Saumu Book 2

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................ 1

LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................... 5

LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................... 6

LIST OF PLATES ...................................................................................... 8

LIST OF ACRONYMS .............................................................................. 9

CHAPTER ONE ...................................................................................... 10

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 10

1.1: Background to the Problem ............................................................ 10

1.3: Research objectives........................................................................ 15

1.3.1: General Objective ................................................................... 15

1.3.2: Specific Objectives ................................................................. 15

1.4: Research questions. ........................................................................ 16

1.5: Significance of the study. ............................................................... 16

1.6: Conceptual framework. .................................................................. 17

CHAPTER TWO ...................................................................................... 20

LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................... 20

2.1: Introduction. .................................................................................. 20

2.2: Historical Background of Urban Livestock Keeping. ..................... 20

2.3: Factors for the Rise of Livestock Keeping in Urban Areas. ............ 21

2.4: Environmental Implications of Urban Livestock Keeping .............. 26

2.5: Potential Hazards to Public Health ................................................. 28

2.6: Importance of Urban Livestock Keeping. ...................................... 29

2.7: Policy and Legal Aspect of Urban Agriculture. .............................. 31

2.7.1 Policy Drives Urban Agriculture in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and

1990s. ............................................................................................... 31

2.7.2: Institutional and policy framework for urban agriculture ......... 32

2.7.3: Municipal by-Laws ................................................................. 33

2.7.4: Tanzania Local Government Act of 1982. ............................... 34

CHAPTER THREE .................................................................................. 37

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .............................................................. 37

3.1: Introduction. .................................................................................. 37

3.2: Description of the study area. ......................................................... 37

3.3: Type and sources of data ................................................................ 38

3.4: Sampling techniques and sample size used ..................................... 39

3.5: Data collection tools. ..................................................................... 41

3.5.1: Questionnaire administration. .................................................. 41

3.5.2: Observations. .......................................................................... 41

3.5.3: Person to person Interview. ..................................................... 41

3.5.4: Rating scale............................................................................. 42

3.5.5: Content analysis. ..................................................................... 42

3.6: Data Analysis and Presentation. .................................................... 43

2

CHAPTER FOUR .................................................................................... 44

STUDY FINDINGS ................................................................................. 44

4.1: Introduction ................................................................................... 44

4.2: Socio-economic characteristics of urban livestock keepers in

Morogoro municipality and the related by-laws requirements. ............ 44

4.2.1: Education level of the selected urban livestock keepers in

Morogoro municipality ..................................................................... 45

4.2.2: Occupation of the selected urban livestock keepers in Morogoro

municipality ...................................................................................... 47

4.2.3: Livestock species kept. ............................................................ 48

4.2.4: Plot size. ................................................................................. 50

4.2.5: Livestock keeping and feeding system..................................... 51

4.2.6: Labour utilization for livestock management. .......................... 53

4.3: Attitude of Morogoro urban livestock keepers towards the Morogoro

municipal animals‟ by-laws (MMAB). .................................................. 54

4.3.1: Necessity of having urban livestock keeping permit. ............... 56

4.3.2: Implementation and regulation of the MMAB. ........................ 57

4.4: The influence of the Morogoro municipal animals‟ by- laws on the

location of the established livestock enterprises and management of

municipal environment. ........................................................................ 59

4.5: Analysis of the Morogoro Municipal Animal By-Laws .................. 62

4.5.1: Animal definition. ................................................................... 62

4.5.2: Legal actions for violators of the municipal animals‟ by-laws.. 62

4.5.3: Accountability of by-laws implementers and routine inspection.

......................................................................................................... 64

CHAPTER FIVE ...................................................................................... 65

DISCUSSION AND INTERPRETATION OF STUDY FINDINGS ......... 65

5.1: Introduction ................................................................................... 65


Morogoro municipality and the related by-laws requirements. ............ 65

5.2.1: Sex and age of the selected urban livestock keepers in Morogoro

municipality. ..................................................................................... 66


Morogoro municipality ..................................................................... 66


municipality ...................................................................................... 67

5.2.4: Plot size and livestock species kept ......................................... 68

5.2.5: Livestock keeping and feeding system..................................... 69

5.2.6: Labour utilization for livestock management. .......................... 70

5.3: Attitude of Morogoro urban livestock keepers towards the Morogoro

municipal animals‟ by-laws (MMAB). .................................................. 71

5.3.1 Importance of the MMAB. ...................................................... 71

5.3.2 Necessity of having urban livestock keeping permit. ................ 72

5.3.3 Implementation and regulation of the MMAB. ......................... 73

3

5.4: The influence of the Morogoro municipal animals‟ by- laws on the

location of the established livestock enterprises and management of

municipal environment. ........................................................................ 74

5.4.1 Location of Morogoro urban livestock keeping enterprises ....... 75

5.4.2 Environmental management ..................................................... 76

5.5: The Morogoro municipal council (animals in urban areas)

(amendment) by-laws, 2002 analysis. ................................................... 78

5.5.1. Animal definition. ................................................................... 78

5.5.2 Legal actions for violators of the municipal animal‟s by-laws. .. 79

5.5.3 Accountability of by-laws implementers and routine inspection.

......................................................................................................... 80

5.5.4 Correspondence of the Morogoro municipal animal by-laws to the

National environmental management act of 2004. ............................. 81

CHAPTER SIX ........................................................................................ 86

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................. 86

6.1 Introduction. ................................................................................... 86

6.2 Summary and conclusion ................................................................ 86

6.3 Recommendations. .......................................................................... 88

REFERENCES ......................................................................................... 90

APPENDIX .............................................................................................. 98

4

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

With genuine humility, I firstly acknowledge your aid oo God (Allah).

Without your grace and love, this work would not have been possible.

I would also like to sincerely thank all those who helped me to make this

work a success. I wish to acknowledge the valuable contributions,

comments and suggestions of my supervisor Dr. C. J, Sawio of the

Department of Geography at the University of Dar es salaam. The

encouragement, advice and guidance he offered throughout the period of the

preparation and completion of this dissertation made the work to be of

success.

Further more, I thank all members of staff in the department of geography.

Likewise special thanks should go to the Morogoro municipal officers from

agriculture and livestock department for their valuable assistance in

obtaining pertinent data.

This acknowledgement would be incomplete without mentioning my family,

which endured my absence for all the time of my study especially my

beloved husband Jamal and our two kids Nuria and Haarith.I appreciated

their love, support, inspiration, sacrifice and understanding.

5

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: The determinant variables for proper management of urban

livestock keeping……………………………………………...10

6

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Percent of population living in urban areas, by

region…………………………………………………….14

Table 3.2: Distribution of sampled Morogoro urban livestock keepers

………………………………………………………........30

Table 3.3: Depicts selected Morogoro municipal

officials………………………………………………………31

Table 4.1: Sex and age distribution of urban livestock keepers

………………………………………………………………36

Table 4.2: Education level distribution of urban livestock keepers

…………………………………………………… ………37

Table 4.3: Occupation distribution of urban livestock keepers

……………………………………………………………..39

Table 4.4: Distribution of livestock species………………………40

Table 4.5: Plot size distribution……………………………………42

Table 4.6: Livestock keeping systems…………………………......44

Table 4.7: Labour utilization distribution………………………….45

Table 4.8: Perception of urban livestock keepers on the importance of

animal‟s by-laws…………………………………………47

Table 4.9: Response of urban livestock keepers on the necessity of having

permit ……………………………………………………..48

7

Table 4.10: Response of urban livestock keepers on the implementation of

municipal animal‟s by-laws……………………………….49

Table 4.11: Response of urban livestock keepers on necessity of having

dialogue between implementers and urban livestock

keepers……………………………………………………50

Table 4.12: Extent to which the implementation of by-laws helped

environmental management……………………………….55

Table 4.13: Response of urban livestock keepers on number of penalties

applied against them…………………………………………..55

Table 4.14: Response of urban livestock keepers on how often the municipal

livestock officers went for inspection……………… …………..56

8

LIST OF PLATES

Plate 1: Urban livestock keeping barns are normally located at the

backyard……………………………………………………………41

Plate 2: Free ranging and zero grazing(tethering) practice in Kichangani

ward ………………………………………………………………42

Plate 3: Free ranging practice in Sabasaba ward………………………….43

Plate 4: Zero grazing practice for diary cattle in Boma ward……………..44

Plate 5: Animals (goats) grazed along Mororgoro river in Sabasaba ward

despite of the by-laws……………………………………………...52

9

LIST OF ACRONYMS

ASF African swine fever

BSE Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy

CIPP Context, Input, Process and Product

CBO Community Based Organization

FAO UN Food and Agriculture Organization

GDP Gross Domestic Product.

IDRC International Development Research Centre

NGO Non Governmental Organization

NESP National Economic Survival Programme

NLP National livestock Policy

NAP National Agriculture Policy

MMAP Morogoro Municipal animal by-laws

NEMA National Environmental Management Act,2004

RUAF Resource centre on Urban Agriculture and Forestry.

SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences

URT United Republic of Tanzania.

UNDP United Nation Development Programme.

UN United Nations.

UA Urban Agriculture.

10

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1: Background to the Problem

Urban livestock keeping has historically been part and parcel of informal

economic activities for urban dwellers. With a poor economy in the 1970s

and 1980s, and because the majority of the people were facing famine and

food shortages, the government of Tanzania issued policies to encourage

people to undertake urban agriculture including livestock keeping. Urban

dwellers were thus thought to be able to attain food self-sufficiency (Mlozi,

2001). The government and political leaders supported urban dwellers to

raise livestock and grow food crops in their backyards and on other open

spaces (Mlozi 2001).

The first urban by-laws regulating the growing of crops and raising of

livestock in urban centers according to Mlozi (2001) were enacted already

by the British colonial authorities in 1928, under Rule 16 CAP101 (By-laws

for Regulation of Cultivation and Keeping of Animals in Urban Areas.

These colonial by-laws intended to prohibit people of African descent from

growing crops and raising livestock in urban areas. In general, those by-

laws were meant to prevent urban agricultural activities, especially the

growing crops taller than one meter, because they were thought to increase

the presence of malaria-carrying mosquitoes (Mlozi, 2001).

11

After independence in 1961, most of these by-laws fell into disuse (Mlozi,

2003). The independent government of Tanzania started to enact policies to

encourage both urban crop cultivation and livestock keeping. These policies

according to Urban Agriculture magazine (2004), included Siasa ni Kilimo

(“Politics is agriculture”) in 1972, Kilimo cha Kufa na Kupona (“Agriculture

for life and death”) in 1974/75 when famine was biting hard. Others were

the National Economic Survival Programme (NESP) of 1981/82, the

National Food Strategy of 1982, the National Livestock Policy (NLP) and

the National Agricultural Policy (NAP) of 1983.

In the early 1980‟s, these government policies that encouraged urban

livestock keeping, started to have a negative effect on the operations of

many urban councils and the physical urban environment, and it became

obvious that the existing municipal by-laws regarding urban farming needed

to be revised. Specific bye-laws to forbid town or urban livestock keeping

and cultivation of certain crops like maize in designated areas were

established. Penalties for violating these by-laws were clearly laid out

(Mlozi 2001).

In response to these problems, the Tanzania local governments in 1983,

were given duty to control the keeping of animals in their area of

jurisdiction (Lupanga, 1990). According to the local government (Urban

12

Authorities Act) of 1982, “districts councils, township and urban authorities

shall have power to prescribe steps to be taken by livestock keepers”.

More recently, the Agricultural and Livestock Policy of 1997 observes, on

the one hand, that agriculture is not a principle function of towns but, on the

other hand, when properly organized it has the potential to provide

employment and income and is a complementary source of food supply

(Kitilla 2001: 79). The positive attitude of the national government towards

urban agriculture was once more expressed in the National Human

Settlement Development Policy of 2000 put forward by the Ministry of

Lands and Human Settlement Development (URT 2000).

This implies that there is outright recognition that urban agriculture is an

important economic sector in terms of food supply and employment and is

therefore an important source of livelihood for many urbanites. Moreover,

the potentially positive contribution of urban agriculture to a better urban

environment is also recognized. However, the Ministry of Lands and Human

Settlement Development also signaled the potential dangers of the practice.

Although urban agriculture is considered an important component in

sustainable urban development, improperly practiced urban agriculture

conflicts with other urban land uses and leads to land degradation, water

pollution, and is a threat to health and safety (Mlozi in UA magazine,2003).

13

Therefore, in the same document (URT, 2000), the government sets a

number of policy goals which includes; designing special areas within

planned areas whereby people will be granted legal rights to engage in urban

agricultural activities; continuing to regulate and research the conduct of

urban agriculture, and to ensuring that it does not disrupt planned urban

development. Other goals include reviewing existing urban bye-laws to

facilitate planned urban agriculture and also to facilitate the construction of

appropriate infrastructure to mitigate and prevent environmental degradation

resulting from the practice of urban agriculture.

Since the 1990s, attempts have been made to control urban agriculture

especially livestock keeping. For instance, in the Urban Farming

Regulations of 1992, guidelines were laid down on, amongst others,

maximum plot size, number of cattle, and rearing system for livestock

(Kitilla 2001). In response to Tanzania‟s local government (Urban

Authorities) act of 1982 (Number 8 of 1982, made under section 80), the

Morogoro municipality formulated her by-laws which have overtime been

amended. The amendments were done in 1995, 1999, and 2002 and were

aimed at ensuring the safety of the environment and people‟s health.

However in Morogoro municipality, livestock of different types are still

seen grazing freely in some areas and number of livestock involved seems to

exceed the required limit. This study therefore set out to assess the

14

effectiveness of municipal animal‟s by-laws in managing urban livestock

keeping in Morogoro municipality.

1.2: Statement of the research problem.

