Global Value Chains

By Ruth Wairimu John as part of the NEPSUS Series

When I joined the NEPSUS team in 2016 as a PhD candidate, I didn’t expect to come across wild animals in the villages. On the day of my arrival to Mloka village in March 2017, I immediately bumped into elephants at Selous Kinga Lodge. Mloka is one of the villages bordering the Selous Game Reserve, the largest and oldest game reserve in Africa. I was shocked by the appearance of elephants so close to the lodge’s bar and wondered if it is common to see elephants in the village, perhaps even approaching the villagers’ private houses. At midnight, I suddenly woke up when I heard noises of people shouting. I looked through the window and recognized a crowd of people passing by, yelling and trying to chase away an elephant that was eating fruits at the local market.

The next morning, I wanted to find out what exactly had happened during the night. The villagers showed me the leftovers of the fruits at the local market, where the elephant had eaten during the night. From that day on, I perceived it as normal to come across elephants in the village, though encountering wildlife can be dangerous. I was very cautious when walking through the village, especially when I was heading to a key informant interview at one of the houses located outside of the center and closer to the reserve.

The lion that killed 40 people

Among the memorable stories of wild animals in Rufiji district is that of a lion which killed about 40 people and injured more than 20 people in 2004/2005. The male lion lingered around the villages for more than six months, attacking people in their upstairs houses, called “Vidungu” in Swahili, killing and eating them. These upstairs houses are used during day and night to protect crops on the farmland from being destroyed by wild animals. When the lion came to understand that villagers were sleeping in the “Vidungu”, it started to attack them during the night. The rangers, in collaboration with the District Game Office, needed over six months to find and finally kill the lion. The villagers at Ngorongo village told me that many people attended the lion’s funeral and that they had put up a sign where the lion was buried.

Close encounters

During my fieldwork, I encountered a lot of wildlife. One day, I was interviewing an old woman about the history of Mloka village. She suddenly went quiet and told me to look at my right side. I recognized big elephant standing a few meters away from us in the backyard. I asked the old woman what we should do and she told me to be silent, as the elephant would just pass and go up to the village, where it had eaten the fruits at the local market before.

Protecting wildlife, threatening livelihoods

After a few weeks I travelled to Ngorongo village, where I shared my elephant story with some elders from the village. They responded that they did not perceive it as a shocking story, since they live and co-exist with these animals and still feel safe in the village. They considered it tolerable that wild animals eat and destroy crops on the farms, since they have already coped well with these challenges for many years. This view persists, though the government has not yet introduced a sufficient compensation scheme which could help the villagers to limit the damage caused to their livelihoods. The consolation scheme provided by the government is not adequate; the process of soliciting compensation is very time-consuming and can take years to be resolved. Moreover, the local institutions lack capacity for dealing with wild animals that cross the borders and enter the villages. Sometimes, even when game rangers chase elephants back to the game reserve, they come back just after a few hours.

Villagers perceive that elephants are more protected than human beings. When elephants destroy or eat crops from the local fields, the only action taken by the government is to chase them away, using light bullets that cannot kill them. After a few days, the elephants come back. During harvest time, the villagers have no other option than taking from the field what the elephants have left. From the day of planting the seeds to the last day of harvest, the villagers have to stay close to their fields, chasing elephants away as they raid crops, damage assets and sometimes even kill people.

Conservation efforts by the government have also led to a ban on resident hunting in villages adjacent to the game reserve. Therefore, since 2016, local villagers have lost legal access to wild meat, a main protein source that is vital to their nutrition. Lack of alternatives often leads to illegal crossings, hunting and fishing in the game reserve. This is problematic as illegal hunting and fishing puts lives at risk, especially among young members of the rural community. It also worsens the relationship between game rangers and local villagers and undermines conservation goals.

The controversial role of wildlife tourism

Despite the difficulties that wild animals cause for the local population, they also represent a potential source of income. As the villagers in Mloka said, it is possible to feel safe in the presence of wildlife. Not all wild animals represent a threat and are likely to attack. With some animals, a peaceful cohabitation is possible. This can be very beneficial for the local population, as more wildlife makes a location attractive for tourism. However, in order to get profit, villages have to be able to capture revenues from wildlife tourism.

