CONTRIBUTION OF LOCAL COMMUNITIES IN CONSERVATION OF BIOSPHERE RESERVES IN TANZANIA

ANGELA MWATUJOBE Senior Environmental Management Officer National Environment Management Council (NEMC) Directorate of Environmental Planning and Research (DEPR) P. O. Box 63154 DAR ES SALAAM TANZANIA Mobile: +255 786 646447; E –mail: angelmwatuj@gmail.com; angelmwatu@yahoo.com

NOVEMBER2016

i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Man and Biosphere (MAB) is the programme that puts man at the center of all conservation

activities in whole concept of Biosphere Reserves (BR). Thus, having a community surrounding

the BR, it is a requirement to involve it in management activities. Tanzania has four BRs which

are East Usambara Biosphere Reserve (EUBR), Serengeti Ngorongoro (SNBR), Lake Manyara

(LMBR) and the new one of Jozani Chwaka Bay (JCBBR). These BRs are surrounded by large

communities that need to be involved in conservation activities being directly or indirectly

implemented since it is the requirement of the MAB Programme that man, specifically the local

community should be the main stakeholder.

The communities leaving in and surrounding BR need to know the presence and importance of the

BR in all aspects including conservation activities, hence all practitioners from higher levels to

lower level have to include the local communities to ensure total protection of resources that in

most cases starts with those leaving in them.

Local community especially in rural areas in most cases have a lot of information concerning

resources and their local mode of utilization and management, unfortunately, they are left behind

hence management and conservation activities remains in the hands of higher levels such as the

government, donors and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs).

This report provides information on the local community’s involvement in BR conservation

activities. This involvement is mainly at all aspects being individual, group initiatives or external

involvement in projects and activities that have been initiated by other reserve practitioners.

People leaving near and in the BRs need to have information on the BR and be involved so as to

understand on the BR importance and at the end will create more protection of BR resources at all

levels.

ii

Data for this study was collected through focus group discussion, key informants, participants’

observation, and structured questionnaire. Data analysis was done using the Statistical Package for

Social Sciences (SPSS).

The results have shown that majority of local communities in the three BRs have education of

standard seven being in the age of 18- 45 with a family size of 4-7 members. Further to that, is has

been shown that, majority do conduct crop production at 64% as the main economic activity, 22%

are engaged in livestock keeping while 14% are engaged in other small businesses and all these

are carried by both men and women.

With regard to their awareness, knowledge and ownership of the BR, results have shown that they

are aware of the presence Reserves; however, they do not know if they are called BRs. These

results therefore suggest that that, there is a need to popularize BR concept at all levels and

especially at local community so as to make them differentiate BR with other categories of

reserves such as National Parks and Game Reserves.

Participation and involvement in BR conservation has shown that local community do participate

in different activities which are initiated by themselves in all aspects being individual or in

groups, these activities are such as tree planting, fire management, boundary protection against

fire hazards and encroachers. 93% has revealed that they participate in BR conservation.

However, responses from these communities vary from one BR to the other but this shows the

diversity through which there would be a meaningful community engagement so as to reach

effective and viable conservation of the BRs.

Moreover, results have shown that there are local community groups that have been created for

the purpose of reducing destruction and dependence to BR resources; these are such as

Beekeeping, tree nurseries, spice farming. However, there are other local people that have not

joined any group for the reason that there is no individual economic gain in such groups also

results shows that increased poverty has lead to people concentrate more on economic activities

instead of BR conservation activities.

iii

Basing on presence of Organizations at all levels such as Governmental, Non-Governmental,

lnternational, Community Based and Faith Based, response has shown that, these are available in

their areas for instance Amani Nature Reserve (ANR), UNESCO which are for the sake of

protection of BR and their resources. It has been further shown that, some of these organizations

do involve local community in conservation with activities such as conservation education and

awareness while others do not. Challenges that have been observed or collected from local

communities through presence of conservation organizations is that, there are no follow-ups on

training provided by some of these institutions, some institutions have failed to meet their

promises to communities and there lack of monitoring the established projects by donors.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Involvement of local communities in conservation of BR is crucial as they are part and parcel of

conservation and total management activities. Their knowledge on BR is limited as they regard

BR are like other reserves which management is usually under a certain institution making them

not fully committed to get involved in management of BR as the Program requires. Hence it is

recommended that, there is a need to raise awareness on MAB Program at all levels so as

management initiatives can be started at local level instead of leaving all management activities to

the government or donors.

iv

COPYRIGHT

No part of this report may be reproduced, stored in any retrieval system, or transmitted in any

form or by any means without the prior written permission of the author and UNESCO under the

Programme of Man and Biosphere.

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I thank the Almighty God who gave me strength and ability to complete this research study. I

wish to express my sincere gratitude to my beloved family to whom I shall always remain greatly

indebted for their untiring love, moral and material support during the whole period of

undertaking this research. Furthermore, I wish to convey my special thanks to my husband Jensen

Mahavile for his prayers and care which has always been a source of encouragement to me

throughout this research activity.

I sincerely convey my special thanks to UNESCO for offering me the Man and Biosphere Award

that has allowed me to undertake this important research study around Biosphere Reserves in

Tanzania. I convey my thanks to Mr. Joel Samuel for his tireless efforts in advising me toward

working for MAB.

My exceptional thanks goes to my Director at National Environment Management Council

(NEMC) Mr. Joseph R. Kombe and my immediate work supervisor Ms. Rose Sallema Mtui for

supervising my work and encouraging me to move forward with this research.

I provide my thanks to Ms. Joyneth Mbogo, Frank Luvanda, Rehema Kaitila and Martha Mahule

for their support in the whole process of research. And finally, to all respondents in Serengeti-

Ngorongoro BR Biosphere Reserve, Lake Manyara BR, and East Usambara BR for devoting their

time to respond to the questionnaire that I served them. I really thank individual respondents, FGD

members, Key Informants, and communities in these three Biosphere Reserves for their

willingness to participate in this important research study.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. i

COPYRIGHT ................................................................................................................................................... iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .............................................................................................................................. v

LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................................... xi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................................................... xiv

CHAPTER ONE ............................................................................................................................................... 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Introductory Background..............................................................................................................1

1.2. Problem Statement and Justification............................................................................................2

1.3. Objectives.....................................................................................................................................3

1.3.1. General Objective.....................................................................................................................3

1.3.2. Specific Objectives...................................................................................................................3

1.3.3. Research Questions..................................................................................................................3

1.4. Significance of the Study..............................................................................................................4

1.5. Scope of the Study........................................................................................................................4

1.6. Limitation of the study.................................................................................................................4

CHAPTER TWO .............................................................................................................................................. 5

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................................... 5

2.1 Local Community Involvement in BR Management....................................................................5

2.2 Community Involvement in SSA.................................................................................................5

2.3 Community Involvement in Tanzania..........................................................................................6

2.4 Importance of Community Involvement......................................................................................6

2.5 Biodiversity loss...........................................................................................................................7

vii

2.6 East Usambara Biosphere Reserve...............................................................................................7

2.7 Lake Manyara Biosphere Reserve................................................................................................7

2.8 Serengeti Ngorongoro Biosphere Reserve (SNBR)......................................................................8

CHAPTER THREE ........................................................................................................................................ 10

3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................... 10

3.1 Study Area and Justification for Selection.................................................................................10

3.2 Research Design.........................................................................................................................10

3.3 Sampling Frame and Procedure..................................................................................................11

3.4 Research Approach(s)................................................................................................................11

3.5 Ethical Issues..............................................................................................................................11

3.6 Types and Sources of Data.........................................................................................................12

3.7 Data Collection Techniques.......................................................................................................12

3.7.1 Primary Data Collection.....................................................................................................12

3.7.2 Secondary Data...................................................................................................................13

3.8 Data Analysis.............................................................................................................................13

CHAPTER FOUR .......................................................................................................................................... 14

4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.................................................................................................14

4.1 Results and Discussion from Individuals Respondents in the BRs............................................14

4.1.1 ResponsesonGeographicalLocation.................................................................................14

4.1.2 Responses on Bio-data Information....................................................................................14

4.1.3 Responses on Respondents’ Sex in Three BRs..................................................................15

4.1.4 Responses on Respondents’ Age........................................................................................15

4.1.5 Responses on Respondents’ Education Level....................................................................17

4.1.6 Responses on Respondents’ Being Head of Household.....................................................17

4.1.7 Responses on Respondents’ on Main Economic Activities................................................19

viii

4.2 Responses on Land Ownership, Use, and Conservation of BRs................................................20

4.2.1 Responses on Types of Ownership.....................................................................................20

4.2.2 Responses on Land Size Owned.........................................................................................21

4.2.3 Responses on How Long a Respondent Has Been Owning Land......................................21

4.2.4 Responses on Who Own the BRs and the Resources in the Forests...................................21

4.2.5 Responses on if the BRs Benefits Communities in Any Way............................................22

4.2.6 Responses on if Communities Were Previously Cultivating in the BRs Lands..................23

4.2.7 Responses on if Communities Were Rearing Animals in the BRs.....................................24

4.2.8 Responses on Problems Communities Encounter in Crop Production and Rearing of Animals 24

4.2.9 Responses on Whether Wild Animals Intrude Communities’ Land...................................25

4.2.10 Responses on Why Wild Animals Come Out of the BRs...................................................28

4.2.11 Responses on What Communities Do to Counteract the Conflict......................................29

4.2.12 Responses on Community Recommendations to Curb Human-Wildlife Conflict..............29

4.3 Community involvement and participation................................................................................31

4.3.1 Responses on Whether Individual Community Members Belong to a Conservation Local Community Based Group...................................................................................................................31

4.3.2 Responses on What Problem Have Hindered Some Community Members to Not Join Local Conservation Groups................................................................................................................34

4.3.3 Responses on Activities Conducted in Communities Areas for the Conserving the BRs...34

4.3.4 Community Responses With Regard to Conservation of the Biosphere Reserves.............36

4.3.5 What can be done to improve livelihood of local people and enhance participation?........39

4.3.6 Community Responses – Question 3: Have you contributed in any way for the conservation of BR?...........................................................................................................................40

4.3.7 Community Responses – Question 4: In your opinion, what do you think can be done to solve the problems and enhance community participation?...............................................................43

4.4 Responses from Focus Group Discussion on BRs Conservation...............................................47

ix

4.4.1 Do you acknowledge or recognize the presence of BR?....................................................47

4.4.2 Which resources are available in the BR?..........................................................................47

4.4.3 How do you benefit from the BR resources?......................................................................49

4.4.4 Do you encounter any challenges in the management and conservation activities?...........51

4.4.5 How do you solve challenges that arise from resource conservation?................................53

4.4.6 Is there any destruction going on in the BR?......................................................................54

4.4.7 If yes, where are the destructors come from?.....................................................................55

4.4.8 What does the community do to conserve the BRs?...........................................................55

4.4.9 Is there any institution involved in environmental conservation in your area? If yes mention them......................................................................................................................................58

4.4.10 Do they involve you in any conservation activities? If yes how do they involve you?......59

4.4.11 Does availability of these institutions create any conservation challenge to local community?........................................................................................................................................61

4.4.12 In your opinion, what do you think can be done to solve the problems and enhance community participation in conservation issues?...............................................................................62

4.5 Results and Discussion from Key Informants on BRs Conservation.........................................67

4.5.1 Who is responsible for conserving the BR?........................................................................67

4.5.2 Which activities does the community do in conserving the BR?........................................68

4.5.3 What benefits do the community involved in conservation get?........................................69

4.5.4 Is there any resource encroacher in your BRs?...................................................................69

4.5.5 Where are the encroachers come from?..............................................................................69

4.5.6 Which punishment did you take?.......................................................................................70

4.5.7 Are there any bylaws in place that have been set?..............................................................71

Mention them.....................................................................................................................................72

