Participatory GIS in Mapping Local Context of Conflicts ... · Christina Geoffrey Mandara February,...

Participatory GIS in Mapping Local Context

of Conflicts over Pastoral Resources. A case study of Duru Haitemba –Babati, Tanzania

Christina Geoffrey Mandara February, 2007

ii

Participatory GIS in Mapping Local Context of Conflicts over Pastoral Resources

By

Christina Geoffrey Mandara

Supervisors Dr. Mike M. McCall

Drs. Jeroen J. Verplanke Thesis submitted to the International Institute for Geo-information Science and Earth Observation in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Geo-information Science and Earth Observation, Specialisation: Planning and Coordination in Natural Resources Management Thesis Assessment Board Dr. Mike McCall (Chairman) PGM Department, ITC Prof. Dr. A van der Veen (External Examiner) University of Twente Ir. G.R. Hennemann (Member) ESA Department, ITC Drs. Jeroen Verplanke (Member) PGM Department, ITC

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

iii

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

iv

To the couples I cherish most

My excellent parents Anna and Geoffrey

My loving sister and brother in-law Haika and Justin

My sincere friends Atupyanie and Paul

v

Abstract

Livestock keeping constitutes a vital sub-sector in Tanzania that contributes much into individual livelihoods and national income. The practice plays a significant role in economic, social and cultural aspects particularly in rural areas. Since 1980s to date Tanzania has been changing its policies and advocates for participatory approaches for sustainable development. Community Based Forest Management (CBFM) being one of the approaches in forest and conservation management assumed to improve forest productivity; increases sustainability and make rules governing forests more enforceable. But CBFM has direct and indirect costs and benefits to different Natural Resources dependents. Stopping to use forest as grazing area is one of the potential costs. Changes in policies and procedures features over time have great influence in Natural Resources utilization, management and compliance to bylaws. Directives on conservation taken at national level can have different effects to different areas with different and resource endowment. Implementation of policies may obstruct access, use and control causing reduced availability of natural resources. This may lead to conflicts and negatively affect compliance to CBFM laws. Differing interest and goals over resource use and access lead to conflict over Natural Resources. Grazing related conflicts cut across water, land and forest related conflicts as livestock keepers rely on multiple resources for fodder and water. Participatory mapping (PGIS) combined with interviews, geo-coded transect walk, observation and focus group discussion were used to understand actual livestock keeping practices as a source of livelihood. The spatial and non spatial data obtained facilitated identification of actual situation in grazing practices, resources and their changes as well as hidden grazing related conflicts that involve agro-pastoralists and other actors at local to district level and indirectly at national level. Conflicts are spatially distributed in the forest areas, around water sources and along water bodies because of incompatible interest and goals over those areas. Village and district authority consider the areas fragile for conservation while agro-pastoralists regard them as fairly reliable sources of grazing resources. Due to the conflicts there are social, economic and environmental effects. It was found that decisions that lead into changing land uses are made with less or no participation of actors who are directly or indirectly affected by the decisions. Population increase, more demand of farmlands and conservation has reduced quantity of grazing resources. Inadequate coherency and linkage in policies and directives prove to have negative impact on prior made decisions. Essentially community mapping and PGIS proved to be useful tools for examining conflicts and their spatial temporal distribution, due to the fact that identification of conflict areas could not be done through conventional GIS and remote sensing by interpreting and classifying images. PGIS enabled to understand more of ‘why’ and ‘how’ people live in line with natural resources dependency for livelihood, information that can hardly be captured through conventional GIS and remote sensing. Key words: Community Based Forest Management, Participatory mapping/ Participatory Geographic Information System, Grazing Related Conflicts and Grazing Resources.

vi

Muhtasari kwa Kiswahili

Nchini Tanzania ufugaji ni sekta muhimu inayochangia katika kuinua maisha ya mtu mmoja mmoja hasa wananchi waishio vijijini. Pia hutoa mchango muhimu katika pato la taifa. Ufugaji kwa namna yake una nafasi muhimu katika masuala ya uchumi, jamii na utamaduni hasa katika maeneo ya vijijini. Kuanzia miaka ya 1980 hadi sasa Tanzania imekuwa ikibadili sera zake na kuweka msisitizo katika matumizi ya mbinu na mipango shirikishi kwa maendeleo endelevu. Uhifadhi wa misitu kwa Mbinu Shirikishi ni mojawapo ya mbinu za kuhifadhi misitu ili kuboresha mazao ya misitu na kuimarisha usimamizi wa sheria zinazohusu misitu. Mbinu hii shirikishi ina athari na faida kwa watu mbalimbali wanaotegemea maliasili. Mojawapo ya athari hizo ni kubadili matumizi ya ardhi hususani kuzuia kutumia misitu kama eneo la malisho ya mifugo, ingawa si jambo jipya sana kwani mabadiliko ya sera yana athari na faida kulingana na pande husika. Utekelezaji wa baadhi ya sera na maagizo hubadilisha utaratibu uliokuwa umezoeleka kuhusiana na ufikiaji, matumizi na umiliki wa rasilimali. Maelekezo na maagizo kuhusu hifadhi ya maliasili na vyanzo vya maji yanayotolewa katika ngazi ya Taifa yanaweza yakawa na athari tofauti katika maeneo tofauti na yenye maliasili zinazotofautiana . Kutokana na utekelezaji wa sera na maagizo hayo udhibiti wa matumizi hupunguza upatikanaji wa maliasili husika. Hali hii inaweza kusababisha migogoro pamoja na kuathiri uzingatiaji wa sheria zinazohusu uhifadhi wa misitu kwa mbinu shirikishi. Kutofautiana kwa matakwa, mtazamo na malengo kuhusu matumizi ya maliasili na upatikanaji wake husababisha migogoro kuhusu maliasili. Katika jamii zinazotegemea ufugaji kama chanzo muhimu cha mapato athari zake zinaweza kuwa kubwa. Migogoro kuhusiana na malisho ya mifugo inajitokeza katika maliasili mbalimbali kama vile maji, ardhi na misitu kwa kuwa wafugaji hutegemea rasilimali mbalimbali kwa ajili ya chakula na maji ya mifigo. Kupitia uchoraji ramani shirikishi pamoja na Mfumo wa Taarifa za Kijiografia (GIS), madodoso, mahojiano, kutembelea maeneo na kuona hali halisi, na majadiliano maalum katika vikundi ni mbinu zilizotumika ili kupata taarifa na takwimu zinazohusiana na utafiti huu hasa uelewa zaidi wa shughuli za ufugaji kama njia ya kujikumu kimaisha. Taarifa na takwimu zilizopatikana zimewezesha kubaini hali halisi za ufugaji rasilimali na mabadiliko. Kutokana na taarifa hizo imewezekana kubaini juu ya migogoro kati ya wafugaji na watawala katika ngazi ya kijiji hadi Wilaya. Pamoja na hayo ipo migogoro isiyo wazi kati ya vijiji na ngazi ya Taifa kwa kuzingatia kuwa sera na maagizo hutolewa katika ngazi ya taifa Migogoro imedhihirika katika maeneo ya misitu, na vyanzo vya maji kutokana na kutofautiana kwa matakwa na malengo kati ya wadau kuhusiana na maeneo hayo. Mamlaka za vijiji na Wilaya husimamia uhifadhi wa maeneo hayo kutokana na umuhimu wake kiikolojia na kimazingira. Wakulima na wafugaji huyaona kuwa ni maeneo ya kuaminika kwa Ufugaji, vyanzo vya nishati maji na upanuzi wa mashamba. Imebainika kwamba maamuzi yanayohusu mabadiliko ya matumizi ya ardhi hufanywa kwa kuwashirikisha wadau wachache au bila kuwashirikisha kikamilifu. Kuongezeka kwa idadi ya watu, mahitaji ya ardhi ya kilimo na hifadhi ya mazingira kumepunguza idadi ya rasilimali za malisho ya mifugo. Kuwepo kwa tofauti kati ya sera na maelekezo yanayotolewa kunafifisha utekelezaji wa maamuzi ambayo yametolewa awali.

vii

Uchoraji ramani shirikishi na Mfumo wa Taarifa za Kijiografia (GIS) ni zana na nyenzo muhimu katika kuchunguza migogoro na jinsi ilivyotawanyika. Mfumo Shirikishi wa Taarifa za Kijiografia (PGIS) umewezesha kuelewa zaidi “kwa nini” na “namna” watu wanavyoishi kwa kutegemea maliasili. Pia mbinu zilizotajwa awali zimewezesha kutambua migogoro ambayo isingewezekana kubainika kupitia kutafsiri na kuchanganua picha za satelaiti (conventional remote sensing and image interpretation and classification) Maneno Muhimu: Usimamizi na Uhifadhi wa misitu kwa mbinu shirikishi; Uchoraji ramani Shirikishi/Mfumo Shirikishi wa Taarifa za Kijiografia; Migogoro itokanayo na Rasilimali za malisho.

viii

Acknowledgements

If it had not been for God who is my portion in the land of the living to be with me, I would not have reached this far. This moment would not have reached the way it is without support, advice, encouragement, sacrifice and critics from many people who has helped me in one way or another. My heartfelt gratitude with appreciation go to my supervisors Dr. Mike McCall and Drs. Jeroen Verplanke for their guidance, practical criticism and ever ready cooperation from proposal writing to the finalization of this thesis, I have learnt a lot through you all. In addition many thanks should go to our programme Director Dr. Michael Weir for his fatherly guidance and to Dr. Patrick Van Laake who helped us to organize our field. I am thankful to Mr. Peter Minang for useful suggestion throughout my research and to Julius Muchemi for his help at early stages of this work. I extend my sincere gratitude to my beloved parents Mr. Geoffrey Mandara and Mrs. Anna G. Mandara; you have sacrificed a lot for my well being. My dearest brothers and sisters Mr. Justin Kayola and Mrs. Haika J. Kayola, Leah, Adam and Josephat for your material and prayers support during my studies and in my life. I am highly blessed to be part of you; you have become constant blessing and source of inspiration in my life. I am particularly thankful for my dear friends, brothers and sisters worldwide, for prayers and encouragement. Special thanks to Rev.Paul Metili and Mrs Atupyanie Metili, Grace, Kemmy, Mama Emma, Lilian Busingye, Henry Aryeetey, Irene Mageni and Mwasaga, Benjamin Mayala, Bariki Mwasaga, Eddie Asante and Getachew Tedla. To my good friend Aisia Lawuo and my co-worker Mr Stanslaus Msuya thank you for all you have done to me and my family in my absence your God bless you all. I am particularly thankful to Babati District Council; Forestry Department and LAMP project for facilitating our field work in Babati. Many thanks should go to Mr.Zahabu of Sokoine University who helped much to familiarise us with Duru-Haitemba before and during the field. To Rhoda Nyaribi and Samuel Mugarura thank you for good cooperation during and after the field. Lucy Sufiani thank you for helping hands you extended to us; you were very generous sister to me. I owe special thanks to villages’ leadership, field assistants and respondents in Riroda, Hoshan and Duru villages and Duru-Haitemba for their valuable time and information which played key role in this work. “Naasi” Cheerfulness and strength have been received constantly by encouragement from my fellow church members of International Gospel Church Twente and Tanzanian students at ITC 2005-2007 “asanteni sana”. I will be ungrateful if I fail to acknowledge my fellows and cluster friends Snerry, Rhoda, Zoole and Adrie for good things we have shared. I enjoyed studying with them. I am thankful to the Netherlands Fellowship Programme for sponsoring my studies, ITC for facilitating a course that has added value in my education. To my employer; the management of the Institute of Rural Development Planning (IRDP) Dodoma for the study leave to pursue this course. Finally I am thankful to all good people for good time we had during my study at ITC. God bless you all.

ix

List of Abbreviations

AWB Areas with Water Bodies AWS Areas with Water Sources CBFM Community Based Forest Management CBNRM Community Based Natural Resources Management CBA Cost Benefit Analysis CLA Community Livestock attendant DFO District Forest Officer FGD Focus Group Discussion FUG s Forest User Groups GDP Gross Domestic Product GIS Geographic Information System GIT Geographic Information Technology GPS Geographic Positioning System GR Grazing Resources HY Home yard ISK Indigenous Spatial Knowledge ITK Indigenous Technical Knowledge LAMP Land Management Programme LCLU Land Cover Land Use LHRC Legal and Human Rights Centre LSK Local Spatial Knowledge NGO Non Governmental Organisations NR Natural Resources NRM Natural Resources Management PGIS Participatory Geographic Information System PPGIS Public Participation Geographic Information System PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal SUA Sokoine University of Agriculture URT The United Republic of Tanzania VM Village Meeting WEO Ward Executive Officer WWF World Wildlife Fund

x

Table of contents

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1. General Overview: Pastoralism and Conflict ........................................................................ 1 1.2. Background Information; Pastoralism in Tanzania ............................................................... 2 1.3. Participatory Planning and Policies in Tanzania ................................................................... 3 1.4. Participatory approaches and NRM Conflicts ....................................................................... 3 1.5. Participatory Geographical Information Systems in NRM.................................................... 4 1.6. Problem Statement ................................................................................................................. 5 1.7. Objectives and Research Question ........................................................................................ 6 1.8. Justification............................................................................................................................ 6 1.9. Observation During Field work ............................................................................................. 7

2. Clarification Of Concepts and Practices ........................................................................................ 9 2.1. General Understanding of Conflicts ...................................................................................... 9 2.2. Conflicts in Natural Resources Management and Land Uses.............................................. 10 2.3. Role of Property Rights in Conflicts Manifestation ............................................................ 11 2.4. Conflict Management Practices ........................................................................................... 13 2.5. Participatory Geographical Information Systems................................................................ 14 2.6. Participation in Participatory Approaches; PGIS ................................................................ 15 2.7. Benefits and Challenges of PGIS......................................................................................... 16 2.8. Stakeholder Analysis ........................................................................................................... 17 2.9. Community Involvement in NRM ....................................................................................... 18 2.10. Pastoralism, Farming and Forest Interactions...................................................................... 19

3. Study Area and Research Methods ............................................................................................... 21 3.1. Study Area ........................................................................................................................... 21 3.2. Sampling .............................................................................................................................. 24 3.3. Assessment Framework ....................................................................................................... 25 3.4. Data Collection .................................................................................................................... 25 3.5. Materials and Data Used...................................................................................................... 26 3.6. Data Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 27 3.7. Research Approach .............................................................................................................. 28 3.8. Processes and Output Flowchart.......................................................................................... 29

4. Conflict Identification .................................................................................................................. 31 4.1. Conflict Indicators ............................................................................................................... 31 4.2. Interviews............................................................................................................................. 32 4.3. Participatory /Community Mapping .................................................................................... 32 4.4. Geo-coded transect walk...................................................................................................... 33 4.5. Field Observation................................................................................................................. 33 4.6. Grazing Related Conflicts.................................................................................................... 33 4.7. Grazing Practices and System.............................................................................................. 34 4.8. Conflicts Identification ........................................................................................................ 35 4.9. Causes and Effects of the conflicts ...................................................................................... 39 4.10. Conflict Management Practices ........................................................................................... 41

xi

4.11. Escalation of Conflicts Intensity in NRM ............................................................................43 4.12. Conflicts and Livelihood ......................................................................................................45

5. PGIS in Identifying Grazing Resources and Systems ....................................................................47 5.1. Focus group discussion.........................................................................................................47 5.2. Grazing Practices and Resources in the Study area..............................................................48 5.3. Identification of Grazing Resources through PGIS ..............................................................49 5.5. Reasons for grazing in particular areas.................................................................................54 5.6. Identification of Conflicting areas ........................................................................................55 5.7. Inter and intra village pastoralists’ access and uses of grazing resources interaction..........58 5.9. Local Coping Strategies in Livestock keeping after CBFM and Conservation...................59 5.10. Relevant PGIS Applications from different Experience ......................................................59 5.11. Resources Scarcity and Mapping..........................................................................................60

6. Assessment of PGIS Approach for Mapping Conflicts................................................................61 6.1. Effectiveness of Community mapping (PGIS) .....................................................................61 6.2. PGIS General Evaluation......................................................................................................65 6.3. Effectiveness and Potentials of PGIS in this study...............................................................65 6.4. Lessons from literatures........................................................................................................66 6.5. Observations and Challenges of PGIS in this Study.............................................................66 6.6. Policy Implication.................................................................................................................67

7. Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................69 7.1. Hitimisho (Conclusions in Swahili)......................................................................................71

References ..............................................................................................................................................73 Appendix ................................................................................................................................................80

xii

List of figures

Figure 2-1: Dimensions of attributes shared by GIS and participatory mapping.................................. 15 Figure 3-1: Map (a) Regions of Tanzania, (b) Manyara s districts and (c) Map of Duru Haitemba.... 21 Figure 3-2 Assessment framework for usefulness of PGIS in this study.............................................. 26 Figure 3-3: Research Approach: Steps and Methods ............................................................................ 28 Figure 3-4: Processes and outputs flowchart......................................................................................... 29 Figure 4-1: Grazing practices ................................................................................................................. 34 Figure 4-2: Photos showing erosion situation as a result of continuous grazing. ................................. 35 Figure 4-3: Summary of reported reasons for conflict............................................................................ 39 Figure 4-4: Conflict management practices............................................................................................ 42 Figure 5-1: General grazing resources in the studied villages................................................................. 49 Figure 5-2: General land uses and changes in grazing land .................................................................. 51 Figure 5-3: Type of decisions and extent of participation .................................................................... 52 Figure 5-4: Photos illustrate excessively overgrazed areas in Riroda and Hoshan villages ................. 53 Figure 5-5: Factors for change in grazing land....................................................................................... 53 Figure 5-6: Factors influencing where to graze ...................................................................................... 54 Figure 5-7: Actual and allowed grazing areas. ....................................................................................... 56 Figure 5-8: Grazing areas during rainy and dry seasons........................................................................ 57 Figure 6-1: Sketch maps of Riroda Village: Before and After Mapping ............................................... 62 Figure 6-2: Sketch maps of Hoshan Village: Before and After Mapping .............................................. 63 Figure 6-3: Sketch maps of Duru Village: Before and After Mapping ................................................... 63

xiii

List of tables

Table 2-1: Types of Conflicts in NRM / Land Management....................................................................12 Table 3-1: The forest area: Distribution per villages...............................................................................22 Table 3-2: Socio-economic characteristics of the studied villages in Duru-Haitemba..........................23 Table 4-1: Response on existence of Conflicts......................................................................................34 Table 4-2: List of Grazing-related conflicts from findings and Literatures..............................................36 Table 4-3: Summary of Advantages and Disadvantages of Conflict Management Practices...............44 Table 4-4: Conflict escalation: stages, manifestation dimension and situation in the study area..............45 Table 5-1: Agro-pastoralists grazing resources uses and access interaction: Inter and intra villages......58 Table 6-1: Mapping participants’ observations on evaluating the role of PGIS.......................................65

xiv

List of Appendices

Appendix 1: Checklist and Questionnaires.................................................................................... 80 Appendix 2: Conservation Directives and Part of Villages bylaws, 2002 and 2003 ........................... 83 Appendix 3: Certification of village bylaws by Village Executive Officers, Chairpersons and District Authority ............................................................................................................................................... 84 Appendix 4: Letter for Meeting on Boundary Conflict between Hoshan and Endagwe villages, 200684 Appendix 5: Observation Points ........................................................................................................... 85 Appendix 6: Photos Related to Method, Grazing Resources and Impact of Grazing ........................... 86

PARTICIPATORY GIS FOR MAPPING LOCAL CONTEXT OF CONFLICTS OVER PASTORAL RESOURCES

1

1. Introduction

This study focus on identification of grazing related conflicts for pastoral resources planning through PGIS in Duru-Haitemba. Duru-Haitemba forests are under community ownership and management since (Wily 1995; 1997). This area has been cited much as one of the most successful CBFM practices in Tanzania and in other countries (Wily 1995; 1997; 2001; Wily and Dewees 2001; Wily and Mbaya 2001; Kajembe, Monela et al. 2003; Kajembe, Nduwamungu et al. 2005; LAMP 2005). Bylaws on forest management were formulated to ensure enforcement of what was agreed in establishment of CBFM. Duru-Haitemba villagers are agro-pastoralists whereby livestock keeping ranks second source of livelihood. But access and uses of forest as grazing area has been ranging from limited to completely prohibited as bylaws changed over time (Wily 1997; 2001; Kajembe, Monela et al. 2003; Malimbwi 2003). In one way or another that development has affected other forests resources dependent as (Wily 2001) express “there were local losers in this development; larger cattle-keepers who were restricted to seasonal grazing rights…” Currently grazing in the forest is completely banned (Hoshan 2002; Riroda 2002; Duru 2003). Alternatively grazing was done along AWS and AWB but recent conservation directives disallow that practice in the areas. In addition there is no communal grazing land in the study area. Since the villagers are agro-pastoralists this study addresses visualization of what is happening on the ground through PGIS approach.

1.1. General Overview: Pastoralism and Conflict

Conflicts over natural resources are increasing in number and severity; there are growing conflicts between agriculture¹ and other land uses as both human and animal population. This problem has been compounded with the increasing population and scarcities of natural resource in the developing countries (Singh and Sinha 2002).This is because populations increase, both human and livestock brings about increasing demands such as food and fodders which imply more land required. The livestock numbers have been increasing steadily (Tanzania ranking third in Africa) in recent decades at roughly the same rate as the human population growth (United Republic of Tanzania 2005). To meet the increased demand land uses change over time as land sizes remain the same, alternatively conversion occurs. For instance changing grazing lands into farm lands consequently reduced pastoral resources. According to the (United Republic of Tanzania 1997a) agricultural land will be identified, set aside for agricultural use and protected against encroachment by pastoralists. Potential areas to pastoralists have been converted to what perceived more profitable “… there has been a conversion of formerly pastoral land into large-scale farms and a good example is Naberera farm in Simanjiro”(Kwiyamba 2005). Conversion of pastoral lands into other land uses without considering interests of the pastoralists conflict with Agriculture and Livestock policy that advocates for community involvement in resource management, land use planning and conflict resolution (United Republic of Tanzania 1997a). In turn pastoralists are affected socially and economically because of problems in access and uses of available scarce resources in line with the rules, regulation and by laws formulated to manage natural resources such as land, and forest. Ultimately disputes occur as a result of dwindling resources and resources use pressure.


2

1.2. Background Information; Pastoralism in Tanzania

Tanzania ranks third in 1Africa in terms of its cattle(http://www.tanzania.go.tz/livestockf.html) numbers (17.7 million head).The rangeland carrying capacity is estimated at 20 million units. Traditional small scale ownership prevails with 98 per cent of herds being owned by households; large ranches and dairy farms constitute just 2 percent (Tomei 2006; United Republic of Tanzania 2006). Most of the livestock products are sold to the domestic market; Tanzania imports few dairy and meat products. Livestock production is one of the major agricultural activities in Tanzania (Sibuga, Lekule et al. 2004). The sub sector contributes to national food supply, converts rangelands resources into products suitable for human consumption such as milk, meat, skin and hides (ibid). Apart from that it is a source of cash incomes and inflation – free store of value. It provides about 30 per cent of the Agricultural GDP. Out of the sub sector’s contribution to GDP, about 40 percent originates from beef production, 30 percent from milk production and another 30 percent from poultry and small stock production (United Republic of Tanzania 2005). Livestock production originates from a large resource base composed of the different livestock species, breeds and types whose ownership and distribution differ from region to region. Three livestock production systems are commonly distinguished in the rangeland areas; commercial ranching, pastoralism and agro-pastoralism (United Republic of Tanzania 2005) (Sibuga, Lekule et al. 2004) highlight that livestock production system enable people to live in semi-arid parts of Tanzania. In these areas livestock production contributes to the sustainable livelihoods and security of the rural poor in many ways (Kwiyamba 2005). In rural areas livestock plays a central role in the nonmonetary economy and in the social life, as well as providing draught power for cultivation and transports (Nilsson 2001). The practice form integral part of social, economical and ideological values that guarantee survival of individuals and continuity of the institutions (Sibuga, Lekule et al. 2004; Omosa 2005). Livestock provide alternative savings to banks with reasonable protection from inflation small ruminant industry play a crucial role (United Republic of Tanzania 2005). Although pastoralists live in many areas of Tanzania, the greatest numbers reside in 12 of the 121 Districts. Of the 3.7 million households dependent on pastoralism, 3 million have exclusively pastoralist livelihoods while 700,000 are considered agro-pastoralists (Tomei 2006). Freedom of movement to graze livestock over large tracts of land and access to water (essential for pastoralists) are being challenged by large-scale cultivation and irrigation, national boundaries, population increase, tourism and conservation policies i.e. establishment of nature and game reserves (Waters-Bayer and Bayer 1994; Vera 2000; Omosa 2005). Hence conflicts may occur due to conflicting goals and interests over the same land .The conflicts may result in social, economical, environmental effects at times irreversible effect on human life such as death… the finalization of the PRSP (in late 2000) coincided with widely publicized land use conflicts between agriculturalists and

1 Agriculture is defined as area of human activities that involve all aspects of crops and livestock i.e. farming and livestock keeping.


