.

Scoones, I. (1995). Hazards and Opportunities: Farming Livelihoods in Dryland Africa, Zed Books. Scoones, I. and O. Graham (1994). "New directions for pastoral development in Africa." Development

in Practice 4(3): 188-198. Sedogo, L. and S. Groten (2002). "Integration of local participatory and regional planning: A GIS data

aggregation procedure." GeoJournal 56(2): 69-82. Shivji, I. (1998). Not Yet Democracy: Reforming Land Tenure in Tanzania, 1998-IIED, HAKARDHI. Sieff, D. F. (1997). "Herding Strategies of the Datoga Pastoralists of Tanzania: Is Household Labor a

Limiting Factor." Human Ecology 25(4): 519-544. Sieff, D. F. (1999). "The effects of wealth on livestock dynamics among the Datoga pastoralists of

Tanzania." Agricultural Systems 59(1): 1-25. Smaling, E. M. A., S. M. Nandwa, et al. (1997). "Soil fertility in Africa is at stake." Replenishing Soil

Fertility in Africa: 47–61. Spear, T. T. and R. D. Waller (1993). Being Maasai: Ethnicity & Identity in East Africa, Ohio

University Press. Taylor, M. (1996). "The Regional Financial Performance of Australian Broadacre Livestock

Farming." New Zealand Geographer 52(2): 46-55. Tenga, R. (1998). "Processing a Land Policy: The case of mainland Tanzania." Towards a New

Partnership with Africa: Challenges and Opportunities. Teppo, L., E. Pukkala, et al. (1994). "Data Quality and Quality Control of a Population-Based Cancer

Registry: Experience in Finland." Acta Oncologica 33(4): 365-369. Thébaud, B. and S. Batterbury (2001). "Sahel pastoralists: opportunism, struggle, conflict and

negotiation. A case study from eastern Niger." Global Environmental Change 11(1): 69-78. Toulmin, C. (1983). "Herders and farmers or farmer-herders and herder-farmers." Pastoral Network

Paper.


57

Turner, M. and T. Williams (2002). "Livestock Market Dynamics and Local Vulnerabilities in the Sahel." World Development 30(4): 683-705.

Turpie, J., Y. Ngaga, et al. (2005). "Catchment Ecosystems and Downstream Water: The Value of Water Resources in the Pangani Basin, Tanzania, Lao PDR. IUCN Water, Nature and Economics Technical Paper No. 7, IUCN The World Conservation Union." Ecosystems and Livelihoods Group Asia.

UNECE (1996). "Land Administration Guidelines." New York, USA. URT (1999). "The Land Act and Village Land Act. Dar es Salaam: ." Government Printer. URT (2002). "Population and Housing Census Report."van der Molen, P. (2002). "The dynamic aspect of land administration: an often-forgotten component

in system design." Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 26(5): 361-381. Waters-Bayer, A. and W. Bayer (1994). "Planning with pastoralists: PRA and more." A review of

methods focused on Africa. Eschborn: GTZ, OE 422: 153. Wily, L. A. (2000). "Forest law in eastern and southern Africa: moving towards a community-based

forest future?" UNASYLVA-FAO-: 19-26. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research design and methods Applied Social Research Methods Series,

Sage. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage Publications Inc.


58

Appendices

Appendix 1: Interview schedule for Pastoralists

A. Pastoralist

1. House hold data

(i) Head of HH Male , Female [ ], Child [ ], other [ ] please specify…………………………………………………………………………

(ii) Which level of education you completed? …………………………………….. (iii) What is your HH Size? ………………………………………………………(iv) How often Visitors like researchers visits you? ………………………. (v) What is your opinion about the existing land use? …………………(vi) Where do your children go after education? ………………………………

2. What kind of assets do you own

� Car [ ] � Tractor [ ] � Bicycle [ ] � Mobile phone [ ] � TV [ ] � Radio [ ] � Wheel barrow [ ] � Ox cart [ ] � Other [ ], specify………………………………………

B. Community

(i) What is/ are tribes forming this community? …………………………………(ii) What is the population size in this Community? …………………………….. (iii) Are you growing in number? ..................................................... ……………. (iv) What do you think about the future of this community? ……………………. (v) Do you have any idea of conflict in your community? …………………........ (vi) What is the community opinion about land use? ............................................ (vii) How do you feel about the relationship between your communities to farmers? ……(viii) Does the wholly community move over the same route? ……………………. (ix) How many herds can be taken in the same water point? …………………….