4.5.8 What can be done so as to make BRs Sustainable?............................................................72

5.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION .......................................................................... 75

x

5.1 CONCLUSION..........................................................................................................................75

5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................................................................................77

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................ 78

Appendix 1: List of consulted stakeholders who were willing to share their details ....................... 79

Appendix 2A: Questionnaire for Community Members........................................................................81

Appendix 2A: Questionnaire for Community Members........................................................................81

Appendix 2B: Focus Group Discussion.................................................................................................88

Appendix 2C: Key Informants...............................................................................................................89

Appendix 3: Some of pictures taken during research work....................................................................90

xi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Geographical location of Respondents.........................................................................................14

Table 2: Wild Animals coming out of BR to community farms................................................................26

Table 3: Community recommendation to curb Human- Wildlife conflict..................................................30

Table 4: Communities’ Environmental Conservation Groups...................................................................32

Table 5: Communities' conservation activities...........................................................................................35

Table 6: Reasons for Poor participation in BR Conservation.....................................................................36

Table 7: Contribution to BR conservation..................................................................................................41

Table 8: Suggestion to increase community participation..........................................................................44

Table 9: resources available in BRs...........................................................................................................47

Table 10: Benefits from presence of BR....................................................................................................49

Table 11: Challenges in BRs management and conservation.....................................................................51

Table 12: Solving challenges from resource conservation.........................................................................53

Table 13: Activities conducted by Communities to conserve BR..............................................................56

Table 14: Institutions found in BR.............................................................................................................59

Table 15: Community Involvement from Institution..................................................................................60

Table 16: Conservation challenges brought about by presence of Institutions and NGOs.........................61

Table 17: Recommendations to enhance participation...............................................................................62

Table 18: Community rating on the suggestions to enhance participation.................................................66

Table 19: Encroachers in the BR................................................................................................................70

xii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Sex of Respondents.....................................................................................................................15

Figure 2: Respondents' Education Level....................................................................................................17

Figure 3: Head of Household.....................................................................................................................19

Figure 4: Economic Activities....................................................................................................................19

Figure 5: Benefit of BRs to Communities..................................................................................................23

Figure 6: Previous cultivation activities in the BRs...................................................................................23

Figure 7: Previous Animals Rearing in BRs..............................................................................................24

Figure 8: Problems in Crop Production......................................................................................................25

Figure 9: Problems in Rearing Animals.....................................................................................................25

Figure 10: Wild Animals Intrusion in Communities' farms.......................................................................26

Figure 11: Reasons for Wildlife coming out of the BRs............................................................................28

Figure 12: Community actions in counteracting Human- Wildlife conflict...............................................29

Figure 13: Community Recommendations to reduce Human- Wildlife Conflicts.....................................31

Figure 14: Engagement in Community conservation group.......................................................................32

Figure 15: Community activities in BR Conservation...............................................................................35

Figure 16: Hindrances to participation.......................................................................................................38

Figure 17: Community view to enhance their participation.......................................................................40

Figure 18: Communities in BRs conservation............................................................................................42

Figure 19: Community activities in BR conservation................................................................................43

Figure 20: views to increase participation..................................................................................................46

Figure 21: Challenges in BR conservation.................................................................................................52

Figure 22: activities conducted by communities surrounding BRs............................................................57

Figure 23: Institutions found in BR............................................................................................................59

xiii

Figure 24: Community involvement by Institutions and NGOs.................................................................60

Figure 25: Punishment to BRs encroachers................................................................................................71

Figure 26: Suggestions to make BR sustainable........................................................................................73

xiv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ANR - Amani Nature Reserve

BR - Biosphere Reserve

CBC - Community Based Conservation

CBNRM - Community Based Natural Resource Management

EAMCEF - East Arc Mountain Conservation Endowment Fund

EUBR - East Usambara Biosphere Reserve

FGD - Focus Group Discussion

KI - Key Informants

LMBR - Lake Manyara Biosphere Reserve

MAB - Man and Biosphere

MAP - Madrid Action Plan

NEMC - National Environmental Management Council

NGOs - Non-Governmental Organization

NIMR - National Institute for Medical Research

NNR - Nilo Nature Reserve

SILC - Saving and Internal Lending Community

SNBR - Serengeti-Ngorongoro Biosphere Reserve

SPSS - Statistical Package for Social Sciences

TAFORI - Tanzania Forest Research Institute

TFCG - Tanzania Forest Conservation Group

UNESCO - United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

UTCO - Usambara Tea Company

VICOBA - Village Community Banks

VLUP - Village Land Use Plan

WMA - Wildlife Management Areas

WPT - Wildlife Policy of Tanzania

WWF - World Wide Fund for Nature

1

CHAPTER ONE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1. Introductory Background

Biosphere reserves (BR) management is a bit different from other protected or reserve areas.

This therefore calls for local community involvement in management activities. By design, there

is no single model for running biosphere reserves, but the principles underlying their presence

and functioning are management system of a biosphere reserve needs to be open, not closed, to

community concerns and needs to be adaptable to changes in local circumstances

(www.georgewright.org).

Moreover, BRs are meant to be places where communities can work in concert with the area's

land-managing agencies, local governments, schools, and other institutions to design responses

to external political, economic, and social pressures that affect the ecological and cultural values

of the area (www.georgewright.org). With this, local community is at the center of BRs

conservation activities hence need to be involved.

Tanzania has four BRs which are Serengeti Ngorongoro, Lake Manyara, East Usambara and the

new baby BR which has been nominated early 2016, the Jozani Chwaka Bay. These BRs are

surrounded by large communities of people. These communities therefore are the ones that are

directly linked with the BR since they live in and surrounding them, hence tend to benefit from

presence of BR. These BRs are rich in biodiversity of various species. Hence calls for proper

conservation initiatives to ensure the biodiversity are fully protected.

Local communities leaving in and around BRs usually get their needs through the presence of

BRs. For instance, land for cultivation, hunting, water sources, minerals, construction materials

such as sand, timber and stones, fuel such as firewood and charcoal, all are easily found in BRs.

This can lead to overuse or misuse of such resources hence biodiversity loss; this is alarming

2

hence protection is crucial. To attain this, there is a need to include local communities in all

aspects of conservation.

There have been ways and modes to involve local communities to take charge and protect

biodiversity from various actors within and outside the country. This has led to initiation of

activities more related to alternative income so that they can reduce dependency of BR resources

and hence reduce degradation.

This report therefore provides information on how local community have been involved, being

direct or indirect, initiated by themselves or external forces in BR conservation. The study has

been conducted in the three BRs found in Tanzania which are SNBR, LMBR and EUBR in 2016.

1.2. Problem Statement and Justification

Biodiversity loss is mainly caused by inadequate involvement of people at grassroots who are

directly living with the BRs. The situation of degradation to biodiversity in Tanzania’s BRs is

marked by years of inadequate involvement of local communities and the clear role of these

people at ground level has been neglected hence lose of BRs status. The idea of involving local

communities in conserving Biodiversity is not new. Plans have been in place to sensitize on local

communities’ involvement, but still there is less involvement. (Kevin G and Specier J, 2004)

Among other issues and plans which have been in place, the Madrid Action Plan (MAP) has put

a requirement that involvement of local communities in the management of Biosphere is crucial.

Further to that, executive secretary of the Convention on Biodiversity stated that indigenous and

local communities are environmental managers with immense ecological knowledge ‘and crucial

partners’ in both conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity (Djoghlaf, 2007).

Despite those efforts done worldwide, biodiversity conservation has remained a challenge which

needs collaborative efforts to attain sustainable biodiversity.

3

The above statement justifies undertaking of this research study in order to unfold reasons for the

ongoing biodiversity loss in many Biosphere Reserves in Tanzania. The research study will

particularly focus on three Biosphere Reserves namely Lake Manyara Biosphere Reserve,

Serengeti-Ngorongoro Biosphere Reserve, and East Usambara Biosphere Reserve. The research

findings will assist in resolving the degradation of the Biosphere Reserves by making sure that

local communities participate fully in the conservation and restoration of the Biosphere

Reserves.

1.3. Objectives

1.3.1. General Objective

To find out the contribution of Local Communities in conservation of Biosphere Reserves and

challenges that faces their conservation.

1.3.2. Specific Objectives

Ø To identify local communities’ roles, initiatives and efforts in BRs conservation.

Ø To find out the conservation activities undertaken by local communities but supported by

the government or Development partners.

Ø To examine the challenges facing local communities in conservation of Biosphere

Reserves.

Ø To come up with initiatives and practices that will help to conserve BRs.

1.3.3. Research Questions

Ø What are the roles and efforts of communities in conservation of the Biosphere Reserve?

Ø What are the conservation activities undertaken by local communities which are

supported by the government or development partners?

Ø What are the challenges facing local communities in the conservation of the Biosphere

Reserves?

4

Ø What are suggestions from local communities that aim at strengthening community-based

conservation efforts?

1.4. Significance of the Study

The findings generated from this study are expected to be of great significance to conservation

practitioners, policy makers, government institutions with mandate of BR conservation, Civil

Society Organizations working particularly on conservation, and to development partners. The

findings will contribute to the existing little knowledge on the relationship between local

communities and conservation of the Biosphere Reserves. The findings will be used by various

stakeholders in conservation and in evaluating conservation projects to ensure local communities

are involved fully in conservation of the Biosphere Reserve.

1.5. Scope of the Study

This research study assessed the contribution of local communities in the conservation of

Biosphere Reserves in three selected Biosphere Reserves. This study is limited to the three

Biosphere Reserves which are Lake Manyara Biosphere Reserve, Serengeti-Ngorongoro

Biosphere Reserve, and East Usambara Biosphere Reserve; and did not look into the new

Biosphere Reserve in Tanzania (Jozani Chwaka Bay), moreover, it has taken more of East

Usambara and a little bit less of Serengeti Ngorongoro and Lake Manyara.

1.6. Limitation of the study

The research has been constrained by financial resources and time. The generous grant by

UNESCO was not enough to cover all the costs; and also, the research was conducted without a

study leave. However, despite these limitations the research was fully done as planned by using

own resources and working overtime.

5

CHAPTER TWO

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Local Community Involvement in BR Management

The Madrid Action Plan (MAP) has put a requirement in it that involvement of local

communities in the management of Biosphere Reserves is crucial. This therefore leads to make

local communities be part and parcel of all activities in Biosphere Reserves. Further to that, the

Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biodiversity in his speech, he stated that indigenous

and local communities are environmental managers with immense ecological knowledge ‘and

crucial partners’ in both conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity (Djoghlaf, 2011). This

also creates an importance of involvement of local communities since they have their local

knowledge.

The Management Manual for UNESCO BR in Africa requires that biosphere reserves are

managed and planned through participation, involvement, and engagement. Thus it focuses on all

stakeholders that have interest in BRs management and planning for it including local

communities. It also calls for a bottom up approach in planning for conservation of BRs. The

Manual further provides importance of local community involvement in BR management, among

other importance; it has provided that it strengthens partnerships with local communities to

implement decisions.

2.2 Community Involvement in SSA

Community Based Natural Resources Management (CBNRM) approach has been presented in

the report by IIED, 2009. In this, it has shown that communities in sub Saharan Africa which has

include countries from West Africa (Ivory Cost and Cameroon), Southern Africa (Mozambique

and Namibia), Central Africa (Democratic Republic of Congo), and East Africa (Kenya, Uganda,

Rwanda and Tanzania) has been involved communities in natural resources management through

Community Based Natural Resources Management (CBNRM) approach. The report further

6

presents that, this approach is more practiced in such a way that those authorities or donors that

are working at a certain protected resource formulate community based groups so as to make

both active and passive stakeholders participate in resources management.

2.3 Community Involvement in Tanzania

Community participation is regarded to be so important and it has been reflected in the Wildlife

Policy of Tanzania (WPT, 2007) dedicated about three quarters of its strategies to the matter.

