the potential role of local knowledge in community forest management

THE POTENTIAL ROLE OF LOCAL KNOWLEDGE IN COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT: THE CASE OF KIDUNDAKIYAVE MIOMBO WOODLAND, TANZANIA

Master of Science (MSc) thesis in Sustainable Tropical Forestry, Copenhagen University Supervisors:

Prof. Jens Friis Lund & Prof. Henrik Meilby

Institution:

Faculty of Science

Name of department:

Department of Food and Resource Economics

Author:

Pauline Achieng’ Bala (vnr382)

Academic advisor:

Jens Friis Lund& Henrik Meilby

Submission date:

01, September, 2015

ii

DECLARATION I, Pauline Achieng Bala, do hereby declare that this thesis is the presentation of my own original research work. I therefore, certify that this work contains no material which has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma in my name, in any university or other tertiary institution and, to the best of my knowledge and belief, contains no material previously published or written by another person, except where due reference has been made in the text and the reference list appended.

…………………………………………………………………… Pauline Bala

…………………………………

MSc. Sustainable tropical forestry, (Forest and Livelihood) candidate

iii

Date

ABSTRACT The contribution of local knowledge in natural resource management has been widely reported. However, only a few study cases have focused on the role of local knowledge in overcoming the challenges associated with technical design of forest management plans (under Participatory Forest Management). Notable are the cases reported of Asia’s community forestry systems where community forest users, based on their understanding of their environmental history, ecological theories behind forest regeneration and understanding of simple silvicultural practices, have resorted to application of locally-situated knowledge as opposed to being informed by flawed technical management plans in their forest management practices. Their understandings have subsequently proven adequate in achieving sustainable forest management objective under Participatory Forest Management (PFM). Technically-designed management plans characterize PFM systems in most Sub-Saharan African countries. Yet the contributions of local knowledge in such context remain rather unexplored. It is therefore imperative to investigate the role local knowledge can play in overcoming the reported challenges associated with technical designing of forest management plan. This invites for investigations into understanding of local forest users about their forest condition, their capacity to make independent rational decisions that enhance the intended objectives of PFM and their consciousness in observing the changes or outcomes of their practices thereby making it possible to suggest appropriate intervention during the management process. The current study seeks to unravel these issues by focusing on the following research objectives namely: one, to explore the understanding of local forest managers/users (hereafter referred to as locals) of their forest disturbances and underlying principles of forest regeneration and growth; two, to explore the understanding of local forest managers of their current and future management practices; three, to explore understanding of local forest managers about the changes and trends in forest condition including and lastly, to determine the current biophysical outcome of forest under PFM management. A mixed method approach is adopted using both qualitative data (Focus group discussions, direct observation, forest walk, document reviews and semi structured interviews with key informants) to elicit data on locals’ perceptions and quantitative data from forest survey to elicit data on forest condition. The different sources of data were triangulated not just for convergence/ match, but also for iv

complementarity and divergence (mismatch). Results indicate that local forest managers and users understand to a greater extent the underlying forest ecological principles of forest management, and therefore to some extent consciously undertake relevant management practices which aim both at sustainable supply of forest products, as well as conservation of valued species. Their understanding of the Miombo indicator species such as Mushrooms’ association with and Brachystegia could potentially be a less-technical way in monitoring the population trends of Miombo woodland species. However, their knowledge of the forest stock is very little and is less reliable in estimating the forest stock and the harvesting level. Consequently, decisions made on the annual harvesting levels are neither dependent on their understanding of the forest stock nor is it dependent directly on the Annual allowable cut amount directives from the experts (District Forest officer) but indirectly dependent on expert knowledge by taking Annual allowable Cut issued by the experts as a point of reference below which they determine the annual harvested amount after taking into account the interest of a few forest-dependent groups-local firewood buyers at the expense of other local charcoal producers. A practice that may be explaining the reason for success in forest conservation (sustainable supply of forest products) efforts with negative effects in access to forests resources to all community members through unequal distribution of forest resources/ benefits. This study contributes in assessing the level of local participation in participatory forest management with their simple and cost effective local knowledge. The findings in Iringa do not indicate that local forest managers have sufficient knowledge of quantifying the harvesting level and cannot possibly be tasked to determine the harvesting level, therefore an integration of local and expert knowledge is recommended to complement the partial nature of both forms of knowledge to ensure the sustainable forest management. Key words: Community forestry, PFM, local knowledge, biophysical outcome,