Despite all the promising benefits of urban livestock keeping for economic

improvement in terms of urban food security, especially among the poor

urban dwellers, the increased number of livestock and problems associated

with it has some implications to the human well being and physical

environment. Animals can create problems such as smell, risk of disease,

pollution of waterways; quarrels between neighbors when they invade and

damage gardens and so on. With inadequate urban waste collection and

recycling procedures, the result is usually degradation of the urban

environment.

In Tanzanian urban areas such as in Morogoro Municipality, urban livestock

keeping is rapidly growing as a response to the increase in urbanization,

decline in economy and the introduction of free market trade. A lot of

research has been carried out to investigate the impacts of livestock keeping

in urban environment and perhaps some interventions have been done with

the aim of finding practical solution in improving urban environment

management. Lupanga (1990) showed that most of these urban livestock

keepers are aware of the environmental impacts of livestock keeping in

urban areas.

15

On that account, cities and towns were forced to devise by-laws to guide

urban livestock keeping in the context of environment management and

human health. It is about thirteen years now since the Morogoro municipal

council formulated her by-laws responsible for guiding animal keeping, yet

no research has been conducted to assess the effectiveness of these by-laws

in managing urban livestock keeping and improving municipal environment

in that regard. This research aimed at addressing this research gap..

1.3: Research objectives

1.3.1: General Objective

The general objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of

municipal by-laws in managing urban livestock keeping in Morogoro

municipality.

1.3.2: Specific Objectives

The specific objectives that guided this study are as follows:

To identify the characteristics of urban livestock keepers of the

Morogoro municipality in relation to the municipal animals by-laws

requirements.

To find out the attitude of Morogoro urban livestock keepers towards the

Morogoro municipal animals by-laws.

16

To examine the influence of the Morogoro municipal animals‟ by- laws

on the location of the established livestock enterprises and management

of municipal environment.

To make a content analysis or evaluation of the Morogoro municipal

animals‟ by–laws if it covers all areas necessary for environmental

management.

1.4: Research questions.

The following research questions were formulated to guide this study.

(i) What are the characteristics of urban livestock keepers of the

Morogoro municipality in relation to the municipal animal by-laws

requirements?

(ii) What is the attitude of Morogoro urban livestock keepers towards

municipal livestock by-laws?

(iii) What has been the influence of the Morogoro municipal animals‟

by-laws on the location of established livestock enterprises and

management of municipal environment?

(iv) Do the by-laws (the document) cover all areas necessary for ensuing

environmental management?

1.5: Significance of the study.

The research intended to generate knowledge to contribute to the growing

literature on urban livestock keeping. Considering that there is rapid

17

urbanization in developing countries, it was hoped that this would help

whoever comes across with it to be aware of the role of urban livestock

keeping, policies and by-laws which are involved in the management of

urban livestock keeping and urban environment in general.

It aimed at raising interest on the need of policy makers, urban planners and

other local government authorities to review various urban policies and by-

laws for developing urban livestock keeping in the context of sustainable

urban development and environmental management.

1.6: Conceptual framework.

Figure 1 is a proposed conceptual framework for assessing the effectiveness

of municipal by-laws in managing urban livestock keeping. The model

adopted from (Context, Input, Process and Product) CIPP Evaluation Model

developed by Stufflebeam since 1983. It contains four groups of variables,

that is, context (A), input (B), process(C) and product (D).

In this study, Context (A) assessment encompasses the evaluation of the

surrounding conditions under which Morogoro municipality animal by-laws

takes place. Urban livestock keeping is influenced by the conditions such as

social cultural, economic strength, literacy level, political legal setting, and

employment level of the community, urbanization and free market economy.

18

Input (B) variables in the assessment of the effectiveness of the Morogoro

municipality animal by-laws include effort, information or advice that is

provided in support of the by-laws. From the model, variables such as

awareness of urban livestock keepers, attitudes towards the by-laws,

leadership skills, style and their education level, government , NGO‟s and

CBOs‟ support and completeness of the by-laws play a vital role in

developing urban livestock keeping either with positive or negative

outcomes.

Assessment of Process (C) variables involves a connected set of human

actions or operations performed intentionally to implement animal by-laws.

That being the case, legal action and strategies used to enforce municipal

animals by-laws are the operations that are expected to provide positive

result ie proper management of urban livestock keeping and the urban

environment.

Product (D) evaluation is the net effect of the combination of context, input

and process evaluation. Context (conditions) variables, input variables and

process (operations) variables are expected to result into product variable,

that is, the effectiveness of the municipal by-laws in managing urban

livestock keeping and the environment of the Morogoro municipality to

ensure both urban environment management and improved human health are

attained.

19

Social cultural setting by

which the bye- laws functions

Economic strength -income

per capital of Morogoro

community

literacy level of the

community

Politico-Legal setting

Urbanization

Employment level

market economy

(A)

awareness of urban

livestock keepers towards

the bye-laws

Leadership skills, styles

and education level

livestock keeper‟s attitude

towards municipal animals

by laws

Government , NGOs &

CBOs support

Completeness of the bye laws

(B)

Legal processes to ensure

enforcement of municipal

by-laws.

Strategies used to enforce

municipal by-laws.

(C )

effectiveness of municipal

by-laws in managing urban

livestock keeping and the

environment

(D)

Source: Modified from a CIPP Evaluation Model

Figure 1: The determinant variables for proper management of urban

livestock keeping.

Source: Adapted from Evaluation Model developed by Stufflebeam (1983)

20

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1: Introduction.

The link between urbanization, economy and environmental degradation is

complex. The description and analysis of livestock keeping in urban areas

has different arguments explaining the rise, importance and its related policy

and legal aspects. This chapter gives a review of literature related to the rise,

importance and legal aspects of urban livestock keeping.

2.2: Historical Background of Urban Livestock Keeping.

Urban Agriculture (UA) is a new and ancient aspect of urban landscapes,

economies and lifestyles. Mougeot (1999) define it as an industry located

within (intra-urban) or on the fringe (peri-urban) of a town, an urban centre,

a city or metropolis, which grows or raises, processes and distributes a

diversity of food and non-food products, reusing mainly human and material

resources, products and services found in and around that urban area, and in

turn supplying human and material resources, products and services largely

to that urban area.

It has existed in various forms and places for a long time. It was practiced

in the Aztec and Mayan civilizations and in prehistoric Jericho (FAO,

2001:1). More recently, it has been banned in some modern cities, but

21

continues to emerge in others. Lately, it even seems to be growing in

importance and scope (FAO, 2001:1).

The rising of urban livestock has often been part and parcel of urban

agriculture, presenting its own specific problems and opportunities. As with

all branches of urban agriculture, however, livestock keeping now seems to

be recognized for the positive role that it can play in urban living conditions

across the world (RUAF, 2000; Bakker et al., 2000; FAO, 2001). Urban

livestock production has a variable and controversial, but often essential role

to play in and around cities. (FAO, 2001)

Urban livestock keeping today is on the increase. This is a reality among the

urban poor and generally, there are few institutions representing the needs of

resource-poor, urban livestock keepers (Richards and Godfrey, 2003)

2.3: Factors for the Rise of Livestock Keeping in Urban Areas.

Several factors have brought attention to the existence of urban agriculture

and specifically urban livestock keeping in recent years. The persistent

problems of the poor and especially the worsening conditions of the urban

poor are a concern. Other factors include; increasing urbanization especially

in the developing world; the movement for community sustainability in the

sense of self-contained food systems; recognition of non-market values

produced by enjoyment of urban gardening and attractive surroundings; and

22

concerns about environmental pollution and health risks posed by food

production in the cities (FAO, 2001).

Urban agriculture exists in most urban areas in both the developed and

developing Countries. Evidence from records shows that urban and peri-

urban agriculture (UPA) contributed for example an estimated two percent

of the city GDP in Shanghai, China; and four percent in Lima, Peru; in the

latter part of the 1990s (Urban Agriculture Magazine,2004)

It has been estimated that the number of people obtaining part of their food

from Urban and peri-urban agriculture in six Eastern and Southern African

countries will rise from about 25 million to 40 million by 2020. It is thought

that globally, UA now produces 15 percent of all food consumed in urban

areas, and that this percentage is likely to double within twenty years (Urban

Agriculture Magazine,2004).

Urban and peri-urban agriculture is cited as a possible solution to several

worrisome trends. Foremost is the phenomenal growth expected in third

world cities in the next few decades. In 2000, 50 percent of the world's

population lived in cities. That number according to UN (1994) will grow to

65 percent by 2025. The fastest population growth is in the large cities of the

developing world, even as urbanization has slowed or reversed in some

23

North American and European cities. Today, globally the population living

in urban areas is 3.3 billion (UNEPA, 2007).

Third World countries like Latin America have the highest proportion of

city dwellers, followed by Asia and Africa. However, the rate of urban

growth is higher in Africa (where cities are growing at a rate of 4.4 percent

per year) and Asia (where growth is 3.7 percent per year) than elsewhere.

(See Table 2.1)

Table2.1: Percent of Population Living in Urban Areas, by Region

Region 1970 1995 2025

(projection)

Less Developed 25.1 37.0 57.0

Africa 23.0 34.4 53.8

Asia (excl. Japan) 21.0 34.6 54.0

Latin America 57.4 73.7 84.7

Oceania (Excl. Australia, N.Z.) 18.0 24.0 40.0

More Developed 67.5 74.7 84.0

Australia-New Zealand 84.4 84.9 89.1

Europe 64.4 73.3 83.2

Japan 71.2 77.5 84.9

North America 73.8 76.1 84.8

Source: UN, World Urbanization Prospects, 1994.

Food needs are growing in developing country‟s cities concurrently with a

declining ability to satisfy those needs. Rapid population growth is

combined with deteriorating macroeconomic and social circumstances in

many developing country‟s cities then leading to conditions that contribute

to increase in the practice of urban agriculture.

Again studies have established that urban livestock keeping benefits the

urban poor and provides a way of diversifying livelihood activities that are

24

accessible to vulnerable groups, as well as providing a source of locally

produced food products for people living near the livestock keepers

(Richards&Godfrey, 2003).

Statistics cited each year in the UN's Human Development Report (1994)

demonstrate the growing gap between the rich and the poor in the world;

there is a sharp rise in frequency and severity of disasters, and declining

food security in many developing countries even compared to many years

ago.

Additional factors contributing to this phenomenon of urban livestock

keeping include a decline in the real wages of urban workers, less stability

and security in formal sector employment, blurring of the distinction

between formal and informal sectors, the narrowing income gap between

rural and urban dwellers, and accelerated migration from rural to urban

areas.

The contribution of urban agriculture to food security, defined as having a

certain supply of food available and accessible at all times, appears to be

substantial in many developing world cities.

Mougeot (1994) claimed that globally there were 200 million urban farmers

in the world who supply food to 700 million people, or about 12% of the

world's population. Sawio, (1996) observed that, there has been a marked

growth of urban agriculture particularly in the newly independent countries

but generally both in the world„s wealthiest and poorest nations. It is now

25

becoming a large industry consisting mainly of small scale food crop

producers and livestock keepers. In some countries like Japan, China, Papua

New Guinea and the Philippines, urban farmers are given government

protection and encouraged through land use and tax concessions (Lado,

1990).

In most African countries urban agriculture began as an informal economic

activity to subsidize urbanites incomes and food. In Dar es salaam city

livestock keeping has been practiced by people of all statues (Sawio, 1996).

It is generally perceived that in Dar es salaam city urban agriculture is

becoming an important and clear survival strategy for the urban poor(the

jobless, low income dwellers in squatters, poor women and youth).Therefore

livestock keeping has emerged as an important economic activity being

acknowledged by its contribution to urbanite‟s economy (Mlozi,1995).

As any other informal economic activity, urban agriculture began as a

subsistence activity. Mlozi (1996) showed that, in Africa urban agriculture

can be seen as people‟s initiatives to cope with an economic crisis while the

government is struggling to carry out its structural adjustment programs.

The effect of rapid population growth has therefore increased the absolute

number of proportion of workers in the informal sector.

It can be hypothesized that urban agriculture and urban livestock keeping

originated from several complementary factors, including; the availability of

a choice of high-quality feeds such as by-products of the food processing

26

industry (bran, oilseed cakes), hotel refuse and kitchen waste. These feeds

may be available in a scattered fashion in the countryside, but in the city

they can profitably be combined into nutritionally and economically more

optimal ratios for urban livestock feeds. Another factor is strong local

demand for food and power from animals, often resulting from the presence

of wealthy consumers (FAO, 2000).

The moderately wealthy population tends to consist of a poor and a rich

sector. The rich, in particular, verge towards increased consumption of food

from animal origin. The presence of significant proportions of poor people

and wealthy investors, both of whom find an extra source of food security

and/or income through the keeping of animals is another factor for the rise

of urban livestock keeping (FAO,2001 ).

2.4: Environmental Implications of Urban Livestock Keeping

The emergence of informal sectors as a response to poverty and urbanisation

has largely been associated with urban environmental problems (Lugalla,

1990).Among the recent global population dynamics, rapid urbanization is

the most profound. It is postulated that the large and growing population of

any country should be viewed positively as a resource for development but

whether this is positive or negative it does necessitate increasing food and

energy production. As observed by Mumba, (1999), the process of

urbanisation concentrates people and puts heavy demands on the supply of

27

basic necessities like food, energy, water and shelter. One of the notable

effects of urbanization in developing counties according to Mumba, (1999)

is the number of people occupying environmental hazardous areas which are

severe to the extent of threatening the lives of the majority poor urban

dwellers. This is because the rate of urbanization is being perceived as

unsustainable especially where environmental resources are over exploited.

Pollution is a major problem in urban areas of Tanzania. Improper treatment

and disposal of solid and liquid wastes is a major contributor to pollution of

urban areas (Lerise, Lupala et al 2004). The combined result of

inappropriate urban livestock keeping is that both air and water become

contaminated with pollutants, which is detrimental to human health.