3

pastoralists in Kilosa District, Morogoro during which herds were confiscated and 31 people died (Tomei 2006). Competition from agriculture, and other land uses, herd dispossession, wars, drought, and population growth have undermined traditional pastoral institutions and contributed to mass displacement of pastoralists. Most governments and international donors, not only assign higher priority to agriculture than to pastoralism, but often do so at the expense of the interests of millions of pastoralists. As a production system and a way of life, pastoralists appear to be fighting a losing battle hence conflicts outbreak over scarce resources.

1.3. Participatory Planning and Policies in Tanzania

For more than two decades, the concept of participation has been widely used in development dialogues mostly in social arena, including community and development projects. World Bank Learning Group on Participation defined participation as a process through which stakeholders influence and share control over development initiatives and the decisions and resources which affect them (The World Bank 1996). In Tanzania participatory approaches can be traced back since 1980 s during and after social and economic reforms such as Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP). Thereafter people participation has been advocated in many disciplines including community development, land use planning, natural resources management, and politics. (United Republic of Tanzania 1997a; United Republic of Tanzania 1998b) suggests that community involvement is necessary in resources management, land use planning and conflict resolution. According to (Kauzeni, Kikula et al. 1993) participatory approaches’ have been used widely in many countries in an effort to stimulate, support, and strengthen the active involvement of individual citizens and communities, particularly resource-poor farmers, in research and in planning resource use and management. In Tanzania participatory planning is now promoted extensively as an alternative model towards socio-economic sustainable development to replace past national policies that placed more emphasis in protection rather than sustainable resource utilization (United Republic of Tanzania 2003). Currently the national development focus on participation as Development Vision 2025 advocate for equal opportunities through participation of all the people in order to achieve social and economic development through empowering communities and promoting broad-based grassroots participation in the mobilization of resources, knowledge and experience with a view to stimulating initiatives at all levels of society (United Republic of Tanzania 2000).

1.4. Participatory approaches and NRM Conflicts

With population growth and changing demographics, and the differing attitudes, behaviors, and conflict they bring to decision making, more participatory methods have been advocated for natural resource management (Thompson, Elmendorf et al. 2005). Conflict(s) occurs due to different interests and values. Conflicts involving governments, their agencies, private sector and local communities generally arise because of disagreements over the use and control over natural resources i.e. on the course of action to be taken (Mostert 1998; Singh and Sinha 2002; Kyem 2004). Community involvement in natural resources provides ideal interventions that emanate from people initiatives hence sustainable plans in management and utilization. In many parts of Tanzania local


4

communities have the potentials to ensure sustainable management of forest resources (United Republic of Tanzania 1998b). Involvement of public in forestry decision making is seen as an important part of sustainable forest management, both as a means to an end and as an end in itself (United Republic of Tanzania 1997b; United Republic of Tanzania 1998b; Kangas, Laukkanen et al. 2006). Several positive outcomes have been associated with effective public participation in natural resource management including conflict resolution. According to (Thompson, Elmendorf et al. 2005) conflict is better understood and dealt with very early in change process (decreasing potential costs of failure, implementation, and enforcement and leading to stronger sense of local ownership and support).ACT There are various approaches towards conflict resolution.(Kyem 2004) describe that cooperative approach emphasizes mutual relationships and common interests hence welcome GIS applications for the cultivation of shared interests. GIS applications can succeed in preparing disputants for consensus in conflict sustained by either values or interests. Geographic information systems (GIS) have been widely used to support land use planning processes by providing baseline data and producing output information for decision-making. (Abbot 1998)… hence there have been conflicts over natural resources, then Participatory GIS emerge and to a reasonable extent it has proved to be useful in conflict mitigation, land ownership as well as other natural resources access and management in several ways.

1.5. Participatory Geographical Information Systems in NRM

PGIS is a result of merger between Participatory Learning and Action (PLA) methods with Geographic Information Technologies (GIT) that facilitates the representation of local people’s spatial knowledge using two or three dimensional maps (Corbett, Rambaldi et al. 2005). According to (Abbot 1998) PGIS in developing country context is referred to as an attempt to utilize GIS technology in the context of needs and capabilities of communities that will be involved with and affected by development projects and programmes. Geographical Information Systems (GIS) focuses on the collection, storage, analysis, display and application of geographic data(Mansell and Wehn 1998). GIS can be regarded as an advanced equivalent of a traditional map from which a wide range of information can be extracted for specific purposes that can be useful in the integration of information on climate, soils, and terrains from different sources. Participatory GIS is an emergent practice in its own right; developing out of participatory approaches to planning and spatial information and communication management (Rambaldi and Weiner 2004). Participatory GIS implies making GIT&S available to disadvantaged groups in society in order to enhance their capacity in generating, managing, analysing, and communicating spatial information.(Mohamed and Ventura 2000) emphasize that Participatory GIS can reduce conflicts through boosting ownership as recordation of rights and interests in land or resources in automated systems recognized by groups (e.g., governments, companies) outside a community may bolster tenure security for the community or individuals if appropriate access and system security mechanisms are part of the system.Concomitantly P-mapping and P-GIS are considered to have superior effects in terms of relevance, usefulness, sustainability, empowerment, and meeting good governance objectives, due to their eponymous stress on participation and on utilizing local knowledge (McCall 2004b).


5

1.6. Problem Statement

Babati is the district with highest population in Manyara region (United Republic of Tanzania 2002a) its population is 303,013 people with 3.8 intercensal growth rate. Duru Haitemba is the woodland forest managed by the 8 villages’ community in Duru Haitemba. Most of the households at Duru-Haitemba practice agro-pastoralists whereby livestock keeping ranks second source of livelihood. After intensification of CBFM activities, the 8 villages formulated by laws on resources uses and access, as a result they are now restricted to graze inside the reserved forests. According to (Hoshan 2002; Riroda 2002; Duru 2003; Kajembe, Monela et al. 2003) there are rules banning various activities; including charcoal making; setting fire to the forests or grasses; felling any reserved tree species such as Pterocarpus angolensis; ring barking of trees for making beehives; house construction within the forest and farming and grazing within the forests. (Otieno 2000; Kajembe, Monela et al. 2003) identified that “Most of the offences at Duru Haitemba relate to grazing and encroachment for expansion of farm land… the main conflicts were associated with competition for land use between farmland, grazing land and forest land. This involved villagers alone or with outsiders. This study therefore is partly interested to know where do agro-pastoralists graze throughout the year and sorts of conflicts they encounter in different seasons because some people still maintain large herds of cattle. In addition researcher want to examine how are the agro-pastoralists in and from different villages’ access and use grazing resources. During January- May/June grazing in the forest is not allowed and time farming activities are in its high season, as pastoral resources are dwindling the researcher assume existence of conflicts among agro-pastoralists in and from different villages and authorities administering laws enforcement. According to the three villages bylaws’ grazing is not allowed at all in any part of the forest and in conserved areas (see appendix 2) (Hoshan 2002; Riroda 2002; Duru 2003). From the literatures (Wily and Dewees 2001; Kajembe, Monela et al. 2003; Kajembe, Nduwamungu et al. 2005; LAMP 2005) it shows that forest area does not reduce and the forest is successfully managed and owned by the community in the 8 villages. The researcher suppose that grazing lands are reduced due to population increase and demand from other land uses mainly farming and environmental conservation; hence resource use pressure as a result of competition among forest land, farm land and pastoral land. Thus the study aims at looking for potentials of PGIS in identification of grazing related conflicts in Duru Haitemba, Babati.


6

1.7. Objectives and Research Question

Based on the research problem the general objective of this study was to find out potentials of Participatory GIS in identifying conflict over pastoral resources.

1.7.1. Specific Objectives and Research Questions

The general objective was achieved through the following specific objectives and research questions:

Specific Objectives

Research Questions

1. To identify and explain existing

resources use and access conflicts among pastoralists and other land users

1. What kind of conflicts are there among pastoralists

and other land users? 2. What are the causes and effects of those conflicts? 3. What are the conflict management practices for

mitigating and handling conflicts?

2. To study how PGIS can be used to

identify grazing resources and pastoralists uses and access interaction.

1. How can PGIS be used in identification of grazing

resources? 2. Why do pastoralists graze their livestock in the areas

they do? 3. How do pastoralists access and uses grazing

resources inside and outside their villages

3. To examine the effectiveness of PGIS approach as tool for assessing spatial temporal distribution of conflicts.

1. To what extent is PGIS an effective tool for examining conflicts?

2. Where are the conflicting resources areas? 3. What are the spatial temporal factors that contribute

to the conflict in the study area? 4. What is the relationship among the factors in

context?

1.8. Justification

Pastoralism is a sub sector in Tanzania that contributes to rural livelihoods as well as national economy. It provides about 30 per cent of the Agricultural GDP. Livestock act as source of food (meat, and milk) as well as products such as manure, skin, and hides. In addition livestock act as means of transport, cultivation and security for rural poor. In Duru Haitemba where livestock keeping rank second major source of livelihood, the people depend on livestock to earn living, but there are resource use pressures. This study can partly contribute towards reduced land resources utilisation pressure after conflict visualisation. Practical contribution of this research such as land use allocation/ re-allocation depend much on decisions making bodies of Duru Haitemba villages, Babati district, national levels and reforms in related policies inter alia Agriculture and Livestock, Land ,Rural Development ,Forestry as well as Environment.


7

1.9. Observation During Field work

Field work was done during dry season. Also there was serious drought in 2004/2005 which affected livestock keeping as well as farming in the study area. Therefore response of the interviewees might be influenced by those conditions because they could not access and uses forest and conserved areas for grazing even during the drought. In addition number of livestock reported may be slightly different to the actual one because some of the livestock keepers in the area at times do not reveal real number of their livestock because they associate it with taxes. Mixture of people from different tribes is not source of conflicts in the study area because there is no tribalism in Tanzania. This has been highlighted here because in other counties tribes’ differences have been contributing factor to conflict or principal source of conflicts even in NRM.


8


9

2. Clarification Of Concepts and Practices

This chapter concentrate on clarification of concepts used in this study. This was done to understand and integrate relationship between key concepts in general NRM conflicts, Participatory approaches, PGIS and its applications, CBFM and Pastoralism. Through different literatures the researcher understood manifestation of the research problem, methods applied, and interpretation of the result in line with others findings related to this study.

2.1. General Understanding of Conflicts

Conflict refers to disagreement and incompatibility between individuals, groups, organizations, or nations and / or parties that ensues due to contrasting goals, interests, values, principles, and practices that manifest itself in different forms i.e. grievance, conflict and dispute(Walker and Daniels 1997; Singh and Sinha 2002). There are two main schools of thoughts about conflicts; (Rubenstein 1993; Rubin, Pruitt et al. 1994; Sanddelin 1997). One looks at conflict as pathological and dysfunctional that carry negative connotation as (Warner and Jones 1998) described. This thinking may result in neglecting and suppress the conflict. Another school of thought consider conflict as potential and functional means for social change and acknowledge its prevalence (Warner and Jones 1998; Upreti 2001). According to (Warner and Jones 1998; Upreti 2001; Haro, Doyo et al. 2005) conflict in NRM is common and inevitable especially where resources are used and managed by different groups. (Zartman 1997) “Conflict is an inevitable aspect of human interaction, unavoidable concomitant of choices and decisions…” By considering conflicts in a positive way, conflict is considered as social processes that have great influence in shaping and reshaping social relations and power structure of society (Martinelli and Almeida 1998). Because changes due to new technologies, new government policies and procedures, laws and regulations, local power relationships , privatization of public services, commercialization of natural resources and growing consumerism exert pressure on resources, causes and intensity of conflict (Warner and Jones 1998; Upreti 2001). Presently rural areas of developing countries; Tanzania included are experiencing rapid socio-economic and environmental changes (United Republic of Tanzania 2003). Because of such changes it is not appropriate and even possible to avoid and / or suppress conflicts in practical human society life (Warner and Jones 1998; Upreti 2001). Conflict arises form both systematic and individual perceptions (Abu-Nimer 2003). Perception of reality by different people rather than the reality itself greatly influences conflict, because people behave according to their perception and interpretation. This justify why conflict management should call for all actors who directly or indirectly use, manage and affected by the resource in conflict. Scarcity in NR increases pressure on the resources, as well as time factor and other changes in social, economic, political and demographic make area and resources in context more susceptible to conflict.


10

Conflict in society is also influenced by social context (organisation and structure of society), pattern of interaction (escalation or de-escalation; conflict escalation is discussed further in chapter 4), mode for instance violence, disagreement, specific period of time, belief of conflicting parties and degree of incompatibility of their goals and power structure (Upreti 2001). Conflict has many dimensions from micro-micro, micro-macro, and macro-macro at local, regional, national and international levels (Warner and Jones 1998; Upreti 2001; McCall 2004a). This study considers conflicts as inevitable in NRM and define conflicts as incompatible interests, goals and disagreement on course of action taken that interferes access, uses and control among forest and land resources users and managers particularly agro-pastoralists and other actors such as village and district authorities.

2.2. Conflicts in Natural Resources Management and Land Uses

Conflicts involving governments, their agencies, private sector and local communities generally arise because of disagreements over the use and control over natural resources i.e. on the course of action to be taken (Mostert 1998; Singh and Sinha 2002). There are several sources of conflicts; these sources can be grouped in three categories: factual disagreement, conflicting goals and relational aspects (Dorcy and Riek 1987). The categorize are explained in (Mostert 1998) whereby Factual disagreement is due to uncertain facts, lack of or poor information and limited capacity to process information; Conflicting goals is related to different interests and values; and relational aspects due to problems in the relations between the parties involved hence distrust and power struggles. The disagreement can also occur in a cooperative or a competitive context such as when incompatible interests or values develop between two or more persons, groups or nations normally conflicts are between parties-groups of people who hold different interests, and have different needs, values, and preferences (Kyem 2004; McCall 2004a). Values refer to issues such as the sacredness of land or the sanctity of human life. Interest are about what people want (e.g. material goods) but values relate to what they care most about for example human life and religious beliefs (Northrup 1989; Susskind 1999). In NRs as identified by (McCall 2004a) competition is usually associated with the following:

• Direct control of various resources i.e. Land and resources products, services and attributes • Access to resources • Using the resources • Indirect impacts of use

(Mohamed and Ventura 2000) explained conflicts in NRM as a result of disputes inside and outside the communities such as follows: Boundary disputes between community and outsiders, boundary disputes between members of the community, resource use disputes between community and outsiders, resource use disputes between community members, land use disputes between community and outsiders, as well as land use disputes between community members. Therefore conflicts in NRM and land uses are commonly associated with opposing interests over land uses, limited uses and access, and unclear ownership and boundaries delineation. As human


11

population and needs increase concurrently resources are dwindling hence conflicts in NRM become unavoidable phenomenon. With those conflicts sustainability in NR is interfered as (Warner 2000) refers to conflict as a potential obstacle to sustainable development. Consequently human livelihoods especially in rural areas are affected as they depend much on natural resources as (Singh and Sinha 2002) explain that …natural resources support life on earth and provide livelihoods for millions of the rural poor around the world. This study focus much on conflicts related to opposing interests over land uses and limited uses and access.

2.2.1 Categories and Levels of Conflict in NRM

Conflict can be categorized in terms of whether they occur at the micro-micro or micro-macro levels, i.e. among community groups or between community groups or between community groups and outside organisations (Warner and Jones 1998). There are different types and levels of conflicts in NRM and land. According to (Verplanke 2001) there is general three way typology where we consider whether a conflict is an instrumental, social-emotional and conflict of interest. This shows that conflicts manifested as NRM and land uses may have very individual sources; for instance hatred and /or friction among villagers can cause one of them to extend boundary, or grazing in other’s farm. But (Rodriguez Parisca 1995) proposes to transform these spatial planning intensity conflicts, generational conflicts, and functional conflicts. (Upreti 2001) point out that In NRM there are major and common natural resources conflicts: land related forest related and water related. Conflicts level range from local to international levels either micro or macro are having inter and intra relationship. Conflict has many dimensions and levels from local, regional, national and international (Upreti 2001; McCall 2004a). This is shown in table2.1 by (McCall 2004a) and for more details sees (Warner and Jones 1998; Verplanke 2001). The table helps to illustrate conflicts in different levels from local to national. At local levels conflicts can be due to internal factors among NRs users and managers. But inadequate consistency and interrelationship among policies and decisions made at national level can directly or indirectly contribute to conflicts at all levels.

2.3. Role of Property Rights in Conflicts Manifestation

As indicated in (section 2.1) conflicts occur due to many socio-economic, political ;( i.e. governance, policies, laws and regulation), demographic, and technological changes; therefore conflicts in NRM are due to interwoven and multifaceted factors. For clear understanding of conflicts manifestation in NRM there is need to look on issues of ownership of the resources in conflicts.


12

Table 2-1: Types of Conflicts in NRM / Land Management

Competition over : “Scale”

Direct Control of Land & Resources

Access to Resource Benefits

Indirect Impacts

Local Level Intra-‘Household’ conflicts

Gender-specific resource needs

Gender-specific (non-) access to returns from resources

Inter-generational implications.

Intra-Community conflicts

Land-rich farmers vs. Land-poor. Agriculturalists vs. Pastoralists.

Breakdown of Common Property Regime regulations & distributions.

Community / cultural continuity vs. household / individual survival.

Intermediate ‘Regional’ scale Inter-Group conflicts Agriculturalists vs.

Pastoralists e.g. between Forest Product users

Displacement of wildlife, as pests

Inter-community conflicts

Boundary disputes between villages

Ditto Downstream impacts. Downwind impacts.

Local-National conflicts

Commercial logging. Commercial hunting. Commercial farming. Speculative Land grabbing. NPs & Ecosystem Reserves, etc.

Revenue sharing e.g. from wildlife tourism. External-driven projects.

Impacts on foreign ex. earnings or national tax revenues

National Level Within national decision-making

Inter-Ministry / agency conflicts: Driven by competing Policy objectives (e.g. ; Or, by administrative ‘empire-building’.

Royalties & tax loads – debates over Equity policies.

Adapted from (McCall 2004a)

2.3.1. Property Rights and Ownership

Property rights have been defined differently by many scholars in various professions inter alia economics, laws, environment and NRM. (Gibson, McKean et al. 2000) in their perspective describe that property rights to resources are not the resources themselves but are human institutions, sets of mutually recognized claims and decision-making powers over those resources. The issue of property rights is having its own complexity as (Schlager and Ostrom 1992) indicate that “Property rights are complex because resource tenure often involves bundles of rights including users rights, rights to exclude others, rights to manage and rights to sell. Since there is no universally accepted definition of property rights, for this study property rights refers to right of ownership that directly and indirectly determine access, use, and control over NR. Theoretically people can acquire rights over natural resources either using their historical association or citing riparian rights or interpreting legislated laws in their favour (Bromley 1992).


13

Scarcity of resources and changes in policies interfere the users rights over those resources as Sjaastad and (Sjaastad and Bromley 2000) state that rights become more specific as scarcity of resources increases, this implies a removal of scarce resources from public domain into the hands of specific right holder, hence conflict. According to (United Republic of Tanzania 1997c) all land in Tanzania is public land vested in the President as trustee on behalf of all citizens. In part this expresses why participation of all relevant actors in decisions that affect land users directly or indirectly is somewhat overlooked. In legal perspectives land owners sometimes do not own land 100% as the ownership can be transferred or withdrawn for conservation or other public use such as road construction though by following legal procedures (ibid) based on who is right or not right will be displaced with or without compensations.

2.4. Conflict Management Practices

In CBNRM there are hidden and latent conflicts that can hardly offer opportunity for common grounds to resolve (Warner and Jones 1998). Therefore conflict management is more realistic than conflict resolution as conflicts in NRM are inevitable (Zartman 1997; Upreti 2001). There are formal and informal ways of managing conflicts. Formal practices are those which involve official procedures; guided by governmental rules, regulation and laws (Upreti 2001).Informal practices are locally developed, practiced and enforced by communities. Informal practices may, or more likely, may not follow the governmental regulatory procedures. They are normally administered and done by local people who have been entrusted and trusted to do that in a socially, morally accepted manner. The locals and volunteers who deal with informal conflict management practices often they have social, cultural, moral and sometimes economic status that is acceptable in their particular society. They are supposed to be wise, diplomatic, intelligent, integrity, trusted, and stable but flexible based on the circumstances in context. It is difficult to draw precise discrete line among the formal and informal practices because in legal terms they are based on each other. (Upreti 2001) describes that both practices are directly and/or indirectly guided or influenced by each other, making it difficult to separate them completely. For instance in Tanzania all other laws should be formulated in line with the Act No.15 of 1984 s.6, Act No.34 of 1994 s.6 30(5)² of the Constitution of the URT; unless it shall be rectified or declared void (United Republic of Tanzania 1998a). This implies that even the informal practices such as negotiations and meetings with elders in the study area abide in the Constitution. Informal and formal practices have its implication in NRM conflicts and depend on extent of issues to be managed these practices are having advantages and disadvantages. The advantages and disadvantages are discussed in Chapter 3 table 3.3. ²Where in any proceedings it is alleged that any law enacted or any action taken by the Government or any other authority

abrogates or abridges any of the basic rights, freedoms and duties set out in Articles 12 to 29 of this Constitution and the High Court is satisfied that the law or action concerned, to the extent that it conflicts with this Constitution is void, or is inconsistent with this Constitution, then the High Court, if it deems fit, or if the circumstances or public interest so requires, instead of declaring that such law or action is void, shall have power to decide to afford the Government or other authority concerned an opportunity to rectify the defect found in the law or action concerned within such a period and in such a manner as the High Court shall determine, and such law or action shall be deemed to be valid until such time the defect is rectified or the period determined by the High Court lapses, whichever is the earlier.


14

2.5. Participatory Geographical Information Systems

PGIS is a result of merger between Participatory Learning and Action (PLA) methods with Geographic Information Technologies (GIT) (see section 1.5). Participatory mapping refers to combination of participation based methods for eliciting and recording spatial data (Vajjhala 2005). PGIS have added value in dealing with spatial information because conventional Geographical Information Systems (GIS) focuses on the collection, storage, analysis, display and application of geographic data (Mansell and Wehn 1998). The approach is more people centered than technological as it focuses on incorporating community views/understanding in GIS. Since its introduction conventional GIS deals much with where people live and less on why and how (Vajjhala 2005), thus PGIS inputs in its own way respond to community dynamics in GIS and include local information that could hardly be captured in conventional GIS. According to (Jordan and Shrestha 2000 ) with PGIS the focus switched from technological considerations towards participatory issues. Participatory GIS and community mapping are useful tools for bridging the gap existing between geographic information technologies and capacities found among marginalised, isolated, and frequently natural resource- dependent communities. Participatory GIS is very useful tool as it involve the communities in context during mapping, thus final map (GIS output) can visualize things from community inputs, that in some cases experts could not find them on their own. Concomitantly P-mapping and PGIS are considered to have superior effects in terms of relevance, usefulness, sustainability, empowerment, and meeting good governance objectives, due to their eponymous stress on participation and on utilising local knowledge (McCall 2004b). Other terminologies which are often used synonymously with PGIS including Public Participation GIS, Community Integrated GIS, Participatory mapping and Community mapping as explained by (Jordan 1998; Jordan and Shrestha 2000 ; Craig, Harris et al. 2002; Jordan 2002; Mapedza, Wright et al. 2003; McCall 2003; 2004b; Corbett and Keller 2005) Emergence and growing applications of PGIS in resources planning towards decision making depicts that no approach that can independently address community ever-changing information needs (Vajjhala 2005). PGIS have been much applied in Land use planning, natural resources management, physical planning, transport planning and industrial planning. It has been frequently applied in natural resources management particularly in forestry issues, urban planning and other fields that need geographic information for decisions making. It is explicitly shown that PGIS has been used in conflict resolution (Poole 1995; Kyem 2004), community forestry management (Jordan 1998; Jordan and Shrestha 2000 ; 2002; Kyem Kwaku 2002; Mbile, DeGrande et al. 2003), indigenous knowledge management (Poole 1995; Alcorn 2000; Tripathi and Bhattarya 2004), claiming ancestral lands (Chapin, Lamb et al. 2005), inter and intra community cooperation (Alcorn 2000), mapping customary lands(Alcorn 2000), land use/land cover (Mapedza, Wright et al. 2003; Aynekulu and Wubneh 2006), institutional strengthening, empowerment and governance along with delineating boundaries (Akong Minang 2003). Reviewing of literatures enabled the researcher to come up with this study that focus on PGIS applicability in identifying conflict over pastoral resources. Considering that pastoralists/agro-pastoralists are among important grassroots in rural Tanzania that sought to be forgotten while their occupation contributes to their livelihood and national income.


15

2.5.1. Participatory GIS in this study

In this study community mapping and PGIS outputs were used to ground truth conflict areas after mapping. The outputs combined with different processes in Arc GIS and ERDAS facilitated visualization of conflicts and its distribution. Therefore PGIS in context of this study is considered as Participatory Digital Mapping that empowered mapping participants and community through knowledge sharing and raising awareness during and after the mapping exercise.

Figure 2-1: Dimensions of attributes shared by GIS and participatory mapping Adapted from (Vajjhala 2005).The dimensions have been modified to suit criteria and purpose of the PGIS in this study.