59

3. Original communal areas

(i) What is the Place name of your original communal areas…………………. (ii) What is the area in ha? ……………………………………………………. (iii) What are grazing periods in these areas? …………………………………. (iv) What are the characteristics of these areas with respect to pastoralism? …. (v) Are there property subdivisions in these areas? ......................................... (vi) Are there any overgrazing issues? …………………………………………(vii) Are there Pest & diseases in these areas? …………………………………

4. Destination communal areas

a. What is the Pace name of your destination communal areas…………………………b. What is the area in ha? ………………………………………………………………c. What are grazing periods in these areas? ……………………d. What are the characteristics of these areas with respect to pastoralism? ……. e. Are there property subdivisions in these areas? ................................................ f. Are there any overgrazing issues? ………………………………………………g. Are there Pest & diseases in these areas? ………………………………………

5. Education facility

� Name ………………………………………………………………. � Type………………………………………………………………… � Location……………………………………………………………..

6. Health facility

� Name ………………………………………………………………. � Type …………………………………………………………………� Ownership …………………………………………………………. � Location……………………………………………………………..

7. Worshipping facility

� Name…………………………………………………………………….. � Type……………………………………………………………………… � Location…………………………………………………………………..

8. Market

� Type……………………………………………………………………………. � Location……………………………………………………………………….. � Average pieces…………………………………………………………………. � Accessibility ……………………………………………………………………


60

C. Herd

� Number of cattle…………………………………….. � Number of sheep………………………………………� Number of goats………………………………………� Number of camels……………………………………. � Number of Donkeys…………………………………. � Number of Calves…………………………………….. � Are there any occurrences robbery…………………….. � Are there any occurrences of Disasters……………………………………. � Any other risk………………………………………………………………

D. Route

1. Route & track

� Show me on the map your route from areas to destination grazing areas……………….. � How long do you take to travel from your original areas to destination grazing areas? …� Show me on the map your location after the 1st week of your journey, 2nd etc………….. � What is the stop time during your movement? ................................................................ � Where do you move faster? …………………………………………reason................... � Where do you move slower? ………………………………………reason……………

2. Where are the water points?

� Type ………………………………………………………� Status………………………………………………………� Ownership…………………………………………………. � Location (N, E) …………………………………………….

3. Extension & external support

� Are there any vaccination services along the route? ......................................... � Are there any dipping services/ tanks in your grazing areas? ..........................If yes fan you

show me on the map? .............................................................. � Are services of Treatment of diseases for your herd along the route? .............. � Please specify …………………………………………………………………� Are there seminars & workshops services offered to you?.............................if yes please

specify…………………………………………………………when was it conducted for the last time?.........................................................................by which organization? ……


61

E. Encounters

1. Do you encounter conflicts along your route?

� On which lands on the map? …………………………………………………… � What are causes? ………………………………………………………………. � Whose fault? …………………………………………………………………… � What is its perception? …………………………………………………………� Can strangers intrude the area? ………………………………………if yes where do they

come from?...........................................................................................................

2. Do you encounter peaceful along your route?

� On which land on the map? ……………………………………………………� Why peaceful? …………………………………………………………………� How do you maintain the situation? ...................................................................

F. Opinions

(i) What do you think about the future of pastoralism? .......................................... (ii) Do you think that it is sustainable? ……………………………………………(iii) What are the climatic characteristics of this area? …………………………….. (iv) What are the land use patterns of these areas? …………………………………(v) Have you ever got any Government support? …………………………………. (vi) What is your opinion about Land registration? ……………………………….. (vii) What is your opinion about protection of your rights? (viii) Do you suffer from overgrazing? ………………………………………………. (ix) What is your relationship to farmers? …………..…………………………….. (x) What is your monthly income in tshs? ................................................................

Appendix 2: Interview schedule for Farmers

1. House hold data � Head of H � Male [ ], Female [ ], Child [ ], other [ ] please

specify………………………………………………………………………….. � Which level of education you completed? …………………………………….. � Where are you from? ……………………………………………………………� How long have you been here? …………………………………………………. � What is your HH Size? …………………………………………………………. � How often Visitors like researchers visits you such? ……………………………. � What is your opinion about the existing land use? ………………………………. � What is your relationship to pastoralists? ………………………………………. � Where do your children go after education? …………………………………….