Community participation in the WPT hinges on wildlife protection and utilization. Among

objectives of it, it requires to transfer the management of Wildlife Management Areas (WMA) to

local communities thus taking care of corridors, migration routes and buffer zones as well as to

ensure that local communities obtain substantial and tangible benefits from wildlife conservation.

It has been shown to ensure local community are engaged in conservation activities, there was a

need to formulate an institution that will be entrusted by villagers to manage the wildlife

resources on their behalf and for the benefit of the entire community.

Noe and Kangalawe (2015) have shown that community participation is important but has to

consider local needs and prioritization. It suggests that securing land through community

participation point to the fundamental success, in conservation terms, of the Community Based

Conservation (CBC) scheme. Further to that, it has shown that through participatory land use

planning land for conservation is secured but the process lack prioritization of local needs for

agricultural land and security against problem animals.

2.4 Importance of Community Involvement

Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2004 provides that the importance of community involvement in

natural resources management that can help to reduce the degradation of marine and terrestrial

biodiversity, address resource use conflicts, improve the community’s quality of life and provide

opportunities for economic activity. Moreover, it improves governance through building stronger

community institutions and increased community capacity, empowerment and voice, which can

7

in turn provide a vehicle for strengthening local governance in other spheres of social and

economic development.

2.5 Biodiversity loss

Tanzania is rich in biodiversity but it is threatened by various human activities. The report by

Byers et all, 2012 provides causes of biodiversity loss such as agriculture expansion, firewood

collection, hunting, charcoal making, mining and poaching. The report further explains that, the

root causes among others is the Lack of sustainable livelihood opportunities for poor, rural, small

farmers and fishers and Lack of competitive sources of income in rural areas, which is generally

thought to motivate local people to harvest local natural resources without authorization (mainly

for domestic use) and make them more susceptible to bribes and payoffs from commercial

poachers of high-value species.

2.6 East Usambara Biosphere Reserve

Designated in 2000 the East Usambara Biosphere Reserve (EUBR) is part of the Eastern Arc

Mountains System which is one of the biodiversity hotspots in the world. The EUBR is located

within Muheza, Korogwe and Mkinga Districts, Tanga Region. Covering a total area of about

90,000 hectares the major ecosystem type of this EUBR is tropical submontane rainforest.

Tropical evergreen forest tree species found in the area include Cephalosphaera usambarensis

and Allanblankia stuhlmanii. About 155,000 people live in and around the Biosphere reserve

(BR) with their main sources of livelihood being small-scale farming and cattle breeding. This

BR aims at promoting alternative income or additional sources for the local populations (GEBR,

2014).

2.7 Lake Manyara Biosphere Reserve

Lake Manyara Biosphere Reserve is situated in the depression of the East African Rift Valley in

the Lake Manyara Basin in northern Tanzania. Below the rift wall, perennial springs in the north

support a ground water forest (characterized by Trichilia roka and Croton macrostachyus or the

8

yellow fever tree (Acacia xanthophloea) but also riverine habitats, swamps, woodland and

alkaline grasslands characterize the area.

The human population in the biosphere reserve is estimated to 257,147 people (2012). With most

indigenous people practising pastoralism and agriculture, these are the most important socio-

economic activities in the area. Ethnic groups of the Lake Manyara region are the Maasai, the

Iraq and the Barbaig. Most of the immigrants in the region depend on tourism. Poaching of

wildlife for meat and trophies, illegal fishing, selling of firewood and charcoal constitute threats

to the biodiversity in the biosphere reserve.

(www.unesco.org/mabdb/br/brdir).

2.8 Serengeti Ngorongoro Biosphere Reserve (SNBR)

The Serengeti Ngorongoro biosphere reserve covers an area of 1,476,300 hectares of the

Serengeti National Park and 828,800 hectares of the Ngorongoro Conservation Area in the north

of Tanzania. The plains of the Serengeti are mostly formed by crystalline rocks overlaid by

volcanic ash with numerous rock outcrops (kopjes).

The part of the BR in Ngorongoro Conservation Area has been used by man for hunting and

pastures for a long time. Maasai still use parts of the region for livestock raising, leading to the

overgrazing in some areas. Poaching is a serious problem in the biosphere reserve, while anti-

poaching activities are hampered by lack of fuel and equipment. Serengeti has been a centre for

research over the last decades (www.unesco.org/mabdb/br/brdir).

The report by IIED, 2009 further reports that, CBNRM approach has provided positive results

which has been termed as 3Es which are Empowerment, Economics and Environment. In all

countries that has been conducting the approach; the 3Es has been improved in such a way that

community members have been empowered to take charge of their own lives and future. With

regard to Economics, the report has presented that, communities got economic benefits through

getting food, tourism activities that have been created by CBNRM hence creates more efforts to

9

strengthen the approach, this at the end has helped to reduce poverty to community members and

lastly, the Environmental aspect becomes well protected.

TanzaniaMapshowingbiospherereserves.

Source:UNESCO

http://www.unesco.org/mabdb/br/brdir/africa/Ta

nzaniamap.htm

10

CHAPTER THREE

3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Study Area and Justification for Selection

This study has covered three Biosphere Reserves that are found in Tanzania, in which the large

part of the study has covered in the East Usambara Biosphere Reserve and part of Lake Manyara

and Serengeti Ngorongoro BRs. Administratively, East Usambara BR which has an area of

about 1300 km² is found in Tanga Region covering districts of Muheza, Mkinga and Korogwe.

Lake Manyara which is found in Manyara Region and has an area of 377,920 ha, on the other

hand, Serengeti Ngorongoro which covers the largest part of BRs in Tanzania, has an area of

about 3,836,814 ha. All these three BRs have the core, buffer and transition zones to make them

complete BRs.

These BRs has been chosen based on the fact that they are the ones experiencing degradation and

encroachment due to various reasons some of which this research seeks to unfold.

3.2 Research Design

In this study, a cross sectional research design was used since it enabled the researcher to collect

data at a single point in time (Bailey, 1998). Data collected were used for the purpose of simple

descriptive statistics and interpretation; also made it possible to determine relationship between

different variables specified for this study. This type of study also helped a researcher to observe

hence undertake proper descriptive studies (Kothari, 2004). The selection of this design was based

on provision of greater degree of accuracy, quick results and it allowed collection of data from

different groups in a given time. Furthermore, this design provided an opportunity to take on

board questions raised during the study through scheduled information interview something which

shows that both quantitative and qualitative research design has been considered (Kombo and

Tromp, 2006).

11

3.3 Sampling Frame and Procedure

This study targeted the local communities found in wards and villages that surround the BRs

who are the main beneficiaries of the existing resources. In EUBR, the study was conducted in

12 villages, SNBR in 2 villages and in LMBR in 3 villages making a total of 18 villages. All

villages involved were selected purposely as the aim was to acquire responses and knowledge

from communities living in proximity to BRs. Within selected villages, the study used random

and cluster sampling so as to get the desired information. More factors that led to selection of

these procedures were more of Geographical location in relation to the BRs.

3.4 Research Approach(s)

Mixed research methods were used in this study whereby quantitative and qualitative elements

were explored. Since the research intended to ask specific questions about community efforts and

activities on conservation of the BRs; and since the research also asked specific questions on

other factors affecting communities’ efforts in undertaking conservation activities to safeguard

the BRs, then quantitative approach was necessary to quantify these empirical data and to

analyze them using statistics in an unbiased manner. However, this research also intended to

gather suggestions from local communities adjacent to the BRs on what should be done to

strengthen conservation activities to protect the BRs. In order to achieve these; both quantitative

and qualitative methods were used.

3.5 Ethical Issues

In order to comply with ethical issues while undertaking this activity, the researcher asked for

appointments from all village leaders and local communities concerned. All randomly selected

participants were informed clearly on the importance of the study and their rights to take part in

it or not. This implied that the all local communities, local leaders, religious leaders, and other

key informants made decision to participate in the study willingly. All who participated in the

study were assured of full anonymity and confidentiality of their views and identity. All

participants who participated in the study were those who willed to do so and were not forced by

the researcher or local government leaders.

12

3.6 Types and Sources of Data

Both primary and secondary sources of data have been used in this study. The primary data was

collected from information provided by communities in the villages that the study relied to. In

this, information collected include education level, socio-economic activities, BR resources, BR

ownership, dependency on the BR, BR destruction, participation in the BR conservation.

Key informant interviews were also conducted with representatives from Village leaders, Village

environmental committees; Community based organization (CBO) and youths and elders.

On the other hand, the study used secondary data which has been obtained from various sources

including books, papers and reports.

3.7 Data Collection Techniques

3.7.1 Primary Data Collection

The following collection procedures were used to get both quantitative and qualitative data:

3.7.1.1 Participant observation

Mettrick, 1993, stated that it is always essential to keep ones eye open when visiting a new area

and to check what is being told against what is seen. This method was used so as to make more

distinct elements of data gathered by other methods.

3.7.1.2 Focus Group Discussions

Twenty-three (23) major focus group discussions (FGD) having between 12 and 42 participants

per ward and village were gathered to get their views. Participants for FGD were selected with

the help of village government leaders.Groups of youth, elders, environmental committee, CBOs

were assembled for Focus Group Discussion (FGD). There were a total of 12 groups and each

group consisted of 8 - 12 people.

3.7.1.3 Structured Questionnaire

Structured questionnaires were administered to individuals found in the villages. The

questionnaires sought to seek information on the education level, economic activities, awareness

13

on the presence and ownership of the BR, resources found in it and general utilization, awareness

on activities done to protect the BR, role of an individual in conservation activities, participation

in BR conservation, challenges encountered participation. A total number of individuals who

were interviewed were 150.

3.7.1.4 Key Informant Interview

The key informant interview drew participants from village government leaders, including

Executive officers, village chairperson, environmental committee leaders, Community based

leaders, environmental management officers at district level and BR ecologists. These were

selected since are influential and have knowledge on BR hence could provide relevant

information.

3.7.2 Secondary Data

The secondary data was collected from sources including books, papers and reports. These were

those that are more relevant on local community involvement and participation in natural

resources and that are more of BR related.

3.8 Data Analysis

The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) has been used to make analysis the data that

has been collected from questionnaires. Variables were coded and imported for cross tabulation

so as to enable calculation of frequencies and percentages and be presented in tables, charts and

histograms. Further to that, descriptive analysis has been used to analyse information collected

from key informant interviews, FGD and field observation.

14

CHAPTER FOUR

4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Results and Discussion from Individuals Respondents in the BRs

4.1.1 ResponsesonGeographicalLocation

Table 1: Geographical location of Respondents

No: Variable Responses No: Variable Response No: Variable Response 1.1.1 District Muheza 1.1.1 District Mkinga 1.1.1 District Korogwe

1.1.2 BRs Name EUBR 1.1.2 BRs Name EUBR 1.1.2 BRs Name EUBR

1.1.3 Ward Amani 1.1.3 Ward Bosha 1.1.3 Ward Mnyuzi

1.1.4 Village(s) 1. Amani

2. Msasa IBC

3. Mlesa

4. Shebomeza

1.1.4 Village(s) 1. Kuze

2. Kwamtili

3.Kuze-Kibago

1.1.4 Village(s) 1. Mnyuzi

2. Kwamzindawa

3. Mkwakwani

4. Shambakapori

4.1.2 Responses on Bio-data Information

Under this section bio-data from various respondents are presented in data form with exception

to sub-section 4.1.2.1 on respondents’ names and 4.1.2.2 on respondents’ phone numbers as most

of them requested that their names and mobile phones remain under the state of anonymity for

their security reasons.