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT First and foremost, enormous thanks go to GOD for this far He has brought me and seeing me through my MSc. Program in diverse, exciting and challenging environments. My very special appreciation goes to my supervisors, Prof. Jens Friis Lund and Prof Henrik Meilby for the technical, financial and moral support you provided to me during the entire process of my thesis project. Your unreserved patience and enthusiasm in providing invaluable insights, stimulating suggestions and encouragements helped me to coordinate this thesis project. The financial support in SCIFOR projects coordinated by both of you facilitated my field work research in Tanzania. My gratitude also goes to Prof. Ngaga Yonika (the coordinator, SCIFOR, SUA) and Dr. Mwakalukwa Ezekiel for the logistical support that saw my work run smoothly in Tanzania. To Dr. Mwakalukwa thank you also for introducing me to all the forest government officers as well as ensuring that my stay in Tanzania was a comfortable one. My field work in Iringa would not have been a success without the consent from Mr Njau (District Forest Officer), Chairman, Kiwere village council; and the Village Environment Officer, Kiwere who warmly welcomed me into their area of jurisdiction and availed relevant government documents and information. Many appreciations also go to Tom, Saida, Iddi, and Mzee Mumba for their significant contribution in the actual forest assessments including tree species identification. I owe gratitude to all respondents in Kiwere village for their cooperation and for providing relevant information for my study “Shukrani nyote kwa muda wenu!” My deepest thanks go to “Dada” Rose and family for your hospitality and in ensuring that I had healthy food while I was working in the village. I would like to extend my acknowledgements to Erasmus Mundus which funded my entire MSc. Program in both Bangor and Copenhagen Universities through the Sustainable Tropical Forestry (SUTROFOR) consortium. I also thank DANIDA fellowship program and O.J.H Heilman Foundation for the support with the travel grants which partly covered my field work in Tanzania and to KEFRI, my employer for granting me the study leave to pursue my Master’s program.

vi

I also cherish the invaluable pieces of advice that I received from Ex-SUTROFOR students particularly Sarobidy, and Yemi on the choice of institutions and supervisors contributed a lot to the success of my study. Lastly, the encouragement that I received from my friends and family kept me going even during tough moments. Particularly, I would like to thank Ishmael, Peter Musingizi and Thomas Degeti for your encouragements; and Kirsten Lindgreen for having made me to feel so much at home in Denmark

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS DECLARATION .............................................................................................................................................. iii ABSTRACT..................................................................................................................................................... iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .................................................................................................................................. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS.................................................................................................................................. viii LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................................. xi LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................... xi CHAPTER ONE ............................................................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1 1.0

Thesis Outline................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1

Background ................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2

Research Problem and Justification .............................................................................................. 2

1.3

General Objective ......................................................................................................................... 6

1.3.1

Specific Objectives ................................................................................................................ 6

1.4

Conceptualization of the Study ..................................................................................................... 7

1.5

Conceptualization of Local Knowledge ......................................................................................... 8

1.6

Significance of the Study ............................................................................................................... 9

1.7

Tanzanian Community Forestry, Forest Planning and Management ........................................... 9

1.8

Case Study Description: Local Knowledge and Kiwere Management Plan................................. 11

CHAPTER TWO ............................................................................................................................................ 14 METHODOLOGY AND METHODS ................................................................................................................ 14 2.0

Overview of the Chapter ............................................................................................................. 14

2.1

Methodology............................................................................................................................... 14

2.2

Study Area ................................................................................................................................... 15

2.3

Methods ...................................................................................................................................... 17

2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3

Forest Inventory and Vegetation Survey ................................................................................ 17 Sampling Design and Sampling Intensity ............................................................................ 17 Harvesting Level ...................................................................................................................... 20 viii

2.3.4

Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 20

2.3.5 Methods for Collecting Data on Local Understanding of the Forest Condition and Management Practices and Changes in Forest Condition .................................................................. 22 2.3.6

Qualitative Data Processing and Analysis Interviews ......................................................... 24

CHAPTER THREE .......................................................................................................................................... 26 RESULTS ...................................................................................................................................................... 26 3.0

Overview of the Chapter ............................................................................................................. 26

3.1

Results on the Current Biophysical Condition of the Forest ....................................................... 26

3.2

Results on Locals’ Understandings.............................................................................................. 32

3.2.1

Locals’ Relations with DFO .................................................................................................. 32

3.2.2

Understandings on Sspecies Developments and changes in forest conditions .................. 34

3.2.3

Understanding on the overall changes in forest conditions since PFM begun................... 37

3.2.4

Locals’ understanding on the level and type of species harvested from the forest ........... 38

3.2.5

Locals’ understanding on level of harvesting...................................................................... 39

3.2.7

Fire and management practices of fire in Kidundakiyave forest ........................................ 40

3.2.7 The ecological principle behind species regeneration, reproduction and subsequent management practices ....................................................................................................................... 41 3.2.8

Understandings on the forms of reproduction of various species in the Forest Reserve .. 43

3.2.9

Understanding on Management on harvesting tools ......................................................... 44

3.3

Management Decisions by the Locals on the Level of Wood Harvesting ................................... 46

3.4

Locals’ perceptions on future management practices ............................................................... 48

CHAPTER FOUR ........................................................................................................................................... 49 DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................. 49 4.1

Biophysical Condition of the Forest ............................................................................................ 49

4.1.1

Stand structure ................................................................................................................... 49

4.1.2

Estimates of Forest Exploitation Level ................................................................................ 50

4.1.3

DBH Frequency Distribution ............................................................................................... 50

4.2 Understanding of forest use pattern, ecological principles underlying species regeneration and effects of disturbances on forest development...................................................................................... 51 ix

4.3

Locals’ understanding of tree species Development and changes in Forest Condition ............ 52

4.4

Local forest managers and users’ perceptions of the Current and future management practices 53

4.5

Limitations of the Study Findings ................................................................................................ 56

4.6

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 58

LIST OF REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 61 LIST OF APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................... 67 APPENDIX 1:

SPECIES PREFERENCE LIST .......................................................................................... 67

APPENDIX 2:

MODELS USED IN ESTIMATING DBH, H AND VOLUME .............................................. 74

APPENDIX 3:

LIST OF RESPONDENTS ............................................................................................... 75

APPENDIX 4:

INTERVIEW GUIDE ....................................................................................................... 77

x

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Variables assessed from each circles in the nested plots ................................................ 19 Table 2 Mean values Mean± STDERR (95 % CI or Margin of error) of various stand structure parameters of Kidundakiyave forest from bigger trees of dbh≥5 cm. .......................................... 26 Table 3 Estimated Volume of Wood Harvested From the Forest ................................................. 27 Table 4: Harvested Tree Species and their Volumes According to the Possible Years of Harvesting ..................................................................................................................................... 28

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Map of the study area and the adjacent forest Ganga la Mtumba ................................. 16 Figure 2: Map showing location of systematically selected sample plots in Kidundakiyave forest ....................................................................................................................................................... 18 Figure 3: DBH Distribution graph indicating assessments in 2007 in the first graph and 2015 the second graph ................................................................................................................................. 29 Figure 4: DBH Distribution graph of Important Species in 2007 in the first graph and 2015 the second graph ................................................................................................................................. 31 Figure 5: Julbernardia globiflora seedlings dependent on light for recruitment ........................... 43 Figure 6: Changes in utilization patterns of forest products over time since PFM begun ............ 46

xi

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION 1.0

Thesis Outline

The study explores the potential role of local knowledge in enhancing community forest management by focusing on local’s understanding of their forest condition, and management practices aimed at forest conservation. Chapter one outlines the rationale of the study; the limitations of scientific framing of Community Forest Management and Planning, and introduces the research focus; the potential of local knowledge in community forestry planning and management; and conceptualization of the study including definition and conceptualization of terms. Chapter two introduces the methodology of the study, description of the study area as well as the methods used in collecting data on local knowledge and forest assessments. It also outlines the analytical framework of the study. Chapter three elaborates on results and interpretation of the research findings. Finally, in chapter four, a detailed discussion of the study findings is done with a critical reflection of the methods and possible influence on the findings. 1.1

Background

Over the past 20-years PFM has been promoted around the globe to form a central feature of forest management in developing countries (Sunderland et al 2008; Rutt et al., 2014; Treue et al 2014). Currently, natural forest areas under PFM is estimated to be approximately 12% of the world’s total natural forests (Ribot et al. 2010; Sunderland et al. 2008) with almost 21 SubSaharan African countries having adopted these participatory approaches of forest management (Ribot et al, 2010). The main feature characterizing PFM is the transfer of management authority from the central government to the local communities who depend on such forest for their livelihood with an intention of empowering locals in decision making. This includes the application of their own knowledge in enhancing sustainable forest exploitation or conservation and improving their livelihood and benefit sharing (Lund et al. 2014; Treue et al. 2014, Vyamana 2009 Hobley, 1996).

1.2

Research Problem and Justification

Whereas, there are mixed outcomes on impacts of PFM on the conservation goal (Scheba and Mustalahti 2015; Ribot et al. 2010; Vyamana 2009; Blomley et al 2008; Lund and Treue 2008), the impact of PFM on improving livelihood and increasing local participation in forest still appears elusive (Chomba et al. 2015; Lund and Treue 2008; Scheba and Mustalahti 2015). The mixed results above have invited investigations into the role of power in the design, practice and outcome of participatory forestry (Faye 2014; Ribot et al. 2010). Lack of real and complete democratic decentralization, that is to say, actual local involvement, in PFM has partly been blamed for stifling success in PFM in a number of developing African countries (Scheba and Mustalahti 2015; Ribot et al. 2010). Among the emerging issues observed to be deterring actual local participation is the predominance of techno-bureaucratic values, practices and authority which privilege expert or professionalization of forestry practices and discourses over local regular knowledge and practices (Faye 2014; Rutt et al. 2014 Ojha et al. 2006; Ojha et al. 2005). Scientific framing of forest management and planning under PFM schemes is suggested as one such means through which professionalization of forestry is done (Scheba and Mustalahti 2015, Rutt et al 2014; Faye 2014). This means planning and management is often informed by the professionals’ only own ways of understanding forest management following their academic training and professional practices (Faye 2014; Rutt et al 2014). Under such framing, detailed scientific management plans are often a pre-requisite requirement for local community forest users to present before they can acquire management, use and control rights from the former forest custodian-the central government agencies (Rutt et. al 2014; Carter 1996). Their rationale being that they act as a guide to safeguard forest quality and thus should entail accurate and systematically quantified information. Such conventional approach of scientific planning for forest management includes, among others, determination of forest stand structure, stock (Biomass and volume) and sometimes species composition based on technical, statistically sound and detailed inventory-based procedures (Toft et al. 2015; Rutt et al.2014; Newton 2007, ). Generated knowledge should inform forest managers on forest size distribution (continuous recruitment), standing stock or volume, annual increment and annual allowable cut upon which harvesting plans or management 2