Pollution from animal production is caused by a range of factors, some of

which are poorly specified and based on conjecture or local observations.

Potential problems with dung and urine disposal are obvious; flies breeding

on animal and vegetable waste may transmit food-borne diseases, such as

diarrhea (FAO, 2001).

Problems arising from wastewater and rejected meat from abattoirs

(slaughterhouses) are less obvious to most of the general public. When the

building construction is adequate, there is proper meat inspection and strict

removal and destruction of rejected carcasses; abattoirs do not pose a risk

for human health.

28

2.5: Potential Hazards to Public Health

Potential hazards to public health as a result of poor management of urban

livestock range from poor hygiene, caused by the presence of dung, flies,

parasites and zoonoses, to the difficulty of controlling product quality when

food from animal origin is used directly by consumers. For example,

livestock keeping without a proper sewage system may favour mosquitoes

that transmit malaria and some important viral diseases, such as yellow

fever, dengue, Rift Valley Fever and West Nile virus (FAO, 2001).

Zoonoses are diseases that affect both humans and animals. They are more

likely to spread when hygienic conditions are poor. For example;

commercial forms of livestock keeping in urban areas are particularly

susceptible to the multiplication of rodents because these systems require

the storage of animal foodstuffs.

A study on zoonoses in a slum setting in Nairobi, conducted by Prof. Njenga

Munene and Dr. James Wabacha (2006) showed significant cattle carcass

condemnation due to: hydatidosis with an average of 1700 cases yearly

between 2000 and 2003 and by cystercus bovis with an average of 260

condemnations for the same period. Similarly in sheep and goats,

hydatidosis was the biggest cause of condemnation with an average of 600

and 850 cases respectively, for the same period. The aforementioned

zoonoses study in Nairobi showed that urban households keeping pigs,

29

sheep, goats and dogs, with few exceptions, allow them to roam freely

threatening the outbreak of zoonoses.

2.6: Importance of Urban Livestock Keeping.

Urban livestock keeping provides economic, recreational and ecological

values to city residents. Urban livestock keeping is estimated to provide

direct earnings for 100 million people globally (Helmore and Ratta, 1995).

A major benefit in many poor countries is that it provides actual or in-kind

income through work opportunities, rather than a program dependent on

subsidies or government budgets.

According to RUAF (2000), the positive and negative impacts of urban

livestock keeping have become increasingly recognized recently, among

others because urbanization is increasing rapidly, especially in developing

countries. Urban livestock keeping is an important solution to food energy

crisis because of the integrated urban food energy systems where increase of

production of food and energy are possible by transforming the by products

of one system into another feed stocks.

A number of researchers in the field of urban agriculture from Tanzania like

(Mlozi, 1996; Sawio, 1994; Sumberg, 1998) argue that, adoption of urban

livestock keeping has some positive effects. Animals such as cattle, goats,

sheep, rabbits, pigs and poultry of all kinds are kept in response to daily

demands of consumers for food and income generation within a town or

city. Chickens keep the backyard clean and create value from leftover food,

30

while pigs utilize hotel waste and by-products from agro-industries, thereby

reducing the amount of organic waste to be disposed. For example, urban

dairy animals in Mexico City clean leftover food (tortillas) while their dung

is circulated to urban gardens (Santandreu, Castro and Ronca,

2000;Drechsel et al., 2000; UAM,1999).However, Livestock pollution is

more of a problem in large bio-industries than at the backyard level.

Sawio, (1993) and Mlozi, (1995) showed that livestock keeping in urban

areas is practiced by people of all income groups in built up and in the peri-

urban zones. Therefore livestock keeping in urban areas of which the motive

force is economic survival is practiced by almost all groups of people no

matter their social class or ethnicity .The high rate of urbanization and

increased rate of informal sectors particularly livestock keeping may cause

severe environmental problems in towns and cities.

Studies done by Mlozi, (1996, 1997) have associated urban agriculture

particularly livestock keeping with environmental problems such as air

pollution, spread of diseases and degradation of land. In the 1980‟s

Morogoro municipality experienced an increased urban population due to

the commencement of an industrial complex (Mlozi et al., 1989). This posed

serious strains on the socio-economic services and food supplies that need to

be provided to meet the demand of the urban population (Kurwijila and

Henriksen, 1995). The deteriorating economic circumstances since 1970‟s

31

forced the urban population which mainly depended on salaries or wages

that had decline to look for alternative sources of income to supplement

their incomes (Sarwatt and Njau, 1990).Engagement in urban livestock

keeping was one of such alternative sources of supplementary household

income.

2.7: Policy and Legal Aspect of Urban Agriculture.

2.7.1 Policy Drives Urban Agriculture in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and

1990s.

One cause driving the urban agriculture renaissance that is particularly

interesting is government policy. In 1968 Mao Tse Sung proclaimed a

policy shift that required all Chinese provinces to be nutritionally self-reliant

by producing food, including the urban provinces. Boundaries were redrawn

and public corporations were created and reorganized. This thirty-year old

program has had a great deal of success.

Several years later President Gorbachev announced a policy that encouraged

urban families in Russia to return to tilling the soil. In 1982 President

Nyerere issued a similar policy in Tanzania.In other countries the policy

change has been equally great but either not as well documented or the

beginning situation was not as negative. Urban and wealthy Singapore

arrived at a pro-agriculture policy in the early 1980s and today is neck-and-

neck in competition with the Dutch for the most advanced urban agriculture

32

technology. The democratic regime of Nelson Mandela in South Africa

brought a pro-urban agriculture policy with them when they assumed power

in the 1990s, and the results have been very positive. The policy changes in

individual cities since the 1970s have been at least as effective and offer a

wealth of opportunity for Master's Theses: Toronto, Calcutta, Mexico City,

Burlington Vermont, Belo Horizonte Brazil, Dar es Salaam Tanzania, Ho

Chi Minth City Vietnam, Philadelphia, Saint Petersburg Russia, Virginia

City Virginia and many more (FAO,2000).

2.7.2: Institutional and policy framework for urban agriculture

Effective and efficient institutional framework forms the basis against which

an activity can develop (Kyessi and Mireri, 2003). In Tanzania, urban

activities are governed by various legislative provisions, for example Local

Government Act, Environmental Management Act, Health act and so on.

Each local authority is expected to prepare its own by-laws in line with

specific legislative provisions. The various Acts of Parliaments and the by-

laws define the authorized land uses within the local authority and

framework for undertaking such activities.

Until the 1990s urban agriculture was excluded from the urban land uses in

East Africa (Kyessi, 2001) .The exclusion of agriculture from the urban land

use system is caused in large measure by the colonial and successive

33

independent governments‟ influence on urban planning practice in the

region.

Tanzania has made concrete efforts to integrate agriculture in the urban land

use systems and therefore it is practiced in a favorable political and legal

context. Even though Tanzania has recognized agriculture as an urban land

use, there is no evidence that the revised legislative provisions are being

enforced.

2.7.3: Municipal by-Laws

In the 1980s, at the municipal levels it was found that these national policies

of encouraging urban agriculture, especially livestock keeping, also had

some negative effects on the physical urban environment and on the

operations of most urban councils. By-laws regulating both crop cultivation

and livestock keeping exist in all Tanzanian towns and municipalities. By-

laws concerning urban livestock keeping include the required purchase of a

special permit from the Town or City Director. That permit allows a

maximum of four head of cattle, only to be kept in zero-grazing and in

specific structures; and the compulsory removal of manure, liquid waste

material and other animal waste (Kitilla 2001; Mlozi 2001).

In towns, by-laws on livestock keeping define “animals” as cattle, donkeys,

goats, horses, mules, pigs and sheep. In other words, small livestock like

chicken (local and improved varieties), ducks, rabbits and turkeys, very

34

common in urban areas, are left out (Mlozi, 2001). Most town Council by-

laws stipulate that they have to earmark certain areas as “specified areas”

within the urban limits for the purpose of keeping animals or for grazing.

The Councils issue special permits in respect of animals that are authorized

within the given urban areas.

Mlozi added that, the by-laws do not specify the numbers and types of

animals that urban dwellers are allowed to raise according to the density of

the areas. By-laws forbid keeping animals outside “a building, structure or

enclosure”; hence, holding animals in free range conditions is prohibited.

Moreover, the by-laws do not allow animals to be kept “in a building or part

of such building that is used for human habitation”. Yet, people keep

chicken, goats, and sheep in their houses.

They could argue that chicken is not defined as an animal in the by-laws.

Most urban dwellers keep animals without a permit. By-laws which require

urban dwellers to remove manure (solid and liquid) and other animal waste

are never enforced.

2.7.4: Tanzania Local Government Act of 1982.

In 1983, Local government in response to nutrition and poverty alleviation

policies, legalized urban livestock keeping and the urban authorities were

given duty to control the keeping of animals in their area of jurisdiction.

There are regulations and by-laws under the local government Acts guiding

the urban livestock keepers on the expected performances, for example

35

section 55(1) of the local government (urban authorities) Act (1982) states

that „„It shall be the duty of every urban authority with in its area of

jurisdiction to prevent or control the keeping, movement and sale of

livestock so that their keeping or use does not become a public nuisance or

injuries to the environment”

According to the local government Act of 1982 and the amendment of 2006,

town/city/municipal councils shall have power to prescribe steps to be taken

for the livestock keepers. For the purpose of better performance local

government are given power to regulate activities relating to urban

livestock. Many by-laws have been enacted by districts, township, urban,

and municipal authorities pursuant to the power given to them. Therefore

they can make different by-laws for carrying into effect any function

conferred on them by virtue of these acts.

In response to Tanzania Local Government (Urban Authorities) act of 1982

(Number 8 of 1982, made under section 80), the Morogoro municipality

formulated her by-laws which have overtime been amended. The

amendments were done in 1995, 1999, and 2002.Some of the emended

Municipal by- laws of 2002 includes:

36

(i) No animals shall be kept within the urban areas unless the owner

seek and obtain permit from the Council Director.

(ii) The permit to be issued under these by-laws shall specify size of the

area to be used, types of animals to be kept and type of buildings to

be used.

(iii) Any person who has been permitted to keep animals within the urban

area shall keep animals in zero grazing manners, clean the premises

to the satisfaction of the municipal livestock officers and arrange for

a cess pit for the removal of manure liquid filth and refuse etc

(Morogoro Municipal Animal‟s By-laws amendments,2002).

37

CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1: Introduction.

This chapter presents the general methodology of the study. It presents such

as description of the study area, sample size and sampling procedure, data

collection techniques, data processing and analysis.

3.2: Description of the study area.

The study was conducted in three wards of the Morogoro Municipality.

These were Kichangani, Boma and Sabasaba. According to the Morogoro

Municipal Council, (2005) the municipality is located at a distance of 2000

km from the Indian Ocean on the eastern arc of the Uluguru mountains on

the high way to the southern highlands of Tanzania. It covers a total area of

260sq.km with 19 administrative wards.

Morogoro municipality lies at a latitude of 37º to 7º south of the equator.

The climate is relatively cool due to its high altitude. November and March

are warm months with maximum temperature of between 31.5ºC-34ºC

where June and August are cooler months in which mean temperature range

between 26ºc-27.4º.It receives a total annual rainfall of between 821mm-

1050mm.

38

According to the population data of 2002, the municipality had total

population of about 235,000 people. The average population growth rate is

estimated to be 4.6% and the average population density is 849 per squire

kilomete

The main economic activities of residents are agriculture (livestock keeping

and farming), wage employment, petty business (Municipal Council, 2008).

The reasons behind choosing the Morogoro Municipality is based on

literature gap. Morogoro municipality is among those municipalities in

Tanzania where urban livestock keeping is highly practiced. Much research

on the field of urban agriculture has been conducted in Morogoro

municipality, but among researches conducted, researchers have not

addressed the usefulness or effectiveness of municipal by-laws in managing

urban livestock keeping.

3.3: Type and sources of data

Both primary and secondary data was gathered for this study. Primary data

gathered in the field constitute information about Morogoro urban livestock

keepers‟ characteristics, their attitude towards the municipal animal‟s by-

laws and the influence of the by-laws on the location of various livestock

enterprises and the environmental management of the municipality. .

Secondary data was obtained from published and unpublished reports and

official documents from Morogoro municipal offices.

39

3.4: Sampling techniques and sample size used

Sampling is the selection of part of an aggregate of which a judgment or

inference about the aggregate or totality is made (Kothari, 1990).Sample

size is the number of units drawn from the population to represent the

population (Pons, 1992).

For the sample to be a good representation of the population it is

recommended that, at least a total sample of 10% of the population on board

has to be considered for the detailed study (Kothari, 1990).

Morogoro municipality has 19 administrative wards. For the purpose of this

study,19 pieces of paper were mixed in a basket, then three pieces were

picked randomly and these happened to be those representing Kichangani,

Boma and Sabasaba wards.

The sampling frame for this study consisted of an official list of Morogoro

municipal urban livestock keepers and a selected number of municipal

officials. The researcher visited the municipal offices to get a list of the total

number of livestock keepers from Kichangani, Boma and Sabasaba wards.

These were 197, 289 and 115 respectively. From the total number of urban

livestock keepers, a 10% sample size was preferred, that is 60 livestock

keepers

40

Table 3.2. Distribution of Sampled Morogoro Urban livestock keepers.

Ward Total number of

Urban livestock keepers(N=600).

Number of urban

livestock keepers sampled(N=60).

Percentage of

sample

Kichangani

N Males Females Males Females

33.3% 197 110 87 11 09

Boma 288 161 127 15 13 48.4 %

Sabasaba 115 50 65 05 07 18.3%

Total 600 321 279 31 29 100%

Source: Morogoro municipality, 2008.