No: Variable Responses No: Variable Response

1.1.1 District Tarime 1.1.1 District Monduli

1.1.2 BRs

Name

SNBR 1.1.2 BRs

Name

LMBR

1.1.3 Ward Nyarukoba 1.1.3 Ward Mto wa Mbu

1.1.4 Village(s) 1. Gibaso

2. Ketongo

1.1.4 Village(s) 1. Magadini

2. Majengo

3. Migombani

15

4.1.3 Responses on Respondents’ Sex in Three BRs

A total of 149 respondents from three Biosphere Reserves namely East Usambara Biosphere

Reserve, Serengeti National Biosphere Reserve, and Lake Manyara Biosphere Reserve

responded to this question. It should be noted that these mentioned three (3) BRs are found in

five administrative districts namely Muheza, Mkinga, Korogwe, Tarime, and Monduli. The

following bar chart shows distribution of number of responded based on their sex. The bar chart

shows that female interviewed were 82 amounting to 55% and men interviewed were 67 making

45% of total interviewees.

Figure 1: Sex of Respondents

4.1.4 Responses on Respondents’ Age

As explained above, total respondents were 149; out of this women were 82. The following data

diagrams shows clearly female respondents’ age both in number and in percentages. Majority of

women who were interviewed ranged 17 - 45 years making a total of 67 respondents who make

82%. On the other side those female aged 46 years and above comprised a smaller number of 15

respondents making 18%.

16

Men’s respondents were 67 and their distribution of age based on respondents is shown in the

following data charts bellow.

The above data charts show clearly that a large number of male respondents’ age is between 26

and 55 years amounting to 57 respondents who make 85% while the other age category forming

only 10 respondents making only 15%. These results show clearly that young men and who

majority have little interests in conservation of the BR. This would thus require a specific

program or project campaign to sensitize and empower the youth in conservation of the BR in

their respective localities.

17

4.1.5 Responses on Respondents’ Education Level

Respondents’ education levels are covered well under this section which summarizes responses

from respondents in all BRs. The following data charts show clearly distribution of education

levels amongst communities in the BRs.

Figure 2: Respondents' Education Level

Reading from the data chart above it is evident that the majority of the interviews are community

members who have completed primary school education. The data shows that of all 149

respondents 61 (41%) were respondents who completed primary school, 12 (8%) with no formal

school at all, 18 (12%) did not complete primary school, 24 (16%) completed secondary school

education, 11 (7%) did not complete secondary school education, 14 (10%) completed

university/college education, and 9 (6%) who did not complete university/college education.

These data show categorically that majority of the respondents in the BRs had some kind of

formal education that would provide an effective avenue for CSOs to undertake effective

conservation training and interventions in the BRs.

4.1.6 Responses on Respondents’ Being Head of Household

In responding to this question both respondents’ male and female at some points showed that

they are head of household, based on this data processing had to be differentiated in order to

capture this variation properly between male and female. The aim was to get percentage of

18

households’ leadership of male and those under female leadership. This allows for project

planning that consider who has the authority at household level for effective community

engagement in conservation of the BRs.

The data chart in the left side shows

clearly that there some women who

are leading households. Of the 82

female respondents to this question 24

(29%) responded YES which confirms

that they are leaders of household. On

the other hand 58 (71%) responded

with NO something that shows that

they are not household leaders.

Data from male respondents as presented

in the left data chart shows that 59

(88%) males are household leaders with

only 8 (12%) males which responded as

not household leaders. In view of this,

one can extract a meaningful

interpretation that male need to be

involved at large in conservation of the BR as most of them are household leaders who can

communicate to their families the importance of conserving the BRs.

The second part of the question 1.2.6 wanted to know the number of house hold members to all

who were interviewed. The following bar chart shows clearly such household composition.

19

Figure 3: Head of Household

4.1.7 Responses on Respondents’ on Main Economic Activities

In responding to this question all 149 respondents comprising of male and females answered this

question properly as shown in the data chart below:

Figure 4: Economic Activities

20

The data chart above shows that respondents in BRs are involved in crop production at 64%

which is equivalent to 95 respondents. 22% of respondents are involved in Livestock keeping

equivalent to 33 respondents, and 14% are involved in small scale businesses equivalent to 21

respondents. This suggests that there is a need to empower communities in all BRs to embark on

small-scale income generating activities rather depending heavily on crop production and

livestock keeping as these two economic activities are currently prone to negative effects of

climate change. Without stable income generating activities there is likelihood that people may

opt to be involved in poaching and other activities that are not friendly for conservation of the

BRs.

4.2 Responses on Land Ownership, Use, and Conservation of BRs

In this section all respondents interviewed provided information on land ownership, land uses,

and on conservation of the BRs. The following data charts provide data that support their

responses.

4.2.1 Responses on Types of Ownership

The following chart shows how land is being owned to most respondents living adjacent to the

BRs. Extracting data from the chart below land ownership to most respondents is on individual

level with few respondents

owning the land communally.

This communal ownership of land

has been found mainly amongst

people who keep livestock and

very few for people who are

involved in crop production. In

view of this, it is therefore

pertinent to undertake advocacy

in emphasizing for land management plans to ensure communities know how to use land in a

way that does not affect the BRs negatively.

21

4.2.2 Responses on Land Size Owned

Overall responses from all 149 respondents responded by indicating that most of communities

own land that is from minimum 3 acres to a maximum of 30 maximum acres. Communities

offered some explanation as why some people own fewer acres while other have more land size.

They explained that some families are increasing in a quantum number hence requiring them to

divide land amongst themselves as there is no other area where they can expand land ownership

simply because they are close to the BRs. Some went far by claiming that they have few acres

because some of the land was taken during expansion of the BRs and they were not compensated

something that would have enabled them to buy land from those who have more.

4.2.3 Responses on How Long a Respondent Has Been Owning Land

Most respondents who responded to this question showed that they have been owning land for

more than 40 years. There are some who just bought from other communities while others have

inherited it from their parents in a normal traditional land ownership system. Some communities

lacked proper information on how long they have owning land probably due to failure to keep

records.

4.2.4 Responses on Who Own the BRs and the Resources in the Forests

Communities who were interviewed responded to this question with lots of comments, but for

the sake of data the following

data charts presents

summarized responses from

communities in the BRs.

According to the data chart,

the government is owning

most BRs and resources in the

forest at 81%, followed by

foreigners, that is foreign

22

investments by 15%, and lastly by communities at 4%. This paints a picture that most of these

reserves are owned by government and foreigners who have received concession from the

government for tourism purposes. In view of this, communities mighty have grudge and see the

BRs as not their despite being close to the Community explained that the 4% represents only few

lucky communities who have obtained the Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) through which

they can manage somehow resources in the BRs. They also mentioned there are some

government authorities in some BRs who allow communities to benefits from the BRs in a

sustainable way that does not harm the BRs like fuel wood collecting without cutting trees, that

is by collecting natural died trees or branches. Therefore, there is a need to undertake policy-

advocacy campaign in order to review policy, legal framework, and institutional framework to

allow communities to be part of the BRs so as to increase ownership and conservation measures

to the BRs.

4.2.5 Responses on if the BRs Benefits Communities in Any Way

Respondents from all BRs respondent effectively to this question, of all 149 respondents

interviewed 128 responded with YES hence making 86% of all respondents with only 21

responding with NO at 14%.

Apart from answering NO these

21 respondents explained their

dissatisfaction on how the

government handled the process

of land acquisition to expand the

BRs without their concert and

even without being involved in

the process. Worse enough, most

of the communities whose land

was taken to expand the BRs were not compensated. For those who responded with YES

participate fully in answering the question on the importance of BRs to them. The following are

their responses which comprises the number of respondents who responded in black color and

the corresponding percentages in red color:

23

Figure 5: Benefit of BRs to Communities

4.2.6 Responses on if Communities Were Previously Cultivating in the BRs Lands

Most respondents were honest enough to respond to this question by telling the truth that before

strict measures to prevent the BRs most of them were involved in cultivating various crops

within the BRs because the land is very fertile for it has not been used for farming for many

years. Some of them confessed that they used to cultivate opium well known as ‘Bangi’ in the

BRs as many animals especially wildebeest, bush back, and dear loves it, and so it was easier to

trap and catch them for meat in the form of systematic poaching! The following data chart shows

communities responses on this question:

Figure 6: Previous cultivation activities in the BRs

24

4.2.7 Responses on if Communities Were Rearing Animals in the BRs

A small number of communities interviewed agreed that they used to send their animals within

BRs for pasture. They confirmed that within BRs there are lots of fodders for their animals

though there is a challenge of contracting diseases which are particularly for wild animals such

as buffalos and wildebeest. The Following data chart presents respondents’ responses:

Figure 7: Previous Animals Rearing in BRs

4.2.8 Responses on Problems Communities Encounter in Crop Production and Rearing of

Animals

The following diagram that has no quantifiable data presents responses from communities from

all BRs which were involved in the survey. They mentioned many challenges that they encounter

in crop production and rearing in animals. So the diagrams contain qualitative information from

farmers on the challenges they encounter in crop production and the other diagram contain

challenges that face livestock keepers in rearing their animals.

25

Figure 8: Problems in Crop Production

As shown above, those are the challenges which farmers who reside in proximity to BRs face in

their production circle. The following illustration shows the challenges which livestock keepers

face in rearing their animals.

Figure 9: Problems in Rearing Animals

4.2.9 Responses on Whether Wild Animals Intrude Communities’ Land

Of the 149 respondents, 20 respondents agreed that wild animals do come into their lands during

dry and rain seasons for various purposes. Wild animals come during dry season in search for

26

water and fodder and they would come during rainy season for attractive crops to them such as

banana plantation, maize, millet, and ground nuts. Having responded YES to question, they

responded through data as shown in the table following after this data chart:

Figure 10: Wild Animals Intrusion in Communities' farms

Table 2: Wild Animals coming out of BR to community farms

No: Animal Specie Type of Conflict Months/Period of

the year

Estimated Loss Per

Year (Tshs)

1. Elephant Human-Elephant conflict,

they raid various crops in a

mass destruction

During rainy

farming season

and during dry

season

300,000 – 500,000

per person

2. Buffalo They raid crops especially

maize and millet

During rainy

season only

150,000 - per person

3. Leopard No Conflict

4. Sykes monkey No Conflict

5. Vervet monkey Raid crops at early stages of

maturing especially on maize,

mille, onions, beans, and

many more.

During rainy

farming season

50,000 – 100,000-

per person

6. Hyena Attacking domestic animals All the year 300,000 – 500,000

27

especially goats and sheep round per person

7. Wild pig Raid maize, sweet potatoes,

and cassava

During rainy and

dry season

200,000 - to

250,000- per person

8. Porcupine No Conflict

9. Baboons Raid crops at all stages

particularly maize, millet,

sweet potatoes, cassava, etc

During rainy

farming season

and less during

dry season

300,000 – 400,000

per person

Note:

1. It should be noted that many factors take into account with regard to the loss on crops or

domestic animals due to interference from wild animals. This includes number of acres

someone have, the stage of crops, and the type of animals that have raided crops.

2. Another factor that takes into consideration is the timing to deter wildlife when

approaching communities’ crops or animals.

3. Therefore, a separate research study needs to be undertaken to dig deeper into this subject

as it is very complex involving many variables that have not been cached in this survey.

Source; Research work, November, 2015

28

4.2.10 Responses on Why Wild Animals Come Out of the BRs

Communities in all three BRs namely East Usambara Biosphere Reserve, Serengeti National

Biosphere Reserve, and Lake Manyara Biosphere reserve answered this question by showing

reasons that make wild animals to come out of their habitat in the BRs to communities’ areas in

such for various needs and specifically in raiding crops that they love, and partly due to

increased number especially for Buffalos, Baboons, Vervet Monkey, and wild pigs. The

following data chart shows responses on processed data.

Figure 11: Reasons for Wildlife coming out of the BRs

From the data chart above, it is evident that crop raid is the main reason accounting for 49%,

followed by searching for food at 21%). Other reasons re increased number of specific wildlife

species as mentioned in the preceding paragraph above at 19%. Regular migration accounts for

only 4% while human settlement or encroachment accounted for 7%.