plans are developed (Rutt et al. 2014; Newton 2007; Carter 1996). It is therefore understandable that such processes be conducted in a robust and accurate manner which may require very technical expertise skills including sophisticated software for simulation and modelling to predict future forest growth as well as large data sets to produce credible and accurate information (Newton 2007). Additionally, the management objectives of a forest should dictate the type of information included in forest management plan to make such documents relevant for the intended management outcome. Furthermore, because forest ecosystem is dynamic, with a lot of changes in forest ecological process and continuous disturbances, periodic assessments and monitoring is often considered a good forest management practice in order to make decisions on new developments and “learn from the experiences”. As such, management plans ought to undergo periodic review and get updated to take into account such new developments in forest management (Newton 2007). In most developing countries, the practical application of technical forest management plans under PFM systems is often constrained with limited financial resources, inadequate skilled human capacity to conduct such detailed technical and inventory-based processes and subsequently do periodic review of forest management plans as would be expected under conventional forestry (Scheba and Mustalahti 2015; Toft et al. 2015; Rutt et al. 2014). Furthermore, participatory forestry planning and management in developing countries often assume these technical inventory-based planning and management with less considerations of their relevance in community forest management objectives. The technicalities and costly requirements of developing such detailed management plans have advertently or inadvertently led to increased dependence by community members on external experts including state authorities, or consultants in forest management. This has often led to the exclusion of local knowledge and practices. In some instances, the technical framing of forest planning and management has been blamed for enhancing elite capture and contributing to social inequity (Green and Lund 2014; and Lund and Saito-Jensen 2013). It has also resulted in delayed decentralization and subsequent delays in economic benefits to rural communities (Rutt et al. 2014, Scheba and Mustalahti et al. 2015)

3

There is no doubt that such forest plans are a burden not only to the local community who may find them too complex to follow, but also to the state and international donors who have to spend so much in designing the plans which eventually turn out less useful (Scheba and Mustalahti 2014). Accordingly, some local forest managers, under community forestry schemes, have been resorting to locally-situated, regular and simple forms of knowledge to inform decision making (Toft et al 2015; Rutt et al 2014). For instance, local managers in Nepalese community forestry (CF) do not adhere 100% to the technical operational plans to inform their management operations and practices as required under forest law (Rutt et al. 2014). Yet, they seem to be making sound management practices based on their understanding of ecological principles behind forest regenerations and environmental history. These subsequently enable them to challenge credibility of inventory-based operational plans yet still, achieve their intended aim of conservation as well as enhance local inclusion in decision making (Toft et al. 2015, Rutt et al 2014). Their findings are thus indicative that locals understand the forest ecological principles underlying their management operations towards effective forest management. The studies above, in Nepal, have focused on general cover of the forest by comparing local’s perceptions with data from landscape/crown cover from aerial photograph as observed by Toft et al. (2015) or general forest condition (Rutt et al 2014). However, these only give general scale information of forest (Landscape level) and not at lower species level. Yet, Ahlborg and Nightingale (2012) argue that knowledge is partial and scale dependent. Thus, local community forest users may be less knowledgeable of the entire forest condition but much more knowledgeable on the species or areas they mostly harvested as established by (Topp-Jorgensen et al. 2005). It is therefore imperative to focus also on species scale level under a different geographical context to understand if local forest related knowledge can contribute in rationalized decision making under PFM. Rationalization is used here to mean decisions informed by understanding of the underlying principles and characteristics of the resource and as such management aims at a certain outcome rather than occurring by chance without local’s awareness or not just occurring because external directive or advice provided to the local forest users and managers. 4

The current study therefore seeks to further our understanding on the potential contribution of local ecological knowledge and management practices in enhancing biophysical condition of community forestry in Tanzania In the context of Sub-Saharan-Africa, the Tanzanian forest legal framework is considered one of the most advanced in terms of decentralization of forest management or PFM approaches (Scheba and Mustalahti 2014). The framework includes provision of approaches intended at enhancing inclusion of local knowledge in forest planning, forest assessments and monitoring with schemes such as community-based monitoring (Topp- Jørgensen et al. 2005; Funder et al 2013) following the National guideline of Participatory Forest Resource Assessments (PFRA). In principle, the management plan should incorporate community-based monitoring schemes with minimal engagement of government officers. Government officers should be engaged only on inventory assessments and advisory role, as well as provision of training. Therefore, with time there is increased involvement of local forest users in monitoring by simple visual inspection of forest conditions, assessment of extraction or use levels and other forms of disturbances with subsequent suggestions of community level interventions aiming at reducing forest threats and consequently enhancing forest growth (Topp-Jørgensen et al 2005). By this, local forest-related knowledge can be produced and implemented in the management of community forest thus increasing awareness in forest conditions among the local members (Ibid.). Additionally, monitoring and controlling both anthropogenic and other forms of disturbances is included in the monitoring scheme because both forms of disturbances are known to be significantly important in influencing structure and composition of Miombo woodland (Frost 1996). However, there is no empirical evidence showing how local forest managers in Tanzania understand forest ecological processes and are actually making rationalized decisions aimed at promoting sustainable forest management and other objectives of PFM as has been reported in the Nepalese Community forestry. A few related studies available in Tanzania have focused on the social dynamics of community-based management schemes as reported by Funder et al. (2013) where locals’ use of their knowledge and practices can lead to tweaking monitoring schemes in fine ways to reinforce their monitoring practices to their advantage thereby enhancing local autonomy. In some instances their actions can lead to certain negative unintended outcomes different from originally planned ones like domination by community level conservation elites. 5