2.6. Participation in Participatory Approaches; PGIS

Currently participation is used widely in many professionals, thus participatory…means different to different people hence difficulties in determining when are and which approaches are participatory. (Chapin, Lamb et al. 2005) indicate that “participatory” has been overused and abused and attached to many disciplines…and it is frequently difficult to figure out where author is located on the participatory spectrum and whether or not the participation spoken of is real. Participation is very fundamental in participatory approaches. According to (McCall 2003; 2004b) participation in PGIS as in other processes can be characterized into four degrees or intensities. Intensity is important feature in participation but may vary based on what is to be done? where? by who and how?. (McCall 2004b) illustrate that participation should not always strive for maximum intensity but the intensity should be appropriate to the tasks, competencies and the specific relationships between actors in a participatory spatial planning.


16

From lowest to highest, the four intensities can be categorised in terms of a participation ladder as describe in (McCall 2003; 2004b) and partly in (Waters-Bayer and Bayer 1994; Selener 1997) as follows:

1. Information sharing: One way or two way communication between ‘outsiders’ and local people, involving primarily sharing technical information, such as baselines, project objectives, and need assessments. Participation is needed in activities like mapping to elicit local people’s knowledge. If there are decisions to be implemented sometimes share on how project will affect local people.

2. Consultation: External agents refer selected key issues to local stakeholders for refinement or prioritising. The key issues are pre-defined by outsiders; process and analysis is controlled by outsiders.

3. Involvement in Decision Making: Local and external actors are involved in decision making; they jointly identify priorities, analyse current status, assess alternative and implement. Participation is seen as a right not just as means to achieve project goals.

4. Initiating Actions: Independent local initiatives are made and owned by empowered local people e.g. self mobilization to perform community activities; a different situation from implementation with their own labour inputs

Decision to use participatory approach (for instance PGIS) in any discipline should focus on purpose and intension of using the approach in that particular case. This enable to examine participation in terms of intended functions (McCall 2003; 2004b). Intensity of participation hence can be related to differences in three underlying purposes or intentions (ibid )of internal and external agencies that promote participatory GIS as the approach in spatial planning, conflicts studies, environmental management and other fields.

• Facilitation: Participation is promoted to ease outside intervention and interest towards improvement in external projects efficiency, solicit community support, to share cost burden with the beneficiaries. In GI and PGIS facilitation means eliciting local knowledge in ITK,ISK, and NRM through participatory map making and/ or handheld GPS

• Empowerment: Participation is promoted to reinforce local decision making and responsibilities towards empowerment of local people. In GI and PGIS terms it refers to self-determination and local initiatives in all stages of P-mapping and GIS.

• Collaboration or Mediation: Participation is promoted to establish links between outside projects and local people priorities to increase programme effectiveness, build up capacity of local actors, and modify outside intervention towards local aspirations and needs. In GI and PGIS terms collaboration implies activities under facilitation and participatory need assessment, collaborative spatial problem analysis, and joint prioritisation of problem and their interventions.

2.7. Benefits and Challenges of PGIS

PGIS like any other approaches in natural and social sciences has its strengths and weakness. The subjectivity and objectivity of the approach depend on what it is used for? why? where? when? and how is it used? According to (Craig, Harris et al. 2002; Mapedza, Wright et al. 2003; Mbile, DeGrande et al. 2003; Robiglio and Mala 2003) currently growing movement toward integrating participatory methods and GIS highlights that fact that neither approach alone meets society’s changing information needs. Through PGIS related literatures reviewed while carrying out this


17

research there were basic aspects and questions identified which are of great significance in addressing benefits and challenges of PGIS. The aspects include participation (stakeholders, extent), decision making, ownerships and control information, influence of power relations, institutional structure, usefulness and applicability of the approach, input-output relationship, and impact of the approach, collection and dissemination of information. These aspects are functional and integral in analysing benefits and challenges of PGIS.

2.7.1. Benefits

The approach facilitate participation of different stakeholders when used properly by ensuring that there is equal opportunity in extent and room for all relevant stakeholders to participate (Jordan 1998; Tripathi and Bhattarya 2004). It can empower community planning and decision making processes by having spatial information (Alcorn 2000) in sketch maps. The approach help to build trust and sense of ownership as local people are the ones who provide input for information created (Poole 1995). It is very useful approach in social sciences based on context features where it is applied and value added (Tripathi and Bhattarya 2004). It helps to represent of local spatial knowledge (McCall 2004b). Sometimes information created may empower local people and influence planning and decision making.

2.7.2. Challenges

If the whole process of mapping is not well structured influential and talkative participants may overrule others and impose their decisions (McCall 2004b). Underprivileged groups are likely to be excluded and more affected; women and youth especially female can fail to participate accordingly (McCall and Minang 2005) due to socio-cultural values and domestic responsibilities. Information ownership and control may perhaps be limited with education and relationships, questions like who owns legend (Rambaldi 2004) and what information to expose or not are important here, because some information are sensitive and when exposed may be misused with outsiders at the expense of the community and disempowering what meant for empowerment. Who have what power among participants and local institutions structures may negatively influence input and output. Technological knowledge and education may hinder access, control and ownership of the information established. In data collection if required attention will not be taken there is danger of shifting from the intended focus. The approach as many participatory approaches it is time consuming Furthermore PGIS has unintended and unanticipated consequences; can be source of and increased level of conflicts between and within communities (Sirait, Prasodjo et al. 1994; Poole 1995; Sterritt, Marsden et al. 1998), loss of indigenous conceptions of space and increased privatization of land (Fox 2002), and increased regulation and co-optation by the state (Urit 2001; Majid-Cooke 2003). Consequently mapping technology (PGIS included) is viewed as a process that simultaneous empowering and disadvantaging indigenous communities (Harris and Weiner 1998).

2.8. Stakeholder Analysis

Stakeholders include all actors or groups who affect, and/or are affected by, the policies, decisions, and actions of a project or proposed intervention (The World Bank 1996; McCall 2004a). Stakeholders can also include the more nebulous categories of ‘future generations’, the ‘national interest’ and ‘wider society’. Stakeholders represent systems with their own objectives, resources and sensitivities. Other terms are used interchangeably with stakeholders...but with slightly different connotations, for example: ‘actors’, ‘key actors’, ‘groups of actors’, ‘social actors’ and ‘parties’ (Groenendijk and Dopheide 2003).


18

(McCall 2004a) describe different ways of characterising the groups of actors in an NRM situation as follows

1) Direct users vs. Indirect (“downstream”) users’ vs. non-users 2) Active stakeholders (those who affect) vs. passive stakeholders (those who are affected by) 3) Scaled along a micro to macro continuum of stakeholders. 4) Legitimate stakeholders vs. Non-legitimate interests. 5) Beneficiaries’ vs. non-beneficiaries

For this study stakeholders for mapping were among interviewees who were identified based on their forest resources’ interaction in line with data/ information required to achieve the objectives of the study. To ensure representativeness of the inputs and output during mapping the participants came from different socioeconomic characteristics; the following stakeholders were identified

1) Extension officers including (Forest officer, and community livestock attendant) 2) Village and district authority. 3) Villagers i.e. agro-pastoralists. 4) Key informants

The identified stakeholders fall under number 2, 3, and 4 because the authorities are active stakeholders and agro-pastoralists are passive, among agro-pastoralists majority are small scale and few large scale. For legitimate and non-legitimate stakeholders for this case is authorities who are authorized to ensure no grazing by non-legitimate (among the agro-pastoralists) in the banned areas.

2.9. Community Involvement in NRM

Participation of local communities and other stakeholders in managing forestry and conservation projects can help to improve forestry productivity, alleviate poverty, increase environmental sustainability, and make rules governing forest access more enforceable (World-Bank 1996). CBNRM has received considerable attention in recent years and is being actively encouraged across the world as a successful strategy in promoting NR governance, halt NR degradation and promote rural development (Blaikie 2006; Matta and Alavalapati 2006). In Tanzania the CBFM has become the most important programme in the forestry sector following its inclusion in Forest Policy 1998 and Forest Act 2002.The major factors that influence CBFM in Tanzania context are to ensure sustainability of forestry resources and to decentralise government activities. CBFM has positive and negative effects on livelihood and environments at small and large scale. The positive benefits include increase in quality and quantity of forests services and products, and environmental sustainability all as a result of increased sense of ownership. The negative effects include restricted access in the forests or parts of forests due to laws governing the programme, environmental reasons or community values. Therefore it’s important for villagers to understand impact of CBNRM / CBFM on their livelihood before and during implementation (Matta and Alavalapati 2006). But it’s assumed that community members involved share common understanding of the problem and the approaches to address it (Gibson and Koontz 1998) while there are diversity based on structural differences, individuals’ values, beliefs and ideas (Matta and Alavalapati 2006). In addition there is considerable divergence in knowledge and understanding of the costs and benefits based on occupation and income levels (Matta and Alavalapati 2006). Policies that fail to take into account such differences can generate conflicts (Hildyard, Hegde et al. 2001). One of the major costs identified due to CBFM is limited access in forest services and products. (Meshack, Adhikari et al. 2006) recognised banning forest use for animal grazing as one of the potential


19

costs. Its outcome may be more disappointing in pastoralists and agro-pastoralists communities like the study area. According to (ibid) the effects of CBFM are different based on users’ income brackets i.e. poor, medium and rich; at times income level determines dependency on forest. The situation of poor and disadvantaged users could potentially deteriorate due to limited access to forest because farming and livestock keeping for local economy depend much on forestry systems (Adhikari, Williams et al. 2007). (Veltheim and Kijazi 2002) indicate that, it is unrealistic to assume that villagers would involve themselves in forest management without tangible benefits. Essentially there is danger to withdraw their involvement in forest management in case of much interference in their livelihoods and less in their interests.

2.10. Pastoralism, Farming and Forest Interactions

Pastoralism relies on the availability of water, pastures and labour to thrive (Omosa 2005). Forests act as means of subsistence and source of livelihood in many communities. But livestock grazing in the forest is one of the factors that destroy the forest (Vera 2000). In the communities situated in arid and semi arid areas especially pastoralists / agro-pastoralists forests are highly useful source of fodders. According to (URT:DHS 1997) Arusha (by then Manyara included) falls under central semi-arid zone of Tanzania ;where most inhabitants practised an agro-pastoral livelihood strategy (Quinn, Huby et al. 2006; United Republic of Tanzania 2006). Duru-Haitemba forests are typical dry miombo, with tree species like Brachystegia boehmii, Brachystegia microphylla, Rhus vulgaris, Ormocarpum trichocarpum and Rhus natalensis which are useful for fodders (Mbuya, Msanga et al. 1994). Conservation of forests may sometimes differ with livestock interests as they rely on forests as grazing areas. (IUCN-EARO and Mariki 2002) explain that while forests and grasslands are taken for granted as regards livestock development, effective preservation and conversion to other uses adversely affects livestock keepers. Natural pressure such as prolonged recurrence of droughts and anthropogenic activities such as extensification of smallholder crop cultivation, game reserves and large-scale irrigation schemes too have interfered pastoralism (Omosa 2005). These processes have tended to deny pastoralists right of access to land and forests, previously perceived by local pastoralists as traditional grazing areas. There are growing social conflicts, environmental concerns and land uses conflicts due to haphazard alienation of rangelands for large scale agriculture. The extensive alienation frequently disowns pastoralists of their grazing lands (United Republic of Tanzania 1997a). Decrease in grazing lands imply increase in poverty among pastoralists then as a production system and a way of life, pastoralists appear to be fighting a losing battle to gain back their lost source of subsistence, hence conflict outbreak among pastoralists and other land users especially large scale agriculturalists. In Tanzania increased agricultural production through expansion into pastoral lands has gradually reduced the area available for livestock (IUCN-EARO and Mariki 2002). Reduction of grazing lands and difficult access to pastures increase possibilities of conflict incidences. Conflicts over grazing resources among pastoralists themselves and other land users are not new to pastoralists’ and agro-pastoralists communities. In Tanzania conflicts between farmers and pastoralists have been registered in a number of areas including Morogoro, Chunya (Mbeya), Mpanda and Sumbawanga (Rukwa), Tabora and Arusha regions (IUCN-EARO and Mariki 2002). Pastoralists are sometimes regarded minorities as they lead a different way of life in terms of culture, values and language (Omosa 2005). Their occupation is regarded destructive to environment, opposing conservation


20

and interferes sustainability of NR. Their lifestyles are considered incompatible with those of the majority of the population from where those who govern originate (Bonfiglioll and Watson 1992). This partly explains why views and needs of pastoralists are rarely taken into consideration in national planning (Omosa 2005).


21

3. Study Area and Research Methods

For this study primary and secondary methods of data collection were used (for details see chapter 4,5 and 6) based on their applicability and usefulness towards achieving the research objectives. Description of the study area and its characteristics are also explained under this part.

3.1. Study Area

This part covers general introduction of the study area that highlights on physical, socio-economic and

administrative features.

Maps of Tanzania, Manyara District and Duru Haitemba showing the study area

Figure 3-1: Map (a) Regions of Tanzania, (b) Manyara`s districts and (c) Map of Duru Haitemba Source: (United Republic of Tanzania 2002a)for map A and B.

3.1.1. Physical Characteristics

Duru-Haitemba Village Forests Reserves are in Manyara region located some 200kms south of Arusha in the northern part of Tanzania, and about 750km from Dar es Salaam. The forests are within the


22

boundaries of 8 villages, about 25km from Babati town. Duru-Haitemba forests are typical dry miombo woodlands. The dominant species are Brachystegia microphylla and Brachystegia spiciformis (Malimbwi 2003). Duru-Haitemba dry miombo woodland forests cover about 9,000 ha. Since 1996 the forest is actively and legally managed by eight village communities. For management purposes, each of the eight villages has its forest portion. These portions appear in patches and in most cases are not continuous. Table 3-1: The forest area: Distribution per villages.

Village Forest area (ha)

Ayasanda 550

Riroda 1,800*

Duru 1,500

Hoshan 400

Endanachan 400

Bubu 2300

Gidas 875

Endagwe 1,220ha

3.1.2. Climate and biophysical environment

Duru Haitemba is a relatively dry area. Rainfall in the area is characterised by bi-modal and irregular rains ranging from 300–1200mm per year. Sometimes rains of short duration occur during October to January while there are rains of long duration from February to May (Kajembe, Nduwamungu et al. 2005). Occasionally the areas experience extended dry season for 6 months in a year (United Republic of Tanzania 2006)and might have drought. According to (URT:DHS 1997) part of Arusha region (by then Manyara included as a district) falls under central semi-arid zone of Tanzania. The area lies on average from 950 -2000 meters above sea level.

3.1.3. Socio-economic Characteristics

Duru Haitemba villages fall administratively under Babati district. According to (URT 2002; United Republic of Tanzania 2002b) census reports Duru Haitemba population was 26196. As at 2005 Duru Haitemba consists of nine villages following establishment of a new village out of Riroda village. Inhabitants of the studied villages (Duru, Riroda and Hoshan) are mainly agro-pastoralists with very few farmers per se. Major and native ethnic groups living in the area include, Fiome, Iraqwi, Barbaig, Gorowa and Mang ati, which are traditionally pastoralists or agro-pastoralists. Others who are immigrants consist of Chagga, Nyaturu, Rangi, Maasai, Pare and Meru who migrated from Kilimanjaro, Singida, Dodoma and Arusha. Agro-pastoralists keep livestock like cattle, oxen, goats, sheep, donkeys, pigs and chicken. Major crops cultivated consist of pigeon peas, sunflower and sorghum as cash crops and maize, beans as food crops. Maize, pigeon peas and beans sometimes cater for both food and commercial needs. Sugarcane and vegetables though at small scale is for food and small business. Averagely majority own land ranges from 1.5 to 8 acres, few 9-15 acres, and very few with more than 20 acres who in most cases are earliest inhabitants and considered rich in the areas. Any one who owns more than two heads of cattle is considered a livestock keeper; on average livestock keeper owns 4-12 heads of cattle, 5-10 goats, 3-6


23

sheep, and at least 1 donkey. Those who are considered rich in the study area own as well at least 1pair of oxen and 3 or more donkeys. Fishery is mainly practised in subvillages of Hoshan and Riroda; which are close to Lake Babati. Fishing is done by local means, currently fish stock decreases due to previous over fishing, human activities particularly farming and grazing and drought that cause sedimentation and interfere with the Lake ecosystems. Therefore government through district authority have taken measures to ban human activities including grazing along the Lake.

3.1.4. Administrative set up

Babati is in a newly formed region of Manyara that has been established in 2002 by detaching 5 districts from Arusha region. Table 3-2: Socio-economic characteristics of the studied villages in Duru-Haitemba

Studied Villages Socio-economic characteristics

Riroda Hoshan Duru Village forest reserve (ha) 1800 500 1500 Establishment of CBFM 1995 June 1995 September 1995 September Total village area 4610 ha 2290ha 3720 ha. Number of sub villages 5* 3 5 Number of households. 670 452 710 Population. 2554** 2898** 3680*** Livelihood. Agro-pastoral Agro-pastoral Agro-pastoral Types of domestic animals Cows, goats, sheep,

donkeys, and pigs Cows, goats, sheep, donkeys, and pigs

Cows, goats, sheep, donkeys, and pigs

Average number of livestock (heads) per household

4 - 12 4 - 12 4 - 12

Types of crops Cash and food ( Pigeon peas, sunflower, beans, sorghum, maize, sugarcane and vegetables)

Cash and food ( Pigeon peas, sunflower, beans, sorghum, maize,

Cash and food ( Pigeon peas, sunflower, beans, sorghum, maize, sugarcane and vegetables)

Average farm size per household (acres)

1.5 - 8 1.5 - 8 1.5 - 8

Communal grazing land None None None Means of grazing Free ranging Free ranging Free ranging Forest type. Natural miombo

woodland Natural miombo woodland

Natural miombo woodland

Surrounding forest Condition. Regenerating but with less evidence of disturbance.

Regenerating with least evidence of disturbance.

Regenerating but with evidence of frequent disturbance.

General trend in forest Condition. Positive Positive Positive but slow. Forest management system. Under village committee

heads. Under village committee heads

Under village committee heads

Village Forest Committee members.

10( 4 women) 7(3women) 15(4 women)

Village Land Council At least 1 member from all subvillages. 8 (3women)

At least 1 member from all subvillages. 7 (3women)

At least 1 member from all subvillages. 7 (3 women)

Decision making system. Less participatory Less participatory Less participatory Users Awareness. Very Strong Moderately Strong Weak. Compliance to plans & bylaws. Moderate Moderate Moderate Conflicts (Internal) on forest use. Yes Yes Yes Conflicts (external neighboring villages).

No Yes No

Ownership feeling. Stronger Weak Moderate From the table 3.2 the * implies the following:


24

• *Since 2005 after detaching 4 subvillages and established another village called Sangara. • **Population is for 2005/2006 Riroda and Hoshan Village records. • ***The population is from 2002 Census report as used in Duru village records.

Table 3.1 gives general picture of the studied villages; the villages have relatively similar characteristics in terms of resources, livelihood, forest features and decision making system. The information can give a reader common understanding of the studied villages, and become secondary data to those who are in need.

3.2. Sampling

Sampling consists of selecting some part of population to observe so that one can estimate something or population parameters and/ or draw inference about the whole population (Levy and Lemeshow 1991; Thompson 1992; Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias 1996) The population and sampling frame used to determine sample for this study were all households. Because more than 90% of households are agro-pastoralists; even few farmers only are troubled by grazing related conflicts in their respective villages, therefore the population is homogeneous. According to (Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias 1996) usually sampling units have numerous attributes, one or more of which are relevant to the research problem. For this study agro-pastoralist households that have lived in those villages for 10 years or more were the ones that have been considered.

3.2.1. Sample Size

Sample size differ from one research to another determined by what the researcher wants to do with the findings, what type of relationships has to be established, (Narayan and World Bank 1996; Kumar 2005)and variability among sampling units to be studied. According to (de Gier 2004) sample size should be at least 25 or even 50 ; this ensures representativeness when the population is homogenous as in the study area. For this study planned sample size was 30 households per village thus 90 households per 3 villages; final sample size was 79 household and 7 leaders and professionals households adding up to 86 sample size. Therefore the sample size for this study assisted in generalising the results for the final output.

3.2.2. Sample Design

To select required sampling units both probability and non- probability sampling approaches were used to carry out this study based on its suitability in relation to the research objectives and population characteristics. Systematic random sampling was used due to its usefulness for this study and actual field situation especially unavailability and incompleteness of households lists. (Narayan and World Bank 1996) describe that “Systematic sampling is distinctive in that it uses a more randomly structured approach to selecting the sample…If no list available or if existing lists are found to be incomplete…” For each village sampling was done based on the number of households and required sample size which was 30 households per village. The households’ records were obtained in the villages offices. From the number of households in each village a sampling interval was selected determined by dividing the size of population by desired sample size (Levy and Lemeshow 1991; Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias 1996; de Gier 2004; Kumar 2005). But where village setting interfered with the sample design the interval was adjusted accordingly with consideration of the representativeness of the sample.


25

Additionally purposive sampling was done in order to get individuals who can best give the required information due to their social cultural attributes, leadership post, and professionalism. For instance key informants, VEO, CLA³ and district forest officer as clarified in (Kumar 2005) “the researcher only goes to those people who in her /his opinion are likely to have the required information… as this type of sampling is useful when you want to construct a historical reality and logic”. ³ CLA is from Swahili (MMIJA) Mhudumu wa Mifugo ya Jamii as translated by the researcher.

3.3. Assessment Framework

In order to assess potentials and effectiveness of PGIS in this study several indicators were developed. An indicator can be defined as something that helps us to understand where we are, where we are going and how far we are from the goal. “An indicator quantifies and simplifies phenomena and helps us understand complex realities (IISD 2006). To assess the potentials of Participatory GIS in conflict identification and pastoral resources planning framework for assessment was developed. Indicators are useful in several ways; for this study as pointed out by (Groenendijk and Dopheide 2003) indicators will assist to communicate a perception of relevant issue, in line with grazing related conflicts and PGIS applicability. Therefore to determine the potential of PGIS in pastoral resources planning and conflict identification, there was a need to look at what explain the existence of grazing related conflicts; i.e. what is required to be known about the conflicts? What are the conflicts about? Who are involved? What resources are involved? Where are they? What is their level of intensity? Are there expectations of resolution? Another question is about the extent to which PGIS approach is effective through indicator(s) of participation. The indicators development and selection based on several criteria that are relevancy, validity, measurability and easy to interpret and use as suggested by (Groenendijk and Dopheide 2003). For this study indicator of conflicts and participation and PGIS effectiveness evaluation criteria was used (see chapter 4, 5 and 6 for details).See figure 3.2 for assessment framework.

3.4. Data Collection

Methods of data collection used were both secondary and primary sources. For secondary sources literatures review was done to get government publications, villages statistics and records, as well as reports and useful documents related to the subject matter. The primary sources methods were selected based on its suitability, applicability and socio-economic-demographic characteristics of the study population (Kumar 2005). For this study several socio-economic-demographic features such as occupation; regular and seasonal, nature of the study and level of education was taken into account. Considering nature of the study, that focuses on actual situation and description of Participatory GIS practice which is a result of merger between Participatory Learning and Action methods with Geographic Information Technologies (GIT) that facilitates the representation of local people’s spatial knowledge using two or three dimension maps as explained by (Corbett, Rambaldi et al. 2005). Therefore several tools/ method were used sequentially or jointly (Osha and Weiner 2006) based on situation on the ground and on how best could the method/ tool/ technique facilitate to answer research questions and achieve the research objectives. The methods and tools included literature search/ review, participatory/community mapping; geo-coded transect walk, interview, field observation, and focus


26

group discussion. For more details on participatory/community mapping; geo-coded transect walk, interview, field observation, see chapter 4, 5 and 6.

Figure 3-2 Assessment framework for usefulness of PGIS in this study Additional information on general history of Duru Haitemba forests and supplementary information on its management strategies and practices were obtained from Babati District Council –LAMP project and Forest department and Sokoine University of Agriculture (SUA). Detailed local information concerning bylaws, measures taken against those who violated bylaws were obtained from the three villages offices. All information provided general picture of Duru-Haitemba and abstractness of some of the bylaws in line with community livelihood. Moreover the information enabled the researcher to find link between grazing and seasonality.

3.5. Materials and Data Used

To collect required data a variety of materials have been used such as follows: 1) Hand held GPS receiver “Garmin 12”: Used during transect walk to record location of grazing

resources and conflicting areas. This was done to ground truth spatial location of what was mentioned and indicated during community mapping.

2) Primary and secondary data sources (written materials for secondary sources such as District Profile and Village Development Reports, and village administrative records to get information on villages’ statistics such as villages area, human and livestock population, and available vs. required pastoral resources.

3) Sketch maps were used to map local knowledge of grazing resources and the related conflicts. 4) Aster 2005 satellite image was used to get land cover/land use of the study area so as to visualize

conflicts from sketch maps in proper projection. Year 2005 was the most recent image which


27

was obtained and considered useful to show current situation in grazing resources after CBFM and conservation directives. In addition the image high resolution 15m and spectral coverage with 9 bands including 3bands at Visible and Near Infrared (VNIR) is enough for mapping LCLU in drylands. This was also indicated in study by (Aynekulu and Kasaumber 2006) .The image was used for comparison purpose during mapping exercise.