To capture information from by-laws enforcers, seven municipal officials

were purposely selected and interviewed. The information was on the

influence of Morogoro municipal animal‟s by-laws in managing urban

livestock keeping and the environment of the municipality.

Table 3.3: Depicts selected Morogoro municipal officials and their

respective position.

Males Females Percentage

Municipal veterinary officer 1 14.3%

Ward livestock officer

1 3

57.1%

Municipal urban planner

1

1 28.6%

Total

3

4

100.0%

Source: Field data, 2008.

41

3.5: Data collection tools.

The following data collection tools were used to gather the required

information:

3.5.1: Questionnaire administration.

A structured questionnaire was constructed in order to gather information

about the characteristics of Morogoro urban livestock keepers, kind and

number of livestock kept and their awareness on municipal by-laws for

managing urban livestock keeping. The questionnaire also addressed

experienced events where those by-laws have been applied in the

municipality.

3.5.2: Observations.

Observations were carried out to gather information especially on size of the

area used for livestock keeping; size type and location of livestock

buildings, and the extent to which the implementation of by-laws or on

implementation have affected the Morogoro municipal environment. This

method was used to enable the researcher to collect data on spot and

provides supplementary information with that gathered through other

methods.

3.5.3: Person to person Interview.

The interview method involved the collection of information through verbal

communication in face to face relationship between the interviewer and

interviewee (Kothari, 1990). The method is preferred because it allows the

42

respondents to feel free on giving their thoughts and feelings on the subject

matter of the study. This technique was conducted with Morogoro municipal

officials such as urban planners, veterinary officers and livestock officers;

and of course the urban livestock keepers themselves.

3.5.4: Rating scale.

This was purposely used to collect information on the attitude of urban

livestock keepers towards the Morogoro municipal animal by-laws (See

Appendix1 (b).This rating scale also focused on the evaluation of the

implementation of the by-laws.

3.5.5: Content analysis.

The effectiveness of any by-laws also depends on the range of issues

covered by the by-laws themselves. So content analysis of the Morogoro

municipal by-laws was carried out in order to find out whether the by-laws

did contain all the aspects necessary for managing both urban livestock

keeping and the environment of the Morogoro municipality. Here under is

the list of constructed important aspects for a good by-law in order to help a

researcher make a content analysis in that regard.

(i) Do the Morogoro municipal animals/livestock keeping by-laws

capture the national environmental management act of 2004?

(ii) Do the by-laws consider all animals kept in urban areas?

43

(iii) Do the by-laws state the legal actions to be taken against urban

livestock keepers, who do not have keeping permit; who let the

animals cause traffic jam, pollution, nuisance, crop destruction and

diseases transmissions?

(iv) How accountable are the by-laws implementers or enforcers as

specified in the by-laws themselves?

3.6: Data Analysis and Presentation.

Data analysis is a process of editing, coding, classifying and tabulating the

collected data (Kothari, 1990). Questionnaire responses were coded by

assigning all answers to each question a numerical value. Statistical package

for social science (SPSS) software version 11.5 for windows was used to

enter data in a computer and established the database ready for analysis.

The data was quantified to obtain percentage, means for comparison; and

some data was converted into charts, and frequencies, using the same

package of SPSS. The analyzed data were finally presented in form of tables

to provide the required information i.e. the findings as will be shown in the

next chapter.

44

CHAPTER FOUR

STUDY FINDINGS

4.1: Introduction

This chapter presents the findings of the study. The chapter is divided into

four sections. The first presents the socio economic characteristics of urban

livestock keepers in Morogoro municipality and their related by-laws

requirements. The second section presents the attitude of the Morogoro

municipal urban livestock keepers towards the municipal animals‟/livestock

by-laws. The third presents the influence of the Morogoro municipal

animals‟ by-laws on the location of various livestock enterprises and the

environment of the Morogoro municipality. The last one presents the

content analysis of the Morogoro municipal animals‟ by-laws. These

findings were based on interviews, personal observations and administered

questionnaire. These findings were presented taking each research question

into consideration.


Morogoro municipality and the related by-laws requirements.

The age distribution of the interviewed urban livestock keepers varied from

15 years old to over 65 years old (Table 4.1).Results show that, males

dominated the activity than females. There were no females‟ urban livestock

keepers in Kichangani with over 65 years of age. There were only one

female livestock keeper in both Boma and Sabasaba. The majority of urban

45

livestock keepers (males and females) clustered between age 35 and

65.There were no livestock keepers between the age of 15 and 34 in

Kichangani and Sabasaba wards while there were only 3 urban livestock

keepers with such age group in Boma ward.

Table 4.1: Sex and age distribution of the selected urban livestock

keepers in Morogoro municipality by gender.

Ward Sex of the

respondent Age of the respondent

Total

15-34 35-65 Over

65 Kichangani Males 5 6 11

Females 9 0 9

Total 14 6 20

Boma Males 1 7 7 15

Females 2 10 1 13

Total 3 17 8 28

Sabasaba Males 2 3 5

Females 6 1 7

Total 8 4 12

Total

3

38

15

60



Morogoro municipality

The education level of the respondents was assessed accordingly. More than

two fifth (43.2%) of the respondents in the three wards attended secondary

education. They were followed by those attended collage education who

account for almost a quarter (25%), primary education holders occupied less

46

than a quarter (21.7%) and the last group who occupied less than a tenth

(6.7%) acquired university education.

Gender wise assessment indicated that; Males and females in Boma ward

attended university and collage education in almost less than tenth,(3.3%)

and (5%) respectively. More males i.e. (15%) in Boma attended secondary

education than (5%) for females. However less than tenth (8.3%) of females

have primary education more than a tiny (1.7%) male from the same ward.

The findings also revealed that; there was no female respondent in

Kichangani and Sabasaba wards who accessed university education. More

females respondents in Kichangani and Sabasaba wards i.e. (5%) had

collage level of education than (3.3%) and (1.7%) males respectively (Table

4.2).

Table 4.2: Education level distribution of the selected urban livestock

keepers by gender.

Ward

Sex of the

respo

ndent Respondent‟s education level

Total

Primary Secondary Collage Univer

sity

N % N % N % N % (N) (%)

Kicha

ngani

M 3 5 5 8.3 2 3.3 1 1.7 11 18.3

F 2 3.3 4 6.6 3 5 0 0 9 15

Boma

M 1 1.7 9 15 3 5 2 3.3 15 25

F 5 8.3 3 5 3 5 2 3.3 13 21.6

Sabas

aba

M 1 1.7 2 3.3 1 1.7 1 1.7 5 8.3

F 1 1.7 3 5 3 5 0 0 7 11.6

Total 13 21.7 26 43.2 15 25 6 6.7 60 100.0

Source: Field data, 2008

47


municipality

It was important to determine the occupation of the Morogoro municipal

urban livestock keepers in order to find out whether or not they entirely

depend on livestock keeping as a source of income. All of the interviewed

respondents admitted to engage in other activities apart from livestock

keeping. They were civil servants, retired officers, farmers and traders

Majority were traders occupy about two third (37.3%) of all the interviewed

respondents, followed by civil servants who are almost less than two third

(35%).The number of retired officers and farmers were equally the same in

a proportion of tenth (13.3%).

Gender distribution relative to the occupation of the interviewed respondents

indicated generally that; there were more female civil servants than males in

Boma ward who occupy (10%) and (8.3%) respectively. There was equally

similar number of male and female respondents although in a tiny (1.7%)

portion from Sabasaba who were civil servant and retired officers. There

were no male respondent from Sabasaba who engaged in farming and

likewise no female respondent from Kichangani who was a retired officer .

48

Table 4.3: Occupation distribution of the selected urban livestock keepers.

Ward

Sex

of the respo

ndent Respondent‟s occupation

Total

Civil

servant Retired Farmers Traders

N % N % N % N %

(N) (%)

Kicha

ngani

M 3 5 2 3.3 2 2.2 4 6.7 11 18.3

F 5 8.3 0 0 2 2.2 2 2.2 9 15

Boma

M 5 8.3 3 5 1 1.7 6 10 15 25

F 6 10 1 1.7 2 3.3 4 6.7 13 21.6

Sabasaba

M 1 1.7 1 1.7 0 0 3 5 5 8.3

F 1 1.7 1 1.7 1 1.7 4 6.7 7 11.6

Total 21 35 8 13.3 8 13.3 23 37.3 60 100.0


4.2.3: Livestock species kept.

Kind of livestock which were seen to be kept by the interviewed Morogoro

urban livestock keepers includes diary cattle, goats/sheep, poultry and pigs.

These animals were mostly kept at the backyard of the respondent‟s

residential houses. As illustrated in table 4 .4, diary cattle in combination

with poultry were mostly kept by majority of the interviewed urban

livestock keepers in more than quarter (30%).Among these, males were

more than tenth (20%), and females were less than tenth (5%).Those who

keeps poultry only were a bit more than tenth (18.3%). Likewise for those

who keeps diary cattle and goats in combination with poultry and those

combines goats and poultry account for almost more than a tenth (18.3%)

each.

49

No respondent from Kichangani and Sabasaba ward was found to keep only

diary cattle. Likewise no pigs were found to be kept in Sabasaba ward or

diary cattle in combination with poultry.

Table 4.4: Distribution of Livestock species kept by the respondents.


Livestoc

k Species

Sex of

the responde

nt

Ward of the respondent

Total Kichangani Boma Sabasaba

Diary cattle

only

N % N % N % N %

Males 0 0 1 1.7 0 0 1 1.7

Females 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Goat and

sheep

Males 1 1.7 0 0 2 3.3 3 5.0

Females 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Poultry

only

Males 1 1.7 0 0 5 8.3 6 10

Females 2 3.3 2 3.3 1 1.7 5 8.3

Pigs

only

Males 1 1.7 0 0 0 0 1 1.7

Females 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Diary

cattle

and poultry

Males 4 6.6 11 18.3 0 0 15 25

Females 1 1.7 2 3.3 0 0 3 5.0

Pigs and poultry

Males 1

1.7 2 3.3 0 0 3 5.0

Females 1 1.7 0 0 0 0 1 1.7

Diary

cattle, goats

and

poultry

Males 3 5.0 4 6.6 0 0 7 11.6

Females

0 0 1 1.7 3 5.0 4 6.6

Goats and

poultry

Males

3 5.0 3 5.0 0 0 6 10

Females 2 3.3 2 3.3 1 1.7 5 8.3

20

33.3 28 46.7 12 20.0 60 100

50

Plate1: Urban livestock keeping barns are normally located at the backyard

4.2.4: Plot size.

Based on visit and observation made by researcher, the three wards were

categorized based on the pot size on which the interviewed Morogoro urban

livestock keepers own. These plot size categories was obtained in order to

help a researcher to find out whether the Morogoro urban livestock keepers

follows the municipal by-law requirements especially on the number and

kind of animals to be kept per plot size. As shown in table (4.5), Kichangani

ward was dominated by high density plots owned by more than a tenth

(21.7%) of interviewed livestock keepers. Similarly almost the same

proportion (20%) of high density plots were observed to concentrate in

Sabasaba ward. Medium density and low density plots characterize Boma

ward, in two third (36.7%) and less than a tenth 5(8.3%) respectively.

51

Table 4.5: Plot size distribution owned by the respondents.

Ward of the

respondent

Plot size category

Total High density

Medium

density Low density

N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%)

Kichangani 13 21.6 7 11.7 0 0 20

33.

3

Boma

1 1.7 22 36.7 5 8.3 28 46.

7

Sabasaba 12 20 0 0 0 0 12

20.0

Total 26 43.3 29 48.3 5 8.3 60 100


4.2.5: Livestock keeping and feeding system.

One of the requirements of Morogoro municipal animals‟ by-laws is that;

the urban livestock keepers are required to keep their animals especially

diary cattle, goats, sheep and pigs under zero grazing practice.

Plate2: Free ranging and zero grazing (tethering) practice in Kichangani

52

Plate 3: Free ranging practice in Sabasaba ward

That being the case, table 4.6 revealed that; the majority of the respondents

(71.7%) were observed to use both zero grazing and free ranging system to

keep their animals. About two fifths (40%) of those who use both methods

come from Boma ward. Only a tenth (15.0%) of urban livestock keepers use

free ranging to keep their animals; and almost a similar proportion (13.3%)

use zero grazing system. Goats were the most popular animals observed to

be kept under free ranging while diary cattle were mainly kept in door.

53

Table 4.6: The livestock keeping system used by the respondents.


Livestock keeping system

Total Zero

grazing Free ranging Both

N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%)

Kichangani 4 6.7 3 5.0 13 21.7 20 33.3

Boma 3 5.0 1 1.7 24 40.0 28 46.7

Sabasaba 1 1.7 5 8.3 6 10.0 12 20

Total 8 13.3 9 15.0 43 71.7 60 100


Plate 4: Zero grazing practice for diary cattle in Boma ward

4.2.6: Labour utilization for livestock management.

A little more than a third (36.7%) of urban livestock keepers in Morogoro

municipality keep their animals with assistance from family members.

54

A third (30%) of urban livestock keepers use hired labour and just a fifth

(20%), leave the activities to hired labour while only a tiny (1.7%)

proportion of urban livestock keepers, leave the duties to their children.

However, slightly more than a tenth (11.7%) of respondents said they take

care of their livestock by themselves (Table 4.7).

Table 4.7: Labour utilization distribution by the respondents.


4.3: Attitude of Morogoro urban livestock keepers towards the

Morogoro municipal animals’ by-laws (MMAB).

One of the specific objectives of this study was to find out the attitude of

urban livestock keepers towards municipal animals‟ by-laws.

Ward

of the

respondent

Who takes care of livestock?

Total

Childre

n

Hired

labour Owner

Owner+fam

ily

Owner+hi

red

labour

N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%)

Kichangani 0 0 4 6.7 3 5.0 4 6.7 9 15 20 33.3

Boma

0 0 7 11.7 0 0 13 21.7 8 13.