However, their studies did not touch on any aspect of locals’ understandings on forest ecological principles that can be useful in making rationalized decisions on management practices. Another study by Topp-Jørgensen et al. (2005) is indicative of the fact that there is potential of generation of locally-situated knowledge relevant for making appropriate decisions for community forestry management under the monitoring scheme. Yet, the evaluation was done only 9 months after the start of community forestry in Iringa. It did not show how any locals possess understanding of any forest ecological knowledge that influence forest management neither did it focus on the outcome of the interventions suggested. In addition to the above issues, past studies on the impact of PFM on forest biophysical conditions in Tanzania have shown positive outcomes (Treue et al 2014; Lund et al 2014). Assessments in 2007 revealed that Kidundakiyave forest had a volume of 47m3ha-1, diameter class distribution showing a sustainable regeneration pattern (inverted J-curve) with more trees on lower diameter sizes than bigger diameter classes (Lund et al 2008). Yet, the forest ecosystem is dynamic and faces regular disturbances – both anthropogenic and natural. For instance, even after the introduction of community forestry in Kiwere in 2003, expansion of settlements area has continued into certain parts of the forest reserve (Lund et al 2014). A study of the current biophysical condition of the same community forest may tell if the success is sustained. Additionally, by linking such outcome to locals’ perception, it can be shown whether or not local forest managers are aware of the outcomes of their practices. 1.3

General Objective

The current study therefore seeks to further our understanding on the potential contribution of local ecological knowledge and management practices in enhancing biophysical condition of community forestry in Tanzania. 1.3.1 Specific Objectives 

To explore the understanding of local forest managers/users of the forest disturbances and the principles underlying forest regeneration and growth



To explore the understanding of local forest managers of the current and future management practices. 6



To explore the understanding of local forest managers of the changes and current forest condition.

 1.4

To determine the current biophysical condition of the forest Conceptualization of the Study

Based on aforementioned studies, results and gaps from the studies in Nepal as well as the contextual information of community forestry in Tanzania the study is conceptualized in the following way:Objective one seeks to gain insights as to whether or not local forest users and managers understand their forest condition and ecological processes underlying harvesting patterns including level of extraction of various species level of extraction. At the same time, it looks into their understandings on the forms of disturbances and implication on forest condition, ecological process underpinning regeneration and reproduction pattern of various forest species. Additionally, it analyses which of those forms can potentially inform decisions made on regulating use, harvesting and other silvicultural practices undertaken in the forest. This is done by interviewing local forest managers and forest users then comparing their understanding with other sources such as ecological theories on Miombo woodland or findings of the current forest condition from the assessments either for a match or mismatch taking into account that a lack of match between the two sources can show how their understanding is probably based on their interest, history and exposure to external information and have the potential to influence the way they manage the forest. By exploring the understanding of local managers about their management practices, objective two seeks to determine how management is done, its inquiries into whether their management practices and decisions are informed by their understandings of the forest or by other external sources only. This is done by relating their knowledge of the forest or ecological principles established under objective one with the actual management practices (as described by them or as observed) and further establishing whether such practices are similar or different from those stipulated in the management plans to establish if they are capable of devising new management practices suited to their localities and needs. This subsequently unravels the application of their 7

own knowledge in forest management and can show if they make rationalized decision on forest management. Objective three seeks to provide insights on the awareness of local forest managers regarding the developments in their forest condition. By so doing, study seeks to show if forest managers consciously manage the forest with an aim of achieving a positive outcome or if they are not aware and the outcome observed are just by chance which may be a result of external directives or following stipulated rules in the management plan or forest laws To assess the current biophysical conditions of Kidundakiyave forest, examining the current biophysical condition of the forest and comparing it with the past biophysical results gives an indication of the trends or trajectory of forest stock or condition. This acts as an indication of the prevailing management outcome (whether intended or just by chance) and so one might argue whether or not, such practices lead to improved forest conservation. In order to establish the current biophysical condition of the forest, the stand structure is assessed which is important in showing the developments of overall size class distribution; the abundance of the most preferred species is determined as well, stand volume, crown cover and the harvesting levels. People’s perception and the inventory results are compared to establish whether the two sources diverge which might mean that they are either uniformed or informed of the forest status or that their understanding stems from only their limited scope and scale of knowledge. 1.5

Conceptualization of Local Knowledge

Local knowledge, local ecological knowledge, traditional ecological knowledge, traditional knowledge, wisdom, traditional environmental knowledge, have often been used by authors interchangeably to mean the same thing with slight variation depending on the context and so is the case of scientific, expert and western knowledge (Agrawal 1995). There are several definitions which attempt to distinguish between local/ traditional/ indigenous knowledge from Western / Scientific knowledge (Agrawal 1995). For instance, Western knowledge is defined as “a form of knowledge system with its norms and procedure for truth making through a process of validation, abstraction and generalizing whereas local knowledge is perceived to be embedded in people and institutions and may be seen as contextual and applied” (Agrawal 2002 as cited in Ahlborgh and Nightingale 2012) 8