29

4.2.11 Responses on What Communities Do to Counteract the Conflict

Respondents showed various ways or measures they take in counteracting the human-wildlife

conflict as shown in the following data chart.

Figure 12: Community actions in counteracting Human- Wildlife conflict

The data chart above shows categorically that communities in proximity to the BRs prefer

chasing the animals using various ways in order to reduce their negative impacts to their crops

and livestock. This method accounts for 45%. The second method that is used by communities is

intimidating the animals which accounts for 43% while killing the animal is used by few people

who keep livestock at 12%. The further explained that there are some animals which are not

intimidated or chased away easily such as lions and hyena and so the suitable method for them is

just killing them using local means such as arrows and spears with poison!

4.2.12 Responses on Community Recommendations to Curb Human-Wildlife Conflict

In responding to this question communities living adjacent to the BRs provided many

recommendations. They provided recommendations based on local knowledge per specific

species as they said that each species had a suitable way for reducing the human-wildlife

conflict. The table 2 below has such local based recommendations per species

30

Table 3: Community recommendation to curb Human- Wildlife conflict

No: Name of Species Recommendation(s)

1. Elephants 1. Plant natural deterrent crops to Elephants such as chili

paper and bee hives as fencing.

2. Leaving opened corridors that Elephants uses migrate

from one place to another

3. Build water dams within BRs so as to offer water

needs for Elephants

4. Using electric fencing

2. Buffalos 1. Using fat extracted from dead lions and rub them in

ways that Buffalo uses

2. Using whistles to intimidate Buffalos as they scared

easily

3. Using electric fencing

3. Vervet Monkey 1. Kill 50% of the Vervet Monkeys as they reproduce

quickly in few years and have little attraction to

tourism

4. Wild Pigs 1. Using fat extracted from dead lions and rub them on

the border of the farms

2. Using moving lights during nights to intimidate the

wild pigs as they are intimidated easily by moving

lights

5. Baboons 1. Kill 30 to 40 percent of the Baboons as they can

reproduce easily

6. Hyena 1. Using moving lights to intimidate the Hyena

2. Kill few and put their dead bodies in ways Hyena uses

7. Lions 1. Using moving lights as lions are afraid of moving

lights and not static lights

2. Using electric fencing

Source, Research Work, November, 2015

31

Communities offered the above recommendations in the hope that the government and other

development partners would assist communities to have those tools that can be used safely to

deter wildlife intruding communities’ areas hence reduce human-wildlife conflict at large.

Furthermore, communities understood the need of migrating corridors and suggested to set free

wildlife migrating corridors.

Furthermore, communities responded to the questionnaire on question 1.3.14 and their responses

are summarized in the following data chart.

Figure 13: Community Recommendations to reduce Human- Wildlife Conflicts

4.3 Community involvement and participation

4.3.1 Responses on Whether Individual Community Members Belong to a Conservation

Local Community Based Group

Some of the interviewed respondents confirmed that they belong some local based conservation

group most of whom are not registered. Their responses are summarized in the following pie data

chart.

32

Figure 14: Engagement in Community conservation group

Fifty-four percent (54%) of the respondents said that they don’t belong to any local community

conservation group while 46% of the respondents showed that they belong to some local

conservation groups. The table below, provides information on those who have groups in

conservation activities.

Table 4: Communities’ Environmental Conservation Groups

Name of

Group

No. of

members

Major challenges faced

by the group

Major roles

of the group

Source of

funding

Benefits

received

Me Fe

Okoa Misitu 4 8 lack of working tools energy saving

stoves making,

tree planting

group

members

contributio

n

income,

reduced use

of firewood

Utalii Asilia 10 10 few tourist visits,

uregistered tourit visits

tourism, tree

planting

group

members

contributio

n

income,

employment

Tumaini 0 16 Lack of accountability

among members

Beekeeping group

members

income

through

33

Name of

Group

No. of

members

Major challenges faced

by the group

Major roles

of the group

Source of

funding

Benefits

received

contributio

n

honey selling

Environmental

Committee

6 1 inadequate

environmental awareness

environmental

conservation

education

group

members

contributio

n

environmenta

l education to

community

Sauti ya Umma 11 15 inadequate

environmental awareness

Tree nurseries group

members

contributio

n

income

through

selling trees

Uwatam 15 15 drought, market, lack of

agrochemicals

husk selling for

energy creation

group

members

contributio

n

Income,

reduction in

firewood

usage

Anglican Church

Youth Group

6 4 inadequate working tools Beekeeping Group

members

Income,

reduction in

dependency

Mazingira 6 8 inadequate water supply Tree nursery,

farming

group

members

contributio

n

Income

through

selling of

trees,

environmenta

l

conservation

Beekeeping

group

5 5 no challenges Beekeeping wekeza

finance

group

income

through

honey selling

34

4.3.2 Responses on What Problem Have Hindered Some Community Members to Not

Join Local Conservation Groups

Community members who responded NO in the question number 1.3.1.4 were asked this

question as to what problems have made them or hindered them to join local community

conservation groups. Communities responded by listing a number of problems or reasons as

follows:

Ø Extreme poverty that makes them to spend more time in income generating activities

to earn a living on a daily basis hence having no time to participate in conservation

activities.

Ø Poor leadership in most of local community conservation groups.

Ø Lack of incentives from the government and development partners to local

community conservation groups

Ø Inadequate information and training on the importance of conservation hence looking

at conservation as a minor thing.

Ø Unsolved compensation issue – especially for those whose land was taken for

expansion of the BRs.

Ø Lack of transparency and fairness in distribution of resources accrued from BRs

4.3.3 Responses on Activities Conducted in Communities Areas for the Conserving the

BRs

Many community individual members responded to this question with YES showing that there

are activities conducted that aim at conserving the BRs. The following data chart shows this

response in percentages and number of respondents.

35

Figure 15: Community activities in BR Conservation

Having responded YES at 93%, communities were supposed to mention those activities that are

taking place in their areas that aims at conserving the BR. The following table 4 contains

responses that mention such activities:

Table 5: Communities' conservation activities

Source; Research Work, January 2016

No: BRs Conservation Activities

1. Tree planting

2. BRs boundary protection

3. Patrol to ensure protection of the BRs resource

4. Enforcing bylaws at village level

5. Education to communities on conservation

6. Reporting poaching or destruction activities on the BRs

7. Fire management to protect the BRs

8. Intimidating and chasing away animals from BRs so as to

reduce poaching

36

4.3.4 Community Responses With Regard to Conservation of the Biosphere Reserves

Community Responses – Question 1: What hinders you to participate in BR’s conservation?

Communities in East Usambara, Lake Manyara, and Serengeti responded to this question with in

a diverse way but with a lot of similarities which in turn helps in strengthening project activities

in these BR areas. The following table and the pie chart offer much quantitative and qualitative

data with regard to this response.

Table 6: Reasons for Poor participation in BR Conservation

Source: Research work, January, 2016

Reading from the table above its is evident that there are similar concerns that hinders

communities not to participate fully in BR conservation ranging from lack of community

seriousness in conservation, community grudge due to poor benefits sharing from the BR,

inadequate information and awareness on the importance of the BR, gender discrimination

whereby women are not allowed by men to participate in BR conservation hence requiring them

Lack

of

se

rious

ness

in

cons

erva

tion

Grudge due

to poor

benefits

sharing from

BR

Inadequate

information

and

awareness on

the

importance

the BR Gen

der D

iscr

imin

atio

n No

compensation

to people after

their land was

taken to

enlarge the BR

Fear to report

BR

destruction

due to threat

from BR

destructors

Increased

poverty that

makes

people

concentrate

more on

economic

activities

Communitie

s were not

involved in

the BR land

acquisition

process

Unequal

and unfair

distributio

n of

revenue

from BR

to villages

Total

Point

s

EUBR 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 12

LMBR 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

SNBR 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 4

Total

Points

on

Hindra

nce 4 4 3 1 2 1 1 1 2

37

to stay home to take care of household works. Communities also mentioned that there is no

compensation to people after their land was taken to enlarge the BR, fear to report on BR

destruction due to threat from BR destructors, increased poverty that makes people concentrate

more on economic activities, communities were not involved in the BR land acquisition process,

and unequal and unfair distribution of revenue from BRs to villages in proximity to the BRs.

These have been major reasons that hinder some communities not to participate in BR

conservation.

The pie chart in this paragraph shows in percentages on hindrances that have been mentioned by

communities. Mkinga district has

the highest percentage which

means that it has many reasons

that hinder communities to

participate in the BR

conservation in Mkinga district.

It is then followed by Serengeti

and Muheza districts which each

has 21% of reasons that hinder

effective community participation in BR conservation in their respective BRs. Lake Manyara

come third at 16% of reasons hindering communities in Lake Manyara to participate effectively

in BR conservation. The last district is Korogwe with 10% of reasons that hinder community

participation in conservation of BR.

However, in general, communities have raised important reasons that need to be taken into

account during project implementation in these biosphere reserves. Addressing these community

concerns will position and encourage local communities to undertake deliberate measures on

BRs’ conservation. The following bar chart shows which hindrance has been mentioned most in

percentages hence helping project planners and implementers to priorities project activities in

addressing these community concerns.

38

Figure 16: Hindrances to participation

39

4.3.5 What can be done to improve livelihood of local people and enhance participation?

Responses on this question number two (2) from communities in Korogwe, Lake Manyara,

Mkinga, Muheza, and Serengeti have been presented in the following two diagrams that illustrate

what communities responded.

Based on the illustrating diagrams it is right to arrive at a consensus that needs vary between BRs

on what can be done to improve livelihood of local people. This call upon development partners

in the formal of CSOs, donor agencies, or the government to take deliberate initiatives in

supporting communities to have alternative means of livelihood hence reduce over dependency

on resources from BRs adjacent to them. Most of the suggestions provided by communities are

based on local specific context whereby each community adjacent to BR would like to have a

different supporting intervention, it not like a one size that fits all.

40

Figure 17: Community view to enhance their participation

4.3.6 Community Responses – Question 3: Have you contributed in any way for the

conservation of BR?

Communities from all biosphere reserve in East Usambara, Lake Manyara and Serengeti

responded to this question showing what they have been doing as part of their contribution in

conserving the BR. Responses from these communities vary from one BR to the other but this

shows the diversity through which there would be a meaningful community engagement so as to

reach effective and viable conservation of the BRs.

The following table and data charts presents precisely based on data with regard to community

responses.

41

Table 7: Contribution to BR conservation

Tree

plantin

g and

tree

nurser

y Bee

kee

ping

But

terf

ly fa

rmin

g Pr

otec

tion

of

the

BR

boun

darie

s Patrol for

protection

purposes of

the BR Fire

m

anag

emen

t on

th

e

BR

Provision of

education on

clean

renewable

energy and

clean cook

stoves

Adhering

and

enforcing

community

bylaws Con

serv

atio

n Ed

ucat

ion

Rep

ortin

g de

stru

ctio

n to

auth

oriti

es

Tota

l

Poin

ts

Korogw

e 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 7

Lake

Manyara 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2

Mkinga 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 6

Muheza 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 9

Serenget

i 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3

Total

Points

for

Conserv

ation

Activiti

es 5 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 2

Source: Research work, November, 2015

42

Figure 18: Communities in BRs conservation

The pie chart above shows level or number of activities that communities undertake in

conserving the BRs in their respective localities. Muheza leads the way by having 33% followed

by Korogwe with 26%, Mkinga 22%, Serengeti 11%, and lastly Lake Manyara at only 8%. This

suggests that more efforts need to be taken on board for Lake Manyara and Serengeti. However,

the other BRs should not be left alone but rather encouraging communities to move ahead with

conservation efforts they currently undertaking and even by adding more conservation activities

to protect the BRs.