3 28 46.7

Sabasa

ba

1 1.7 1 1.7 4 6.7 5 8.3 1 1.7 12 20.0

Total

1 1.7 12 20.1 7 11.7 22 36.7 18 30 60 100

55

Urban livestock keepers were asked to narrate whether these by-laws had

any important especially capacity or utility to keep the urban environment

clean healthy and safe.

The perception of the Morogoro urban livestock keepers of the importance

of having these current municipal animals by-laws in our cities revealed

that, more than two fifths (46.7%) of the interviewed respondents said the

by-laws are important. A third (31.7%) affirmed that they are very

important. However a little more than a tenth (16.7%), said they were

unimportant; and only a small proportion (5%) said they were highly

unimportant. Both males and females are most likely the same in giving out

their views (Table4.8).

Those who said the by-laws are very important based on the reason that;

by-laws have the capacity to keep the urban environment clean and also

peace and harmony will be maintained especially between urban livestock

keepers and neighbours non-livestock keepers.

However those who said the by-laws are highly not important maintained

that; the by-laws are discriminative simply because the poor urban livestock

keepers didn‟t afford to buy commercial feed instead they have to graze

their animals on the open grounds, and this is strictly forbidden in the by-

laws. Their counterparts urban livestock keepers will not involved in the

same case.

56

Table 4.8: Morogoro urban livestock keeper‟s perception on the importance

of having animals‟ by-laws in our cities.

Ward

of the respo

ndent

In your opinion, do you think these by-laws are of any

importance?

Total

Sex

of the

respo

ndent Important

Very

important

Un

important

Highly

un

importa

nt N % N % N % N % N %

Kicha

ngani M 4 6.7 4 6.7 2 3.3 0 0 11 18.3

F 3 5.0 4 6.7 3 5.0 0 0 9 15

Boma M 8 13.3 4 6.7 3 5.0 2 3.3 15 25

F 6 10.0 2 3.3 2 3.3 1 1.7 13 21.6

Sabas

aba

M 3 5.0 3 5.0 0 0 0 0 5 8.3

F 4 6.7 2 3.3 0 0 0 0 7 11.6

Total 28 46.7 19 31.4 10 16.7 3 5 60 100


4.3.1: Necessity of having urban livestock keeping permit.

A scaling rate was used to assess whether the urban livestock keepers were

issued permit t carry out their activities. On the other hand, response of the

Morogoro urban livestock keepers on the necessity of each one of them to

have permits from the municipal director to practice urban livestock

keeping indicated that, Slightly more than a tenth (16.7%) strongly disagree

with the opinion. A fifth (21.7%) of respondents disagree, and about two

third (36.7%) strongly agree that there was a necessity to acquire permits.

Another quarter (25.0%) agree with the idea of getting permits to carry out

urban livestock keeping. Both sexes are most likely the same in giving out

their opinion (Table 4.9).

57

The researcher discover later that no urban livestock keeper was having a

permit and even informed before if they had to seek permit from the

municipal director. Therefore those who strongly disagree with the opinion

reasoned that the whole process of seeking permits is corrupted and there

fore few people will access it in a right way.

Table 4.9: Response of the Morogoro urban livestock keepers on the

necessity of seeking permit from the Municipal director.

Ward

of the

respondent

In your opinion, do you agree the necessity of each urban livestock keeper to have a keeping permit?

Total

Sex of the

respondent

Strongly disagree Disagree

Strongly agree Agree

N % N % N % N % N %

Kichangani

Males 2 3.3 2 3.3 4 6.7 3 5.0 11 18.

3

Females 1 1.7 2 3.3 3 5.0 3 5.0 9 15

Boma Males 3 5.0 4 6.7 6 5.0 2 3.3 15 25

Females 0 0 4 6.7 4 6.7 5 8.3 13 21.

6

Sabasa

ba

Males 2 3.3 1 1.7 2 3.3 1 1.7 5 8.3

Females 2 3.3 0 1.7 3 5.0 1 1.7 7 11.

6

Total 10 16.7 13 21.7 22 36.6 15 25.0 60 100


4.3.2: Implementation and regulation of the MMAB.

Another perception of the Morogoro urban livestock keepers was sought

based on whether the municipal animals by-laws are formulated and

regulated by the elite groups, while the keeping is practiced by less elite.

58

Less than a tenth (8.3%) of the respondents strongly disagrees with the

statement. A little than a tenth (16.7%) disagreed, while a fifth (20%) of the

respondents strongly agree, and a two fifths (55%) agree with the statement,

(Table4.10), meaning the by-laws are formulated by elite groups, leaving the

less elite to implement them.

Table 4.10: Response of the Morogoro urban livestock keepers on the

way by-laws are formulated implemented and practiced.

Ward

of the

respondent

The by-laws are formulated and regulated by the elite groups while the keeping is practiced by less elite.

Total

Sex of the responde

nt

Strongly

disagree Disagree

Strongly

agree Agree

N % N % N % N % N %

Kicha

ngani Males 1 1.7 2 3.3 2 3.3 5 8.3 11 18.3

Females 1 1.7 2 3.3 1 1.7 6 10.

0 9 15

Boma Males 0 0 3 5.0 4 6.7 9 15 15 25

Females 2 3.3 2 3.3 1 1.7 7 11.

7 13 21.6

Sabas

aba

Males 1 1.7 1 1.7 2 3.3 2 3.3 5 8.3

Females 0 0 0 0 2 3.3 4 6.7 7 11.6

Total 5 8.3 10 16.7 12 20 33 55 60 100


Urban livestock keepers were probed further to attest whether they

considered it important to have a local dialogue between urban livestock

keepers and the regulators (Morogoro municipal officers).It is assumed that

the regulators are needed and there is a need for dialogue on

implementation of the by-laws. About a tenth (11.7%) of the respondents

59

strongly disagreed with the issue of dialogue. About a similar proportion

(13.3%) disagreed, while a little more than a quarter (26.7%) strongly

agreed and over two fifths (48.3%) agreed with having dialogue in place

(Table 4.11).

Table 4.11: Response of the Morogoro urban livestock keepers to have

dialogue between urban livestock keepers and the regulators.

Ward

of the

respondent

Local dialogue between urban livestock keepers and the regulators

Total

Sex of

the

respondent

Strongly

disagree Disagree

Strongly

agree Agree

N % N % N % N % N %

Kichangani

Males 2 3.3 1 1.7 4 6.7 3 5.0 11 18.3

Female

s 1 1.7 2 3.3 4 6.7 3 5.0 9 15

Boma Males 2 3.3 2 3.3 3 5.0 10 16.7 15 25

Female

s 2 3.3 3 5.0 2 3.3 4 6.7 13 21.6

Sabas

aba

Males 0 0 0 0 2 3.3 5 8.3 5 8.3

Female

s 0 0 0 0 1 1.7 4 6.7 7 11.6

Total 7 11.7 8 13.3 16 26.7 29 48.3 60 100


4.4: The influence of the Morogoro municipal animals’ by- laws on the

location of the established livestock enterprises and management


Based on the interview made with the Morogoro municipal officers, the

impact of the formulated by-laws was evaluated. Urban livestock keepers

with large numbers of herds were shifted to farms in peri-urban areas like

60

Kihonda and Mazimbu wards where there is enough space. Urban livestock

keepers were successfully removed from grazing their animals in an open

space like football and public grounds.

Urban livestock keeping if improperly practiced is associated with

environmental degradation like water pollution, land pollution, air pollution

etc (Mlozi, 1997).

The impact of urban livestock keeping on the environment of the Morogoro

municipality is obvious. The Morogoro municipal animals by-laws were

expected to address issues of environmental degradation in the municipality.

The by-laws clearly specify how animal waste generated will be handled.

The researcher observed that, some of the waste generated from livestock

keeping was dumped in the compound and some littered the living areas as

the animals were kept indoors. However it was observed that livestock

keepers tried to clean up the areas.

Deforestation was also practiced by urban livestock keepers. All the

interviewed livestock keepers said they are used to feed their animals with

hay (fodder/grass) together with other supplementary foods like home mixed

agro-industrial products and commercial concentrate. Hay is normally

collected from open public grounds and along Ngerengere and Morogoro

rivers located within the municipality.

61

Plate5: Animals (goats) grazed along Morogoro river in Sabasaba ward

despite of the by-laws.

The perception of Morogoro municipal officers on the extent to which the

implementation of by-laws helped in the management of the environment

shows that; only a tenth (14.3%) of the interviewed municipal officials said

it helped much, and slightly more than two fifths (42.9%) said just helped on

the average, and a little more than a fifth said they helped in a small way.

Lastly, a tenth of respondents (14.3) said the implementation of municipal

by-laws helped nothing in managing the municipal environment.(Table

4.12)

Table 4.12. Extent to which the implementation of by-laws helped the

management of the environment in Morogoro municipality.

62


4.5: Analysis of the Morogoro Municipal Animal By-Laws

4.5.1: Animal definition.

One of the contents of the Morogoro municipal principle by-law is based on

interpretation of animals. According to the by-law section two of the

principle by-law animal in urban area has been defined as ``cattle, donkey,

goat, horse, pigs and sheep``. However the by-law does not include dogs

and poultry. Observations made indicated that, poultry is popular livestock

specie kept in the Morogoro municipality. Over nine tenths (91.6%) of the

interviewed urban livestock keepers indicated they like to keep poultry.

4.5.2: Legal actions for violators of the municipal animals’ by-laws.

The emended Morogoro municipal animals by-laws of 2002, number 8(1),

holds that ``No animals shall be kept within the urban area unless the owner

seek and obtain a permit from the council director``. The researcher found

that, all the interviewed urban livestock keepers said they had no permit

Ward of the

respondent

Extent to which the implementation of by-laws helped the management of the environment in

Morogoro municipality Total N=7 Much

Just

average Small None

N % N % N % N % N %

Municipal vertinary officer

1 14.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 14.3

ward livestock

officer 0 0 1 14.3 2 14.3 1 14.3 4 57.1

Municipal urban

planner

0 0 2 28.6 0 0 0 0 2 28.6

Total

1 14.3 3 42.9 2 28.6 1 14.3 7 100

63

and they did not know that it was mandatory for them to have a permit

before they started to keep livestock in urban areas.

The implementers (Municipal officers) are responsible to enforce the by-

laws to urban livestock keepers. They are supposed to take measures

against non-observers of the by-laws including issuing of penalties.

Surprisingly enough over four fifths (90%) of the interviewed urban

livestock keepers said they had not violated by-laws that required them to

be penalized since 2002.A tiny proportion (5%) admitted to have been

penalized more than once for breaking those by-laws; a similar proportion

(5%) were penalized once (Table 4.13)

Table 4.13: Urban livestock keepers‟s response on number of penalties cases applied to them since year 2000.


How many times have you faced legal

actions from municipal officers against your livestock keeping?

Total

N=60 None

More

than

one Once

N % N % N % N %

Kichangani

19 31.7 0 0 1 1.7 20 33.3

Boma 25 41.7 1 1.7 2 3.3 28 46.7

Sabasaba

10 16.7 2 3.3 0 0 12 20.0

Total 54 90.0 3 5.0 3 5.0 60 100


64

4.5.3: Accountability of by-laws implementers and routine inspection.

The accountability of municipal livestock or health officer especially on

animal‟s barns inspection was assessed. Inspecting structures where urban

livestock are kept is necessary so as to evaluate performance of municipal

animal‟s by-laws and their applicability.

It was founded that about four fifths (70%) of the interviewed livestock

keepers indicated that they are inspected every month while, just a fifth

(21.7%) said they were never visited or inspected. However less than a tenth

(8.3%) said they were just visited during vaccination or whenever animal

census is conducted (Table 4.14)

The routine inspection seems not to be a proper indicator of by-laws

implementers‟ accountability and by-laws evaluation performance because

the urban livestock keepers were always pre- informed on any visit

(inspection) to be made.

Table 4.14: Response of urban livestock keepers on how often the

Municipal livestock officers went for inspection.

Ward of the

respondent

How often do municipal livestock officers

come for inspection?

Total

Monthly

Never

visited

During vaccination/

animal

census N % N % N % N %

Kichangani 14 23.3 5 8.3 1 1.7 20 33.3

Boma

21 35.0 4 6.7 3 5.0 28 46.7

Sabasaba 7 11.7 4 6.7 1 1.7 12 20.0

Total 42 70.0 13 21.7 5 8.3 60 100


65

CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSSION AND INTERPRETATION OF STUDY FINDINGS

5.1: Introduction

The discussion in this chapter is based on the results of the study in the

previous section, review of other studies and the personal opinions.

However the objectives of the research and the research questions are used

as the guide in this discussion. In this regard, the discussion is centered on

the socio- economic characteristics of urban livestock in Morogoro

municipality and their related by-laws requirements, the attitude of the

Morogoro municipal urban livestock keepers towards the municipal animals

by-laws, the influence of the Morogoro municipal animals by-laws on the

location of various livestock enterprises and the environment of the

Morogoro municipality and finally the content analysis of the Morogoro

municipal animals by-law.


Morogoro municipality and the related by-laws requirements.

The socio-economic characteristic of urban livestock keepers such as sex,

age, education level and occupation were assessed. Also other

characteristics such as plot size owned, animals species kept, livestock

keeping and feeding system, and labour utilization for livestock

66

management were identified in order to find their relation with the by-laws

requirements.

5.2.1: Sex and age of the selected urban livestock keepers in Morogoro

municipality.

Sex and age characteristics of the respondents are shown in table 4.1. The

age of the respondents ranged between 15 and 65 years. The results

indicated that; men were more interested in livestock keeping than women.