It has been argued that it is impossible to draw a distinct line between local or indigenous knowledge forms from scientific /western / knowledge forms (Agrawal 1995). The term local knowledge in this study is used to denote knowledge and practices held and used by local Kiwere forest users and village managers who may have drawn such knowledge from their past interactions with the external experts including central government forester or passed to them from earlier generation by culture, or may have been informed by science from their academic background and external bodies. That knowledge is either expressed verbally or in written form and is only used by local residents and forest users to manage their forest. In other words, the term has been used to show knowledge possessed by village members, entrusted with management of village forest reserve, not having to rely on outsiders’ or experts’ information at the time they need to make forest management decisions. In this study local knowledge, local ecological knowledge or local forest related knowledge have been used interchangeably to mean the same thing because part of the objective is related to knowledge about their environment or forest. Scientific or expert knowledge here has been used to denote knowledge acquired from experts and outside the village from professionals just before villagers make decisions on forest management. In other words, it denotes having to rely on knowledge from outside the village level to make decisions on forest management. 1.6

Significance of the Study

The study will contribute empirically to the current discourses on the potential contribution of local ecological knowledge in community forestry and further inform policy makers on the need for increased participation of locals in the application of their knowledge in planning, management and implementation in community forestry. The ultimate implication is to enhance democracy in community forest by enhancing local inclusion and promoting cost effective forest management system. 1.7

Tanzanian Community Forestry, Forest Planning and Management

Tanzanian legal framework provides for two approaches to participatory forestry popularly known as community-based forest management (CBFM) and joint forest management (JFM) under the Forest Act 2002 (URT 2002). Under JFM, national or local governments forest reserves are co-managed by the central or district governments as the owners (Scheba and Mustalahti 2015; Blomley and Iddi 2009; URT 2002). In contrast, under CBFM, village 9

governments obtain tenure and management rights over forests on village land, which allows them to gazette Village, Group or Private Forest Reserves to manage a village land forest reserve. As such, village government is granted more authority of forest management under the CBFM compared to that granted to locals under joint management (JFM). Under this legal framework, Forest Management Plan is a pre-requisite requirement for community members to develop before management and use rights are transferred to them in order to steer the management process to sustainable forest utilization (this is done in consultation with forest users, local government authorities or relevant authorized bodies). The detailed plans provides for flexibility in adoption of new management interventions based on the developments observed from the forest. Therefore, the management plans should be adjusted whenever necessary as long as approval or directives are issued by the forest officer or director. Full review of the management plan documents ought to be done at least once every five years or such other period as may be prescribed in accordance with the procedures provided in the forest laws (URT 2002) The development of forest monitoring and assessment guidelines as part of the management plan in Tanzania follows a technical guideline produced by experts from Ministry of Natural resources and tourism (Forest and bee keeping division) called guideline for Participatory Forest Resource Assessment PFRA (URT 2005). It is implemented through participatory process between the experts or relevant local government officers and local forest managers and users of the respective forests. The level of details and intensity of inclusion of local’s knowledge and practice in the development and implementation of such forest management plans and assessments procedures increase with increasing harvesting levels of wood as the management objectives. As such, management plans for community- based forest management, with goals on use and production of wood should be much more detailed and more inclusive than a forest meant for protection use under Joint forest management (URT 2005). Therefore, under the PFRA guideline, active inclusion of local community knowledge and practices in forest management and planning are observed in the following activities namely: planning and preparation, forest product utilization, conducting forest walk, regulation of access to forest land information compilation and analysis and preparation of management plan with heavy government input on the sample plot assessments and subsequent provision of management recommendation of 10

technical knowledge on sustainable harvesting or level of harvesting annual yield and species conservation (URT 2005 ). 1.8

Case Study Description: Local Knowledge and Kiwere Management Plan

In the study area, Kiwere village, management plan includes the adoption of community based monitoring scheme. It was developed in 2002 according to the principles above of PFRA 2005 which calls for establishment of baseline forest stock following detailed inventory work and assessments in a participatory process. However, due to lack of resources at the inception of the scheme for government to conduct baseline forest assessments, no baseline forest resource assessment was done then. Instead, only a rapid visual inspection of the forest condition was done (Topp-Jørgensen et al 2005). As such, the design of the management plan and monitoring scheme at the inception was characterized with a high level of local autonomy. This presumably could promote gaining and application of local forest/ ecological knowledge as much as possible. The monitoring here should be done through simple methods of the extraction/use levels and other disturbances through simple forest walks thereby coming up with intervention measures that help to reduce the threats. There are no comprehensive detailed wildlife assessments involved other than indicators of wildlife species which are assessed based on the status of the forest condition These monitoring procedures should lead to production of appropriate, relevant and local-specific intervention measures that may be implemented after approval from the village assembly and the central government director of forestry where locals may receive advice from the central government. The establishment of Community Forestry in Iringa, was done between 1999-2003 with the cooperation between the Iringa District Council and Danish International Development Assistance through the Iringa District Lands, Natural Resources and Environment Office as reported by Topp-Jørgensen et al (2005) under a project popularly known by the actors as the ‘Matumizi Endelevu ya Misitu ya Asili’ MEMA project. The official handing over was done in 2002 by signing a contract for Participatory Forest Management between the villagers and the district executive directors (Lund et al 2014; Topp-Jørgensen et al 2005). The village community forest has a local administrative authority known as the Village Natural Resource Committee (VNRC). The Committee is a sub-committee under the social service committee of the Village government. The VNRC members should be at least seven members, 11