43

Figure 19: Community activities in BR conservation

The column chart above shows clearly with percentages on activities undertaken across all five

BRs. The leading conservation activity is tree planting at 19% followed by bee keeping,

protection of the BR boundaries, patrol within BRs, and fire management each at 11%. The rest

have less than 10%. But it should be noted that most of these activities are case sensitive, that is

they vary between BRs. Some activities like butterfly farming are geographically oriented and

can therefore not be done in every BR.

4.3.7 Community Responses – Question 4: In your opinion, what do you think can be

done to solve the problems and enhance community participation?

Communities from all BRs which were interviewed responded to this question by providing their

opinions on what should be done to solve the problems and enhance community participation in

conservation of the BRs. In answering these questions communities have showed variance in

responses something that suggests that needs differs amongst these communities surrounding the

BRs. The following data charts and tables shows specifically the dispersion of data based on this

44

question and responses from communities in Korogwe, Lake Manyara, Mkinga, Muheza, and

Serengeti.

Table 8: Suggestion to increase community participation

Equa

l

dist

ribut

ion

of

reve

nue

colle

cted

fr

om

BR

Prov

isio

n of

wor

king

tool

s to

com

mun

ities

in

BR

s

Aw

aren

ess

rais

ing

on

the

impo

rtanc

e of

BR

Prov

idin

g a

parti

cipa

tory

cons

erva

tion

educ

atio

n

Shar

ing

cons

erva

tion

educ

atio

n to

man

y

com

mun

ities

Form

ulat

ing

com

mun

ity

cons

erva

tion

grou

ps

Form

ulat

ion

of

byla

ws

and

guid

elin

es

to

prot

ect t

he B

R

Empo

wer

ing

Vill

age

Envi

ronm

enta

l

Com

mitt

ees

Var

ious

Con

serv

atio

n

activ

ities

Fair

com

pens

atio

n

to

thos

e w

ho

thei

r la

nd

was

take

n fo

r BR

Tota

l

Poin

ts

Korogw

e 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 7

Lake

Manyara 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

Mkinga 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 7

Muheza 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 6

Serenget

i 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2

Total

Points

on

Opinion

s 3 1 4 4 3 1 2 2 2 2

Source: Research work, November, 2015

45

As previously indicated

in the first paragraph of

this sub-section five that

explains on community

responses to questions

number four it is evident

that communities prefer

most awareness rising on

the importance of the

BRs and on providing

participatory

conservation education

to communities. Also communities have shown high interest on fair sharing of revenue from BR

resources, sharing conservation education to many communities adjacent to BRs, and on

developing and enforcing local by laws for the purpose of safeguarding the BRs.

46

Figure 20: views to increase participation

As discussed above, the above column chart supports discussion already made on community’s

leading opinions that would help in reducing problems and enhancing community participation

in the conservation of BRs.

Communities’ opinions should be taken seriously because they reflect their desire to address

challenges facing them in the conservation of the BRs. Active and effective community

participation in conservation can only be reached when communities feel involved, respected,

and consulted in undertaking conservation activities.

47

4.4 Responses from Focus Group Discussion on BRs Conservation

4.4.1 Do you acknowledge or recognize the presence of BR?

Responses from all three districts showed and confirmed that communities acknowledged the

presence of Biosphere reserve in their localities. They all responded YES to the question above.

4.4.2 Which resources are available in the BR?

The following table shows responses from Biosphere reserve questionnaire based on points per

variable.

Table 9: resources available in BRs

Q-No Question

Responses

(Variables per Question)

Korogwe

District

Muheza

District

Mkinga

District

Total

Points

2

Which resources

are available in

the BR?

Trees 1 1 1 3

Minerals 1 1 1 3

Clay Soil for Pottery 1 0 0 1

Wild Animals 1 1 1 3

Water Sources 1 1 1 3

Stones 1 0 0 1

Grasses 1 0 0 1

Medicinal trees 1 1 1 3

Wild vegetables 1 1 1 3

Mushrooms 1 0 0 1

Insects 1 1 1 3

Birds 1 1 1 3

Flowers 0 1 0 1

Source: Research work, November, 2015

48

The above pie chart shows resources available in the BR. This pie chart is a result of combined

data from all three districts of Mkinga, Korogwe, and Muheza. It is evident that most of the

resources which have been recognized by respondents are minerals with 10%, wild animals with

10%, medicinal tree with 10%, wild vegetables with 10%, insects with 10% birds with 10%, and

trees with 10%. Other resources have been mentioned but they are rather locally specific, that is

based on specific locality.

49

4.4.3 How do you benefit from the BR resources?

Table 10: Benefits from presence of BR

Q-No Question

Responses

(Variables per

Question)

Korogwe

District

Muheza

District

Mkinga

District

Total

Points

3

How do you

benefit from the

BR resources?

Firewood 1 1 1 3

Beekeeping 1 1 0 2

Employment 0 1 0 1

Water 1 1 0 2

Tourism 1 1 0 2

Fodder 1 1 0 2

20% of revenue 1 1 0 2

Climate regulation 0 0 1 1

Wild vegetables 0 0 1 1

Stones 0 0 1 1

Enough rains 1 0 1 2

Fruits 1 0 1 2

Timber 0 0 1 1

Poles 0 0 1 1

Clay soil for pottery 1 0 0 1

Controlling run off 1 0 0 1

Shelter to animals 1 0 0 1

Source: Research work, November, 2015

The above table shows how communities benefit from resources available in the BRs in all three

districts of Muheza, Mkinga, and Korogwe. The following chart down here shows by percentage

on how communities benefits from the BR resources whereas firewood has 12% of total

respondents in all three districts, while beekeeping, water, tourism, fodder, revenue, rains, and

50

fruits each acquired 8% while each of the rest got 4%. It is therefore indicating that much needs

to be done in protecting the BR as they have positive socio-economic impact to communities

living adjacent to the BRs. Furthermore, the most leading benefit is firewood at 12% then clean

cook-stoves needs to be emphasized at large, followed by protection of water sources, tree

planting as buffer, and many others.

4.4.4 How do you participate in BR resource conservation?

The right side chart shows

clearly how communities

participate in resource

conservation in three districts

of Mkinga, Muheza, and

Korogwe. It is obvious that

most work is being done by

environmental committees

but communities have remarkable considerable role in resources conservation in the BRs.

HowcommunitiesbenefitfromtheBRresources

51

4.4.4 Do you encounter any challenges in the management and conservation activities?

The following table shows responses from respondents on challenges they encounter in the

management and conservation activities.

Table 11: Challenges in BRs management and conservation

Q-

No Question Responses

Korogwe

District

Muheza

District

Mkinga

District

Total

Points

5

Do you

encounter

any

challenges

in the

managemen

t and

conservatio

n activities?

No incentives to those conducting

patrol 1 0 1 2

Lack of protection mechanism to

whistle blower hence making

whistle blowers vulnerable 0 1 1 2

Inadequate firefighting gears 1 0 0 1

Lack of gears for patrolling 1 1 0 2

No compensation to injured person

during patrol or fire fighting 1 0 0 1

No incentives to volunteers

conserving the BR 0 0 0 0

Some top leaders are involved in

BR destruction 1 0 0 1

Violation of bylaws 1 0 0 1

The 20% revenue is minimal hence

demoralizing communities in

conserving the BR 1 1 0 2

Lack of transparency on revenue

collection and expenditure 1 1 0 2

Poor collaboration between

communities and conservators 0 1 0 1

Lack of feedback on encroachment

cases 0 1 0 1

It is difficult to reach remote areas

during patrol 0 1 0 1

Uses of noiseless techniques in

timber sawing hence making it 0 1 0 1

52

difficult to detect destructors

Poor bylaws enforcement hence

making the government to set free

destructors 0 1 0 1

Source: Reseach work, March 2016

Figure 21: Challenges in BR conservation

The above charts shows the most pressing challenges in conservation in all three districts of

Muheza, Korogwe, and Mkinga. Those are little or no incentives to those conducting patrols,

lack protection mechanism to whistle blowers, inadequate firefighting gears, violation of bylaws,

and meager 20% revenue that comes as returns to communities involved in the protection of

BRs.

53

4.4.5 How do you solve challenges that arise from resource conservation?

The following table and the chart that after shows how communities solve challenges that arise

from resource conservation in three districts of Muheza, Korogwe, and Mkinga.

Table 12: Solving challenges from resource conservation

Q-No Question Responses

Korogwe

District

Muheza

District

Mkinga

District

Total

Points

6

How do you

solve challenges

that arise from

resource

conservation?

To press on accountability 1 0 0 1

To demand for

transparence on revenue

collection and

expenditures 1 0 0 1

To ensure bylaws are

enforced and

implemented accordingly 1 0 0 1

Reporting to respective

area/person 0 1 1 2

Heavy fine to

encroachers/destructors 0 1 1 2

Increasing awareness on

conservation 0 1 0 1

Source: Research work, March, 2016

54

It is therefore right to assert that communities in three districts of Mkinga, Muheza, and

Korogwe uses the the above six (6) mechanism to solve challenges that arise from resource

conservation. That is they impose heave fine to destructors of the BR at 25% and they also report

to respective authorities at 25%. But they also ensure bylaws are eforced, they increase

awareness on conservation. They also keep pushing for revenue transparence and accountability.

4.4.6 Is there any destruction going on in the BR?

Respondents from all three districts of Muheza, Korogwe, and Mkinga responded that there is

destruction going within BRs.

Korogwe Mkinga Muheza

YES

YES

YES

55

4.4.7 If yes, where are the destructors come from?

Respondents from three districts of Korogwe, Muheza, and Mkinga showed that destructors both

come from within their communities and those coming outside their communities. This shows

that there is a need to address this from within and outside them.

4.4.8 What does the community do to conserve the BRs?

Communities in three districts of Mkinga, Muheza, and Korogwe have shown through their

responses that they conserve the BRs by undertaking beekeeping activities at 22%, tree planting

at 22%, butterfly farming at 14% and the remained activities such as vegetable farming,

mushroom farming, goat milk keeping, cattle keeping, education on the BR, and contour farming

each at 7%.

These data have been obtained from the following timetable and the pie chart that follows. Based

on these results it is therefore imperative to empower and support these communities to increase

all these activities as they contribute towards protection and conservation of BRs in all three

districts.

56

Table 13: Activities conducted by Communities to conserve BR

Q-No Question Responses

Korogwe

District

Muheza

District

Mking

a

District

Total

Points

9

What does the

community do to

conserve the

BR?

Beekeeping 1 1 1 3

Butterfly farming 1 1 0 2

Tree planting 1 1 1 3

Vegetable farming 0 0 1 1

Mushroom farming 0 0 1 1

Goat milk keeping 0 0 1 1

Cattle keeping 0 0 1 1

Education on the BR

significance 0 1 0 1

Contour farming 0 1 0 1

Sources: Research work, March, 2016

57

Figure 22: activities conducted by communities surrounding BRs

58

4.4.9 Is there any institution involved in environmental conservation in your area? If yes

mention them

Respondents from three districts responded yes to this question. The following table shows

responses from communities on institution involved in environmental conservation in Mkinga,

Korogwe and Mkinga districts.

Q-No Question Responses

Korogwe

District

Muheza

District

Mkinga

District

Total

Points

10

Is there any institution

involved in

environmental

conservation in your

area? If yes mention

them

ANR 0 1 1 2

UNESCO 1 1 1 3

NIMR 0 1 0 1

EMAU Hill Forest 0 1 0 1

BOHARI 0 1 0 1

TAFORI 0 1 0 1

UTCO 0 1 0 1

TFCG 1 1 1 3

Utafiti - Chai 0 1 0 1

WWF 1 0 1 2

EAMCEF 1 0 1 2

ABOT 0 0 1 1

59

Figure 23: Institutions found in BR

Table 14: Institutions found in BR

No: District Institutions

1. Korogwe UNESCO, TFCG, WWF, EAMCEF

2. Mkinga NNR, UNESCO, TFCG, WWF, EAMCEF, ABOT

3. Muheza ANR, UNESCO, NIMR, EMAU Forest Hill,

BOHARI, TAFORI, UTCO, TFCG, Utafiti Chai,

Institutional presence in these three districts shows the importance of coordinating conservation

efforts to ensure there is no duplication of efforts and activities.