5) ArcGIS 9.1 and ERDAS imagine software 8.7 were used for analysis and visualization of conflicts and change in grazing resources as well as image classification to get LCLU map of the study area.

6) SPSS 12, 14 and Excel were used for organizing and analyzing non spatial data in order to examine and represent results in different graphics for clear understanding of responses.

3.6. Data Analysis

The analysis of data collected during the field started with organizing and coding field notes. Then data were grouped in two groups mainly spatial and non spatial. Thereafter organised based on research questions they suffice. Spatial data mainly observation points were classified as grazing areas, waterpoints both functional and dry, cattle tracks as well as roads and junctions. To visualize conflict areas the observation points were further classified into areas where grazing is actually done but not allowed and where is allowed. GIS was used to get better representation of the conflicts. Afterward comparison was done and the difference between actual grazing area and allowed enabled to show conflict extent regarded as conflict. During and after mapping evaluation was carried to by the participants through FGD to determine effectiveness of the PGIS in this study, the scales of usefulness mentioned was used for evaluation. Analysis can be clearly illustrated through figure 3.4


28

3.7. Research Approach

To examine application of PGIS in pastoral resources planning through conflicts identification in the study area, the research activities were divided in three phases, namely pre-field, field work and post field as shown in the diagram below

Figure 3-3: Research Approach: Steps and Methods


29

3.8. Processes and Output Flowchart

This research has mainly two focuses which are identification of conflict and grazing resources as well as practice through of PGIS approach in community mapping. Therefore there are mainly spatial and non spatial data. To get the required data that answer research questions and achieve research objectives different methods and processes were used. For illustration see the following flowchart.

Figure 3-4: Processes and outputs flowchart


30


31

4. Conflict Identification

As indicated in Chapter 2 conflicts result due to disagreements among actors. This chapter focuses on identified conflicts in the studied villages with respect to methods used for that identification, what other scholars have found out in related subject matter and its sub-conclusions. In NRM there are major and common natural resources conflicts. These are land related, water related and forest related. Land related conflicts are associated with boundaries extension, encroachment and different land uses on the same land. These conflicts are sometimes linked to land scarcity based on suitability and availability for different or specific uses. Water related conflicts are the ones caused by disputes over sources, different water uses such as farming, livestock and domestic purpose, down stream –upstream users. All causes of water related conflicts link with scarcity in quantity, quality and users rights. Forest conflicts are the ones caused by restricted access of use and control of forest products among actors. Grazing related conflict as part of this study cut across all of them as regularly; entirely or partially agro-pastoralists depends on forest, land, and water for grazing resources. In this study conflicts has been defined as incompatible interests, goals and disagreement about course of action taken that interferes access, uses and control among forest and land resources users and managers particularly agro-pastoralists and other actors such as village and district authorities. This implies that there is feeling of To identify those conflicts indicators for assessment framework and several methods were used as follows:

4.1. Conflict Indicators

From literatures reviewed on general conflicts in NRM, indication of conflicts and resources use, access and control; indicators were developed based on their usefulness in line with the situation in the study are. The following indicators are used.

• Number of reported disputes/cases over grazing (where and when it is not allowed) -by village government office, district office, and agro-pastoralists through households. This was selected as indicator of conflict to get clear picture of the cases from authorities and villagers to see if there are variations or not in response and why that to triangulate the responses (Narayan and World Bank 1996; Warner and Jones 1998; McCall 2004a; Tomei 2006).

• Resources that are the source of conflicts (Conflict spots i.e. water points, grazing areas).This was considered useful indicator in the study area to know which resources are defined grazing resources and why; because there might be variations in grazing resources in different areas. In addition the indicator give clarity on why and when those resources are in conflicts; are they inadequate, inaccessible, who control them and at what season (Mostert 1998; Upreti 2001; McCall 2004a).

• Parties involved in the conflicts; this indicator was selected to understand who are involved in conflicts and why , through comparing their interests, values, goals, perception of and decisions on uses, access and control of the resources needed for grazing (Dorcy and Riek 1987; Mostert 1998; Verplanke 2001; Singh and Sinha 2002; Abu-Nimer 2003; Kyem 2004; Tomei 2006).


32

• Level of intensity conflicts (Conflict escalation) i.e. active and dormant conflicts. Both active and inactive conflicts escalate or de-escalate with time, number of involved parties and measures against its management. This indicator was considered useful as it can explain extent of the conflict situation and forecast what could happened with or without timely measures, and increase or decrease of the involved parties (Warner 2000; Boix Fayos 2002; Yasmi, Schanz et al. 2006).

• Social –cultural and economic environment of villages i.e. changes due to established bylaws (Mostert 1998; Upreti 2001; Boix Fayos 2002).

4.2. Interviews

Both structured and semi structured interviews were conducted because it allows covering subject matter in context and address relevant topics from respondent(s). Structured and semi structured interview were used to collect data grazing related conflicts and forest’s resources uses and access at household level and individuals i.e. leaders and professional. As indicated in (Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias 1996; Narayan and World Bank 1996) those questions; predetermined order, wording and sequence define the structure of the interview. In this study questions were asked in sequence, clarified and paraphrased where necessary by focusing on researcher’s objectives and respondents understanding. The interview was relatively flexible; and the researcher probed when need arouse to get more information as suggested in (Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias 1996). 86 respondents were interviewed in the study area; 78 were agro-pastoralists, 7 were farmers and 1 forestry officer representative from district forest department. VEOs, CLA and key informants were among agro-pastoralists and farmers. In all three villages agro-pastoralists own 4-12 head of livestock. The kinds of livestock kept are cattle, goats, sheep and donkey. In total there were 711 cattle, 542 goats, 135 sheep, and 48 donkeys. Their farm size range from 1-30 acres but majority own 2- 4acres. During field work occasionally language was a limitation to the researcher where the respondents used Iraqwi, Fiome, and Gorowa because few of them they were not fluently in Swahili. Therefore field assistants translated from vernaculars to Swahili for the researcher to understand the responses.

4.3. Participatory /Community Mapping

(Poole 1995) highlighted that maps are instrumental in addressing local land use conflicts. PGIS is useful in facilitating community awareness, mobilization and conflict resolution as the approach supports illustration of the interaction between environmental variables and local land use decisions. GIS applications can succeed in preparing disputants for consensus in conflict sustained by either values or interests (Poole 1995; Kyem 2004). See box 1, 2, 3 and 4 for other examples. Community mapping was done after household interviews in all three villages in order to identify grazing related conflicts effectiveness of PGIS in examining those conflicts. The mapping exercise was done in groups of 7-10 villagers who were selected from interviewees in a particular village; the exercise was done in order to get general overview on how PGIS can identify grazing resources and examining conflicts. Participants for the mapping exercise were selected based on identified qualities like (involvement in village leadership i.e. Village Executive Officer and subvillages chairpersons, longevity in the area, gender-women representation, involvement in Village Forest Committee activities, Village Land Council, Community Livestock’s Attendants, availability and willingness (Waters-Bayer and Bayer 1994; Mohamed and Ventura 2000; Shrestha 2006). Good practices and ethics were considered as explained in Rambaldi et al 2005. In addition the researcher used the best judgment idea by looking at study area general socio-cultural situation. For instance during the field


33

work it was harvesting period for pigeon peas, sunflower and maize. The harvesting activities in most cases involved head of the households and all members provided they can work. Furthermore there was open market on the third Tuesday of September at Riroda village and people from different villages visit the market to sell and/ or buy cattle and groceries. The market day is also regarded as important day for social gathering. Time for mapping was taken into account because all villagers especially women had domestic chores throughout the day but more from 6-10a.m and 4-7pm. Therefore explained situation were taken into account as they have influence in participation for the mapping participants. The participants were asked to make map on the ground/paper; by using locally available and acceptable materials to them; satellite images were used for comparison purpose. Mapping was done to identify former and available grazing resources and conflicts areas

4.4. Geo-coded transect walk

Transect walk basically involves systematically walking with local people through the area they use, and observing, asking and listening (Waters-Bayer and Bayer 1994). Transects were done accompanied by key informants for resources identification i.e. grazing areas and water points and all grazing related conflicts such as grazing in the forest and close to water sources. GPS was used to record positions of resources and conflicting areas. The idea has been developed from (Mohamed and Ventura 2000) which illustrate that Geo-coded transects are walked with a hand-held GPS receiver to collect positional data and write all observations in field book and attributes associated with the positional data. The GPS-facilitated data collection methods proved easier to get spatial information which are useful for study in context and can help others who are interested to do their study in the same or nearby areas.

4.5. Field Observation

To confirm what was reported on grazing practices, resources and conflicts during data collection through interview and mapping, field observation was carried out. Site visits can establish accurately if what is reported is correct and true; existing (Narayan and World Bank 1996). The researcher used the technique for triangulation to observe forest’s state in line with uses and access, grazing in the forest and in conserved areas. Observational data gave the researcher opportunity to gather live data from live situations and opportunity to look at what is taking place in situ rather than at second hand as explained by (Cohen, Marion et al. 2000).

4.6. Grazing Related Conflicts

Grazing related conflicts exist in the study area different to the extent of conflicts reported by (Wily 2001; Kajembe, Monela et al. 2003; Kajembe, Nduwamungu et al. 2005). Partly this may be due to focus of their studies and interests which is more on CBFM dimensions. Among respondents who reported that grazing related conflicts exist; 9% of them identified that there are dormant conflicts meaning that the conflicts are not actively expressed. The ones mentioned dormant conflicts predicted that with the current trend of scarce land resources particularly grazing resources without necessary measures to adjust land uses intensity of conflicts will increase. Another 79% of respondents mentioned existence of conflicts that are active but less violent because they occur when agro-pastoralists are found by the relevant authorities grazing in the banned areas particularly in the forest, and along AWS and AWB. 10% indicated that there were no conflicts and 2% did not know if there were any conflicts associated with grazing.


34

Table 4-1: Response on existence of Conflicts

Response on presence of conflict

Frequency Percent

Yes 68 79 Yes-Dormant conflicts 8 9 No conflicts 9 10 I don’t know 1 2 Total 86 100

The above table shows summary of responses that indicate there are grazing related conflicts in the study area.

4.7. Grazing Practices and System.

Majority practice free range grazing. This practice sometimes contributes to conflicts because cattle are driven to and from grazing area through cattle tracks allocated for livestock movement. But it becomes difficult to control herds of cattle especially with large flock. Therefore sometimes accidentally livestock encroach into farms out of keepers willing. But sometimes due to huge shortage of grazing resources the keeper intentionally let the livestock along and into others farms or reserved grazing part for fodders. Apart from that sometimes livestock keepers intentionally lead their flocks into other agro-pastoralists portions.

Agro-pastoralists and Grazing Practices

27

8

43

05

101520253035404550

Free ranging Zero grazing Both

Means of Grazing

Res

pond

ents

s

N=78

Figure 4-1: Grazing practices But there were reasons as to why many livestock; respondents said with large flock they are more secured in case of droughts, food shortage, livestock diseases and other problem that affect their livestock. Other livestock related studies have found similar tendency in livestock communities (Lindström and Kingamkono 1991; Sibuga, Lekule et al. 2004) large number of livestock is regarded as form of insurance if drought or disease outbreak occurs large number improve the chance of some surviving. In addition respondents indicated that it is somewhat against their tradition to have few cattle because apart from livelihood livestock is important part of their traditions. Other studies on livestock by Sibuga and Jonsson found out that livestock keepers are traditionalists who prefer large herds. The free ranging system practiced in the study is continuous grazing whereby livestock are driven to graze in the same areas daily approximately throughout the season (Sibuga, Lekule et al. 2004). This lead to land degradation and overgrazing as grasses and shrubs can hardly get time to

From the figure 4.1 it shows that many are practicing free grazing. This can be associated with tradition of livestock keepers in rural areas as they keep large number off livestock compared to the available pasture land. Studies by (Sibuga, Lekule et al. 2004) observed the same trend. That being the case it is difficult to search and fetch fodders from the sources to home yard. Therefore agro-pastoralists with large number opt for free range grazing.


35

regenerate. Hence the area affected by soil erosion or become susceptible to soil erosion as it was found out during the field. Soil erosion due to grazing can be illustrated through the following photograph.

Figure 4-2: Photos showing erosion situation as a result of continuous grazing. Photo (a) Overgrazing left the area with less vegetation cover and more susceptible to soil erosion. Photo (b) Continuous use as cattle tracks have affected some areas with gully erosion. See appendix 6 for more illustration

on degradation due to grazing. Only few do zero grazing as it is shown in the figure 4.1. Generally those who were practicing zero grazing are more exposed through attending capacity building programmes by the district and FARM Africa, NGO which deals with capacity building on livestock practices, and health care. Zero grazing was looked at as more demanding in terms of veterinary care and fodders Those who were reported to both practices they were doing relatively zero grazing during dry season through tethering at their home yards or sent out animals and tied to a tree by means of rope. Therefore the area which the animal can eat grass is determined by length of the rope (Sibuga, Lekule et al. 2004). During rain season they were doing free ranging by driving the animals in the forest, along farm boundaries and roads.

4.8. Conflicts Identification

Prior to field work the researcher looked at the study area as place with very few or no conflicts over NR because studies which were done in Duru-Haitemba by (Wily 2001; Kajembe, Monela et al. 2003) focus more on CBFM and indicate that the area is having good institutional systems and few conflicts. But during field work through household interviews, community mapping, geo-coded transect walk and observation several conflicts were identified. The conflicts are presented in different forms, sources, scale and type (Mostert 1998; Warner and Jones 1998; Mohamed and Ventura 2000; Upreti 2001; Boix Fayos 2002; Singh and Sinha 2002; McCall 2004a). The conflict mode considered both inactive and active as indicated in table 4.1 where some respondents mentioned that there are dormant conflicts. Table 4.2 shows list of the identified conflicts in Riroda, Hoshan and Duru villages.


36

Table 4-2: List of Grazing-related conflicts from findings and Literatures

Conflicts Source Scale Type and Relationship Agro-pastoralists versus Agro-pastoralists

Interest disagreements Intra-community; micro-micro

Resources use Land use(Land related)

Agro-pastoralists versus farmers

Interest disagreements Intra-community; micro-micro

Resource use Land use Boundaries (Land related)

Agro-pastoralists versus village authority

Interest disagreements Inter-community local; micro-micro

Resource use (Forest related)

Agro-pastoralists versus village authority (VEO, VFC)

Conflicting goals Factual disagreement Relational aspects(distrust; perception)

Intra-community local; micro-macro

Resource use and access Land uses Boundaries (Forest, water and land related)

Agro-pastoralists versus District authority

Conflicting goals Factual disagreement Relational aspects(distrust; perception)

Inter-community regional; micro-macro

Resource use and access Land uses Boundaries (Forest, water and land related)

Hoshan village versus Endagwe village

Interest disagreements Factual disagreement

Inter-community local; micro-micro

Resource use Forest boundary (Forest related)

The above table is arranged to show parties involved in the conflicts, type, scale and their sources. The concepts are coming from conflict related studies by (Mostert 1998; Warner and Jones 1998; Mohamed and Ventura 2000; McCall 2004a) and field data. This implies that grazing related conflicts fit in NRM conflicts. Restricted access and use of forest and land resources affect agro-pastoralists as they rely on them for fodders and water. All conflicts shown in the above table were characterised by inactive and active mode because they were manifested in less violent way. All identified conflicts have been described such as follows:-

4.8.1. Conflicts between Agro-pastoralists

In all three villages it was found that agro-pastoralists have a shortage of grazing resources. This is because agro-pastoralists owns 4-12 heads of cattle and their farm size is average of 1.5-8 acres; apart from that there are no communal grazing lands. As it is shown in figure 4.1 majority of the agro-pastoralists practice free range grazing. Therefore sometimes agro-pastoralists especially those with small farms and many cattle tend to use other agro-pastoralists reserved grazing land portion in farms. The goals on use of grazing resources among agro-pastoralists here conflict because the agro-pastoralists with private grazing land(s) normally reserve portions of their farms for their own need; and if it is to share with some one else there were always special arrangements and agreements among the agro-pastoralist. For instance if other agro-pastoralist is allowed to use the same grazing land; he/she will be the one or her/his household to take all livestock to the drinking water points. This is land related intra community, local; micro-micro conflict which is associated with grazing areas. The conflicts here are categorized as intra community; local and micro-micro because they occur between agro-pastoralists in the same community at the village levels which is considered local scale.


37

4.8.2. Conflicts between Agro-pastoralists and farmers

This conflict seems to have same features as the earlier mentioned conflict. But here agro-pastoralists in their villages unintentionally or intentionally lead their livestock into others farms. Sometimes children are sent to graze and water. Due to childhood negligence or size of the flock they allow livestock to encroach into others farms. By doing so especially during farming season, crops get destroyed. During dry season when similar situation occur livestock eat crop residues such as maize stalk and cob as well as pigeon peas, sorghum, beans and sunflower husks and stalks which were left in the farm prior to fetching them to home yards. Apart from that some of the agro-pastoralists extend their farms boundaries to gain more land so as to reserve portion for fodders.

4.8.3. Conflict between Agro-pastoralists and inter-village authority

This conflict is concerning with agro-pastoralists from other neighbouring villages come to graze into the study area. VEO of Hoshan village reported that among 12 cases of those who caught grazing in the forest in March-April 2005/2006 during rainy season 6 were from neighbouring village. This is considered a conflict because each village is responsible to manage and use its own forest reserves and it is not allowed to use other villages forest. Apart from that grazing in the forest is one of the banned activities (Wily 1997; Hoshan 2002; Riroda 2002; Duru 2003; Kajembe, Monela et al. 2003). Some what this conflict elucidates shortage of grazing resources in almost all villages in Duru-Haitemba. This is inter-community local; micro-micro conflict connected to forest use. It is grouped under inter-community and micro-micro scale because it occurred among villages and at the local scale

4.8.4. Conflict between Agro-pastoralists and intra-village authority (VEO, VFC)

Agro-pastoralists complained that VEO and VFC are limiting them to graze in the forest, at Mamahasmo lowland areas, along Lake Babati and River Bubu while there is no any communal grazing land in their villages. VEO and VFC are responsible to ensure that forest is managed and used properly based on bylaws. Since 2005 national government has given directives (see appendix 2) to conserve areas close to watersources and water bodies. VEO and local guards authorised by the village leadership are responsible to administer implementation of the directives. According to (Abu-Nimer 2003) conflicts arise from both systematic and individual perceptions. Perception of reality by different people rather than the reality itself greatly influences conflict, because people behave according to their perception and interpretation (Upreti 2001). In the studied villages agro-pastoralists perceived that conservation is given more priority at the expense of their livelihood. Decision making concerning changes in land uses in those village is less or not participatory (see figure 4.2). Participation level as explained in chapter 2 was of information sharing (Okali, Sumberg et al. 1994; Waters-Bayer and Bayer 1994; Selener 1997; Isager, Theilade et al. 2002; Akong Minang 2003; McCall 2003; 2004b) mainly on the progress of particular process concerning resources in conservation. For that matter agro-pastoralists perceived that decisions are imposed and probably with people or authority (ies) that are hardly affected by the decision/ measures in context. This is intra-community; micro-macro conflict because the involved parties are from the same village but among villagers and their authority. The conflict in context have elements of conflicting goals, factual disagreement, and relational aspects particularly distrust (Mostert 1998) between agro-pastoralists and authority because to agro-pastoralists livestock is their livelihood hence conservation should not be done without considering grazing resources. This creates misunderstanding and mistrust among villagers (agro-pastoralists) and VEO. The same was found in out by (Otieno 2000) study in Duru-Haitemba.


38

4.8.5. Conflict between Agro-pastoralists and District authority

According to VEOs in all three villages and district NR office; forest department and LAMP project they are responsible to administer implementation of the conservation directives on AWS and AWB. Based on findings as figure 4.2(a) shows conservation of water sources and water bodies (Mamahasmo salty-lowland area, Lake Babati and River Bubu was done without or with very little participation of the villagers. Other leaders in village councils were informed by VEOs who are required by the district authority to administer the whole exercise of prohibiting people to graze close to Mamahasmo lowland salty -water sources and along water bodies’ areas. The conflict here is featured with, factual disagreement, conflicting goals and relational aspects (distrust; perception)as (Mostert 1998; Upreti 2001) indicate. Responses revealed that generally villagers were dissatisfied and against conservation directives which left them with no reliable grazing resources. Then there were conflicting goals between agro-pastoralists and district authority because district is for conservation and against grazing along AWS and AWB while agro-pastoralists were using the areas for grazing. Relational aspect was found due to structure system and relationship among district authority as it enforces conservation and agro-pastoralists are enforced to comply. The mentioned conflicts and features are manifested when agro-pastoralists graze in forest as well as along AWS and AWB where CBFM bylaws district authority disallow them. The conflicts in this category are about restricted use and access of forest, water and land (Mohamed and Ventura 2000; Upreti 2001). Agro-pastoralists perceive water bodies and water sources as their property because they located in their own village. (Bromley 1992) states that “Theoretically people can acquire rights over natural resources either using their historical association or citing riparian rights or interpreting legislated laws in their favour. Changes in policies may interfere with the users’ rights over resources. Description by (Upreti 2001) show that government induced measures on land affect and alter existing access and control patterns as well as ownership rights, and can ultimately induce conflict. According to (United Republic of Tanzania 1997c) all land in Tanzania is public land vested in the President as trustee on behalf of all citizens. In part this indicates why participation of all relevant actors in decisions that affect land use is somewhat overlooked. In legal perspectives land owners sometimes do not own land 100% as the ownership can be transferred or withdrawn for conservation or other public use such as road construction though also by following legal procedure. Then based on who is right or not right will be displaced with or without compensation as the laws stipulate. Consequently agro-pastoralists perception on ownership (Bromley 1992) influenced them to feel the decisions were not just and fairly made. In the studied villages there were no communal grazing areas. Thus agro-pastoralists the regarded the banned areas as the only reliable alternatives for grazing while district authority consider the area fragile and important to be conserved.

4.8.6. Hoshan village versus Endagwe village

Findings show that there is conflict on Hoshan-Endagwe forest boundary as reported by Hoshan VEO, and 5% of the respondents. Details of this conflict can be found in appendix 3. Due to the fact that the conflict involve forest boundary among two villages illegal forest users take advantages of the conflict area between those villages by doing banned activities such as grazing, cutting poles and cutting fresh/live trees for firewood. The problem was found out to be small scale but with changes in socio-economic and demographic features it may grow concurrently with destructions. (Verplanke and McCall


39

2003) in their study on boundary conflict among villages in Bagamoyo point out that due to conflicts over jurisdiction between the neighbouring villages resource destruction could continue.

4.9. Causes and Effects of the conflicts

Grazing related conflicts like others conflicts in NRM have many causes often related to property rights and ownership (Mostert 1998; Gibson, McKean et al. 2000; Upreti 2001; Singh and Sinha 2002) which determine access to use of and control over NRs such as land, water, and forest. Additionally conflicts in NRM are caused by incompatible interests, values, goals course of action and preference between two or more persons and groups as (Walker and Daniels 1997; Singh and Sinha 2002; Kyem 2004; McCall 2004a) explain. Changes in socio-economic aspects such increasing demand of food, access to forest, sources of livelihood, policies and procedures, demographic and technological sphere are attributed to conflicts in NRM. The researcher found out that the mentioned changes obstruct and distort access along with accelerated competition over NR particularly due to increased population. In turn competition and pressures over NR such as land and forest lead to physical limit hence interferes their sustainability. For this study different causes and effects were found and they are presented as follows:

4.9.1. Causes of the conflicts

The respondents reported various reasons for conflicts and limited access and use of grazing resources being the most dominant cause as shown in the figure 4.3

Causes of Conflicts in all villages

1217

44

49

0

51015202530

3540

4550

Limitedaccess&use

of GR

Conflictingland uses

FarmBoundaries

ForestBoundary

N/A

Reported causes

Res

po

nden

tss

N=86

Figure 4-3: Summary of reported reasons for conflict Conflicting land uses cause conflicts due to different interests by different users over the same land. For this study due to unreliable sources of pastures sometimes agro-pastoralists graze in banned areas. In other cases villagers with crop fields farming along River Bubu and Lake Babati were ordered to close them down. To agro-pastoralists those crop fields were source of livelihood and pastures almost throughout the year. This is because along those areas cultivation is possible throughout the year and crop residues too. Also there was conflicting uses of the forest because agro-pastoralists graze (see figure 5.2) and authority through bylaws administer conservation thus conflicting uses between grazing and conservation.

From figure 4.3 Limited access and uses of forest and AWS and AWB for grazing is the leading causes. This explains that many agro-pastoralists rely on the forest, areas along Lake Babati, River Bubu and Mamahasmo area to get pastures for their livestock. Those areas being under CBFM and conservation grazing is not allowed. Since the agro-pastoralists interest is to graze in the areas, conservation interferes with their interests.


40

Farm boundaries between villagers with farms neighbouring one another caused conflicts in the studied villages. The farms boundaries were extended to increase farm lands to have more space for farming, and sometimes to add on what they had to enable them to reserve land for pastures. Apart from that there were cases where livestock keepers grazed along farm boundaries on the farms that were not belong to them, in this context therefore this conflict is connected to fodders hence grazing related conflicts. Forest boundary conflict is among Hoshan and Endagwe village as explained in section 4.8.6. As shown in the latter figure “Not applicable” is for those who said there were no conflicts.