In reality, this often proves difficult as the business of wildlife tourism takes place beyond their control. In order to capture revenues, the local population has to enter into a partnership with well-connected and financially strong individuals and companies. The presence of dangerous animals increases the village’s value for business. Mloka village, where I stayed most of the time during my fieldwork, is an entry point to the Mtemere gate of Selous Game Reserve (SGR). The villages in this region have attracted over 30 private investments for tourism.

Our research project (NEPSUS) seeks to examine how these partnerships have operated and simultaneously changed the way people see and experience wildlife in their backyards. To non-locals, a village where wild animals are regularly present is obviously considered good because it could attract wildlife tourism.

The manager of one of the camps told me that he was very happy because they were blessed to observe a leopard moving around the lodge during the night. Instead of being afraid of the leopard, the manager was content because his customers enjoyed watching it. So is everyone happy? Certainly not. Wildlife is perceived differently by local residents and by business people.

The relationship between villagers and their business partners can be conflictual. When applying for a permit to conduct business in the villages, investors have to assure in writing that they will help improve social services and employ a majority of local residents. But some of the companies do not stick to their commitment. The number of employees coming from outside the villages very often outnumbers local employees. At the same time, villagers suffer from attacks by wild animals while business benefits.

Love them, hate them

The local population has no other option than to learn how to live with the presence of wild animals, in particular with elephants. Although they are the most powerful animals in the wild, sometimes villagers even have to save them. A previous blog post described the story of a baby elephant that got stuck in a well and had to be rescued. The daily human-wildlife interaction becomes evident as villagers even named some resident elephants after local people. They are able to identify the type of wild animal by observing the foot prints.

The villagers said that buffaloes, unlike elephants and other animals often stay at the village without being seen, eating maize from the farmlands during the night. Hippos also move around the village land at night time. The Village Game Scout (VGS) and villagers showed me footprints of wild animals in the village as shown in the photos below:

For local people, however, wildlife is not as interesting as it is for tourists. It is a daily reality they have to put up with. Our fieldwork showed that living next to Selous Game Reserve poses serious challenges to rural communities in the name of conservation. The conservation of wildlife creates benefits for business operators and threats to local livelihoods. Ensuring that villages benefit from tourism, securing rural livelihoods and successfully overcoming human-wildlife conflicts are the main challenges on the way to sustainable conservation.

By Elikana Kalumanga as part of the NEPSUS Series

Anthropogenic activities have driven planet Earth into a new geological era – the ‘Anthropocene’. Our actions and practices have been reshaping landscapes and ecosystems in different parts of the world. Species and ecosystems are increasingly disappearing at an alarming rate due to some destructive anthropogenic activities (e.g. uncontrolled harvesting of forest products, unsustainable farming practices, poaching of wild animals, etc.). Ecological processes are highly disrupted in most ecosystems globally. Ecosystem services supporting livelihood, especially in developing countries are also dwindling. Ahead of us is a choice of whether to create a good and habitable Anthropocene or a miserable and inhabitable one.

To create a good Anthropocene, human beings need to learn on how to live in harmony with nature. We need to embrace actions and practices that can safeguard various components of nature. We need to sustain nature-given services that are crucial for our survival. This is what Bennett et al. (2016)[1], refer to as the ‘Seeds of a Good Anthropocene’. Already, some good seeds of Anthropocene have been planted by a variety of actors. Good examples can be drawn from developed and developing countries, urban and rural areas as well as among forest-dwellers and people adjacent to forests, savannah, grasslands, deserts and semi-deserts, woodlands, wetlands, lake basins, and river basins.

As a member of NEPSUS project (New Partnerships for Sustainability), I am part of a research group on forest management in Tanzania. In this essay, I share what I consider to be some ‘Seed of a Good Anthropocene’ demonstrated by villagers at Mchakama village in Kilwa District, Tanzania, one of the eight villages we are studying. Villagers, through the Village Council and the Village Natural Resource Committee (VNRC), have established a tree nursery for a plant species that was declared extinct by the IUCN in year 1998 (Erythrina schliebenii, Figure 1)[2].

In Kiswahili (the national language of Tanzania), the Erythrina schliebenii is called Mnungunungu, simply because the tree has some spines like porcupines (Nungunungu in Kiswahili). It is named after the German botanist Hans-Joachim Schlieben, who collected the first specimen for preservation between 1934 and 1935 at Lake Lutamba near Lindi. In the 1940s, however, most of the areas near Lake Lutamba were converted into cashew nut plantations. As a consequence, the habitat for Erythrina schliebenii was severely reduced. Subsequent botanical studies in Lindi Region failed to record any occurrence of Erythrina schliebenii. However, a 2011 expedition to the Namatimbili forest near Kilwa, led by Frank Mbago of the Botany Department, University of Dar es Salaam, rediscovery the Erythrina schliebenii[1].