The findings are in line with those of Ishani, Gathuru et al(2003), who

found the activity to be dominated by urban livestock keepers who were

older than 45 and majority were men. Also Lupala (2003), found the likely

results in Addis Ababa where majority of urban livestock keepers aged 50

and there were slightly more men than women.

These findings therefore could be due to the fact that; men practice urban

livestock keeping for income generation as most of them were the retired

officers, while women keeps mainly for household food security especially

during the time of hardship.


Morogoro municipality

The education level of the respondents is important especially on

understanding their perception towards Morogoro municipal animal‟s by-

laws. Most of the respondents in the three wards attended secondary

education. These results are in line with those of Mlozi, et al (2004), who

67

found that Most of urban livestock in Morogoro and Dar-es salaam towns

had completed Form IV secondary education at ordinary level (O-level).

The study done in Mbeya, Nakuru and Morogoro by Foeken

(2005),indicated the awareness of urban livestock keepers on the content

of the by-laws, since about third of them especially from Morogoro

municipality knew about the ban of keeping animals in free range.

That being the case Morogoro urban livestock keepers are not termed

illiterate especially on perceiving and adopting the municipal animal‟s by-

laws.


municipality

It was important to determine the occupation of the Morogoro municipal

urban livestock keepers in order to find out whether they entirely depend on

livestock keeping as a source of income.

All of the interviewed respondents were seen to engage in other activities

apart from livestock keeping. The study carried out by Mlozi (2005), come

up with the same findings that; „„About two third of Urban livestock keepers

in Mbeya and Morogoro had regular employment ‟‟.So the Morogoro urban

livestock keepers not only depends on livestock keeping activity but also to

other activities.

Further more Richard and Godfrey (2003) found that; majority of urban

livestock keepers in many east African cities are employed in formal sector.

68

Therefore this reflects that, urban livestock keeping activity is for income

generation, household food supply and security especially in times of

hardship.

5.2.4: Plot size and livestock species kept

The three wards were categorized based on the plot size owned by each of

the interviewed Morogoro urban livestock keepers. Different plots sizes

were the result of efforts made by urban planning department of the

Municipality. The plots were regarded as those measured or marked piece of

land for building or performing other activities. That being the case, high

density plots were those areas filled or crowded by houses while low density

plots were those large areas occupied by few or small number of houses.

According to the Morogoro municipal animal‟s by-laws (2002), the permit

to be given to urban livestock keepers should specify kind and number of

animals to be kept per each plot size.

Urban livestock keeping activity were seen to be carried out in all areas of

the surveyed wards despite of the plot size. Mlozi (2005), explained that in

Tanzania, it is a pre-occupation of most urban dwellers of all socioeconomic

status (SES) dealing with rising both of crops and livestock in the high,

medium and low density areas.

Kind of livestocks kept by the interviewed Morogoro urban livestock

keepers includes diary cattle, goats/sheep, poultry and pigs. The common

livestock in the study area were poultry(chicken). These finding somehow

69

supported by a survey conducted by Ishani et al (2003) who founded that;

the most common type of livestock kept in Kisumu town was goats but in

term of numbers, poultry (chickens) were the greatest.

Low and medium density plots allows urban livestock keepers to have

enough spaces to built livestock barns while high density plots are not

enough to provide the required space. That being the case, Boma and

Kichangani wards were characterized by low and medium density plots and

therefore the dominant livestock species were diary cattle, pigs and goats.

On the other hand, Sabasaba ward was dominated by high density plots so

poultry were the popular livestock specie.

Keeping improved dairy cattle is common in Tanzanian towns because most

urban farmers can earn extra income if the cattle are kept under good

husbandry practices (Mlozi,2005).Good husbandry practices is also

influenced by enough space to build improved livestock‟s premises

This assumption is also applicable within the three surveyed wards of the

Morogoro municipality. However not all urban livestock keepers have

access to enough spaces and advanced husbandry practices due to their

differences in economic status.

5.2.5: Livestock keeping and feeding system.

The type of rearing practice depends on the availability of space and

security of the animals (Godfrey and Richards, 2003). Majority of the

70

interviewed urban livestock keepers in Morogoro municipality were

observed to use zero grazing and free ranging system to keep their animals,

and they were mainly from Boma ward (characterized by low density plots).

It is perceived that, dairy cow are mainly kept in zero grazing units while

other animals are either zero grazed or freely grazed.

One of the requirements of Morogoro municipal animals‟ by-laws (The

emended Morogoro municipal animal by-laws (2002),ordered the urban

livestock keepers to keep their animals under zero grazing manners. The

observation indicate that urban livestock keepers in Morogoro municipal

neither follow nor obey this order, perhaps because there is no enforcement

from the responsible authorities.

5.2.6: Labour utilization for livestock management.

The current Morogoro municipal animal‟s by-laws require the urban

livestock keepers to keep animals under zero grazing manner but findings

revealed that; they use both system ie zero grazing and free ranging. Labour

utilization in this study was grouped in five categories. They comprise

Children, hired labour, owner with the family, and owner together with

hired labour.

Most urban livestock keepers in Morogoro municipality according to the

study findings, keep their animals with an assistance from family members

or leave the activity to hired labour and some other few takes care by

themselves.

71

As founded out by Mlozi and Hella, (2001); Mvena et al., (1991) ,most of

hired labour which were commonly known as cow boys often brought from

up-country regions such as Dodoma and Iringa herd animals on, stream

banks, parks and private yards.

The owner of livestock may be aware of the said by-laws but the labours

they collaborate with might not be aware. So urban livestock keepers are

required to educate their cow boys on about the Morogoro municipal

animal‟s by-laws requirements.

5.3: Attitude of Morogoro urban livestock keepers towards the

Morogoro municipal animals’ by-laws (MMAB).

Municipalities are the engines of our well-being. Municipal councils are

closest to the people and, more and more, are providing the public services

and works that meet community’ s needs (Municipal Autonomy,2004)

The municipal animal’s by-laws were formulated in order to meet both

people and environmental well being. However, sometimes these by-laws

may prove failure in operation if the perception of the community towards

the by-laws is not taken in consideration.

5.3.1 Importance of the MMAB.

The fundamental importance of the urban authorities including

municipalities to formulate animal‟s by-laws were generally to manage

urban livestock keeping activities for environmental management in our

cities . According to the local government(Urban authorities) act,(1982) „„It

shall be the duty of every urban authority with in its area of jurisdiction to

72

prevent or control the keeping movement and sale of livestock so that their

keeping or use does not become a public nuisance or injuries to the

environment”

As observed by Lupanga (1990), most of urban livestock keepers are aware

of the environmental impacts of livestock keeping in urban areas. The

interviewed livestock keepers pointed out some importance such as

environmental protection, good neighborhood and peace maintenance.

Those who said the by-laws are not important relied on the fact that, ``every

individual living in town has right to keep animals but the area or plot size

and cost affordability will influence him/her to under take the activity‟‟

Foeken (2005), also found that;``The municipal officers in Mbeya town

recognized the environmental hazards caused by urban livestock keeping

particularly large livestock kept in the built up areas such as air pollution

especially from pigs (kitimoto) and water pollution from livestock freely

roaming around especially in high density areas where people have very

little or no space to dump the waste‟‟

The Morogoro municipal animal‟s by-laws have much capacity to keep the

environment of the municipality clean if at all the enforcement strategies are

seriously implemented.

5.3.2 Necessity of having urban livestock keeping permit.

The emended Morogoro municipal animals by-laws of 2002, number 8(1),

holds that “No animals shall be kept within the urban area unless the owner

seek and obtain a permit from the council director‟‟.

73

The researcher found that, all of the interviewed urban livestock keepers

said to have no permit and they did not know if they had to have keeping

permit before they started to keep animals in urban areas.

As stated by Mlozi (2005), “most urban dwellers keep animals without

having a permit”. On the other hand their response on the necessity of each

one of them to have keeping permit from the municipal director indicated

that, majority agreed with the opinion.

Those urban livestock keepers who disagree the opinion of being given

keeping permit argued that,” the whole process of seeking livestock keeping

permit will stimulate corruption and therefore some people will not get hold

of their right.‟‟

5.3.3 Implementation and regulation of the MMAB.

The most important, intended links between the local government and the

residents of the given area are the Vitongojis in the rural areas and the urban

Mtaa committees, which are designed to mobilize citizen participation in

local development.(Local government system in Tanzania,2006)

For that case priorities for local service delivery and development projects

are brought to the Mtaa committees for discussion before being forwarded to

the Ward Development Committee.

The Morogoro municipality as part of local government in Tanzania was

expected to emphasize citizen participation. Local dialogue between urban

74

livestock keepers and the regulators (Morogoro municipal officers) are

needed to find the consensus on the by-laws. The perception of the

interviewed Morogoro urban livestock keepers on this issue indicate to

agree the necessity of having such dialogue. The citizen (urban livestock

keepers) themselves understand the need of being involved in decision

making or in planning on how the by-laws is to operate or enforced.

The notion that the municipal animals by-laws are formulated and regulated

by the elite groups while the keeping is practiced by less elite sometimes

negate the reality. The study discovered that; most of the urban livestock

keepers in the three wards attended secondary education and some of them

are retired civil servants holding diplomas or degree.

Ossiya et al (2003) observed that the animal‟s by-laws or regulations are

known by urban livestock keepers since they are just understood by using

common sense. However their lack of resources affected their capacity to

comply. Therefore the Morogoro municipal animal‟s by-laws need common

sense to be understood even though they are being formulated by elite.

5.4: The influence of the Morogoro municipal animals’ by- laws on the

location of the established livestock enterprises and management


Morogoro municipal animal‟s by-laws aimed to manage the activity of

urban livestock keeping within the municipality. These by-laws are expected

to influence location of urban livestock keeping enterprises and

environmental management of the municipality.

75

5.4.1 Location of Morogoro urban livestock keeping enterprises

The main objective of the municipal councils to formulate animals‟ by-laws

was to regulate activities relating to livestock and managing the

environment of the municipality. The Morogoro municipal council (animals

in urban area) by-laws 2002 required that “The council shall earmark

certain areas to be known as specified areas within the urban area for the

purpose of keeping animals……‟‟

It was evidenced from cities in most developing countries that informal

enterprises were usually squat on marginalized and vulnerable lands. These

were also the same for Morogoro municipality. However because of an

increased urban population, settlement development due to urbanization

some of, the urban livestock keepers were advised to shift to peri-urban

zones of the municipality. According to Foeken (2005), this was done

intentionally by acquired 3,000 hectares of land about 50 kilometers outside

the Morogoro town for use by the tow people who intended to practice

urban agriculture but didn‟t access enough land.

Therefore one of the observable impact of the Morogoro municipal animal‟s

by-laws was to be able to shift urban livestock keepers with large number of

herds to farms in peri-urban areas like Kihonda and Mazimbu wards where

there were enough spaces.

Another impact was the observed few number of livesock which were

roaming around. And this were also supported by Municipal livestock

76

officer who said ``One of the worked measure used to control free range

was to increase amount of penalty fee for animals found roaming around``

5.4.2 Environmental management

The rapid rate of urbanization and massive growth of slum and squatter

settlements have exposed urban centers to increased rates of pollution of

land, air and water resources, thus heighten the risks of contamination of

urban agriculture produce. Madden and Chaplowe, (1997) observes that

problems with urban agriculture arise from its close proximity to dense

human populations sharing air, water and soil resources.

UA contributes to damaging the urban environment in several ways and

poses serious health risks to the public. For instance, domestic animals

transmit zoonoses or animal diseases that can afflict humans and circulate

among other animals (Mlozi, 2005).

The Morogoro municipal animals by-laws were expected to address issues

of environmental degradation in the municipality. The by-law clearly set

how animal waste generated will be handled. The researcher observed that,

some of waste generated from livestock was dumped in the compound and

some littered the living areas as the animals were kept indoors.

However it was observed that livestock keepers tried to clean up the areas.

Sometimes animal refuse can also carry germs that cause diseases transmitted

through milk and meat, such as tuberculosis and anthrax. Other concerns

77

pertaining to livestock in dense urban settings are unpleasant odours, noise

pollution, traffic jams and hazards.

Food-borne zoonotic diseases also become more important due to a higher

demand for meat by a growing urban population. Poor slaughter hygiene can

lead to contamination of carcasses, and larger scales can increase risks of

mass-transmission diseases. Drinking water and vegetables contaminated

with slaughterhouse wastewater can transmit pathogenic agents such as

Salmonella sp., Campylobacter sp., and Escherichia coli producing toxins

(Pal et al., 1999).

Population growth, urbanization and the resultant human activities have

been viewed as generating pressures to the natural resource base and

environments (Madulu, 2001). Land degradation especially soil erosion was

also observed as one of impact of urban livestock keeping in Morogoro

municipality.

All the interviewed livestock keepers (100%) said to feed their animals with

hay (fodder/grasses) together with other supplementary foods like home

mixed agro-Industrial products and Commercial concentrate. Hay is

normally collected from open public grounds and along Ngerengere and

Morogoro rivers which are both located within the Municipality. The

process of hay cutting and collection accelerate soil erosion especially along

river banks.

78

The implementation of Morogoro municipal animal‟s by-laws among other

reasons aimed at protecting the municipal‟s environment. Majority of the

implementers (urban livestock keeping officers) said; „„the by-laws has

helped to manage urban environment just to a smaller extent‟‟.They

reasoned that; the Morogoro municipal animal‟s by-laws do not reflect the

prevailing realities especially on the issues of urban environmental

degradation which were not given much attention.

5.5: The Morogoro municipal council (animals in urban areas)

(amendment) by-laws, 2002 analysis.

The content analysis of the Morogoro municipal animal‟s by-laws tries to

find out some of its strengths and weaknesses. The analysis focused on

interpretation of the term animal, legal actions for violators, accountability

of implementers as specified in the by-laws and the correspondence of the

by-laws to the national environmental management act of 2002.