4.4.10 Do they involve you in any conservation activities? If yes how do they involve you?

Communities in three districts of Mkinga, Korogwe and Muheza responded yes to the question;

the following table shows responses from communities on how they are being involved in

conservation activities by those institutions.

60

Table 15: Community Involvement from Institution

-No Question Responses

Korogwe

District

Muheza

District

Mkinga

District

Total

Points

11

Do they involve

you in any

conservation

activities? If

yes, how do

they involve

you?

Training on conservation

and entrepreneurship 0 1 1 2

Communities are involved

in the patrol 1 1 0 1

Provision of tree seedling

to communities 1 1 0 1

Employment provision 0 1 0 1

Tree planting 1 0 1 1

Beekeeping 1 0 1 1

Source: Research work, May 2016

Figure 24: Community involvement by Institutions and NGOs

These six activities have been mentioned by respondents in all three districts to show who

communities are being involved in conservation activities. More efforts are needed to increase

61

other activities that contribute to the well being of the BRs such as propagation of improved

cook-stoves.

4.4.11 Does availability of these institutions create any conservation challenge to local

community?

Responses from communities in two districts of Muheza, Korogwe and Mkinga came up with

challenges that they encounter due to existence of some of the institutions on conservation. The

following table shows those challenges per each district.

Table 16: Conservation challenges brought about by presence of Institutions and NGOs

No Question Responses

Korogwe

District

Muheza

District

Mkinga

District

12

Does the availability of

these institutions create

any conservation

challenge to local

communities?

No follow-up on

training provided by

some of these

institutions 0 0 1 1

Some institutions

failed to meet their

promises to

communities 1 0 1 1

No monitoring of

established projects 1 0 1 1

There is no

cooperation between

EMAU Forest Hill

and communities 0 1 0 1

UTCO uses heavy

duty trucks which

destroy roads 0 1 0 1

62

Corporate social

responsibility is not

implemented by

EMAU Forest Hill 0 1 0 1

Source: Research work, May, 2016

4.4.12 In your opinion, what do you think can be done to solve the problems and enhance

community participation in conservation issues?

Table 17: Recommendations to enhance participation

No Question Responses

Korogwe

District

Muheza

District

Mkinga

District Total Points

63

No Question Responses

Korogwe

District

Muheza

District

Mkinga

District Total Points

13

In your opinion,

what do you think

can be done to

solve the

problems and

enhance

community

participation in

conservation

issues?

Continuous

provision of

conservation

education 1 1 1 3

Mainstreaming of

conservation

education in school

curriculum from

primary to higher

levels 0 1 1 2

Amending bylaws

to increase

punishment to

people violating

bylaws 0 1 0 1

Provision of

training to all BR

actors - police, law

enforcers,

conservators, etc 0 1 0 1

Promotion of

income generating

activities so as to

reduce over

dependency on BR

resources 0 1 0 1

Continuous

research to discover 0 1 0 1

64

No Question Responses

Korogwe

District

Muheza

District

Mkinga

District Total Points

issues and solutions

on BR resources

Encouraging

communities to join

conservation groups 0 1 0 1

Conservators

should provide

funds to community

development

activities as

incentive to

community

participation in

conservation 1 1 1 3

Encourage

volunteerism 0 1 0 1

Sensitizing

communities to

establish individual

forest plots for

firewood and

timber 1 0 0 1

Refill tree in the

BIR with natural

trees in bare areas 1 0 0 1

Introduction of

conservation

competitions with 1 0 0 1

65

No Question Responses

Korogwe

District

Muheza

District

Mkinga

District Total Points

rewards to winners

Provision of

working tools 0 0 1 1

Source: Research work, May, 2016

66

Table 18: Community rating on the suggestions to enhance participation

No: Suggestion from Communities in three districts Total Percentage

from all three

districts

1. Continuous provision of conservation education 17%

2. Conservators should provide funds to community development

activities as incentive to community participation in conservation

17%

3. Mainstreaming of conservation education in school curriculum

from primary to higher levels

11%

4.

1. Encourage volunteerism

2. Sensitizing communities to establish individual forest plots

for firewood and timber

3. Refill tree in the BR with natural trees in bare areas

4. Introduction of conservation competitions with rewards to

winners

5. Introduction of conservation competitions with rewards to

winners

6. Provision of working tools

Each scored

6%

5.

1. Amending bylaws to increase punishment to people

violating bylaws

2. Provision of training to all BR actors - police, law

enforcers, conservators, etc

3. Promotion of income generating activities so as to reduce

over dependency on BR resources

4. Continuous research to discover issues and solutions on

BR resource

5. Encouraging communities to join conservation groups

Each scored

5%

Source: Research work, June 2016

67

The above table shows responses from communities in three districts of Mkinga, Muheza, and

Korogwe. The table has prioritized the community needs based on their response per each

district. This shows that continuous conservation education is very important and needed to

communities at 17%. Another component that has acquired similar percentage (17%) is on

provision of development funds to communities in the form of development activities or projects

as an incentive to make communities participate in conservation. The importance of

mainstreaming conservation education in school curriculums from primary to higher level came

third with 11% leaving other suggestions scoring 6% each and others scoring 5% each.

4.5 Results and Discussion from Key Informants on BRs Conservation

4.5.1 Who is responsible for conserving the BR?

Key Informants in Mkinga, Muheza, and Korogwe responded that those who are responsible for

conserving the BRs are communities adjacent to the BR, government, and donors. The following

diagram shows clearly this response.

ConservationofBRs

68

The above diagram illustrates clearly key informants understanding on the importance of who is

responsible on conservation of the BRs. This understanding provides a right ground to start with

in conservation of the BRs in respective districts. It is true that international support on

conservation should complement local efforts in BRs’ conservation for better conservation

results.

4.5.2 Which activities does the community do in conserving the BR?

The following chart shows responses from key informants on activities which communities do in

conserving the BRs in their respective localities. Activities presented in the chart are similar and

found in all three districts of Mkinga, Muheza, and Korogwe. This similarity allows for an easy

but effective project plan and implementation to foster conservation activities in all BRs in those

areas.

As the diagram above shows, five activities out of six namely beekeeping, boundary clearance,

butterfly farming, tree planting, and tourism are found in all three districts of Mkinga, Muheza,

and Korogwe while only one activity that is land use plan is found in Mkinga district. This shows

that there is a need to work hard in supporting Village Land Use Plans (VLUP) in other districts.

BRsConservation

69

4.5.3 What benefits do the community involved in conservation get?

Key informants in three districts of

Muheza, Mkinga, and Korogwe

responded to show that

communities those three districts

benefit much from the BRs

conservation work they participate.

The pie chart on the right side

shows in percentage based on the

responses accrued from key

informants. These benefits are

strong avenue for supporting

conservation of the BRs in Muheza, Mkinga, and Korogwe. Since key informants are aware of

the benefits that is an opportunity for conservation organizations.

4.5.4 Is there any resource encroacher in your BRs?

In responding to this question, key informants in all three districts of Muheza, Mkinga, and

Korogwe responded with a big “Yes” that there are resource encroachers in their respective BRs.

This answer by itself provides a legitimate ground for environmental conservation organization

to support communities’ efforts in conservation of BRs for sustainable conservation and

improvement of people’s livelihood adjacent to BRs.

4.5.5 Where are the encroachers come from?

Responses from key informants in Muheza, Korogwe, and Mkinga districts showed categorically

that encroachers and other destructors to the BRs come from both sides that is from within

communities and from outside communities. This provides a layout on how to solve such a

challenge that is starting within communities while dealing with external encroachers. This is

because internal encroachers may at some point harbor external encroachers.

70

Table 19: Encroachers in the BR

District Response on where encroachers come from

Korogwe Encroachers come from within communities and outside

communities

Mkinga Majority of encroachers come from outside communities but there is

also a considerable number of encroachers from within communities

who welcome those intruders

Muheza They come from within our communities and outside, reasons differ

but they are all encroachers

Source: Research work, June 2016

4.5.6 Which punishment did you take?

Key informants in all districts of Korogwe, Muheza, and Mkinga respectively showed several

disciplinary measures have been taken to punish encroachers who have been caught with clear

evidence destructing the BRs. Those punitive measures ranged from imposing fines, sending

cruel encroachers to police, and supporting legal actions that effectually made some encroachers

to be jailed. The following bar chart shows clearly by percentages.

71

Figure 25: Punishment to BRs encroachers

4.5.7 Are there any bylaws in place that have been set?

In responding to this question, key informants in all three districts of Korogwe, Mkinga, and

Muheza confirmed that they have bylaws that govern management and protection of the BRs in

their respective areas. In short, they responded “Yes” to this question. This answer provide an

avenue to start revisiting

those bylaws from village to

district level to ensure

bylaws are implemented

fully and to ensure that

enforcement mechanism are

there in place, like strong

patrol, strong and willing

local village leadership to

report on all incidences

related to the destruction of

the BRs.

72

Mention them

In responding to this question, key informants in many areas failed to mention precisely the title

of the bylaws! This partly indicates that most of the key informants understand there are bylaws

but probably do not take time to read the bylaws so as to internalize them. In all three districts,

key informants just responded that there are bylaws to conserve the BRs. So the answer was in a

general format without going specifically into specific bylaws.

However, existence of bylaws themselves provides another opportunity for conservation

organization to embark on fostering conservation work in all BRs in all three districts of Mkinga,

Muheza, and Korogwe.

4.5.8 What can be done so as to make BRs Sustainable?

Responses from key informants in all three districts of Muheza, Korogwe, and Mkinga

responded by listing activities that can support sustainability of the BRs for the benefit of

communities and the whole conservation organizations locally and internationally. The following

bar chart shows percentages based on respondents from all three districts of Mkinga, Korogwe,

and Muheza.

73

Figure 26: Suggestions to make BR sustainable

Looking at the bar chart above, it is evident that almost all suggestions need to be taken on board

in an integrated approach to ensure maximum conservation outcomes. Some of the suggestions

like financial loans or instrumental loans might require a very careful approach. One of the

approaches can be empowering communities adjacent to BRs to establish rural financing

mechanisms in the forms of Village Community Banks (VICOBA) or Saving and Internal

Lending Community (SILC). As most of these, if established in the right way can have a

sustainable positive impact to the communities surrounding BRs. The rest of the suggestions are

very important if conservation organizations are to make conservation work to communities

adjacent to BRs effective and sustainable.

74

75

CHAPTER FIVE

5.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1 CONCLUSION

Based on the data provided in chapter four, that is the data that has been acquired and run from

the research tools used in this study as responded by individual communities, communities in

general, key informants, and through Focus Group Discussion; it is obvious that local

communities adjacent to biosphere reserve somehow participate in the conservation of the

biosphere reserve. It is evident that local communities in proximity to these BRs face lots of

challenges with regard to conservation and involvement. It is also evident that some of the local

communities have been involving themselves in the destruction of the biosphere reserves.

Local communities have provided their recommendations that would help in increasing

conservation activities in the biosphere reserve. They have also underlined several challenges

just by being in proximity to the BRs. In view of this, an integrated approach is needed to ensure

that communities are involved and participate fully in the conservation of the biosphere reserves.