4.9.2. Effects of Conflicts

From discussions with communities in the study area it was recognized that grazing related conflicts have social, environmental and economical .The effects may vary as conflicts escalate or de-escalate with time and quantity of people involved in it. The effects found are as follows:

- Misunderstanding and resentment between villagers and executives such as VEO, VFC members and District council.

- Interfered ownership of resources like forest, and water sources (Mamahasmo areas, Lake Babati and River Bubu).

- Endangered sustainability due to less care and effort towards utilization of resources such as Mamahasmo lowland salty-water spring, Lake Zone areas, forest and River Bubu.

- Taking forest boundary conflict between Endagwe and Hoshan and misusing the area. - Slowing down development activities such as farming, by using limited time to discuss and

making follow-ups on the conflicts. - Loss of money and property such as livestock to pay disciplinary fine.

1) Social and Environmental Effects

From household interviews VEOs in the studied villages it was found out that there is hidden misunderstanding and mistrust between VEO and agro-pastoralists. The same was established by (Otieno 2000) in his study in Duru-Haitemba. In Tanzania VEO is responsible to administer enforcement of law and implementation of all officially authorized directives from higher levels i.e. ward, district, regional and national level. When and where there is vacant for VEOs the post is filled by recruitment on merits and not democratic election by villagers of village in context. As a government worker at village level VEO works closely with grassroot and knows about almost all village situations. VEO has legal power to detain those who violate laws and all village authorised obligations. Therefore villagers look at the VEO as betrayer and barriers towards grazing wherever they would like to because their VEOs know there are no communal grazing resources. Lost of ownership due to little or no participation is another effect which cuts across social and environmental effects. Due to limited access to their own villages forests villagers perceive that they no longer own those resources. This hamper sustainability as some respondents said they have been taking care of those resources for many years. Currently permission to utilize comes from district and national levels because since 2005 December District Commissioners are overseer of District Environmental Committee. Therefore they are disappointed and think if they can graze anywhere in those areas when and where relevant authority can not find them because they are not allowed anymore despite of the efforts they put in the past. This means that sustainability of forest, River Bubu and Lake Babati is endangered when the resources are misused. According to (United Republic of Tanzania 1997b; United Republic of Tanzania 1998b; Kangas, Laukkanen et al. 2006) with less or no participation natural resources sustainability is jeopardized.


41

It has been observed that related families are living close to each other due to settlement arrangements and land tenure system in the study area. Many villagers have acquired their land by means of inheritance from their fore fathers. Therefore it was found out that sometimes member of related families made collective arrangements and efforts to graze in banned areas without being caught by village forest guards (VFGs) and other villagers who are involved in leadership activities. This has also been reported in (Otieno 2000) who did his study in Duru-Haitemba. 2) Economic Effects

Though dealing with conflict is necessary for other activities and plans to be implemented, but there is also a cost to. The cost either in time or money may vary depend on season and accompanied activities, for instance forgo weeding at its high time to facilitate negotiation meeting may have impact in quality and quantity of yields. “In rural areas time is very precious during the planting and weeding season”. (Rambaldi, Chambers et al. 2006) A day of weeding lost at a critical time can also have high hidden costs in a smaller harvest. A disciplinary fine is among measures towards ensuring compliance, but to those who are caught practising banned activities, like grazing in the forest and/ or along watersources loose money which could be used for other needs. Apart from that it is assumed that time used to discuss and make follow ups about conflicts could be efficiently used in other development activities especially during high season for farming.

4.10. Conflict Management Practices

Conflicts in NRM are inevitable (Zartman 1997; Warner and Jones 1998; Upreti 2001) therefore conflict management practices are established to mitigate and handle conflicts occurrences. As in other villages in Tanzania, the communities in the study area have village leadership, social structure and systems that are governing their general lives. To minimize occurrence of practices that may lead to incompliance towards acceptable access and use; resources management strategies and bylaws have been laid down. To ensure enforcement and preventing conflicts in the study areas findings show that formal and informal practices were used. The most common formal practices found in the study area were to charge disciplinary fines to those who disobey conservation directives. The measure to charge fines was conducted by VEOs and WEOs on behalf of district council which was the overall administrator of the conservation of Lake Babati and River Bubu. The district was done the exercise through relevant departments such as natural resources department, LAMP and forestry. Sometimes polices were accompanied the district officials, VEOs and WEOs during site visits to inspect if farming, and grazing was still going along AWB. Legal action was taken and launched court cases against those who were caught grazing along River Bubu. In Duru village there were court cases concerning grazing along River Bubu. Informal practices included negotiation between conflicting parties with local leaders, elders, VLC, and VFC according to the study area social institutions. Another informal practice was to charge fines against breaking forest bylaws. According to (Upreti 2001) study in Nepal, he found out that local leaders and elders were involved in informal conflicts management practices. Many conflicts in the study area were managed locally through village chairperson and/or subvillage chairperson leaders and VLC mainly for conflicts that are highly associated to land. Forest oriented ones were much worked out by the village chairperson and/or subvillage chairperson leaders, and VFC. Boundaries related conflicts were dealt with by local leaders, elders and VLC. Sometimes all committees in collaboration with village council


42

and elders were working jointly since it is difficult to separate all the conflicts in NRM as land, resources and boundaries or both. Thus the jurisdiction of the forums also varies with the nature of the conflict (Benda-Beckmann 1984). The figure below show formal and informal conflict management practices found in the study area.

Formal and Informal Conflict Management Practices all villages

2624

27

3

6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Negotiation Meeting Fines Court Police&LocalguardsReported practices

Res

pon

dent

ss

N=86

Figure 4-4: Conflict management practices. For the meeting almost same participants as in the negotiation meet for discussion over conflicting matters. The discussion is done and the part that found guilty is warned not to repeat the mistake again. In case one part is dissatisfied with the final decision the discussion will be repeated. The next discussion will be done on the same day or another date will be set based on amount of time and if more evidences are needed to solve the matter. The meeting and negotiation were grouped different because the meeting documentation was more formal than negotiation. Reference to village laws was often done in meeting than negotiation. VEO s office in collaboration with VFC and sometimes VLC worked closely with other mentioned levels. Apart from that VEO, VFC, and VLC administer disciplinary fines that are charged when agro-pastoralists caught grazing in the forest, at Lake Zone greenbelt area and along River Bubu. The fines vary based on when, with who were the bylaws; rules and regulations made and which level from village to national were the directive(s) come from. Based on the studied villages forest by laws once caught grazing in the forest the offender has to pay 15,000/= TSH per for flock of cattle either to the VEOs or any other member of VFC endorsed by village council. For the forest fines increases as the offender commit the same practice repetitively for the second time and third time the offender was to pay 30,000/= and 45,000/= TSH respectively. All payments are issued receipts in particular village and the money is used in forest management such as paying VFG. Remained money is deposited in village forest bank account. The entire receipt books are audited at the District Council by the relevant departments. Babati District council through WEOs and VEOs offices administer government order of conserving water sources i.e. Lake Babati and River Bubu. The fines charged depend on number of cattle and category in line with destruction; for whoever caught grazing in the areas was required to pay 3000/=TSH per head of cattle for cows and oxen. For goats and sheep the fine was 1500/= TSH per head. In implementation of the directives to conserve water sources in the study area in some incidences District Council officials, police and local guards have been involved to enforce compliances. In addition it was found out that some agro-pastoralists livestock were confiscated at the District compound as the

From the figure 4.4 negotiation involved conflicting parties and village governing bodies such as VLC, VFC, VEO s, subvillages chairpersons and elders who are invited for a particular case. Discussion is carried out by listening from conflicting parties and witnesses. Thereafter elders and village leadership participated in the discussion reconcile the conflicting parties.


43

offenders ran away while found grazing in those areas, or did not have required money to pay for the fines. It was reported that there are court cases following disagreement on disciplinary measures against grazing along River Bubu; the specific record on mentioned court case could not be obtained. Both informal and formal conflict management strategies by Upreti 2001 were applied in the study area. Normally nature and level of the conflicts found to be important determinant on whether informal or formal practices should be used. In most cases conflicts were dealt with through informal practices and when it was difficult and/or impossible both measures or formal practices were applied. According to (Upreti 2001) only complicated conflicts which were not possible to be settle by informal means or which they had no legal authority were dealt with by the police, other sectoral offices and the district. The same was observed in the study area as villagers’ preferred informal practices to formal as they mentioned if conflicting people litigate a case it can create enemity among the people. In rural area like the study area community members are close related compared to urban areas. In addition when law takes its course in some cases even a person with minor breach (in humanitarian context) will be punished if proved guilty before the law and refer to Swahili say “Mahakamani hakuna haki ila ni sheria” Which literary means sometimes in the court there might be no right (in humanitarian context) because the law is operating justly and there will be a loser or a winner based on the judgement. But through informal practices such as meeting with conflicting parties; lenient judgement to both parties could be done.

4.10.1. Advantages and Disadvantages of Formal and Informal Practices Informal and formal practices have its implication in NRM conflicts. Depend on extent of issues to be managed these practices are having advantages and disadvantages. Table 4.3 presents summary of the advantages and disadvantages; derived from various literatures (Warner and Jones 1998; Upreti 2001; Boix Fayos 2002; McCall 2004a) and this study’s findings.

4.11. Escalation of Conflicts Intensity in NRM

(Yasmi, Schanz et al. 2006) point out that escalation in NRM is more complex. According to (Miller 2005) escalation is an increase in quantity, intensity, or scope of violent exchanges among parties. Escalation can be thought as a process of increased intensity or worsening of the conflicts as (Rodriguez Parisca 1995; Yasmi, Schanz et al. 2006) explain . Time factor, extent, scale and other changes as mentioned in section… have contribution in conflict escalation. anger, emotions and mistrust can play great role in escalation of conflict (Upreti 2001). If no relevant measures by required authorities’ taken in line with systematic and individual perception of conflict (Upreti 2001; Abu-Nimer 2003) over resources; the situation may influence escalation. Conflicts in NRM have different stage and manifestation dimension, based on findings indicated in table 4.4 the intensity of conflicts in the study area is at stage 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 of (Yasmi, Schanz et al. 2006).


44

Table 4-3: Summary of Advantages and Disadvantages of Conflict Management Practices

Informal Conflict Management Practices Advantages Disadvantages

Much understandable and familiar to the community members

There is possibility of subjective interpretation of locally established means of punishment

Involve historical evidence from community that can hardly be found through the formal practices.

Sometimes hidden personal conflicts (Warner and Jones 1998) among mediators and conflicting parties may influence unfair judgement

Male dominated (Upreti 2001). This depends on the season and other social-cultural factors of particular area. In the study area women are involved in VFC and VLC as indicated in table .But their family and domestic responsibilities mainly interfere their participation in mediations

Judged accordingly based on strong local sanctions and sacred tests (Upreti 2001).

Poorly recorded and documented because conflicts at village levels sometimes involve more verbal communication in its deliberation. The records are filed in simple files and stored in shelves where they can easily be destroyed with insects, rain and fire.

Formal Conflict Management Practices Advantages Disadvantages

Expensive(more financial and time resources required)especially where conflicting parties live far from formal institution Court procedures are long, bureaucratic and tedious hence more time consuming (New-Era 1988; Lawi 1997; Oli 1998).

Objectively interpretation of the legislated laws

Most villagers do not have sufficient and necessary knowledge of their legal rights and duties (Upreti 2001; LHRC 2005)

The forms of escalation by (Yasmi, Schanz et al. 2006) was modified due to following vital reasons: (a) Not all stages and manifestation dimensions occur at once in a certain conflict in NRM, (b) Manifestation of conflict dimensions in NRM differ based on conflict situation and scale in particular area, because social, economic, cultural, demographic and political features are not similar everywhere. Generally the intensity of conflicts in the study area was discovered to be inactive-small scale. But if there will be no timely measures taken to rectify the situation intensity may escalate to active-large scale bearing in mind that majority practice agro-pastoralists in the study area. Normally NRM conflicts are compound and involve multi-actors, wide range of management strategies and issues; all accelerate and/ or decelerate its intensity over time. In the stage of debate and critique in this study local people have underground arrangements to stand against VEOs when they come to inspect to ensure no grazing is done in banned-conserved areas in their particular villages. According (Rambaldi, Chambers et al. 2006) in good practices and ethics it might be perceived as reveal important information by local people; but this information might be used as a challenge towards necessary measures to look for remedy.


45

Table 4-4: Conflict escalation: stages, manifestation dimension and situation in the study area

Stage Manifestation dimension Situation and Scale in the study area

Feeling anxiety Feelings of worry, complaints, rumours, unhappiness, anger, grievance, discontent, disagreement over decision/issues, fear of job lost

Villagers especially agro-pastoralists mentioned that they are unsatisfied on how decisions that affect land uses are made. There were feelings of worry, complaints, rumours, unhappiness, anger, grievance, discontent, disagreement over decision/issues. Inactive and small scale

Debate and critique

Open debate, intense debate, verbal clash, accusation, quarrel, critique to government policies.

It was found out that agro-pastoralists had dormant- hidden debates and probably local arrangements on how to stand united against VEO and others who inspect conserved areas to ensure no grazing was done. Inactive and small scale

Lobby and persuasion

Lobbying government, lobbying for compensation, persuading government to acknowledge local rights, lobbying politicians

There were general feeling that it is high time for capacity building and way to look for workable solution. Land reallocation was mentioned too. Inactive and small scale

Access restriction Squatter invasion, picketing of companies, peaceful take over of the park, blockading logging road, preventing from working on particular areas, imposed restriction on subsistence activities, blockading ports, removal by force, fencing land by big land holders, invasion by landless, closing the road.

Villagers remarked that there livelihood is interfered through restrictions imposed to use areas close to water bodies and water sources. Inactive and small scale

Court Court appeal, litigation, regional court case, federal court, lawsuit

It was indicated that there are court cases against those who caught grazing in conserved areas and failed/refused to pay fine

Intimidation and physical exchange

Threat, death threats, intimidating, threat of boycott, confiscation, machete fight, killing, injury, shooting, ambushing, murdering, attacking, strife, fight, war, violence clashes, bandit attack, damaging district forestry office, assassination, vandalism of park officials vehicle, burning opium fields, hiring gunmen, military retaliation, police arrests, putting fire on forest, destroying pipeline, detention, seizing company’s equipment, mobilizing soldiers and military hardware, military action, police involvement

VEOs have power to detain those who defy village bylaws including forest management bylaws, and authorised directives. Agropastoralists depicted to be discontented with confiscation of livestock to compensate disciplinary fines. In active and small scale

Source: Adapted from (Yasmi, Schanz et al. 2006) and modified based on this study

4.12. Conflicts and Livelihood

Conflicts over NR are inevitable especially where resources are scarce and used by different groups for different uses to sustain their livelihood. Increase in human and livestock as well as changes in socio-


46

economic features such as increasing demand of food, and fodders as well as policies may interfere with compliance to bylaws over time. This occurs where the bylaws are restricting people from using particular resources and people do not have other adequate alternative to supply for their need. Variations in perception and understanding over ownership influence how people respond in case of any measure to hamper their use and access of NR in their areas. Rural livelihood depend much on the NR, sometimes it is difficult to separate livelihood with cultural values and ethics, especially when the livelihood in context is practiced by majority and considered integral and somewhat indispensable with the cultural values. This is how livestock keeping is considered in the studied villages.


47

5. PGIS in Identifying Grazing Resources and Systems

This chapter covers uses of PGIS approach in identifying grazing resources and systems as well as access and uses of grazing resources among agro-pastoralists inside and outside their villages. For this study PGIS refers to community empowerment through participatory mapping whereby mapping participants play much role through their local spatial knowledge (LSK) and minimum researcher skills were used as input during sketch mapping exercise towards research objectives. Therefore GIS operations combined with mapping exercise output have been used for analysis resulted into Participatory Digital Mapping (see section 2.5.1) that will improve data usage, dialogue and visualization of conflict areas and actual situation on grazing issues in the study area. Pastoral resources for this study refer to grazing areas for fodders, crop residues and livestock water points. PGIS approach (for details see chapter 2 and 4) in combination with household interviews, observation, geo-coded transect walk (see chapter 4) and FGD have been used to achieve the research objective in this area. Indicators for assessment framework have been used in this part to identify grazing resources in conflicts as indicated below.

• Resources in conflicts (Conflict spots i.e. water points, grazing areas).This was considered useful indicator in the study area to know which resources are defined grazing resources and why; because there might be variations in grazing resources in different areas. In addition the indicator give clarity on why and when those resources are in conflicts; are they inadequate, inaccessible, who control them and at what season (Mostert 1998; Upreti 2001; McCall 2004a; Haro, Doyo et al. 2005).

• Frequency of complaints line with seasonality. It was selected as indicator because the study area is semi arid area with erratic rainfall hence changes in availability of grazing resources in relation to seasonality; as grazing practises may vary with seasons (Smith, Barrett et al. 2000; Sibuga, Lekule et al. 2004; Haro, Doyo et al. 2005; Omosa 2005).

5.1. Focus group discussion

Focus group discussion mainly is group interview and moderator that produce large amount of concentrated data within short time (Morgan 1998:1). This technique was used to learn diversities among participants in participatory mapping as well as evaluating the whole process. The method was chosen considering (Krueger and Casey 2000) suggestions; focus groups can be used for program development and evaluation, planning, and needs assessment. In (Morgan 1998:1) it is highlighted that focus groups can be used when you want to understand diversity. Participants for the FGD and mapping were selected among the household interviewed by considering some demographic characteristics such as gender, age, occupation as explained in (Morgan 1998:2) and others based on the actual field environment such as longevity in the study area, and key informants. The groups’ sizes ranged from 7-10 participants i.e. medium to large group which provided enough room for different opinions without competing for time.


48

This idea has been developed from (ibid). This technique enabled the researcher to learn on how different features in line with livestock are considered important by the community (Waters-Bayer and Bayer 1994; Narayan and World Bank 1996). Through prior explained methods and research questions the following results were obtained:-

5.2. Grazing Practices and Resources in the Study area

Among 78 agro-pastoralists interviewed 10% were practicing zero grazing, 55% free range and 35% both zero grazing and free ranging see figure 4.1. (Jonsson, Kahurananga et al. 1993) in their study on improving livestock in Babati found the same as majority practiced free ranging. Grazing resources in the study areas included fodders and livestock water points. Fodders comprised of grasses, trees branches, and crop residues from maize, pigeon peas, beans, sunflower and sorghum as well as crops mainly pumpkins particularly in Duru village. Studies by (Lindström and Kingamkono 1991; Sibuga, Lekule et al. 2004) too found relatively similar crop residues. Livestock water points were man made water wells and natural springs. In addition cattle tracks locally known as ‘‘mapario’’ was also regarded as important ways to reach the mentioned grazing resources.

5.2.1. Grazing Time

Agro-pastoralists reported average use of 20-50 minutes to grazing areas during rainy season (Jan-May/June). The cattle leave kraals around 11 after morning milking and returned around 5 o’clock in the evening. This is because during rainy season there is plenty of grass, shrubs and water points close to their homestead. The livestock grow fat compared, and be marketable compared to the situation during dry season especially October-November when the area become excessively dry. During dry season (June/July-December) the cattle are driven from the kraals around 9 after morning milking and returned around 6- 7 o’clock in the late evening. Average time to grazing areas become 40-80 minutes in dry season. During this period pastures become scarce and grazing takes long because it needs much time to find pastures and to meet animals body requirement. This is because grasses and many water points dry up. The livestock do not get enough pastures as a result they lose weight as dryness increases. Villagers said that during dry season due to low body weight livestock become less marketable. They said sometimes cattle may become very thin when dryness is serious in October and November; when you take them to the markets almost nobody will inquire its price. Agro-pastoralists mentioned that some have changed their grazing schedule due to scarcity of grazing resources. It was recognized that some of the agro-pastoralists graze banned areas from late evening to night 5-9 pm or early morning from 5-8 am. As during the mentioned time there is no security in conservation.

5.2.2. Sources of Grazing Resources

Based on the interview and observation it was found out that agro-pastoralist have various sources of grazing resources. Majority depend much on forest, around Lake Babati and river Bubu 46.5%, along farm boundaries, home yards and farm portions 30 34.9% and 18.6% around Mamahasmo lowland-salty areas for livestock pastures and water. Few agro-pastoralists among those with more lands commonly from 10-30 acres had their private grazing land.


49

5.3. Identification of Grazing Resources through PGIS

Through mapping exercise participants were able to identify grazing resources available such as shared water points, privately owned grazing areas and cattle tracks “mapario”. Then observation points were recorded during transect walk, and proved that where mapping participants indicated grazing resources were exactly the same.

Figure 5-1: General grazing resources in the studied villages As shown in the map, legally acceptable grazing resources in the studied villages were few. Basically there were private grazing areas, functional and dried water points, and cattle tracks. During mapping, discussions with participants helped to discover there is limited access and uses in the forest and water sources areas. Also there is no communal grazing land in any of the villages apart from Duru where some village chairpersons allowed their people to graze in some parts of the forest which is contrary to bylaws. Due to scarce grazing resources, it was reported that no village is sharing


50

forest and other sources of grazing resources with another village. Therefore scarcity determine resources utilization; in terms of how much and with whom one to use the resources in context Rights become more specific as scarcity of resources increases (Sjaastad and Bromley 2000). During the field it was found out that water points and cattle tracks are resources that were shared within the villages’. However disparities were there too as unanticipated results showed that agro-pastoralists in some subvillages that are in the same village do not share grazing resources. For instance Mamahasmo subvillage in Riroda do not share grazing resources with other subvillages in their village.

5.3.1. Former and available grazing lands

Former grazing lands have been converted into farms and under conservation programmes for instance in Hoshan in December 1996, 134 acres were distributed to villagers as farms based on their request for farmlands. In Riroda almost 200 acres of the village farm and former grazing lands are located close to Lake Zone green belt though human activities including grazing were banned. It was found out that since 2005 (see appendix 2) directives on banning human activities along the areas became more serious with close supervision from the district council. Privately donated 1.5 acre where livestock well is located in Riroda is very small for number of livestock available in three sub villages that were given the land. In Hoshan and Riroda the areas under conservation included “Mbuga Pongay” area with shrub and grasses almost throughout the year which was used for grazing. In Duru it was described that there has been change of communal grazing land which was close to River Bubu but documented records on size of the area could not be obtained. There was difference in Duru on the issue of grazing in the forest as some of the subvillage chairpersons allow the villagers to graze in some parts of the forest especially at the edges. From the maps in figure 5.2 before 1995 agro-pastoralists had relatively free access to the forest, they could at least graze in the forest since they considered it as government and not their own. That is why change examined was from 1996. The maps show change in grazing areas, as after ban grazing in the forest the only alternative was swampy and watery parts along AWB and AWS (Lake zone i.e. Pongay shrubby areas, River Bubu, and Mamahasmo lowland) that was regarded as communally owned resources. But due to population increase, farm expansion and conservation policy; remained grazing areas were converted into farms and conservation areas. Before CBFM villagers were to a great extent free to graze in the forest. Thus from 1996 grazing in the forest was not allowed to graze in the forest. All area covered by River Bubu could not be clearly detected for change detection due to papyrus and closed down crop fields which left the area as swamp due to sedimentation as a result of grazing and farming. This was found out during image classification due to vegetation’s high reflectance (Janssen, Bakker et al. 2000) thus papyrus and crops(though farms were no longer allowed during the field) reflectance dominated water reflectance. The same was for Lake Babati; because the lake was surrounded with marshland and crop fields. Part of River Bubu that is in Duru village is almost completely dry as respondents indicated that previously it was not easy to cross to the neighbouring villages of Hanang district but presently (during the field) it was very possible as their River dried up and left it as water channel. Besides the image which was used was taken in December, which is normally windy and end of dry season therefore dead leaves and other particles were floating in the lake.


51

(a) Change in grazing land 1995 backward (b) change in grazing land 1996-2006 Figure 5-2: General land uses and changes in grazing land


52

5.3.2. Decision Making and Change in Land Uses

According to respondents as shown in figure 5.3 changes in land uses has been done with little or no participation e.g. lake zones and river conservation. Forest conservation was done on participatory manner; through sharing information at either village or sub-village meeting on what decisions have been taken. As explained by some of the respondent they perceived the process as partially participatory as only village representatives were much consulted while decisions taken have direct and indirect effect in their lives. Decision making concerning changes in land uses in those village is less or not participatory (see figure 5.3). Participation level was of information sharing (Okali, Sumberg et al. 1994; Waters-Bayer and Bayer 1994; Selener 1997; Isager, Theilade et al. 2002; Akong Minang 2003; McCall 2003; 2004b) mainly being informed of the progress of particular process and way forward concerning resources in conservation. For that matter agro-pastoralists perceived that decisions are imposed and probably with people or authorities that are hardly affected by the decision/ measures in context. This lead to dissatisfactions among users of the same resource(s) for example since early years of CBFM in Duru-Haitemba some groups were dissatisfied and challenged the rules in context as (Wily 1997) describe that community rules were challenged in courts by a group of disgruntled cattle owners and group of outsiders annoyed at the closure of their felling operation.