elected democratically directly into the village assembly and further elected by the village assembly as committee members. The VNRC is therefore, answerable directly to the village government. Four of the VNRC are elected as forest guards who undergo military training and are headed by a guard commander. The VNRC is led by a chairman, secretary and one treasurer and currently have their deputies as well. The village assembly develops and enforces forest conservation by-laws and approves permit for forest use while the VNRC sub-committee of the village government has executive power to prepare and implement forest management plan. The implementation of community basedforest management plan entails the following activities: inspecting and evaluating permits issued for forest uses, patrolling, arresting violators, fire control, overseeing enrichment planting in open areas and collecting revenue from their forest products and services. The ordinary village members on the other hand receive information on the progress of participatory forestry, and participate in making forest management decisions accordingly. They also help in forest protection by reporting any violators or intruders to the relevant authorities. The devolution thus entails the power to manage the forest, collect revenue and regulate use of all forest products except wildlife resources whose management jurisdiction falls in a different docket under the District Wildlife Officer (Green and Lund 2014; Funder et al 2013; Topp Jorgensen et al. 2005). The revenue generated from the forest is to be retained by the village committees for use in villager forest management such as allowances for patrol guards and any surplus allocated to community development projects but 5% be remitted to the District Natural Resource Office. This has since been increased to 25%.of the generated forest revenue. According to the by-laws, commercial exploitation of forest products such as wet firewood, dry firewood, timber, charcoal production, collection of medicinal plants, grass for sale collection of sand, soils and stones, hanging bee hives and other cultural uses is allowed. It is done after acquisition of permits otherwise only village members are allowed to harvest forest products without permits on designated parts of the forest on particular days of the week. Harvesting wood from Pterocarpus angolensis is prohibited by law. Activities allowed to outside people with permits include tourism and conducting scientific research. Activities forbidden inside the forest include practicing agriculture, livestock grazing within the forest reserve, developing

12

settlements or constructing houses, starting fire, tampering with the boundary marks and warning signs. The VNRC committee meets once every month or any day – in case of emergency - to discuss on the implementation of the forest management practices. They prepare quarterly reports in a year, which they present to both the village assembly and the District Natural Resource Committee. According to the management plan, important data on forest condition are filled in prescribed forms for use in the review of the implementation practices and then presented to the department of Natural Resources at the district office for approval. The role of the Department of Natural Resources Office (District forest officer) is minimal. It is basically to provide technical advice on the implementation of Community Forestry, including advising on Annual Allowable Cut (AAC) to the village forest users and managers, organizing and running trainings on forest protection and management to village members, preparing annual progress reports of community forestry to the district executive officer and sending copies of the report to the director, ministry of forestry, and bee keeping. They also sign legal contracts with the village governments on any forest management agreements as well as reviewing and approving CF management plans. The contract on implementation of the management plan should be renewed every year and amendments made by taking into account the opinions from both the district council and the village government.

13

CHAPTER TWO

METHODOLOGY AND METHODS 2.0

Overview of the Chapter

This Chapter describes the study approach and methods that were applied to elicit data between March 20th and May 20th 2015. The study approach is a case study of Kiwere- Kidundakiyave community Forest Management where mixed method approach was used to elicit data from various sources including peer reviewed journals, grey literature, inventory findings of forest condition as well as local community perceptions. The section also elaborately the data collection and analysis methods used. 2.1

Methodology

According to Yin (2003) a case study design is used when the focus of study is to answer the “How” and “Why” questions. In this study, a case study approach was adopted because the research seeks to understand how the villagers understand their forest condition and how they manage their forest; whether it is based on local forest related knowledge or only on some other forms of knowledge (Yin 2003). The case is considered a critical one as described by Flyvbjerg (2006) as local forest managers have interacted with their forest over time including conducting simple forest assessment procedures. Therefore, they are presumably knowledgeable about their forest condition. Thus it is expected that if they do not understand their forest utilization patterns, ecological underpinnings, and the relevant management practices for their forest then other typical community forestry systems are not expected to be possessing appropriate local forest knowledge to enable them drive forest operations. The study also applied forest survey approach to measure the forest condition the scope of the study was in Kiwere village and Kidundakiyave forest with interviews mainly focusing on main forest users and Village forest managers and the DFO. The methodology also adopted, a mixed method approach of eliciting both qualitative data through PRA methods (Including Forest walk, FGD and direct observations), in-depth interviews 14

and literature review as well as quantitative data on forest inventory where villagers’ perception are triangulated with observations and findings of forest assessments results (inventory) or the prescription of the forest management plan or literature on Miombo ecology. Although triangulation is popularly used in validating findings by convergence or complementarity as shown by (Huntington et al.2004) and (Gagnon and Bateaux 2009), in this study, triangulation is used for both complementarity and divergence as described by Ahlborgh and Nightingale (2012) taking into account that these sources of knowledge forms are partial and scale-dependent. Therefore, there can be detection of a match or mismatch between the different sources. This approach is taken because of the realization that knowledge held by different actors about one subject or phenomenon could vary but does not necessarily mean that either of them is superior than the other or wrong, rather, their perceptions or world view could be influenced by their values, interests or priorities, historical background, geographic location among others issues thereby influencing the observations and decision that they make out of the phenomenon (Ahlborgh and Nightingale 2012). Inventory work followed a standardized data collection procedure and was done before conducting the perception interviews. 2.2