62

2. Assets

� Car [ ] � Tractor [ ] � Bicycle [ ] � Mobile phone [ ] � TV [ ] � Radio [ ] � Wheel barrow [ ] � Ox cart [ ] � Other [ ], specify………………………………………………

3. Land

� How many land parcels do you own? ............................................................... � What are their sizes? ………………………………………………………… � What is the soil fertility status? ……………………………………………… � What is the tenure status? ……………………………………………………. � What are the cultivation periods? ……………………………………………...

4. Crops

� What type of crops do you cultivate? Cash crops [ ] Food crops [ ] Other [ ] please specify ……………………………………………………….

� What are the names of crops do you cultivate? ……………………………….. � What is the purpose of cultivating them? ……………………………………… � What are the inputs? ……………………………………………………………. � What are the yields annually? …………………………………………………..

5. Grazing

� Do you practice grazing in your parcels? ……………………………………if yes in which parcels? ...........................................................................what are the reasons of grazing there? .......................................................................................................

� What are grazing periods? ……………………………………………………… � What is the duration? ……………………………………………………………

Encounters

. Do you encounter conflicts during your farming activities? �

� On which lands on the map? ………………………………………………….. � What are causes? ……………………………………………………………… � Whose fault? …………………………………………………………………… � What is its perception? …………………………………………………………


63

� Can strangers intrude the area? ………………………………………if yes where do they come from?....................................................................................................................

2. Do you encounter peaceful during your farming activities?

� On which land on the map? …………………………………………………. � Why peaceful? ………………………………………………………………. � How do you maintain the situation? ................................................................

6. Opinions

(i) What do you think about the future of agriculture? .......................................... (ii) Is there good business? ….................................................................................. (iii) What are the climatic characteristics of this area? …………………………….. (iv) What are the land use patterns of these areas? …………………………………(v) Have you ever got any Government support? ………………………………… (vi) What is your opinion about Land registration? ………………………………. (vii) What is your monthly income in tshs? ................................................................

Appendix 3: Pastoralists economy and income among surveyed households in Community 1 Household Herd size Cattle price Income 1 69 500,000 200,000 2 22 500,000 150,000 3 166 500,000 250,000 4 94 400,000 80,000 5 95 500,000 60,000 6 131 400,000 50,000 7 37 400,000 100,000 8 74 500,000 150,000 9 44 500,000 100,000 10 100 500,000 100,000 Total 832 1,240,000 Average 83.2 124,000


64

Appendix 4: Pastoralists economy and income among surveyed households in Community 2 Household Herd size Cattle price Income 1 166 400,000 300,000 2 70 400,000 100,000 3 83 400,000 150,000 4 88 500,000 100,000 5 65 400,000 70,000 6 119 400,000 250,000 7 130 500,000 120,000 8 40 500,000 80,000 9 53 400,000 100,000 Total 814 1,270,000 Average 90.4 141,111

Appendix 5: Pastoralists economy and income among surveyed households in Community 3 Household Herd size Cattle price Income 1 19 400,000 45,000 2 108 400,000-500,000 150,000 3 47 300,000 80,000 4 61 500,000 150,000 5 107 400,000 150,000 6 139 500,000 250,000 7 84 500,000 200,000 8 113 400,000 200,000 9 88 400,000 130,000 10 115 500,000 150,000 Total 881 1,505,000 Average 88.1 150,500


65

Appendix 6: Livestock routes from participatory mapping

Appendix 7: Education facilities data Region Name

Ward Name

Village Name Schoolname Status Easting Northing

Kilimanjaro Ruvu Ruvu Mferejini

Marwa Primary School

Primary School 339212 9548646


Ruvu Primary School



Ngama Primary School



Mferejini Primary School



Ngama Nursery School

Nursery School 338043 9533715

Kilimanjaro Ruvu Ruvu Jiungeni

Chanika Primary School


Kilimanjaro Ruvu Ruvu Jiungeni

Jiungeni Primary School


analysis of pastoralists and farmers in northern part of tanzania … · 2009. 3. 25. · analysis...

Documents