Decisions on changing land uses

37

5

8

36

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Participatory Not Participatory

Type of decision

Res

po

nd

ents

s

Forest

AWS and AWB

AWS= Areas with water sourcesAWB=Areas with water bodies

N=86

Level of Participation in Decisions affect land uses

1413

3128

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Discussion inVM

Informed onintendeddecision

Representedby leaders

Informed ondecision made

Levels identified

Res

po

nden

tss

N=86

(a) Type of decisions (b) extent of participation

Figure 5-3: Type of decisions and extent of participation More over at the beginning of CBFM in the old edition of bylaws grazing was allowed within specified areas and time (Wily 1995). Villagers mentioned that they were promised more grazing areas in the forest. Thus they agreed and formulated by laws. Respondents admitted that to the greater extent their decisions focused on livelihood sources, policies and population of that particular period and partly overlooked to forecast what if there will be changes. The idea had more advantages to all generations at that particular moment but they realized that as time move the bylaws become more abstract in relation to actual situation of their lives as social, economic, political and demographic features change. Similar situation in other areas was found out in studies by (Warner and Jones 1998; Upreti 2001; Isager, Theilade et al. 2002; Thompson, Elmendorf et al. 2005).


53

The situation on reliable fodders and water for livestock became more difficult since 2005 when water sources conservation directive was given. After being prohibited to graze along River Bubu, Lake Babati Mamahasmo areas many agro-pastoralists do not have private grazing land so they were left without reliable alternative for pastures and water. Overgrazing was observed during the field due to shortage of grazing land, (Jonsson, Kahurananga et al. 1993; Nilsson 2001) studies related livestock themes in Babati found the same. The observed overgrazing especially near waterpoints is illustrated through still pictures taken during the field.

Figure 5-4: Photos illustrate excessively overgrazed areas in Riroda and Hoshan villages As it is shown in the photograph the areas have been excessively overgrazed and left with few grasses and loose soil due to cattle tracks

5.3.3. Factors for Change in Land Use and Cover

Villages records showed that human and livestock population has increased in all three villages and entire Duru Haitemba area, see appendix 2. This has added pressures on land and the forest. Other factors for changes in grazing land mentioned by the respondents are shown in the figure below.

Factors for Changes in Grazing lands

3230

14

10

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Forestconservation

Water sourcesConservation

Populationincrease

Farmexpansion

Factors

Res

po

nd

ents

s

N= 86

Figure 5-5: Factors for change in grazing land

From the figure’s illustration, agro-pastoralists reported that CBFM is looked at as contributing factor towards reduced fodders due to restricted accesses in the forest. After CBFM number of livestock continues to increase with few communal grazing areas to none. Studies have stated that the restricted access to forest products has meant that less fodder for food and less leaf litter for animal bedding (Soussan and Research Team 1998).


54

In addition AWB and AWS conservation and population increase that influence farm expansion in turn caused reduction to grazing resource because they have disowned villages from their communal grazing land as indicated in section 5.3.1.

5.4. Grazing areas during banned and allowed periods in the forest

In all three villages no grazing is allowed in any part of the forest at any time of the year (Hoshan 2002; Riroda 2002; Duru 2003). Through figure 6.1 can help to give a clear picture of grazing in the forest especially in Duru where there was misusing of power and unclear channel of decisions as some villagers reported that subvillages chairpersons allowed them to use certain areas for grazing while in bylaws (Duru 2003) it is not allowed. It is possible for subvillage chairperson and their people to agree about grazing in the forest because every subvillage is managing its forest part. Forest destruction due to grazing was observed in all three villages but more degradation was found out in Duru especially in Gidamundo A, Qoriasyi and Managha subvillages. According to the bylaws only fodders collection from the utilization forest is allowed.

5.5. Reasons for grazing in particular areas

Results showed that agro-pastoralists graze in areas they do due to various factors that influence their decisions .These embrace distance to grazing areas, only available alternative, closeness and availability of water points, closeness to salty-taste water lowland, as well as quality of fodders useful for livestock. The following bar chart shows the summary of responses.

Factors Influencing where to graze

10

43

10 11 12

05

1015202530

354045

50

Distance tograzinglands

Onlyavailable

alternative

Close towater points

Close tosalty-

lowlandareas

Farmers andZerograzing

Factors

Res

pon

den

tss

N=86

Figure 5-6: Factors influencing where to graze Clear and tasteless water is considered as not ideal for livestock because it does not provide minerals required by animals (Kavana, Kizima et al. 2005). Only availability alternative was found to be a leading factor simply because there is no communal grazing land in the studied villages. However areas along Lake Babati (Pongay), River Bubu and Mamahasmo are under conservation since 2005. Therefore to agro-pastoralist they were grazing wherever they could found pastures. Among the respondents who mentioned to use forest for grazing as

The factors mentioned in the field partly they were found in studies by (Sibuga, Lekule et al. 2004; Kavana, Kizima et al. 2005). Good quality water for livestock is perceived as that which contains some salts and with moderate colour (Kavana, Kizima et al. 2005). This may explain why agropastoralists in the study area they were grazing at lowland areas .For instance in Riroda village at the Mamahasmo -salty watersources despite of being banned to use the area for grazing.


55

shown in figure… they said some of the trees in the forest are useful for livestock health and general supply of nutrients. The species mentioned include combretum molle “Gendaumo” which help to improve quality of milk. Brachystegia boehmii “Nafumo” and Brachystegia microphylla “Hhewasi” endure drought, therefore they save for fodders during droughts. Other species such as Rhus vulgaris “Datlaii”, Ormocarpum trichocarpum “Nitdiimo” and Rhus natalensis “Sirongi” leaves were used as medicine for cattle stomach pains and fodders. The last three species reported to be used more for goats and sheep. Gravellia which are exotic species in the study area, apart from its other uses its leaves were used as fodders. All tree species mentioned by the respondents are in the list of useful trees and shrubs by (Mbuya, Msanga et al. 1994).

5.6. Identification of Conflicting areas

Through community mapping, geo-coded transect walk and observation (see chapter 4) conflict areas and their causes were identified. Limited access and uses of grazing resources due to government order on conservation, conflicting land uses i.e. forest conservation, water sources conservation, and farm expansion against grazing (refer figure 4.2). The most conflicting areas spatially are found in hilly part in the forest, Mamahasmo salty water area, Lake Babati and River Bubu areas i.e. greenbelt), farms adjacent to forest, and lowlands. The maps in figure 5.7 shows conflict areas. Grazing is only allowed on private grazing land and few water points for livestock water. Essentially there is different between allowed and actual grazing areas; as agro-pastoralists graze in areas where is not allowed, that difference is where conflicts/ disputes occur. The difference on where agro-pastoralists should graze and where they actually do considered conflicts as it indicates disagreement both dormant and active. Studies have indicated that in NRM conflicts partly occur due to difference of perceptions, interest, goals, system structure and social relations of power (Walker and Daniels 1997; Mostert 1998; Singh and Sinha 2002; Kyem 2004; McCall 2004a). The areas are considered useful for fodders and water by livestock keepers and fragile to be conserved by village, ward and District authorities.

5.6.1. Relationship among Spatial temporal factors towards conflicts

In Tanzania there are two major season of grazing i.e. wet and dry season (Sibuga, Lekule et al. 2004).There is relationship between seasonality and grazing; where and when to graze is influenced by season in time (Smith, Barrett et al. 2000; Kavana, Kizima et al. 2005). Since the study area experience semi-arid type of climate, rainfalls are erratic and sometimes the dry season extend much longer. The seasonal climatic changes affect livestock keeping (Lindström and Kingamkono 1991). During rainy season in the study area pastures and water are obtained close to home-yards. The same was found in the study by (Lindström and Kingamkono 1991). Temporal outline of the conflicts in this study is associated with dry and rain seasons. During rainy and farming season normally Jan-May/June grazing in the farms is relatively impossible because there are crops in the fields. As bylaws on CBFM stipulated grazing in the forest is not allowed. With conservation of AWB and AWS grazing along Lake Babati, River Bubu and Mamahasmo area is prohibited.

PA

RTI

CIP

ATO

RY

GIS

FO

R M

AP

PIN

G L

OC

AL

CO

NTE

XT O

F C

ON

FLIC

TS O

VE

R P

AS

TOR

AL

RE

SO

UR

CE

S

56

(a

)Allo

wed

gra

zing

are

as

(b) A

ctua

l gra

zing

are

as

Figu

re 5

-7: A

ctua

l and

allo

wed

gra

zing

are

as.


57

More conflicts occur during rain season as proved through Villages Fine books whereby there were 6-8 occurrences per month. From the interview 80% of the respondents mentioned more occurrences of grazing related conflicts during rain season and out of them respondents 39% specified that there were 5-16 cases on grazing in banned areas. There is a difference on the number of occurrences from household interviews and village records; which implies that some people graze in banned areas especially in the forest without being noticed. From Figure 6.2 illustration offences relating to grazing in the forests are high in number during rain season. This is partly contributed by lack of communal grazing land in the study area. During dry season and perhaps short rains normally in June/July- December which is harvesting and post-harvesting grazing conflicts are reduced to some extent in terms of fodders as crop residues substitute fodders. But the crop residues do not completely substitute other fodders because majority own 1.5- 8 acres farm holdings which is not big enough to have adequate crop residues. Water becomes a challenge during dry season where to get water is either close to Lake Babati, River Bubu and Mamahasmo area , areas that grazing is not allowed. Taking into account that the study area experience semi-arid climate many livestock water points dried up easily during dry season The relationship between spatial temporal factors that influence conflicts can be established based on where agro-pastoralists grazing throughout the year as indicated in the figure below Spatially conflicting areas were found in areas where grazing is not allowed but essentially agro-pastoralists do graze. Thus conflict is in forest areas, which are uphill and adjacent to farms, and residential areas, water sources areas and farms.

Grazing Areas during Rainy and Dry Seasons

78778

14

29

6 786622

13

42

0

5

1015

20

25

3035

40

45

HY_Crop

resid

uals

In the

Fores

t

Alon

g the

road

s

Along

farm

area

Alon

g Lak

e Bab

ati

Arou

nd R

iver B

ubu

Zero

graz

ing

NonLiv

estoc

k kee

per

Grazing areas

Res

po

nd

ents

Rainy

Dry

N=86

Figure 5-8: Grazing areas during rainy and dry seasons In June/July-December during dry season, majority as the figure 6.2 shows they mentioned to use crop residues as substitute for livestock fodders. Crop residues that were commonly used are as follows: - stalks and husks from maize, pigeon peas, sunflower, and sorghum. Few indicated that sometimes they use even maize cobs when there is more scarcity and serious drought. Respondents who mentioned to graze in the forest during dry season were influenced by inadequate crop residues taking into consideration their small farm size for majority that ranges from 1.5-8 acres. Generally farming sought to be given priority in land allocation, at the expense of livestock keeping not forecasting that livestock number can and off course increase with time. In addition to that there were

As figure 5.8 illustrate, during Jan-May/June i.e. wet season many agro-pastoralists graze in the forest. Though illegally as they said that “it’s illegal to graze in the forest but there is no other areas we can take our livestock for fodders and livestock is part of our lives and livelihood”. Absence of communal grazing land, high season for farming and owning small farms enough to set aside private grazing land influenced agro-pastoralists to graze more in the forest during rainy seasons.


58

difficulties in administering laws concerning with grazing in the forest, lake zones, river beds and farm areas because majority including leaders are keeping livestock and there is no communal grazing land. Distance to and from grazing differ between dry and wet season (Lindström and Kingamkono 1991; Kavana, Kizima et al. 2005). Generally during wet season livestock walk far to search for fodders and watering and vice versa during dry season.

5.7. Inter and intra village pastoralists’ access and uses of grazing resources

interaction

There are variations in subvillages but in all three villages respondent identified that it is not allowed to share grazing resources, particularly the forest. But in Riroda there was difference among subvillages for instance in Mamahasmo sub village, they were not sharing the grazing land and water points with other subvillage in the village especially. While in the same village; Riroda Kati, Homam and Qedagerere subvillages were sharing water points located at the 1.5 acre privately donated land for community. In Hoshan and Duru neither subvillages nor neighbouring villages were sharing forest and other grazing resources for fodders as they were inadequate even for their needs. But they were sharing water points. The respondents reported that arrangements of cattle tracks ‘‘mapario’’ from one subvillage grazing areas (mostly water points) to another automatically obstructing them from sharing the resources in context. Scarcity of the resources with time was another reason that was indicated during the field. Inadequate grazing resources in the village and neighbouring villages left villages failing to sustain their grazing resources. “I remember in 1970 s to 1980 s we use to share grazing resources village wise and in the subvillages but since 1990 s the extent started to decrease as villages population increases and conservation policies being introduced, now we are no longer sharing the grazing resources among villages because we do not even have communal grazing lands in the villages”(Iddi-Ng enu September 2006) personal communication during field. Table 5-1: Agro-pastoralists` grazing resources uses and access interaction: Inter and intra villages.

Responses Frequency Percent No sharing with other subvillages 15

17

No sharing with other villages 65 76 Sharing water points among Riroda kati, Qedagerere&Homam

5 6

I don’t know (Non villager; DFO representative) 1 1 Total 86 100

The table above give summary on the extent of grazing resources interaction within the villages and neighbouring villages. Almost 76% indicate that there is no sharing among villages and 17% no sharing within subvillages.

5.8. Respondents views on Increase in Livestock population

From respondents’ views livestock population is expected to increase as livestock keeping ranks second source of livelihood. Additionally livestock is part of their tradition which is attached to social, cultural,


59

and economic values. For instance cattle including oxen are regarded as prestige, power, respect, bank and security, source of school fees, means of transportation, food (milk&meat) materials (skin, hides, manure). Another factor considered to contribute on the population increase is human and livestock migration from neighbouring villages, districts and probably nearby regions. Another unanticipated finding is practice of distributing livestock among family members in the same area which the respondents consider as means of reducing number of livestock. This was also found by (Lindström and Kingamkono 1991; Nilsson 2001). Nevertheless through the practice effect on carrying capacity remain the same or increases because resources (land and forest) are the same in those localities.

5.9. Local Coping Strategies in Livestock keeping after CBFM and Conservation

Livestock population in the study area have increased two to three times on average in each village. At estimate from 1000 to 3500 and expected to continue like that because livestock keeping is important part of their cultural and livelihood. This do not agree the theories about changes that have occurred since closed management regimes were introduced to allow forest regeneration as (Rejal and Pethram 2001) stated. Partly because different areas have different resources, population, sources of livelihood, social institutions and dependency on NR. Due to limited grazing lands 10 and 5 villagers with large herds (50-70 heads of cattle) in Hoshan and Riroda respectively left their villages for more grazing land in far villages, districts and regions. Unfortunately more than half reported to return back in their villages due to cattle diseases and severe drought in the areas such as Simanjiro District where some of them went.

5.10. Relevant PGIS Applications from different Experience

In Africa there have been many scholars studying on PGIS and its application in LULC as well as pastoralism subjects. Some of the relevant examples found and regarded useful to show how PGIS has facilitated studies to detect changes in LCLU. With PGIS changes detected are more reliable than with conventional GIS and remote sensing as community know much on their locality than outsiders. The examples are explained in box 1 below.

Box 1. Detecting change with PGIS Changes in land use /land cover should be identified, analysed and disseminated for proper land use planning and sustainable natural resources management. With PGIS local knowledge is incorporated in input data therefore information created will reflect actual situation on the ground. Local people are in a position to know more on changes in land use/land covers than experts who in most cases are outsiders. (Mapedza, Wright et al. 2003) study in Mafungautsi forest Zimbabwe showed that participatory mapping revealed greater detail about timing and causes of land cover changes with variations in perspectives from different groups. In Tigray Ethiopia through PGIS assisted in analyses of greatest land use changes for 50 years ago was done and disclose how forest land has been converted into arable land (Aynekulu and Wubneh 2006).


60

Apart from that PGIS has been used to map risk, resources areas and mobility of agro-pastoralists in drylands. The method found useful in the areas based on the nature of pastoralists in those areas who are nomads. The method stimulates relatively large groups to share knowledge, memories and experiences. Participatory mapping mobilise community involvement because with visual aids like maps discussions become more live. Box 2 outlines the examples in pastoralism related studies.

Box 2. Tracking Pastoralists and Risks they encounter Participatory approaches and GIS technologies have been used in different pastoralism related studies. (Homann, Rischkowsky et al. 2004) indicated that during the Borana Lowlands Pastoral Development Programme (BLPDP/GTZ) project 2000/2002 in Ethiopia natural resources and herd movements were mapped using PRA tools, official maps and GIS. (Smith, Barrett et al. 2000) used participatory mapping to map risks in arid and semi arid lands pastoral communities particularly southern Ethiopia and northern Kenya; they concluded on usefulness of the technique in spatial representation of the risks that face pastoralists. According to (Adriansen and Nielsen 2002) study in Ferlo Senegal pointed out that GPS data with community knowledge are useful in studying pastoral mobility.

5.11. Resources Scarcity and Mapping

Population increase, more food demand and conservation have reduced quantity of grazing resources with time. Essentially scarcity in grazing resources determines extent of utilisation hence reduced level of sharing resources among community members. Nevertheless scarcity of resources with no reliable and adequate substitute increases frequency of utilization in the only available sources, which in turn lead to over utilization and degradation. Excessively grazed areas are more vulnerable to soil degradation and erosion in case of wind, water and other agents of soil erosion. Community mapping motivates participation hence output maps become more representative of the actual situation in resources and land uses at the local people point of view. Mapping with GPS may contribute to policy change from the grassroots, because maps can give the grassroots more voice about matters that affect their immediate livelihood.


61

6. Assessment of PGIS Approach for Mapping Conflicts

The purpose of this chapter is to give general idea on the effectiveness of the PGIS in mapping grazing related conflicts. To fulfil the purpose in context indicators on participation were used as follows:

• Who participate in mapping i.e. stakeholders participation in mapping based on different qualities (see chapter 4).This was good indicator as it help to determine representation of relevant stakeholders in line with mapping grazing resources and related conflicts. This enables to generalize our results during analysis. Many scholars have indicated it in various applications of participatory approaches (Selener 1997; McCall 2003; 2004b; Chapin, Lamb et al. 2005; McCall and Minang 2005; Saipothong, Kojonrungrot et al. 2005; Thompson, Elmendorf et al. 2005; Vajjhala 2005; Sultana, Abeyasekera et al. 2006).

• Level of participation and input contribution. This indicator help to explain extent to which mapping participants participated in mapping process, i.e. at what level and what was their input. This is important because there might be variations in participation at different levels, by different stakeholders during mapping as there difference in social, cultural and economic status among villagers in the study area. For details on literatures which explain related concept see (Cohen and Uphoff 1980; Selener 1997; Isager, Theilade et al. 2002; McCall 2003; 2004b; Saipothong, Kojonrungrot et al. 2005; Thompson, Elmendorf et al. 2005).

• Reasons for participation. This is important aspect to explain how much the study in context help to address the interest of the participant. Because interests may vary based on time, area and relationship of the subject matter and livelihood of the participants and outsider. Participation in projects and programmes depends on the participant interest; people tend to participate for different reasons such as searching for solution of their problems. Several authors have shown importance of having this indicator (Selener 1997; McCall 2003; 2004b; Saipothong, Kojonrungrot et al. 2005) Agro-pastoralist in the study area considered mapping of grazing resources and conflicts as useful tool for identification, planning and management of grazing resources.

6.1. Effectiveness of Community mapping (PGIS)

To determine effectiveness’ of PGIS in assessing spatial temporal distribution of conflict, summative evaluation (Henerson, Lyons Morris et al. 1987) was done to compare situation with and without the process. For this study Effectiveness refers to appropriateness and usefulness in terms of input output relationship. To evaluate the approach, scale levels based on likert and agreement scales in semantic differential (Henerson, Lyons Morris et al. 1987; Oppenheim 1992; McCall 2005) was used to determine extent of which participants agreed, or disagreed on the effectiveness. This was done in order to compare consistency of mapping process, FGD then infer them to determine effectiveness (Henerson, Lyons Morris et al. 1987). The evaluation was short term basically relied on feedback from the mapping participants. For evaluating the effectiveness of the PGIS approach the following indicators were considered.


62

• Situation with and without community mapping (PGIS) i.e. data issues and process in terms of content, relevancy, form, and quality (Jordan 1998; 2002; Kyem Kwaku 2002; McCall and Minang 2005).

• Five ‘primitive’ questions why, who, what, when and how as (McCall 2003; 2004b) explain.

6.1.1. Improved Format

All three villages’ maps have been transformed into digital format; including local spatial knowledge. Information on change in land use/cover and effects particularly on livestock did not exist even in hard copies. For example in Riroda village the map that was available at VEO s office had only names of subvillages. Information on different interests over land uses and how important are the livestock that can hardly be captured spatially was obtained from the participants during mapping.

6.1.2. Content

Participants were able to include grazing resources, village boundaries, general land uses, change in land uses, and conflict areas. Mapping exercise facilitated discussion on important changes such as village boundaries of Riroda village, whereby four subvillages have been detached and establish another village called Sangara. This information is not included in currently official maps. Grazing resources such as water points and grazing areas were not included in all three villages. All participants were impressed on how mapping exercise enabled them to put their spatial knowledge concerning grazing resources on paper, since livestock keeping ranks second source of livelihood. More than 90% of villagers are livestock keepers, findings proved it as among 86 respondents interviewed 78 that is 90.7%.From their views maps prepared will be used to visualize resources and conflict situation hence management strategies if decision making bodies will take necessary measures enough to facilitate the exercise.

Maps of Riroda Village Before and after community mapping

(a) Before (existing sketch map) (b) after Figure 6-1: Sketch maps of Riroda Village: Before and After Mapping


63

Maps of Hoshan Village before and after community mapping

(a) Before (existing sketch map) (b) after Figure 6-2: Sketch maps of Hoshan Village: Before and After Mapping

Maps of Duru Village before and after community mapping

(a)Before (existing sketch map) (b) after Figure 6-3: Sketch maps of Duru Village: Before and After Mapping


64

From all the villages there was a difference in content of the maps between existing which was found during the field and after which was drawn during mapping exercise. The current ones are more detailed with more Land cover/ use features.

6.1.3. Quality

In terms of quality, information on changing in grazing hours was obtained. It was recognized that some of the agro-pastoralists graze from very late evening to night or earliest hours in the morning in banned areas. During the mentioned time there is no security in those areas. Normally this kind of information can hardly be captured without indigenous spatial knowledge and discussion with community members. In addition the information obtained is directly from community members.

6.1.4. Relevancy

The approach in collaboration with transect walk helped the researcher to collect appropriate ground control points that are more relevant for the study. The data obtained through PGIS are useful in visualization of the grazing resources and related conflicts. For the studied villages’ community the information considered functional for proper land use planning; in case of re-allocation as suggested by the participants. Apart from that the approach enabled researcher to required data thus, it is practicability was reasonable in relation to nature of the study area, occupation of the participants and objective of the study in context. Furthermore spatial information obtained through community mapping are more reliable and may become useful for villages plans because community is the centre of the data in which development planning and programmes depend on.

6.1.5. Answers to why, who, what, when and how questions 1) The ‘Why’ question: PGIS in this study has enabled the researcher to acquire, interpret and use

geo-spatial information. Identification of conflict areas with their internal and external features could not be done through conventional GIS and remote sensing through image interpretation and classification. The approach has assisted to add much on how and why; simply because local people are the ones who know much about their area. Therefore PGIS has largely done facilitation, mediation and to some extent empowerment (McCall 2003; 2004b). 8 participants mentioned that after mapping exercise they can even make better maps for their villages; including land uses/covers and resources maps. The same was experienced in Philippines found by (Rambaldi and Callosa-Tarr 2002).

2) The ‘Who’ question: Local leaders, key informants, women and normal villagers were involved based on criteria indicated in section 3.2. They were involved at the stage of data collection in community mapping, geo-coded transect walks and FGD as well as to interpret what was conflicts to them. This falls to examination and recording of the problem as (McCall 2003; 2004b) mention.

3) The ‘What’ question: Through PGIS conflicts areas, grazing resources were identified during community mapping and processed into maps as indicated in figure 4.1, 4.4 and 5.1.The approach enabled to capture sketchy locations and general picture of conflict which would not be found through literatures or conventional GIS or remote sensing(see section 3.6 and 5.2.5(1)). PGIS outputs transformation can be transformed into geo-referenced output but there can be slightly difference in orientation as explained in section 5.10(1).


65

4) The When ‘question’ is partly answered under section 5.2.5 (2) in phase of identifying conflict areas. Apart from the approach contributed to the visualization of actual situation through maps figure 4.1, 4.4 and 5.1 and section 5.2.2.

5) The ‘How’ question is answered in segments in why, who, what, and when.