Study Area

Kiwere village and Kidundakiyave Forest reserve are located in Iringa rural district (Lund et al. 2014 and Treue et al. 2014). Kidundakiyave forest and Kiwere village are found in Kiwere ward, Iringa district in Iringa region on the central-southern highlands of Tanzania (Mwakalukwa et al. 2014.). The population of village inhabitants is 1,200 (Lund et al. 2014). The village and the forest reserve neighbors Mfyome village and Ganga la Mtumba Miombo woodland which reported to be located in an altitude ranging between 850m -1,500 m above sea level (Mwakalukwa et al 2014; Lund et al 2008). The region is characterized by distinct wet and dry seasons with almost no rain between June and September and approximately 80% of the annual precipitation falling in December-March. Rainfall data obtained from a nearby meteorological station (about 30 km from the Ganga la Mtumba forest reserve) shows that the area receives an average annual precipitation of 617mm ranging between 448 and-1085 mm Mwakalukwa et al (2014) and the mean annual temperature ranging between 19.8oC and 21oC. The area of Village land forest reserve is 4904 ha and its natural vegetation is predominantly dry Miombo woodland (Lund et al 2014) It is located approximately 20-25 km from Iringa town with an urban 15

population of 150,000. The villagers practice both subsistence and commercial farming. Whereas majority of villagers depend on the surrounding woodlands for domestic use, others exploit it for income for charcoal production as well as firewood for sale in Iringa town. Wet firewood harvesting from the forest for tobacco curing is the main source of revenue generated from the forest (Lund et al 2014).

Figure 1: Map of the study area and the adjacent forest Ganga la Mtumba Source: District Forest Office Iringa (Iringa Map) and the map of Tanzania from (Mwakalukwa et al. 2014)

16

2.3

Methods

2.3.1 Forest Inventory and Vegetation Survey Forest inventory followed a standard approach with detailed inventory process. Inventory was done according to the Protocol devised by LIFE and SUA (2007) as described by (Treue et al. 2014) with a few modifications. The forest reserve has 69 permanent plot centers established on it, marked along 10 transects systematically distributed throughout the forest. 2.3.2 Sampling Design and Sampling Intensity A total of 35 nested circular plots with a total forest area 4.207 ha were sampled (0.085%) forest (for live trees). According to the protocol, 20-30 plots have in the past, provided a standard error of the mean of volume between 10-20% of the estimated mean. Therefore the sample size was considered appropriate considering financial and time constraints. The thirty-five sample plots were selected from all the 10 transects to achieve coverage of the entire forest areas (See google earth extract below). Within each transect, systematic sampling of plot numbers – at a predetermined interval of one plot was done thereby ending up with all odd plot numbers along each transect (See map below). Systematic sampling was chosen because it is easier to locate sample plots on the already documented records with transects drawn on them as well as ease of location on the ground and that it ensures representation of the whole forest area. To ensure accurate location of plot center, the coordinates of the sampled plot centers were retrieved from the records available and entered into a GPS gadget before tracing the plots in the field. Confirmation of the location of plots centers was done by comparing marked objects around the plot centers as indicated on the records. To obtain the nested circles, the radius of each circle was measured from the plot center on all the cardinal directions (West, East, South, North), marked with colored tape and data collected from each quarter. This was done to overcome the problem of inaccurate determination of plot boundary in circular plots which normally characterizes circular plots. Because forest assessment was done when there was full foliage cover during rainy season in March, assessment was done from nested circle ranging from 2m radius for seedlings and 20 meter radius for stumps (Table 1) The data collected in each circle per plot are as shown in Table 1

17

Figure 2: Map showing location of systematically selected sample plots in Kidundakiyave forest

18

Table 1: Variables assessed from each circles in the nested plots

Circle size

Tree size

Description

data collected or variables

(radius) 2 meters radius

Seedlings and shrubs)

(Trees Trees and shrubs with < 30 Species count cm tall, > 30 cm tall but
10

Mkola

0,498

0,099521

2,943875

0,975307

1

488,0516

>10

Mgia

0,652

0,130527

3,861031

1,279161

1

640,1027

Source: 2015 Inventory Assessment Table 4 shows that Mdwendwe (Terminalia brownii) and Mpinati (Julbernardia spiciformis) are the most harvested, at 0. 999 m3ha-1 and 0.676m3ha-1 respectively in the past 1-5 period categories and Mgia appears the least harvested only at older years >10 all Mdwendwe have been harvested only recently. For each species harvested, no rate of harvesting has exceeded the growth rate which was established here at 1.4m3ha-1

28

Overall stand Diameter size Class distribution for 2007 and 2015

Figure 3: DBH Distribution graph indicating assessments in 2007 in the first graph and 2015 the second graph 29

The third graph shows the overall DBH distribution of all sizes of trees sizes including