5.5.1. Animal definition.

One of the content of the Morogoro municipal animal‟s emended by-law

2002, is on interpretation of animals. In towns, bylaws on livestock keeping

define “animals” as cattle, donkeys, goats, horses, mules, pigs and sheep.

Observation made indicated that, poultry are being kept by the majority of

the interviewed Morogoro urban livestock keepers.

In other words, small livestock like improved chicken, local chicken and

ducks, most of which are now raised in urban areas are left out in the by-

laws.

79

5.5.2 Legal actions for violators of the municipal animal’s by-laws.

Tanzania is prevalent with legal and policy documents, but their

implementation has been questionable. Some of these include the land

(amendment) act 2004, national environmental management act 2004,

national environmental policy 1997, the national human settlements

development policy 2000, urban farming regulations of 1992, and the

agricultural and livestock policy which define the activities to be carried out in

urban areas.

The emended Morogoro municipal animals by-laws of 2002, section 8(1),

holds that „„No animals shall be kept within the urban area unless the owner

seek and obtain a permit from the council director”. The researcher found

that, all of the interviewed urban livestock keepers (100%) said to have no

permit and they did not know if they had to have keeping permit before they

started to keep animals in urban areas.

However the by-laws does not specifically indicate steps to be taken for

those who keeps animals in urban areas without having keeping permit and

also specifically for those who let the animals cause traffic jam, pollution,

nuisance, crop destruction and diseases transmissions.

Surprising enough about (90%) of the interviewed urban livestock keepers

admit to violet no by-laws that required them to be penalized. This finding

can somehow be justified by the study conducted in Mbeya, Morogoro and

Nakuru by Foeken (2005) who indicated that; not many urban livestock

keepers complained about harassment of their animals by the local authority

80

in Mbeya and Morogoro and infact no one mentioned it as a problem, which

was an indication that the Nakuru authorities were somewhat striker in

enforcing the by-laws than their Tanzanian colleagues.

Mlozi, (2003) also observed that although these bylaws exist and clearly

stipulate the penalties for defaulters, they are rarely implemented. He added

that, the fact that there are many senior government and ruling party

officials among the livestock keepers who break the bylaws with impunity,

is probably the best assurance for most other livestock keepers that they will

not be punished whenever they break the law. The implementers (Municipal

officers) are responsible to seriously enforce the by-laws to urban livestock

keepers and take any measure able actions for those goes against the by-

laws

5.5.3 Accountability of by-laws implementers and routine inspection.

The successful of any by-laws depends on the accountability of

implementers. Municipal officials are the key implementers of the by-laws

for managing the municipal activities.

The implementers are also required to make a follow up through routine

inspections in order to evaluate the applicability of the by-laws. The

Morogoro municipal principal animals by-law number 7 of 2002, state that,

“The medical officer or any authorized officer is responsible to inspect any

premise where animals are kept‟‟.

81

However the by-law does not state specifically the exact time or how often

these urban livestock keepers has to be inspected.

The findings indicated that; majority of the implementers (municipal

livestock officers) inspect urban livestock keepers monthly but very few go

for inspection instead they just goes there for vaccination and/or animal

census and the urban livestock keepers are normally pre-informed. The

implementers should find a proper way to schedule inspection specifically

to evaluate and make a follow up on whether the by-laws are being taken

into account or not.

5.5.4 Correspondence of the Morogoro municipal animal by-laws to the

National environmental management act of 2004.

The Morogoro municipal animal by-laws can be cited as the Morogoro

municipal council (animals in urban area)(amendment) by-laws 2002.The

by-laws are summarized as follows;

(i) No animals shall be kept within the urban area unless the owner seek and

obtain a permit from the council director, this permit will therefore

specify size of the area to be used, type of animals to be kept and type

of building to be used

(ii) Any person permitted shall keep his/her animals in zero grazing, clean

the premises and arrange for the removal of manure and refuse.

(iii) There should be specified areas in which animals can be kept and

allowed to move, the urban livestock keepers shall obey the directions of

82

the municipal director for the purpose of avoiding overstocking and that

the animals do not move to the land adjoining the specified areas.

(iv) Animals shall be kept within the building, structure or enclosure

approved by the council.

(v) Medical officer or any authorized officer has a right to inspect premises

where animals are kept.

(vi) No animals to be moved without permit.

(vii) Any animal kept in non-specified area or moved through an authorized

route may be taken and kept to the pound by police officer or any

authorized officer. Animals will be kept in pound till the required fees

are paid in case of first offender.

(vii) For person with the criminal record of the same type of offence, the

council may take possession of animal and become the owner.

(ix) Any person who shall contravene or fail to comply with any of the

provisions of these by-laws shall be guilty of an offence and shall be

liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding T.shs.50,000 or twelve

months imprisonment or both or addition.

Environmental Management Act, 2004 is an act to provide for legal and

institutional framework for sustainable management of environment. The act

aimed specifically;

(i) To outline principles for management, impact and risk assessments,

prevention and control of pollution, waste management, environmental

quality standards, public participation, compliance and enforcement

83

(ii) To provide basis for implementation of international instruments on

environment.

(iii) To provide for implementation of the National Environment Policy;

(iv) To repeal the National Environment Management Act, 1983 and

provide for continued existence of the National Environment

Management Council

(v) To provide for establishment of the National Environmental Trust Fund

and to provide for other related matters.

The summary of the general principles as outlined in the document provides

that; every person living in Tanzania shall have a right to clean, safe and

healthy environment, right to bring an action on environment, duty to

protect the environment, obligation to give effect to environmental

principles and promotion of the National Environmental Policy and

environmental day.

The two documents somehow correspond to each other. They both provide

legal framework for undertaking any action to violators for example

penalties, fines or imprisonment. Their core role is environmental

management.

However the Morogoro municipal animal‟s by-laws were formulated under

local government(Urban authorities) act of 1982 and has to operate and

enforced by local authority while Environmental management act 2004 was

84

enacted by parliament of the united republic of Tanzania and should be

applied to Tanzania mainland both in urban and rural areas.

In addition part three of the environmental management act 2004 outline the

administration and institutional arrangement of the local government. The

functions of local government according to the document under section

36(1) indicate that, there shall be designated or appointed by each municipal

Council an environment management officer, who shall be a public officer

and shall be known as the Municipal Environmental Management Officer.

This shall ensure the enforcement of this Act in the respective area to which

lie belongs, advise the environment management committee to which he

belongs on all matters relating to environment, promote environmental

awareness in the area he belongs on the protection of the environment and

the conservation of natural resources, gather and manage information on the

environment and utilization of natural resources in the area, prepare periodic

reports on state of the local environment, monitor the preparation, review

and approval of environmental impact assessments for local investments,

review by-laws on environmental management and on sector specific

activities related to the environment.

The same document proceed that, the District Council shall designate for

each administrative area of a township, ward, Mtaa , village and Kitongoji a

public officer who in the case of geographical jurisdiction of a Ward, be

known as the Ward Environment Management Officer who shall coordinate

85

all functions and activities geared towards the protection of environment

within the area of the ward .

The survey made in the three wards of the Morogoro municipality indicated

that, there is no ward‟s environmental management officer observed to

supervise the above mentioned activities. In other words, some of the

requirements in the two documents are not yet implemented or there is some

sort of contradiction in between the operations.

86

CHAPTER SIX

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Introduction.

This section presents the summary, conclusion and recommendations arising

from the findings of the study on effectiveness of municipal animal‟s by-

laws in managing urban livestock keeping in Morogoro municipality. The

section is divided into two major parts, the first presenting the summary of

the study and conclusion and the second part provides recommendations.

6.2 Summary and conclusion

The study intended to provide information pertaining effectiveness of the

Morogoro municipal (animals in urban areas) by-laws in managing urban

livestock keeping activity and the environment of the municipality. The

major reason for conducting this study was to explore some of the

shortcomings and strengths of the by-laws in the selected urban wards and

to recommend possible remedial measures. It was carried out in three

selected wards, namely Kichangani, Boma and Sabasaba located in

Morogoro municipality.

The study was guided by four research tasks which includes;

To identify the characteristics of urban livestock keepers of the Morogoro

municipality in relation to the Municipal animals by-laws requirements.

87

To find out the attitude of Morogoro urban livestock keepers towards the

Morogoro municipal animals by-laws.

To examine the influence of the Morogoro municipal animals‟ by- laws on

the location of the established livestock enterprises and management of

municipal environment.

To make content analysis or evaluation of the Morogoro municipal animals‟

by-laws if it covers all areas necessary for environmental management.

The study found that, characteristics of urban livestock keepers such as age,

sex and education level does not alter the knowledge on the importance

and existence of Morogoro municipal animal‟s by-laws. All of the

interviewed respondents were seen to engage in other activities apart from

livestock keeping. Livestock keeping activity were seen to be carried out in

all areas of the surveyed wards despite of the plot size. Majority were

observed to use zero grazing and free ranging system to keep their animals.

The study also revealed that, there is positive attitude of Morogoro urban

livestock keepers towards the municipal animal‟s by-laws but their

participation in decision making on how the implementation should be seem

to be poor.

Furthermore the study revealed that, there was positive influence of the

Morogoro municipal animal‟s by-laws on the location of various urban

livestock enterprises, as most of them were observed to be located in the

peri-urban zones and the number of animals roaming around seems to

decrease. The by-laws have also somehow managed the environment of the

88

municipality since majority of the keepers had knowledge on the impact of

urban livestock keepers to the environment.

Lastly the study found that the legal process of implementing and enforcing

these by-laws as far as the document propose seems to be poor. The

implementers themselves are among the keepers who break the by-laws

and this is probably the best assurance for most other livestock keepers that

they will not be punished whenever they fail to comply with the by-laws.

Rapid urbanization in most development countries has resulted in increased

urban poverty. People in urban areas keep livestock for income generation

and household food supply. Keeping livestock in urban areas create

problems such as smell, risk of disease, pollution of waterways, or quarrels

between neighbors when they invade and damage gardens. The Morogoro

municipal (animals in urban areas) by-laws were formulated specifically in

order to manage the activity within the municipality. These by-laws could

therefore provide intended outcome if formulation and enforcement process

incorporates a significant element of public participation, since by-laws are

based on the premise that public awareness and endorsement is the key to

successful implementation.

6.3 Recommendations.

It is recommended that, in order to have effective municipal animal‟s by-

laws for managing urban livestock keeping, there is a need to focus on the

http://www.unep.org/DEC/OnLineManual/Resources/Glossary/tabid/69/Default.aspx?high=enforcement#high

89

implementation plan and enforcement of the current municipal animal‟s by-

laws.

The following are some of the observed weakness and recommended

strategies respectively

What is there? What is the problem? Recommended

strategies

By-laws are there Non/poor enforcement

of laws

Create incentive for

implementers to

enforce By-laws

Instruments for

enforcement exist

Non/poor

implementation

Enforcement through

communities

Plans are there need

implementation

Lack of awareness to

other stakeholders

Awareness raising

Non participatory in

by-laws review

By-laws review is not

participatory

Participatory

approaches in

reviewing By-laws

Furthermore there is need for integrating and implementing the

environmental management act, 2004 in practice. These together will ensure

successful management of urban livestock keeping and the environment in

general since; Environmental Impact Assessment Studies (EIAS) will be

conducted to minimize negative impacts especially environmental pollution.

Therefore continuous education by local authorities to local communities

should be a continuous flow, two-way system of information i.e. from

community to local authorities/professionals and vice versa.

90

REFERENCES

Foeken Dick. (2005). Urban Agriculture in East Africa as a tool for poverty

reduction: A legal and policy dilemma?ASC Working paper

65, The Netherlands, Leiden.-http//www.ascleiden.nl

Foeken, D.Safer,M.Mlozi,M. (2004).Urban Agriculture in Tanzania. Issues

of Sustainability. African Studies Centre,Research Project

75/2004.

Egziabher, A.G., Lee-Smith, D. Maxwell, D.G., Memon, A.P., Mougeot,

L.J.A. & Sawio, C.J. (1994). Cities feeding people: an

examination of urban agriculture in East Africa. Ottawa,

International Development Research Centre. 146

pp………………..

Ellis, F. & Sumberg, J. (1998). Food production, urban areas and policy

responses. World Development, 26(2): 213-225.

FAO. (2000). Peri-urban livestock systems. Problems, approaches and

opportunities, by J.B. Schiere. Report prepared for FAO-AGA.

Rome

FAO.(2001).Livestock keeping in urban areas.FAO corporate document

depository.Agriculture Department.-

http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/4500 E/e05/html.30th june2008.

Helmore, Kristin and Annu Ratta, (1995). "The Surprising Yields of Urban

Agriculture," Choices, U.N. Development Program, April.

91

Ishani,Z.Gathuru,K.Lamba,D.(2003).Urban Livestock keeping in sub-

saharan Africa:Scoping study on interactions between

gender relations and livestock keeping in Kisumu. Report of

a w orkshop held on 3-5 March 2003in Nairobi, Kenya.

Natural Resources International Ltd, Aylesford, Kent, UK

http:www.ftp.vli.co.uk/pp/documents/Report/urban/livestock

workshop-2th sept2008

International Development Research Centre.(1994). Cities Feeding People:

An Examination of Urban Agriculture in East Africa, Ottowa

Kitilla , M. (2001). Urban agriculture: Current policies and recent

developments. Proceedings of the National Workshop on

Urban Agriculture – Potential, Support and Information

Needs, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, 11-13 June, 2001, pp. 76-86.

Kothari, C. (1990) .Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques.

New Delhi: New Age International Publishers.