6.2. PGIS General Evaluation

From FGD done before, during and after mapping exercise, it was found out that before mapping exercise 70% of the participants disagreed on roles PGIS can play as summarized in the table below. After mapping exercise 70-85% of the participants agreed that PGIS can play important roles in relation to its ability to facilitate comprehensiveness, and identification of grazing resources. Also in analysing grazing uses and access. In addition participant were able to identify conflicting areas in a participatory manner, through mapping participants were able to come up with more detailed maps compared to existing ones. Table 6-1: Mapping participants’ observations on evaluating the role of PGIS

Response before mapping

Response after mapping Role of PGIS

SA

AG

SD

DS

ML

ID

NN

Total SA

AG

SD

DS

ML

ID

NN

Total

PGIS as a tool facilitate comprehensive discussion among community members

- 2

9

8

1

3

1

24

8

9

-

1

4

-

3

24

PGIS useful to identify grazing areas/resources

- 3 6 11 2 1 1 24 10

8 - 2 3 - 1 24

Analysis of grazing resources uses and access

- 2 4 13 1 3 1 24 5 12 - 1 6 - - 24

PGIS helps in identifying conflict areas in Participatory manner

-

2

6

12

1

2

1

24

7 11 - 2 3 - 1 24

PGIS help to make more detailed mapping

- 2 8 9 1 2 2 24 9 11 - - 3 1 - 24

Scale: SA=strongly agree=1, AG=Agree=2, SD=strongly disagree =4, DS= Disagree=5, ML=More or less =3, ID= I don’t know=6, NN= None=0

6.3. Effectiveness and Potentials of PGIS in this study

Extent of effectiveness of PGIS for this study was determined by data and process in terms of content, quality, relevancy, form, level of participation and the why, who, what, when and how questions, and its practicability in the study area. The attributes has been used and discussed (Jordan 1998; 2002; McCall 2003; 2004b; McCall and Minang 2005; Vajjhala 2005). From mapping participants’ views the process was useful and worth time utilised as it gives room for discussion and clarification among different people. Apart from that the process enabled to identify


66

potentials in women who participated as men participants stated that they could not know if they had potential women in their villages until when we did mapping. Generally through community mapping (PGIS) much of how and why people live in the study area in line with their livelihood (agro-pastoralists) has been revealed. (McCall 2004b; Vajjhala 2005) reported the same and explain that how people live with social and economic attributes is strongly connected to participatory mapping; while conventional GIS is strongly associated with where people live and precision. Essentially community mapping and GIS (PGIS) proved to be useful tool for examining spatial temporal distribution of conflicts/conflict area, as observed during mapping exercises, FGD and evaluation after the mapping. This has been recognised in the field by comparing the situation before and after mapping see table 6.1. The exercise has raised more awareness and empowered community through knowledge sharing, because they had been empowered in other dimensions of CBFM.

6.4. Lessons from literatures

Outputs of PGIS despite of its challenges has been used to identify and visualize conflicts and enabled conflicting parties to convene for solution. Usually sketch maps can encourage different groups to co-operate because maps create give spatial insight and understanding of natural resources problems. Hence facilitate solution identification. Power of maps in conflict management can be seen in box 3 Box 3.Power of Maps in Managing Conflicts (Poole 1995) highlighted that maps are instrumental in addressing local land use conflicts. According to (Poole 1995; Kyem 2004) PGIS is useful in community awareness, mobilization and conflict resolution as the approach supports illustration of the interaction between environmental variables and local land use decisions. (Kyem 2004) identified that GIS applications can succeed in preparing disputants for consensus in conflict sustained by either values or interests. (Rambaldi, Bugna et al. 2002) in their study in Balban Indonesia explained how participatory mapping is useful in conflict resolution processes. (Kyem Kwaku 2002; Mbile, DeGrande et al. 2003) showed that PGIS is appropriate in managing conflict of interest between logging company and local community in Kofiase project Ghana as well as agricultural activities and park conservation in Korup National Park Cameroon.

6.5. Observations and Challenges of PGIS in this Study

During mapping in the field the following was observed - Participation: Number of women participated in the mapping was low than the desired one.

This was because during field work it was harvesting period and women play very important role in that. But the few who participated had given good input. To get general understanding on women responses during household interviews the researcher had short conservation with women. Underprivileged groups are likely to be excluded and more affected; women and youth especially female can fail to participate accordingly due to socio-cultural values and domestic responsibilities.

- Orientation variation: Commonly people perceived to be at 360º and that is how they drew north arrow in the sketch maps but based on the projection of the study area during georeferencing there can be a shift in north direction.


67

- Shape: Linear features like road is perceived straight, and that is how they have been drawn in the sketch maps by community; while it is not always true as there are corners on the roads and some roads are slanted.

In data collection if required attention will not be taken there is danger of shifting from the intended focus. The approach is time consuming though output worth the consumed time as mapping participants indicated.

6.6. Policy Implication

From this study through PGIS conflict areas were able to be identified and visualized. For the tool to have impact on pastoral resources and general land uses in the study area, areas with the same features in Tanzania depend on decision making bodies and policies in place. Mapping can have impact on policy as it was through it in the study area inadequate policy inconsistency and interrelationship was found. Through mapping disadvantaged groups and frequent NR dependents have been less affected by their government decisions. Through experience from other countries as shown in box 4 results of this study may have useful impact in policies in Tanzania if decision making bodies in the study area, district, regional and national level will take initiatives to rectify the situation. Maps are useful tools in advocating for policy change from the grassroot. Box 4. Serving people and Changing Policies. Maps are type of visual language that reveals information about conflicts, overlaps, and trends in areas where rights and responsibilities are cloudy; they stimulate movements towards policy reforms through more interactive spatial policymaking (Alcorn 2000; Carton April 19-26 2002). In Cameroon for example (McCall and Minang 2005) found out that to reasonable extent PGIS promote good governance as the approach adhere and subscribe to different levels of participation including decision making, empowerment and action. (McCall 2003)indicates that participation in spatial planning relates to legitimacy as governance criterion and support governance imperatives of equity and respect for people’s right. In Thailand, Karen communities have not been evicted from Thung Yai wildlife Sanctuary, in part due to information included on maps as explained by (Alcorn 2000). (Carton April 19-26 2002)indicated that with participation social values are given a place in spatial planning and spatial visualization are important for identifying and designing alternatives during design phase of policy making process. Therefore with PGIS policy making and reforms represent actual situation and become more useful to all actors.


68


69

7. Conclusions

This chapter cover conclusions of the study in line with research objectives. Taking into account that livestock keeping directly or indirectly depend on land, forest and water resources as source(s) of pastures and water. The conclusion focus in three areas mainly conflicts; grazing resources and practices, as well as PGIS approach. Policies and decisions implications on livelihood too have been taking into account based on their effects on livelihoods in Duru Haitemba. We can conclude based on research general objective which was to find out potentials of Participatory GIS in identification of conflicts over pastoral resources. Through findings and analysis done in this study we have answered all the research questions which imply the research objectives have been achieved such as follows:

On Conflicts in Duru-Haitemba

Conflicts over NR are inevitable especially where resources are scarce and used by different groups for different use to sustain their livelihood. Increase in human and livestock population, additional demand of food and fodder as well as inconsistency of policies may interfere with compliance to bylaws over time. Policies and directives on conservation taken at national level can have different effects to different areas with different and resource endowment. Conflicts (dormant and active) occur partly due to less participatory or non-participatory plans and decision making. Hence variations in perception and understanding over ownership influence how people respond in case of any measure to hamper their use and access of natural resources in their areas. Variations in perceptions from different actors, number of actors in the conflicts and time influence conflicts escalation or de-escalation. Based on the above conclusions bylaws need to be reformulated to have correspondence with livelihood in terms of socio-economic, cultural values, and demographic changes that are going on in Duru-Haitemba which is not an exception of other human societies. It’s high time to enhance capacity building on decisions to be made, changes in policies and directives for imparting more knowledge and information among natural resources users and managers. Through capacity building processes community will become more aware and empowered consequently reducing level of resistance over implementation of the policies. In addition relevant and timely measures need to be taken to address the situation while it is not very critical.

On Grazing Resources and Practices

Population increase, more food demand and conservation have reduced quantity of grazing resources with time. Scarcity in grazing resources determines extent of utilisation hence reduced level of sharing resources among community members.


70

Scarcity of resources with no reliable and adequate substitute increases frequency of utilization in the only available sources, which in turn lead to over utilization and degradation. Excessively grazed areas are more vulnerable to soil degradation and erosion in case of wind, water and other agents of soil erosion. What was agreed while planning for CBFM were suppose to be met, for instance some respondents said in general agreements certain areas were to be reserved for grazing yet what is happening now is the opposite. Villagers consider this as unmet expectation; which contradicts with participatory approaches practices. Livestock keeping being second primary source of livelihood in Duru Haitemba it would be more practical to increase capacity building and intervention on grazing systems and practices. Through that community member in collaboration with authorities and professional may look for local coping strategies against changes that interferes livestock keeping.

On PGIS Approach

Community mapping motivate participation hence output maps become more representative of the actual situation in resources and land uses at the local people point of view. PGIS approach despite of its challenges is useful and appropriate in this study as it has enabled to add on geo-spatial information and gave answer to ‘why’ and ‘how’ people live; internal and external features of conflicts, the information which could hardly be obtained through conventional GIS and remote sensing. Community mapping and PGIS proved to be useful tool for examining conflicts and their spatial temporal distribution, as observed during mapping exercises, FGD and evaluation after the mapping. But the mapping processes need to be well organized and focus much on the input of local people because they know their localities than outsiders. Throughout the mapping participants appreciated the exercise and contributed much on their local spatial knowledge hence more empowered through sharing knowledge Apart from being time consuming the exercise was able to raise awareness among participants and identify women potentials. Since the villagers appreciated the approach, community mapping can be used further for the villages land use plan. This will help in plans and policies because mapping with GPS explain problems and their spatial location. Therefore through visualization of the problem like conflicts over grazing resources, PGIS may contribute to policy changes from the grassroots, because maps can give the grassroots more voice about matters that affect their immediate livelihood. For more precision if sketch maps are to be analysed in Arc GIS, community mapping practised on top of aerial photo, imagery satellite and topographic maps can improve orientations of north arrow and shapes of features like roads.


71

7.1. Hitimisho (Conclusions in Swahili)

Kutokana na majibu yaliyopatikana wakati wa utafiti huu. Uhitimisho umeelekea kwenye maeneo matatu ambayo ni Migogoro, Rasilimali na Shughuli za Malisho na Matumizi ya Mfumo Shirikishi wa Taarifa za Kijiografia. Pia utafiti umezingatia jinsi sera na maamuzi vinavyogusa maisha ya watu katika jamii wanazofuga kama ilivyo Duru-Haitemba. Kupitia matokeo na uchambuzi uliofanywa katika utafiti huu, tumeweza kujibu maswali yaliyukwepo kuhusiana na wafugaji wanalishia wapi mifugo yao. Je kuna migogoro yoyote kati ya wafugaji na watumiaji wengine wa ardhi. Pia kufahamu nini matokeo ya kuzuia kutumia misitu kulishia na kuchungia mifugo.

Migogoro Katika Matumizi ya Maliasili Eneo La Duru-Haitemba

Migogoro ya maliasili haikwepeki hasa pale ambapo rasilimali ni chache na hutumiwa na makundi mbalimbali kwa matumizi tofauti. Kuongezeka kwa idadi ya watu na mifugo, mahitaji ya nyongeza ya chakula na malisho ya mifugo pamoja na upungufu katika sera, kunaweza kuingiliana na uzingatiaji wa sheria ndogo za uhifadhi Sera na maelekezo kuhusu hifadhi ya mazingira yanayotolewa katika ngazi ya taifa yanaweza kuwa na athari tofauti katika maeneo tofauti yenye rasilimali zinazotofautina. Migogoro hutokea kutokana na wadau kushirikishwa kidogo na kutoshirikishwa kabisa katika mipango na maamuzi. Hivyo kutofautiana kwa mtazamo na uelewa kuhusu umiliki huathiri namna watu wanavyochukua hatua kuhusu matumizi na upatikanaji wa maliasili katika maeneo yao. Kutofautiana huko kwa watu mbalimbali, idadi yao na muda kuna uhusiano na kuongezeka au kupungua kwa migogoro. Kwa kuzingatia hoja zilizoelezwa hapo juu, Sheria ndogo zinahitaji kufanyiwa marekebisho ili kuendana na mabadiliko ya kijamii, kiuchumi, kiutamaduni na kijiografia yanayotokea katika eneo la Duru-Haitemba na yale ya jamii nyingine. Huu ni wakati muafaka kujenga uwezo kuhusu maamuzi yatakayofanywa, mabadiliko katika sera na maagizo. Hii itasaidia kutoa elimu zaidi na habari miongoni mwa watumiaji na wasimamizi wa maliasili. Kupitia michakato ya kujenga uwezo, jamii itaelewa na kuwezeshwa na hivyo kupunguza kiwango cha kupinga utekelezaji wa sera. Pia hatua sahihi zinahitaji kuchukuliwa kwa wakati ili kubadilisha hali wakati migogoro haijajikita sana katika jamii.

Kuhusu Rasilimali na Shughuli za Malisho

Kuongezeka kwa idadi ya watu, mahitaji ya chakula na hifadhi ya mazingira hupunguza idadi ya rasilimali za malisho kadri muda unavyopita. Uhaba wa rasilimali za malisho ya mifugo hupunguza kiwango cha kushirikiana katika matumizi yake miongoni mwa jamii. Uhaba wa rasilimali bila ya kuwa na mbadala wa kuaminika na kutosha huongeza kasi ya matumizi ya vyanzo vilivyoko na hii husababisha matumizi makubwa kupita kiasi. Maeneo ya malisho yanayotumika kupita kiasi huathikirika kwa mmomonyoko wa ardhi kutokana na upepo, maji na njia nyingine zinazosababisha mmomonyoko wa ardhi. Makubaliano wakati wa kupanga Uhifadhi wa Misitu kwa Mbinu Shirikishi yalitakiwa kutekelezwa; kwa mfano baadhi ya waliohojiwa walisema kwa jumla kuwa baadhi ya maeneo yalitakiwa kutengwa kwa malisho ya mifugo lakini kinachotokea sasa ni kinyume cha matarajio na makubaliano. Wanakijiji wanaona kuwa matarajio yao hayajafikiwa, hali ambayo inapingana na mbinu shirikishi.


72

Ufugaji ni njia kuu ya pili ya kipato kwa wananchi wa Duru-Haitemba, hivyo itakuwa na manufaa kuongeza kujenga uwezo na ufuatiliaji wa mifumo ya malisho ya mifugo. Kupitia njia hiyo, wanajamii wanaweza kutafuta mikakati ya kukabili mabadiliko yanayoingiliana na ufugaji.

Kuhusu Mfumo Shirikishi wa Taarifa za Kijiografia

Uchoraji ramani shirikishi katika jamii unahamasisha ushiriki na hivyo kufanya ramani zinazotokana na mbinu hiyo kuwasilisha hali halisi ya rasiliamali na matumizi ya ardhi katika kijiji. Mfumo Shirikishi wa Taarifa za Kijiografia (PGIS), pamoja na changamoto zake, ni muhimu na sahihi katika utafiti huu na umeweza kuongeza taarifa katika ramani ya kijiji . Pamoja na hayo umewezesha kutoa majibu ya “kwanini” na “namna” watu wanavyoishi, migogoro ya ndani na nje, taarifa ambazo zisingepatikana kirahisi kwa mbinu nyingine. Uchoraji ramani shirikishi na Mfumo Shirikishi wa Taarifa za Kijiografia ni zana muhimu za kuchunguza migogoro kama ilivyothibitika wakati wa zoezi la kuchora ramani, majadiliano maalum katika vikundi na tathmini baada ya uchoraji ramani. Lakini mikakati ya uchoraji ramani inahitaji kupangwa vizuri na kuzingatia zaidi ushuriki wa jamii husika kwa sababu wao wanajua maeneo yao vizuri kuliko watu kutoka nje. Wakati wa zoezi la uchoraji washiriki walifurahia na kuwezeshwa kuchangia ujuzi wa eneo lao. Licha ya kuchukua muda mrefu, zoezi hilo limeongeza uelewa miongoni mwa washiriki pamoja na kubaini uwezo walionao hasa wanawake. Kwa kuwa wanakijiji wamefurahia mbinu shirikishi katika uchoraji wa ramani inaweza kutumika katika kuandaa mpango wa matumizi wa ardhi ya kijiji. Mbinu hii itasaidia katika mipango na sera kwa kuwa inaeleza matatizo na mahali yalipo katika kijiji. Hivyo kwa kubaini tatizo kama la migogoro katika rasilimali za malisho ya mifugo, Mfumo Shirikishi wa matumizi ya taarifa za Kijigrafia unaweza kuchangia katika mabadiliko ya sera kuanzia ngazi ya kijiji kwa sababu ramani zinawapa wanakiji sauti katika mambo yanayohusu maisha yao ya kila siku. Kwa usahihi zaidi, uchoraji ramani shirikishi unaofanyika kwa kutumia picha za satelaiti, ramani zilizochorwa kwa Mbinu Shirikishi zinaweza kuboreshwa ili kuonyesha mshale wa Kaskazini katika mfumo sahihi wa “projeksheni” . Pia vitu muhimu kama barabara vitaweza kuchorwa kwa usahihi zaidi toufauti na ambavyo umbo la barabara hufikirika kuwa ni nyoofu wakati zipo sehemu zenye kona na vitu vingine muhimu. Muhtasari huu umeandikwa kwa lugha ya Kiswahili ili kuwezesha mrejesho wa taarifa kuwafikia kiurahisi wananchi wa vijiji husika na wadau wengine waliowezesha upatikanaji wa takwimu na taarifa kwa ajili ya kumjengea uwezo na kumfundisha mwanafunzi aliyefanya utafiti huu. Pia kurahisisha matumizi yake katika mipango ya maendeleo ya vijiji hivyo. Napenda kuwashukuru sana wananchi wote wa eneo la Duru Haitemba kwa ukarimu na upendo wa kukubali kutupokea na kutuwezesha kujifunza kutoka kwenu. “Asanteni sana” …“Naasi”. Tafsiri ya Muhtasari huu imefanywa na mwandishi pamoja na Ndugu Geoffrey Mandara na Nyankweli Emmanueli. Inawezekana kukawa na upungufu wa maneno ya Kiswahili yaliyotumika kutokana na mwandishi kutokuwa mtaalamu maalum wa uandishi katika lugha ya Kiswahili.


73

References

Abbot, J., Chambers, R.,Dunn, C., Harris,T., De Merode, E., Porter, G., Townsend, J. and Weiner, D. (1998). "Participatory GIS: Opportunity or Oxymoron?" PLA Notes 33: 27-34.

Abu-Nimer, M. (2003). Non-violence and Peace Building in Islam: Theory and Practice. . Gainesville, University of Florida Press.

Adhikari, B., F. Williams, et al. (2007). "Local benefits from community forests in the middle hills of Nepal." Forest Policy and Economics 9(5): 464-478.

Adriansen, H. K. and T. T. Nielsen (2002). "Going Where the Grass Is Greener: On the Study of Pastoral Mobility in Ferlo, Senegal." Human Ecology 30: 215-226.

Akong Minang, P. (2003). Assessing participatory geographic information systems for community forestry planning in Cameroon : a local governance perspective. Enschede, ITC: 104 p.

Alcorn, J. B. (2000). Borders, rules and governance : mapping to catalyse changes in policy and management. London, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).

Aynekulu, E. and T. Kasaumber (2006). Application of ASTER Space borne Image in Mapping Land Cover in the Drylands : Ethiopia. Earth Observation and Geoinformation Sciences in Support of Africa s Development Cairo, Egypt.

Aynekulu, E. and W. Wubneh (2006). "Monitoring and Evaluating Land use/Land cover change using Participatory Geographic Information System (PGIS) Tools :A case study of Bagasheka Watershed,Tigray,Ethiopia." The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries Vol. 25.

Benda-Beckmann, K. (1984). Forum Shopping and Shopping Forums: Dispute Settlement in a Minagkabau Village in West Sumatra, Indonesia. The Broken Stairways to Consensus:Village Justice and State Courts in Minagkabau. K. Benda-Beckmann. Dordretch, Foris.

Blaikie, P. (2006). "Is Small Really Beautiful? Community-based Natural Resource Management in Malawi and Botswana." World Development 34(11): 1942-1957.

Boix Fayos, C. (2002). Competition over water resources : analysis and mapping of water - related conflicts in the catchment of Lake Naivasha, Kenya. Enschede, ITC: 151 p.

Bonfiglioll, A. and A. Watson (1992). Pastoralists at a Crossroads: Survival and Development issues in African Pastoralism. Nairobi, NOPA.

Bromley, D. W. (1992). Making the Commons Work: Theory, Practice and Policy. California, Institute of Contemporary Studies.

Carton, L. (April 19-26 2002). Strengths and Weaknesses of Spatial Language: Mapping activities as debating instrument in a spatial planning process. FIG XXII International Congress. D. C. U. Washington. Washington, D.C. USA.

Chapin, M., Z. Lamb, et al. (2005). "Mapping indigenous lands." Annual Review of Anthropology 34: 619-638.

Cohen, J. M. and N. T. Uphoff (1980). "Participation's place in rural development : seeking clarity through specificity." In: World Development, 8(1980), pp. 213-235.

Cohen, L., L. Marion, et al. (2000). Research Methods in Education. London, RouteledgeFalmer. Corbett, J., G. Rambaldi, et al. (2005). Overview: Mapping for Change -emergence of a new practice.

The Mapping for Change International Conference on Participatory Spatial Information Management and Communication Nairobi, Kenya.

Corbett, J. M. and C. P. Keller (2005). "Empowerment and participatory geographic information systems and multimedia systems : observations from two communities in Indonesia." In: Information Technologies and International Development, 2(2004)2, pp. 25-44.

Craig, W. S., T. M. Harris, et al. (2002). Community participation and geographic information systems. London etc., Taylor & Francis.


74

de Gier, A. (2004). Sampling Concepts and how to handle them:Lecture Handout, International Institute for GeoInformation Science and Earth Observation(ITC): 15.

Dorcy, A. H. J. and C. L. Riek (1987). "Negotiation -Based Approaches to the Settlement of Environmental Disputes in Canada" CEARC. The Place of Negotiation in Environmental Assessment, Toronto.

Duru (2003). "Sheria ndogo za Utekelezaji wa Kazi za Maendeleo Kijiji cha Duru". Fox, J. (2002). "Siam Mapped and Mapping in Cambodia: Boundaries, Sovereignty, and Indigenous

Conceptions of Space." Society & Natural Resources 15(1): 65-78. Frankfort-Nachmias, C. and D. Nachmias (1996). Research methods in the social sciences. New York,

St. Martins Press. Gibson, C. C. and T. Koontz (1998). "When "community" is not enough: Institutions and values in

community-based forest management in southern Indiana." Human Ecology 26(4): 621-647. Gibson, C. C., M. A. McKean, et al. (2000). People and forests : communities, institutions, and

governance. Cambridge etc., MIT press. Groenendijk, E. M. C. and E. J. M. Dopheide (2003). Planning and management tools. Enschede, ITC. Haro, G. O., G. J. Doyo, et al. (2005). "Linkages Between Community, Environmental, and Conflict

Management: Experiences from Northern Kenya." World Development 33(2): 285-299. Harris, T. M. and D. Weiner (1998). "Empowerment, Marginalization and "Community-Integrated"GIS."

Journal of Cartography and GIS 2(25): 67-76. Henerson, M. E., L. Lyons Morris, et al. (1987). How to measure attitudes. Newbury Park etc., Sage

publications. Hildyard, N., P. Hegde, et al. (2001). Pluralism, Participation and Power: Joint Forest Management in

India. Participation, the New Tyranny? B. Cooke, Kothari, U. London., Zed Books. Homann, S., B. Rischkowsky, et al. (2004). Herd mobility leads the way for sustainable pastoral

development:the case of Borana rangelands, southern Ethiopia. Deutscher Tropentag 2004:Conference on International Agricultural Research for Development. Berlin,Germany, http://www.tropentag.de.

Hoshan (2002). Sheria ndogo za Utekelezaji wa Kazi za Maendeleo Kijiji cha Hoshan. Iddi-Ng enu, M.-. Personal communication (September 2006). IISD. (2006). "Indicators." Retrieved 11th August, 2006, from http://www.iisd.org/. Isager, L., I. Theilade, et al. (2002). People’s participation and the role of governments in conservation of

forest genetic resources. Humlebaek, Denmark, Danida Forest Seed Centre. IUCN-EARO and S. W. Mariki (2002). Country Study for “Poverty Alleviation and Conservation:

Linking Sustainable Livelihoods and Ecosystem Management” Tanzania case: July 2002. Janssen, L. L. F., W. H. Bakker, et al. (2000). Principles of remote sensing : an introductory textbook.

Enschede, ITC. Jonsson, J., J. Kahurananga, et al. (1993). Improving Livestock Production in Babati District Tanzania.

Regional Soil Conservation Unit(RSCU) Reports Series;8. P. Rimmerfors/RSCU. Nairobi, Kenya, Regional Soil Conservation Unit (RSCU), Swedish International Development Authority (SIDA).

Jordan, G. (1998). A Public Participation GIS for Community Forestry User Groups in Nepal. Public Participation GIS Specialists Meeting. Santa Barbara, USA.