It is evident from data presented that there is a conflict between communities bordering

biosphere reserves in Tanzania and wildlife due to various reasons as shown in the data. Human-

wildlife conflict has emerged to be one of the great challenges that require deliberate efforts to

address it. Some of the efforts might be of trans-boundary nature whereby states need to work

together to address this challenge. It is somehow discouraging that Tanzania is not a signatory of

the Trans-Boundary Ecosystem bills as it would have helped much in addressing some of the

reasons that contribute towards human-wildlife conflict. For example, communities explained

that some of the reasons that make Elephants to migrate into people’s areas is looking for water!

But the river that flows its waters through SNBR is the Mara River which originates from Kenya.

The Kenyan government has been using more than 60% of the water leaving little water to flow

through the SNBR. Furthermore, the Kenyan government has done little in preserving the Mau

Forest which is the source of Mara River. Therefore, states cooperation is the key to some

challenges which has a trans-boundary nature.

76

77

5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the responses as presented in data chart, I hereby provide my recommendations which I

am certain will be useful in addressing the negative plight facing biosphere reserves in Tanzania.

Ø The central government, local governments, private sector and Civil Society

Organizations should work together to ensure full involvement of local communities in

the management and protection of the biosphere reserves.

Ø Land use plans should be undertaken to ensure proper uses of land bordering biosphere

reserves which considerations to protect buffer zones and open up migratory corridors.

Ø Integrated projects that addresses local communities and concern should be emphasized

so as to ensure communities have alternative livelihood mechanism rather than depending

heavily on natal resources available in the BRs.

Ø There is a need to review policies, legal and regulatory framework to ensure heavy

penalties for all involved in the destruction of the BRs

Ø Natural wildlife deterrent mechanisms to reduce the human-wildlife conflict should be

strengthened and researched so as to reduce the human-wildlife conflict.

Ø Bylaws at local level should be reviewed to give more mandate to local communities in

the protection of the BRs

78

REFERENCES

Barrow, E. and Murphree, M. W. (2000) Community Conservation from Concept to Practice.

Borrini-Feyerabend, (2014), Indigenous and Local Communities and Protected Areas: Towards

Equity and Enhanced Conservation, Guidance on policy and practice for Co-managed Protected

Areas and Community Conserved Areas

Djoghlaf A, (2011), Biodiversity and Ecosystem Insecurity: A Planet in Peril

Green Economy in Biosphere Reserves: A Means to Poverty Reduction, Biodiversity

Conservation and Sustainable Development in Sub-Saharan Africa, 2014

Kevin, G, and Spicer, J. (2004), Biodiversity: An Introduction

Kombo D and Tromp D, (2006), Proposal and Thesis Writing: An Introduction, (Nairobi:

Pauline’s

Publishers Africa.

Kothari, C. K. (2004), Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques. (New Delhi: New Age

International Publisher).

Management Manual for UNESCO Biosphere Reserves in Africa

Noe C, Kangalawe R. Y. Wildlife Protection, Community Participation in Conservation, and

(Dis) Empowerment in Southern Tanzania. Conservat Soc 2015;13:244-53

www.unesco.org/mabdb/br/brdir

Zacharia M, Kaihula S.A. Community Participation in the Conservation and Management of

Wildlife in Tanzania.

79

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: List of consulted stakeholders who were willing to share their details

SN Respondents’Name

PhoneNumber Sex Age

1. MariamNgoda 0657592737 Female 402. HizaOmari 0787884478 Male 483. MwanaheraJuma 0713244847 Female 264. YohanaMsilim 0714400166 Male 375. MonicaMsigiti 0653561905 Female 646. EmmanuelKipingu 0654274510 Male 287. RashidSembe 0685625217 Male 398. StuartMahimbo 0718989401 Male 369. ErnestMakao 0657540533 Male 4110. WallesMahimbo 0719231092 Male 2611. AnnaMsumari 0782888184 Female 5712. RhodaMakawa 0712926335 Female 3813. SaleheKupe 0712179447 Male 5114. ViolethStuart 0654170222 Female 3115. GeorgeMathayo 0653788405 Male 6516. AminaNdope 0714991152 Female 5017. AshaNyundo 0655503783 Female 4218. MaryMnguruta 0712440165 Female 3319. YohanaKijazi 0656464110 Male 3720. HarrietHizza 0654470931 Female 4321. BeariceZuwakuu 0657604803 Female 3222. MaryKahungo 0713850004 Female 2423. MargrethLupatu Female 5024. MariamMjasambu 0675601513 Female 4025. IssaHassan 0719188076 Male 4526. DorisCharles 0714454997 Female 4827. IssaKibindo Male 5828. GoodluckAlmasi 0714703847 Male 5029. HassanHassan 0716516399 Male 2530. CharlesMohamed 0719354808 Male 4031. JoyceMhina 0782969773 Female 6332. MariamMghaza 0789599501 Female 5833. RamadhaniKilo 0682120017 Male 3434. RamadhaniShemtoi 056014621 Male 3535. FestoNyika 0788804385 Male 45

80

36. AsiaNdokezi 0675007698 Female 5937. JaneSingano 0652387401 Female 4038. JoyceKiondo 0654284419 Female 2539. ThomasChambo 0682069938 Male 7240. ChristinaShemandii 0714355852 Female 3541. SaidiNumbulames 0688737214 Male 6542. PatrickLuyagaza 0659164526 Male 5243. AyubuNyika 0657072227 Male 5544. HappinessMtaita 0714840639 Female 5445. JumaNgovi 0683144453 Male 5046. MohamedMbaya 0659102287 Male 4747. HabibaOmar 0784958099 Female 4848. JumaHemed Male 6549. GimongeChacha Male 4350. MarthaMahule Female 3351. RehemaKaitila Female 3552. NasiekuSabaya Female 4053. BhokeMagori Female 3554. Namnyaki

Lomayani Female 41

81

Appendix 2A: Questionnaire for Community Members

Appendix 2A: Questionnaire for Community Members

BIOSPHERE RESERVE QUESTIONNAIRE

Section 1: Location

SN VARIABLE

ANSWER 1.1.1 District 1.1.2 BRs name 1.1.3 Ward 1.1.4 Village

Section 2: Biodata SN VARIABLE EXPECTED RESPONSES ANSWER/CODE

1.2.1 Respondent’s Name 1.2.2 Phone Number

1.2.3 Sex of the respondent 1=Male 2=Female

1.2.4 Respondent age (in years)

1.2.5 Respondents Education level

1 = No school 2 = Primary –Completed 3 = Primary- Not completed 4 = Secondary Completed 5 = Secondary –not completed 6= University/College completed 7= University/College not completed

1.2.6 Are you the Head of your Household?

1=Yes 2=No

82

SN VARIABLE EXPECTED RESPONSES ANSWER/CODE

Number of household members

1=FE: Children aged 5 and below:_____ 2=MA: Children aged 5 and below:_____ 3=FE: Children aged 6 to 17:_________ 4=MA: Children aged 6 to 17:_________ 5=FE: Youth aged 18 to 35:__________ 6=MA: Youth aged 18 to 35:__________ 7=FE: Adult aged 36 and above:_______ 8=MA: Adult aged 36 and above:_______

1.2.7 What are the main economic activities?

1= Crop production, 2= Livestock Keeping, 3= Others (Specify)

83

Section 3: Land ownership, use and conservation of BRS

SN VARIABLE EXPECTED RESPONSES ANSWER/CODE

1.3.1 Type of the land ownership? 1= Individually 2= communally

1.3.2 What is the approximate size in acres?

1.3.3 How long have you lived near the BRs?

1.3.4 Who owns the BRS and the resources in the forest

1= Foreigner 2= Community 3= Government

1.3.5 Does the BRs Reserve benefits you in any way? If Yes, Fill the table below.

1=Yes 2=No

1.3.6 If yes in 1.3.5 above, what are the benefits of Biosphere Reserve to you? (Tick where

appropriate) Benefit Yes No Tourism

Employment

Timber, poles, firewood

Water, food plants

Charcoal

Medicinal plants

Cultural

Community projects

Meat/food

Others (specify)

84

SN VARIABLE EXPECTED RESPONSES ANSWER/CODE

1.3.7 Were you previously cultivating crops in the BRS land?

1=Yes 2=No

1.3.8 Were you previously rearing animals in the BRS?

1=Yes 2=No

1.3.9 What problems do you encounter in crop production and rearing of animals?

1.3.10 Do wild animals come to your land? 1=Yes 2=No

1.3.11 If yes in 1.3.10, fill the table below:

Animal species Type of conflict

Months/period of the year

Estimated loss per year (Tsh.)

1 Elephant

2 Buffalo

3 Leopard

4 Sykes monkey

5 Vervet monkey

6 Hyena

7 Wild pig

8 Porcupine

9 Baboons

10 Others

85

SN VARIABLE EXPECTED RESPONSES ANSWER/CODE

1.3.12 Why do you think animals come out of the BRs?

1= Food 2= Crop raiding 3= Regular migrations 3= Increase in numbers 4= Human settlement/encroachment 5= Specify others

1.3.13 What do you do to counteract the conflicts /problems?

1= Kill the animals 2= Chase away 3= Specify others;_______________ _________________________________

1.3.14 What recommendations do you propose to curb human/wildlife conflicts

1= Compensation 2= Electric fencing 3= Ranger outpost 4= Moats 5= Killing 6= Translocation 7= Game scouts 8= Other (specify)

1.3.15 Do you belong to any conservation Local Community Based Group?

1=Yes 2=No

1.3.16. If yes answer the questions in the table below.

Name of Group

No. of members

Major challenges faced by the group

Major roles of the group

Source of funding

Benefits received

Me

Fe

86

1.3.17. What problems have hindered you from joining any conservation local community based

group?

1.3.18 Are there any activities being conducted in your area for conservation purposes?

1. Yes

2. No

If yes, mention them

1.3.19. Have you ever seen or heard any environmental destruction being conducted in the BR?

1. Yes

2. No

If yes, where were the destructors from?

1. Within community

2. Outside community

3. Both

1.3.20. Which resources are mostly exploited by the destructors?

1. Medicine

2. Charcoal

3. Timber

87

4. Poles

5. Firewood

6. Animals

7. Minerals

8. Others, mention _______________________________

1.3.21. In your opinion, what do you think can be done to improve the livelihoods of the local people?

1.3.22 Have you contributed in any way towards the conservation Biosphere Reserve?

1. Yes

2. No

If yes what roles do you play in the conservation of the Biosphere Reserve?

1.3.23. In your opinion, what do you think can be done to enhance community participation in conservation issues?

Thank You

88

Appendix 2B: Focus Group Discussion BIOSPHERE RESERVE 1. Do you acknowledge/ recognize presence of BR? i. Yes ii. No 2. Which resources are available in the BR? 3. How do you benefit from the BR’s resources? 4. How do you participate in resources conservation? 5. Do you encounter any challenges in the management and conservation activities? i. Yes ii. No iii. Mention 6. how do you solve challenges that arise from resources conservation them 7. Is there any destruction going on in the BR? i. Yes ii. No 8. If yes, where are the destructors from i. From the community ii. From outside the community iii. Both 9. What does the community do to conserve BR? 10. In your opinion, what do you think can be done to solve the problems and enhance community participation in conservation issues? Thank You

89

Appendix 2C: Key Informants BIOSPHERE RESERVES 1. Who is responsible for conserving BR 2. Which activities does the community do in conserving BR 3. What benefits do the community involved in conservation get 4. Is there any resources encroacher in your BR? i. Yes ii. No 5. Where are the encroachers from 6. Which punishment did you take 7. Are there any bylaws in place that have been set? i. Yes ii. No 8. Mention them 9. What can be done so as to make BRs sustainable? Thank You

90

Appendix 3: Some of pictures taken during research work

Researchworkingsession

91

Left: Mushroom farming hut Right: butterfly feeding place

92

Topleft:pupaforbutterflybusiness,bottomright:beehivesinBR

93

l

OneofthevillagesintheMABSites

94

GeothermalmanifestationatLMBR

OtherpicturesinthevisitedBRs