Kurwijila, R.L. and Henriksen, J (1995). Milk supply to urban centres in

Tanzania with particular reference to the city of Dar es

Salaam; Strategies for market orientation of small-scale milk

producers and their organizations. Proceedings of a

workshop held at Morogoro Hotel, Morogoro Tanzania (pp

12, 14, 20 and 21

Kyessi, A.G (2001). "Overview of Stakeholders/Institutions involved in

Urban Agriculture: The case of Dar es Salaam", Paper

Presented in a National Workshop on Urban Agriculture –

Potential Support and Information Needs. 11th-13

th June.

92

Lado,C.(1990).Informal Urban Agriculture in Nairobi, Kenya: Problem or

Resource in Development and Land use planning? Land

use policy 7,257-266.

Lerise F,Lugala J,Meshack M and Kiunsi R (2004).Managing Urbanization

and Risk accumulation process :Cases from Dar es

salaam. University Collage of Lands and Architectural

Studies.http/:www.undp.org/cpr/disred/documents/region

s/Africa/auran/AURAN/cases/Disaster%

20avoidance%20stratergies.doc-13th oct 2008

Lugalla J.(1990).Socialist Construction and the Urbanization Process in

Tanzania: Analysis of Urban Poverty and Politics.

Ph.D.Thesis, University of Breme,

Germany(Unpublished)

Lupanga (1990). Livestock and the Urban Environment in Tanzania: Some

burning issues for policy makers. A paper presented at

the the 8th

Tanzania Veterinary Association Scientific

conference,4-6 December 1990,Arusha.

Lupala, A. (2003).“Urban Livestock Keeping in sub-Saharan Africa, The

Case of Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda and Ethiopia”, Natural

Resource International Ltd, ISBN 0-953292-74-9-0

London. Contribution on Tanzania

Ossiya, S.Isyagi, N.Aliguma,L.Aisu,C.(2003) Urban livestock keeping in

sub-Saharan Africa: Urban and peri-urban livestock

keeping among the poor in Kampala city. Report of a w

orkshop held on 3-5 March 2003in Nairobi, Kenya.

Natural Resources International Ltd, Aylesford, Kent, UK-

93

http:www.ftp.vli.co.uk/pp/documents/Report/urban/livesto

ck workshop-2th sept2008

Maliyamkono, T.L. and Bagachwa, M.S.D. 1990. The Second Economy in

Tanzania. Ohio: Ohio University Press.

Madulu, N.F. (2001). Population Dynamics and Sustainable Conservation

of Protected Areas inTanzania: The Case of

Swagaswaga Game Reserve in Kondoa District", PhD

Theses.Uppsala University ,Sweden.

Madden, J. P. & Chaplowe, S. G. (ed.) (1997).“For All Generations: Making

world agriculture more sustainable”, Glendale: OM

Publishing.

Mlozi, M. R. S, Lupanga, I. J and Mvena, S. K. Z (1989). Urban agriculture:

The livestock dimension and its implication; Animal

production research and extension in eastern and southern

Africa: Some recent experience; Proceedings TSAP vol.

16(pp. 199 and 200)

Mlozi.(1995).Damaging effects of Urban Agriculture on the Urban

Environment: A case of the city of Dar es salaam

Environment.263-275.

______ (1996).Urban Agriculture in Dar es salaam: Its contribution to

Solving the economic crisis and the damage it

does to the environment. Development in South

Africa.Vol.13(1);47-65.

________ (1997).Impact of Urban Agriculture in Dar es

salaam,Tanzania:The environmentalist 17,115-124.

94

_________(2005).The Economic Contribution of Urban Agriculture and

reasons for its persistence in urban areas-http://www.rics-

foundation.org.Retrieved on 12th December 2008.

Mlozi and Hella (2001).Urban Agriculture :Linkages between Poverty

Alleviation and damage on the Urban Environment. Research

report submitted to the Tanzania Commission for Science

and Technology, Dar es salaam, Tanzania-http://

www.rics.org/NR/rdonlyres/47ACBFF4-D4774528-9275-

Urbananimalagriculture.pdf-retrieved on 12th jan2009.

_______(2003). Urban Agriculture Magazine: Legal and Policy Aspects of

Urban Agriculture in Tanzania: Leusden, the Netherlands,

Resource Centre for Urban Agriculture and Forestry.pp (40-

41).

Mireri (2002). “Private Investment in Urban Agriculture in Nairobi”, Urban

Agriculture Magazine, No. 7, http:// www.ruaf.org

Mumba, J. (1999).The impact of livestock keeping on Urban Environment.

Unpublished Dissertation from the University of Dar-es

salaam

Municipal Autonomy(2004).Communities in an Urban Century Symposium-

http://www.canadascities.ca/pdf/municipal autonomy.pdf-

retrieved on 10th jan 2009

Mwangi, A.M. (1995). The role of urban agriculture for food security in low

income areas in Nairobi. Ministry of Planning and National

Development, Nairobi, and African Studies Centre, Leiden,

the Netherlands. 82 pp.

95

Mvena , Lupanga and Mlozi. (1991). Urban Agriculture in Tanzania: A

Study of Six Towns, Research Report submitted to IDRC-

Ottawa, Canada. Sokoine University of Agriculture,

Morogoro, Tanzania.

Mouget,Luc J.A et al (1999).For hunger proof cities: Sustainable urban

food system.Ottawa;International Development Research

center.

Njenga Munene and Dr. James Wabacha (2006). A study on zoonoses in

slum setting in Nairobi . Department of Clinical Studies,

Environs Food Security, Agriculture Livestock Forum and

Mazingira Institute. University of Nairobi

NEMA(2004).National Environmental Management Act. The United

Republic of Tanzania, Government Printer. Part ix(114-119)

Nyamrunda, C. & Sumberg, J. (1998). Milk systems of smaller African cities:

two examples from Tanzania. Outlook on Agriculture, 27(4):

243-251.

Richards,J.I and Godfrey,S.H.(Eds.)(2003). Urban Livestock keeping in

Sub-Saharan Africa: Report of a workshop held on 3-5 March

2003in Nairobi, Kenya. Natural Resources International Ltd,

Aylesford, Kent, UK

RUAF(2000). Urban Agricultural Magazine, 1(1 & 2). Leusden, the

Netherlands, Resource Centre for Urban Agriculture and

Forestry.

96

Santandreu, A., Castro, G. & Ronca, F. (2000). Urban pig farming in

irregular settlements in Uruguay. Urban Agricultural

Magazine, 1(2). Leusden, the Netherlands, RUAF.

Sarwatt, S.V. and Njau, F.B.C (1990). Feeding systems for smallholder dairy

farmers in Morogoro urban: The role and prospects of

smallholder livestock production in Tanzania; TSAP

conference series Vol. 17 (pp 98).

Sawio C.J. (1993).Feeding Urban Masses: Towards Understanding of

Dynamics of Urban Agriculture and land use change in Dar

es salaam, Tanzania. Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation, Clark

University, Worcester, MA.

_________. (1994).Who is Urban Farmers of Dar es Salaam? In Egziblier,

A.G et al (eds) Cities Feeding People: An examination of

Urban Agriculture in EA. International Development

Centre, Ottawa: Canada, pp.25-46.

__________ (1997).Managing Urban Agriculture in Dar es salaam: A

proposition Paper in collaboration with Sustainable Dar es

salaam Project. Dar es salaam: Unpublished paper

Sawio, C.J., Sokoni, C.H., and Kyessi, A.G. (1995). "Human Settlements

and the Environment: Environmental Policy

Considerations". In: Njau, G.J. and Mugurusi, E.K (eds.):

Towards Sustainable Environment in Tanzania, Friedrich-

Naumann-Stiftung, pp.155-171.

Stufflebeam,D.L (1983).The CIPP model for program evaluation. In

G.F.Madaus,M.Scriven,&D.L.Stufflebeam(Eds),Evaluation

models Chapter 7,pp.117-141.Boston:Kluwer-Nijhoff.

97

United Nations. (1994).World Urbanization Prospects, New York.

UNDP. (1996). Urban agriculture; food, jobs and sustainable cities.

Publication Series for Habitat II, Volume One, United

Nations Development Programme, New York.

URT .(2000). National Human Settlements Development Policy. Ministry

of Lands and Human Settlements Development. Dar es

Salaam: Government Printers. p. 48.

The Local Government System in Tanzania

(2005).http://www.clgf.org.uk/index_profiles.htm)Retrieved on

5th march 2009.

http://www.clgf.org.uk/index_profiles.htm)Retrieved

98

APPENDIX

A. Structured questionnaire for identifying the characteristics of the

selected Morogoro urban livestock keepers

1.0: Ward of the respondent……….

(a) Kichangani……………(1)

(b) Boma………………….(2)

(c) Sabasaba……………….(3)

2.0:Size of the area

(a)High density area…………...(1)

(b)Medium density area……….(2)

(c)Low density area……………(3)

3.0Age of a respondent

(a)<30…………(1)

(b)30-50………(2)

(c)>50…………(3)

4.0: Sex of a respondent

(a)Male…………(1)

(b)Female……….(2)

5.0: Marital status

(a)Married………(1)

(b)Widowed…….(2)

(c) Separated……….(3)

(d) Single…………..(4)

6.0: Education level

(a)Elementary…………(1)

(b)Secondary………….(2)

(c)Degree……………..(3)

(d)Other, specify………(4)

7.0: Occupation of a respondent

(a)Civil servant…………(1)

(b)Retired………………(2)

(c)Farmer……………….(3)

99

(d)Trader……………….(4)

(e)Other, specify………..(5)

8.0: Years of experience in livestock keeping

(a)<20…………………(1)

(b)20-40………………(2)

(c)>40…………………(3)

9.0: Who takes care of livestock?

(a)Children…………(1)

(b)Hired labour…………(2)

(c)Owner……………….(3)

(d)Owner +family………(4)

(e)Owner +hired labour…(5)

(f)Hired labour…………..(6)

10.0: What kind, number, and management system of livestock kept?

Livestock kind Number Keeping system

11: Types of supplementary feeds used for livestock production.

(a)Commercial concentrate…………………………(1)

(b)Home mixed agro-industrial products…………..(2)

(c)Both……………………………………………..(3)

(d)None…………………………………………....(4).

12. How do you dispose animal‟s waste generated?

(a)Used as manure…………………..(1)

(b)Disposed in special pits………….(2)

(c)Not any…………………………..(3)

13. Do you have municipal permit to keep those animals?

(a)Yes……………………(1)

(b)No……………………(2)

14. If the answer above is yes what are the conditions to be given a permit?

15. Do you think it is necessary to have a permit? Give reasons.

16. If the answer for question 5 is no, do you know that you need to have a

permit before you start keeping animals in urban areas?

(a)Yes…………………(1)

(b)No………………….(2)

100

17. If the answer above is yes why did you not get one?

18. Are you aware of any municipal by-laws which guide urban animal

keeping?

(a)Yes…………………(1)

(b)No………………….(2)

19. If the answer above is yes, can you mention them?

20. Where do you sell your livestock products and how reliable are the

markets?

21. Where do you obtain veterinary services/drugs for your livestock?

22. How often do municipal livestock officers come for inspection?

23. How many times have you faced legal actions from municipal officers

against your livestock keeping?

(B) Rating scale to measure the attitude of livestock keepers towards the

municipal animals’ by-laws.

1. Do you think these by-laws are of any importance?

(a)Very important……………………(1)

(b)Important…………………………(2)

(c )Very un important……………….(3)

(d) Un important…………………….(4)

2. In your opinion, do you agree if it is necessary each urban livestock keeper

to have a keeping permit from the Municipal director?

Strongly disagree……………………(1)

Disagree……………………………..(2)

Strongly agree………………………(3).

Agree………………………………..(4)

3.What is your opinion on the following statement

(i) The by-laws are formulated and regulated with the elite groups while the

keeping is practiced by less elite.

(a) Strongly disagree……………………..(1)

(b) Disagree……………………………..(2)

(c) Strongly agree……………………….(3).

(d)Agree………………………………..(4)

(ii) Local dialogue between urban livestock keepers and the regulators

(Morogoro municipal officers) are needed to find the consensus on the by-

laws.

(a)Strongly disagree……………………..(1)

(b)Disagree……………………………..(2)

(c) Strongly agree……………………….(3).

(d) Agree………………………………..(4)

101

C) Interview guidelines for municipal officials to find the influence of

by-laws on urban livestock keeping and environmental management.

1. Respondent position

Vertinary officer……………………(1)

Livestock officer……………………(2)

Uran planner………………………..(3)

2. How often do you visit urban livestock keepers to evaluate the

applicability of by-laws?

(a) Once per month……………….(1)

(b) Once after three months………..(2)

(c) Not at all………………………….(3)

3. How many cases of penalties have been applied to urban animal keepers

violating by-laws since 2002?

One……………………(1)

More than one…………(2)

None……………………(3)

5. To what extent does the implementation of these bylaws helped the

management of the environment in the municipality? Give data and

evidence

Large……………………(1)

Medium………………….(2)

Small……………………..(3)

6. What has been the impact of these by laws since their formation in this

municipalty?

Positive………………..(1)

Negative……………….(2)

(D) Researcher’s observational checklist

(i) Location and size of the animal buildings

(ii) Number and kind of livestock kept i.e size of herd..

(iii) Livestock keeping systems and technologies used in waste

management.

(iv) The extent to which livestock keeping has affected land/air and water.

(v) Cleanness of the animal buildings/burns

(vi)Whether animals are kept in the specified area .

(vii)Whether free ranging is carried out.

salma

Typewritten Text

102

salma

Typewritten Text

salma

Typewritten Text

Dar es salaam,University of Dar es salaam,diss.,2010

salma

Typewritten Text

salma

Typewritten Text

salma

Typewritten Text

salma

Typewritten Text

salma

Typewritten Text

salma

Typewritten Text

salma

Typewritten Text

Saumu Book 2

Documents

Transcript of Saumu Book 2