Jordan, G. (2002). GIS for community forestry user groups in Nepal:putting people before the technology. Community Participation and Geographic Information Systems. W. J. Craig, T. M. Harris and D. Weiner. London etc., Taylor & Francis: 383 p.

Jordan, G. and B. Shrestha (2000 ). "A Participatory GIS for Community Forestry User Groups in Nepal: Putting People Before the Technology." PLA Notes 39.

Kajembe, G. C., G. C. Monela, et al. (2003). Making community-based forest management work: A case study of Duru-Haitemba village forest reserve, Babati, Tanzania

Kajembe, G. C., J. Nduwamungu, et al. (2005). "The impact of community-based forest management and joint forest management on the forest resource base and local people’s livelihoods: Case studies from Tanzania." Commons Southern Africa II Vol. 3.


75

Kangas, A., S. Laukkanen, et al. (2006). "Social choice theory and its applications in sustainable forest management--a review." Forest Policy and Economics 9(1): 77-92.

Kauzeni, A. S., I. S. Kikula, et al. (1993). Land Use Planning and Resource Assessment in Tanzania: A Case Study. London, The Institute of Resource Assessment;University of Dar es Salaam,Tanzania and The Environmental Planning Group;The International Institute for Environment and Development,London.

Kavana, P. Y., J. B. Kizima, et al. (2005). "Evaluation of grazing pattern and sustainability of feed resources in pastoral areas of eastern zone of Tanzania." Livestock Research for Rural Development Vol. 17(1).

Krueger, R. and M. A. Casey (2000). Focus Groups:A Practical Guide for Applied Research. Thousand Oaks, Calif:Sage.

Kumar, R. (2005). Research methodology : a step - by - step guide for beginners. London etc., Sage. Kwiyamba, S. (2005). The Changing Livelihoods in the Maasai Plains, Tanzania. The Guardian Dar Es

salaam. Kyem Kwaku, P. A. (2002). Promoting local community participation in forest management through a

PPGIS application in Southern Ghana. Community Participation and Geographic Information Systems. W. J. Craig, T. M. Harris and D. Weiner. London etc, Taylor and Francis.

Kyem, P. A. K. (2004). "Of intractable conflicts and participatory GIS applications: The search for consensus amidst competing claims and institutional demands." Annals of the Association of American Geographers 94(1): 37-57.

LAMP. (2005). "Building a future with our forests: Experience of Community Based Forestry." LAMP Booklet Series Retrieved November, 2006.

Lawi, Y. Q. (1997). "Justice Administration Outside the Ordinary Courts of Law in Mainland Tanzania: The Case of Ward Tribunals in Babati District." African Studies Quartely:Online Journal for African Studies 1(2 ).

Levy, P. S. and S. Lemeshow (1991). Sampling of populations : methods and applications. New York etc., Wiley & Sons.

LHRC. (2005). "Outreach and Advocacy Department." Retrieved January, 2007, from http://www.humanrights.or.tz/.

Lindström, J. and R. Kingamkono (1991). Foods from Forests, Fields and Fallows : Nutritional and Food Security Roles of gathered food and Livestock keeping in two villages in Babati District, Northern Tanzania. Uppsala, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, International Rural Development Centre.

Majid-Cooke, F. (2003). "Maps and Counter Maps:Globalised Imaginings and Local Realities of Sarawak s PlantationAgriculture." Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 34(2): 265-284.

Malimbwi, R. E. (2003). Inventory Report of Ayasanda Village Forest Reserve in Babati,Manyara, Tanzania, Babati District Council Land Management Programme (LAMP): 20.

Mansell, R. and U. Wehn (1998). Knowledge societies : information technology for sustainable development. Oxford etc., Oxford University Press on behalf of the United Nations.

Mapedza, E., J. Wright, et al. (2003). "An investigation of land cover change in Mafungautsi Forest, Zimbabwe, using GIS and participatory mapping." Applied Geography 23(1): 1-21.

Martinelli, D. P. and A. P. Almeida (1998). "Negotiation, Management and Systems Thinking." Systematic Practice and Action Research 11(3): 319-334.

Matta, J. R. and J. R. R. Alavalapati (2006). "Perceptions of collective action and its success in community based natural resource management: An empirical analysis." Forest Policy and Economics 9(3): 274-284.

Mbile, P., A. DeGrande, et al. (2003). "Integrating Participatory Resource Mapping and Geographic Information Systems in Forest Conservation and Natural Resources Management in Cameroon: A Methodological Guide." The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries Vol 14.

Mbuya, L. P., H. P. Msanga, et al. (1994). Useful trees and shrubs for Tanzania : identification, propagation and management for agricultural and pastoral communities. Dar es Salaam ;


76

Nairobi, Regional Soil Conservation Unit (RSCU) ; Swedish International Development Authority (SIDA).

McCall, M. K. (2003). "Seeking good governance in participatory-GIS: a review of processes and governance dimensions in applying GIS to participatory spatial planning." Habitat International 27(4): 549-573.

McCall, M. K. (2004a). Conflict Analysis and Conflict Management Approaches in :Environmental and Natural Resources Management and Land Use Planning; CAM notes M04

McCall, M. K. (2004b). "Can participatory GIS strengthen local level spatial planning? : suggestions for better practice." Presented at GISDECO 2004 : proceedings of the 7th International conference on GIS for developing countries , 10-12 May 2004, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Malaysia. 19 p.

McCall, M. K. (2005). Content Analysis and Other ''Really Useful Tools' in Social Science Surveys and Analysis, ITC.

McCall, M. K. and P. A. Minang (2005). "Assessing participatory GIS for community-based natural resource management: claiming community forests in Cameroon." Geographical Journal 171: 340-356.

Meshack, C. K., B. Adhikari, et al. (2006). "Transaction costs of community-based forest management: empirical evidence from Tanzania." African Journal of Ecology 44(4): 468-477.

Miller, C. E. (2005). A Glossary of Terms and Concepts in Peace and Conflict Studies. Addis Ababa etc, University for Peace.

Mohamed, M. A. and S. J. Ventura (2000). "Use of Geomatics for Mapping and Documenting Indigenous Tenure Systems." Society and Natural Resources 13: 223-236.

Morgan, D. L. (1998:1). The Focus Group Guide Book. Book 1: The Focus Groups Kit. Thousand Oaks, Calif :Sage.

Morgan, D. L. (1998:2). Planning Focus Groups. Book 2: The Focus Groups Kit. Thousand Oaks, Calif:Sage.

Mostert, E. (1998). "A framework for conflict resolution." Water International 23(4): 206-215. Narayan, D. and World Bank (1996). Toward participatory research. Washington, D.C., The World

Bank. New-Era (1988). A study of Legal System and Legal Situation in Rural Areas of the Kingdom of Nepal

Kathmandu, Friedirich Naumann Foundation. Nilsson, T. (2001). Management of Communal Grazing Land: A case study on institutions for collective

action in Endabeg village, Tanzania. Department of Infrastructure and Planning. Stockholm, KUNGL. TEKNISKA HÖGSKOLAN;Royal Institute of Technology NR 01-172

Northrup, T. A. (1989). The Dynamics of Identity in Personal and Social Conflict. In Intractable Conflicts and Their Transformation. L. Kingsbergy, T. A. Northrup and S. J. Thompson. Syracuse,NY, Syracuse University Press.

Okali, C., J. Sumberg, et al. (1994). Farmer participatory research : rhetoric and reality. London, Intermediate Technology on behalf of the Overseas Development Institute.

Oli, K. P. (1998). Conflict Resolution and Mediation in Natural Resource Management. Kathmandu, IUCN-Nepal.

Omosa, E. K. (2005). The Impact of Water Conflicts on Pastoral Livelihoods: The Case of Wajir District in Kenya. Winnipeg, Manitoba,Canada, International Institute for Sustainable Development.

Oppenheim, A. N. (1992). Questionnaire design,Interviewing and Attitude measurement. New York etc., Pinter.

Osha, J. and D. Weiner (2006). Participatory GIS- A Paradism Shift in Development? . Directions Magazine: 4.

Otieno, J. N. (2000). Biomass inventory and potential of indigenous medicinal plants: A case study of Duru-Haitemba community forests in Babati District, Arusha; Tanzania. Morogoro, Sokoine University of Agriculture;Tanzania. Masters of Science.

Poole, P. (1995). Indigenous peoples, mapping & biodiversity conservation : an analysis of current activities and opportunities for applying geomatics technologies. . Biodiversity Support Program (BSP).


77

Quinn, C. H., M. Huby, et al. (2006). "Design principles and common pool resource management: An institutional approach to evaluating community management in semi-arid Tanzania." Journal of Environmental Management In Press, Corrected Proof.

Rambaldi, G. (2004). Who owns the Map Legend? The 7th International Conference on GIS for Developing Countries (GISDECO 2004). Johor, Malaysia.

Rambaldi, G., S. Bugna, et al. (2002). Bringing the Vertical Dimension to the Negotiating Table: Preliminary Assessment of a Conflict Resolution Case in the Philippines. A. Biodiversity.

Rambaldi, G. and J. Callosa-Tarr (2002). Participatory 3-dimensional Modelling: Guiding Principles and Applications, ASEAN Regional Centre for Biodiversity Conservation.

Rambaldi, G., R. Chambers, et al. (2006). "Practical ethics for PGIS practitioners, facilitators, technology intermediaries and researchers." In: Participatory learning and action (2006)54. Special issue on: Mapping for change : practice, technologies and communication : proceedings of the international conference on participatory spatial information management and communication PGIS '05 - KCCT, Nairobi, Kenya, 7-10 Sept 2005. / ed. by Giacomo Rambaldi; Jon Corbett; Mike McCall; ...[et al.] London : IEED, 2005. pp. 106-113.

Rambaldi, G. and D. Weiner (2004). Summary of the Proceedings of the Track on International PPGIS Perspectives. Third International Conference on Public Participation GIS (PPGIS), University of Wisconsin –Madison.

Rejal, B. and R. J. Pethram (2001). Extension for Community Forestry Development in the Midhill Zone of Nepal Proceedings of the Extension Working Group Symposium, CIFOR.

Riroda (2002). Sheria ndogo za Utekelezaji wa Kazi za Maendeleo Kijiji cha Riroda Robiglio, V. and W. A. Mala (2003). ""Mapping Landscapes: Integratiing GIS and Social Science

Methods to Model Human-Nature Relationship in Sourthern Cameroon"." Small-scale Forest Economics, Management and Policy 2(2): 171-184.

Rodriguez Parisca, O. S. (1995). Land Use Conflicts and Planning Strategies in Urban Fringes : A Case Study of Western Caracas, Venezuela. ITC Publication;27. Gent, University of Ghent, Faculty of Sciences: 302.

Rubenstein, R. E. (1993). Analysing and Resolving Class Conflict. Conflict Resolution Theory and Practice:Integration and Application. J. Denis, D. Sandole and H. Merwe, Manchester University Press.

Rubin, J. Z., D. G. Pruitt, et al., Eds. (1994). Social Conflict: Escalation, Stlemate, and Settlement. New York, McGraw- Hill, Inc.

Saipothong, P., W. Kojonrungrot, et al. (2005). Comperative Study of Participatory Mapping Proecesses in Northern Thailand. Mapping communities : ethics, values, practice. J. Fox, K. Suryanata and P. Hershock. Honolulu, Hawaii, East-West Center.

Sanddelin, R. (1997). "Interpersonal Relationships and Conflict Resolution: Community Resource Guide."

Schlager, E. and E. Ostrom (1992). "Property rights regimes and natural resources : a conceptual analysis." In: Land Economics, 68(1992)3, pp. 249-262.

Selener, D. (1997). Participatory action research and social change. Ithaca, Cornell University. Shrestha, H. L. (2006). "Using Global Positioning Systems (GPS) and Geographic Information Systems

(GIS) in Participatory Mapping of Community Forest in NEPAL " The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries Vol. 25.

Sibuga, K. K., P. F. Lekule, et al. (2004). Principles and Practices of Livestock Production. Dar es Salaam, Educational Book Publishers Ltd.

Singh, R. K. and V. K. Sinha (2002). Analysing Conflict in Natural Resources Management: Proceedings of the Workshop, June 3-5, 2002

Analysing Conflict in Natural Resources Management, Bhopal, India, Indian Institute of Forest Management.

Sirait, M., S. Prasodjo, et al. (1994). "Mapping Customary Land in East Kalimantan, Indonesia - a Tool for Forest Management." Ambio 23(7): 411-417.

Sjaastad, E. and D. W. Bromley (2000). "prejudices of property rights : on individualism, specificity, and security in property regimes." In: Development Policy Review, 18(2000)4, pp. 365-389.


78

Smith, K., C. B. Barrett, et al. (2000). "Participatory Risk Mapping for Targeting Research and Assistance: With an Example from East African Pastoralists." World Development 28(11): 1945-1959.

Soussan, J. and Research Team (1998). Community Forestry in Nepal: Progress Report on DFID funded Research Project. Mimeo.

Sterritt, N. J., S. Marsden, et al. (1998). Tribal Boundaries in the Nass Watershed Vancouver, BC, Canada, University of British Columbia Press.

Sultana, P., S. Abeyasekera, et al. (2006). "Methodological Rigour in Assessing Participatory Development." Agricultural Systems.

Susskind, L. S. (1999). An Alternate to Robert s Rules of Order for Groups, Organisations and ad hoc Assembelies that want to Operate by Consensus. In The Consensus Building Handbook:A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreements. L. Susskind, S. McKearman and J. Thomas-Learner. Thousands-Oaks, CA, Sage Publication.

The World Bank (1996). World Bank Participation Sourcebook. Washington, D.C., The World Bank. Thompson, J. R., W. F. Elmendorf, et al. (2005). "Participation and Conflict: Lessons Learned From

Community Forestry " Journal of Forestry Volume 103 (Number 4): pp. 174-178(5). Thompson, S. K. (1992). Sampling. New York etc., Wiley & Sons. Tomei, M. (2006) "Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia: Issues of Land Ownership, Management and Rights "

Africa General :Eastern Region Volume, DOI: Tripathi, N. and S. Bhattarya (2004). "Integrating Indigenous Knowledge and GIS for Participatory

Natural Resource Management: State of the Practice." The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries Vol 17.

United Republic of Tanzania (1997a). Agriculture and Livestock Policy Dar Es Salaam,Tanzania Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives. United Republic of Tanzania (1997b). National Environmental Policy, Vice President s Office: 41. United Republic of Tanzania (1997c). National Land Policy, Ministry of Land and Settlement

Development. United Republic of Tanzania (1998a). The Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania, Government

Printers. United Republic of Tanzania (1998b). National Forestry Policy, Ministry of Natural Resources and

Tourism United Republic of Tanzania (2000). The Tanzania Development Vision 2025, Government Printersl. United Republic of Tanzania (2002a). 2002 Population and Housing Census General Report, URT. United Republic of Tanzania (2002b). 2002 Population and Housing Census General Report. T. B. o.

Statistics, President Office Planning and Privatization. United Republic of Tanzania (2003). Rural Development Policy. Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania, President s

Office Regional Administration and Local Government: 42. United Republic of Tanzania. (2005). "National Information by Topics : Livestock." Retrieved

June/July &January, 2006& 2007, from http://www.tanzania.go.tz/livestockf.html. United Republic of Tanzania. (2006). "Department of Pastoral Systems Development." from

www.mifugo.go.tz. Upreti, B. R. (2001). Conflict management in natural resources : a study of land, water and forest

conflicts in Nepal. PhD thesis Wageningen University; Summaries in Dutch and English. Wageningen, Wageningen University: 195.

Urit, M. (2001). "Land Surveyors Bill goes against NCR lands." Sarawak News Retrieved 28January, 2007, from http://www.rengah.c2o.org/news/article.php?identifer=de0331t.

URT (2002). 2002 Population and Housing Census General Report. T. B. o. Statistics, President Office Planning and Privatization.

URT:DHS (1997). Tanzania Demographic and Health Survey 1996. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania Bureau of Statistics and Calverton, MD: Tanzania Bureau of Statistics Planning Commission and Macro International.


79

Vajjhala, S. P. (2005). Integrating GIS and Participatory Mapping in Community Development Planning. ESRI International User Conference,Sustainable Development and Humanitarian Affairs Track. San Diego,CA.

Veltheim, T. and M. Kijazi (2002). Participatory Forest Management in East Usambara. Technical Paper No.61. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Helsinki, Finland, Forestry and Beekeeping Division and Metsahallitus Consulting

Vera, F. W. M. (2000). Grazing ecology and forest history. Wallinford, etc., CABI. Verplanke, J. J. (2001). Analysis and Management of Spatial Conflicts:A Reader on the Principles of

Conflict Social Sciences Division: ITC. Verplanke, J. J. and M. K. McCall (2003). "Boundary dispute settlement using mobile GIS." In:

Proceedings of the 23nd annual ESRI International User Conference : San Diego, July 7â�“11, 2003. 10 p.

Walker, G. B. and S. E. Daniels (1997). Foundation of Natural Resource Conflict: Conflict Theory and Public Policy. Conflict Management and Public Participation in Land Management. B. Solberg and S. Miina, European Forest Institute. SETF Proceedings No. 14.

Warner, M. (2000). Conflict Management in Community-Based Natural Resources Projects: Experiences from Fiji and Papua New Guinea. Stag Place, UK, Overseas Development Institute

Warner, M. and P. Jones (1998) "Assessing the Need to Manage Conflict in Community-Based Natural Resources Projects." Natural Resource perspectives , Volume, DOI:

Waters-Bayer, A. and W. Bayer (1994). Planning with pastoralists : PRA and more : a review of methods focused on Africa. Eschborn, Deutsche Gesellschaft fÃ¼r Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ).

Wily, L. A. (1995). Moving Forward in African Community Forestry: Establishing the First Village owned and Managed Forest Reserve Duru-Haitemba, Tanzania.

Wily, L. A. (1997). Finding the Right Institutional and Legal Framework for Community-Based Natural Forest Management: The Tanzanian Case. Jakarta, Indonesia, Center for International Forestry Research.

Wily, L. A. (1997). Villagers as Forest Managers and Governments 'learning to let go' :The case of Duru-Haitemba and Mgori Forests in Tanzania. London, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).

Wily, L. A. (2001). Forest Management and Democracy in East and Southern Africa : Lessons from Tanzania. London, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).

Wily, L. A. and P. A. Dewees (2001). From Users to Custodians: Changing Relations between People and the State in Forest Management in Tanzania :World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 2569 Washington DC: World Bank Environment and Social Development Unit, Africa Region. .

Wily, L. A. and S. Mbaya (2001). Land, people and forests in eastern and southern Africa at the beginning of the 21st century. Nairobi, IUCN : EARO.

World-Bank (1996). World Bank participation sourcebook. Washington, D.C., The World Bank. Yasmi, Y., H. Schanz, et al. (2006). "Manifestation of conflict escalation in natural resource

management." Environmental Science & Policy 9(6): 538-546. Zartman, I. W. (1997). Governance as Conflict Management: Politics and Violence in West Africa,

Washington, D.C, Brookings Institution Press.


80

Appendix

Appendix 1: Checklist and Questionnaires Household Interview on Grazing Resources: Uses, Conflict, and Interaction. Purpose: this survey is intended to be used for studying the potentials of PGIS in identifying grazing related conflicts and examining extent to which PGIS effective tool in examining conflict, identifying grazing areas as well as analysis of pastoralists access and uses interaction. Village/Hamlet name …………………………………………………….. Date of interview ……………………………………………………. Interview number …………………………………………………… A. General Household Characteristics and Occupation

Type of the household

Male headed Female headed Child headed

Occupation

Livestock keeping i.e. agro pastoralist or pastoralist Farming Others ( please mention)

Level of Education Please mention If farming, what kind of farming Cash crops (mention specific crops)

Food crops (mention specific crops) How big is your farm area (Mention specific size)

Ownership of the farmland Family owned

Communal Land lord

Why such kind of ownership

Give reasons

If livestock keeping what kind of cattle? Cow Goat Sheep Donkey Others (please specify)

How many livestock do you own? (Mention specific number: Number in heads

B. Means of Grazing, Conflicts and Parties involved Grazing areas -private Communal

Mention please

What are their sizes Less than 1ha (mention specific size) 1-3 ha 4-6 ha 7-10 ha More than 10 ha (mention specific size)

Means of grazing Free range Zero grazing Others (please specify)


81

If free range where do you graze Private grazing land Communal grazing land Forests Farm areas

If zero grazing from where do you get fodders Private grazing land Communal grazing land Forests Farm areas

Where do you graze throughout the year January- May (separate in seasons) June – December

Why do you graze where you mentioned in question 7

Please give reasons

Do you have communal grazing land/ area? 8b) If Yes why? 8c) If No why?

Yes No

Access to forest for grazing land before CBFM Please give brief explanation Access to forest for grazing land after CBFM Please give brief explanation Have there been changes in land uses Yes

No ( From grazing to other uses and vice versa)

If Yes; a)Why (b) where?

Give reasons ( Indicate during mapping and transects)

If No; Why? Give reasons

How is it done? Participatory Not participatory( For forest and other conserved areas)

How is the land uses conversion/ changes affect grazing areas

Increase in grazing land Decrease in grazing land

Are there any conflict Yes No

What are the conflicts about? Please specify (Land uses, boundaries, resource uses)

Who are involved Mention involved parties; specific Where are the conflicting areas and reasons as to why there?

Mention and ( Indicate during mapping and transects)

How was the situation of conflict before CBFM and conservation

Brief explanation

How is the situation of conflict after CBFM and other conservation

Brief explanation

Conflict varying in dry and rain seasons? Please specify What are control mechanisms towards conflict/disputes(Do you see any solution(s) about the conflicts

C. Grazing Related Conflicts (Applicable to Village authority&District Forest department

Are there reported disputes/cases over grazing where it is not allowed

Who are involved in the disputes?

How often are the cases occur(In relation to dry and rain season)

Separate answers per season

What is the total size of land in the village, land under forest mgt and other land uses especially grazing


82

How do pastoralists from different village access and use forest and other grazing resources

Evaluation Questions on the role of PGIS (Community Mapping)

Responses before the mapping

Responses After the mapping

Role of PGIS

Yes No Yes No PGIS as a tool facilitate comprehensive discussion among community members

PGIS useful to identify grazing areas/resources Analysis of grazing resources uses and access PGIS helps in identifying conflict areas in Participatory manner

Indicate how yes or no by using agreement/likert scale

Thank you for your cooperation


83

Appendix 2: Conservation Directives and Part of Villages bylaws, 2002 and 2003


84

Appendix 3: Certification of village bylaws by Village Executive Officers, Chairpersons and District Authority

Appendix 4: Letter for Meeting on Boundary Conflict between Hoshan and Endagwe villages, 2006


85

Appendix 5: Observation Points

Observation Points Grazing Related Conflict Functional Waterpoints

Roads and Junctions

X Y X Y X Y 795591 9525276 794971 9523835 788256 9520264 795587 9525300 795502 9525299 789412 9519650 794917 9525791 796156 9525666 803643 9519085 794990 9523782 793476 9524701 799179 9520598 795586 9525300 797677 9526222 793243 9511281 795502 9525299 797665 9526250 794188 9524439 796147 9525685 793154 9524038 794089 9524456 793476 9524701 796717 9521517 793972 9524470 793598 9524788 796974 9521167 793436 9524740 793968 9524896 798099 9519367 793457 9524716 794864 9525232 798163 9519389 795465 9524751 797460 9525621 798174 9519415 796092 9524959 797467 9525665 797961 9519169 796395 9525073 797751 9525733 798005 9519000 797229 9525995 793291 9523888 787745 9521352 797001 9525587 794223 9523072 Dried Waterpoints 796789 9525310 797595 9525906 X Y 794530 9524496 796336 9522792 794854 9525114 794514 9524487 797384 9520293 794910 9525101 794357 9524395 797401 9520193 796156 9525666 797287 9522381 798186 9529400 797692 9526229 797791 9519759 796518 9526054 797564 9525970 797864 9519919 796554 9525871 796932 9521123 797814 9520284 797137 9527375 789115 9524618 797537 9520868 797336 9527866 787401 9518480 798068 9519159 797538 9527916 787848 9519980 798104 9519099 797583 9528227 787318 9521795 798095 9518883 797446 9528418 795011 9524685 798005 9518493

797432 9528986 Cattle tracks 797776 9517902

799007 9523712 X Y 792223 9517099 796497 9521044 794917 9525791 800804 9524388 796440 9521057 795485 9525283 800714 9524121 796264 9521050 796147 9525685 800394 9522989 796153 9521038 796082 9525049 789553 9523818 796395 9521397 793476 9524701 789635 9523531 796846 9521466 793598 9524788 789975 9523248 788524 9523184 793717 9524851 788434 9515274 788857 9523371 794213 9525094 788785 9520099 789096 9523431 797460 9525621 788252 9520264 789110 9523455 797467 9525665 788211 9520830


86

Appendix 6: Photos Related to Method, Grazing Resources and Impact of Grazing

Grazing Resources


87

Grazing in the Forest and Conserved Areas

Participatory GIS in Mapping Local Context of Conflicts ... · Christina Geoffrey Mandara February,...

Documents

Transcript of Participatory GIS in Mapping Local Context of Conflicts ... · Christina Geoffrey Mandara February,...