Briefly, in this essay, I will explain where the Erythrina schliebenii seedlings are planted from the nurseries, the people who take care of the planted Erythrina schliebenii in the wild, the challenges affecting transportation of the seedlings from the nurseries to the wild including their growth in the wilderness, and the factors causing rapid disappearance of the Erythrina schliebenii. Lastly, I pose some key questions related to sustainability of the Seeds of a good Anthropocene in this part of the global South in the absence of donor or other external support. Can communities sustain the good seeds of Anthropocene on their own?

Where the Erythrina schliebenii seedlings are planted from the nurseries, and by whom?

From the tree nursery, the Erythrina schliebenii seedlings are planted in a Village Land Forest Reserve. Mchakama is one of the villages which have agreed to establish Village Land Forest Reserves (VLFR) on their lands. About 1,525 hectares of village land has been set aside to establish the VLFR in Mchakama. The VLFRs represent an effort to decentralize forest management and shift responsibility from central to local government (at village level), and allow the involvement of an array of state and non-state actors to support the communities in forest management. In Mchakama village, 10% of the VLFR is zoned strictly for biodiversity protection. Zoning of an area for biodiversity conservation (10% of the VLFR) is done in accordance with the guidelines, standards and procedures set by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). The Mchakama is among the villages sharing the FSC-Group Certificate Scheme (GSC) managed by the MCDI (an active conservation NGO operating in Lindi Region with headquarters in Kilwa District). To date, the villages in Kilwa (including the Mchakama village) are among the first and still the only villages in Africa managing certified community-managed forests by the FSC. Therefore, to be precise, the Erythrina schliebenii seedlings in Mchakama are planted within the 10% set aside primarily for biodiversity zone in the VLFR. Management of the VLFR is done by the villagers through their village council and the Village Natural Resources Committee (VNRC-the forest manager). Regular patrols are done by the VNRC members in order to combat illegal activities in the VLFR.

On the challenges affecting transportation of the Erythrina Schliebenii seedlings from the nurseries to the wild and their growth in the wilderness

In March 2018, the NEPSUS forest group visited the MCDI headquarters at Kilwa Masoko (Kilwa District Headquarters) and met Mr. Makalla Jasper, the MCDI-Chief Executive Officer. Before asking questions about challenges facing the villagers in raising the Erythrina Schliebenii and transportation of seedlings to the wild, we wanted to know how the tree nursery at Mchakama village was established and on whose initiative. Mr. Makalla explained to us that the tree nursery had been established by villagers with support from the MCDI in collaboration with WWF-Tanzania Program Office.

Our next question to Makalla was why did they select Mchakama village out of the entire Kilwa District? He responded that Mchakama is where there are some Erythrina Schliebenii trees still existing in a national forest reserve (Mitundumbea National Forest Reserve), which borders the village. Occurrence of the Erythrina Schliebenii trees in Mchakama-Mitundumbea landscape enabled the MCDI and WWF-TPO to support planting of the Erythrina Schliebenii in the Mchakama VLFR. Different from other tree species in Kilwa district, E. schliebenii are mostly found in areas with a lot of coral rag, which is not widely distributed in Kilwa.

Therefore, MCDI and their partners plan to raise 10,000 of the Erythrina Schliebenii seedlings and to plant them inside the VLFR, with the help fo local villagers. Some funds from the MCDI that were mobilized from different conservation donors are being channeled to Mchakama village. They are used for raising the seedlings at the nursery and facilitating transport and plantation in the VLFR. By March 2018, a total of 4,300 seedlings had been planted in the VLFR. About 6,000 seedlings were still at the tree nursery (Figure 1). Rain was a major challenge that negatively affected the transfer of seedlings from the tree nursery to the VLFR. It is hard to access the biodiversity conservation zone during the rainy seasons. In March 2018, Mr. Makalla was already worried and concerned about the rains. Some of the seedlings were already overdue for planting in the forest. ‘If the rain stops for at least three days, we can go and plant the seedlings’, Mr. Makalla said. In the worst-case scenario, Mr. Makalla still insisted on following through with the plan: ‘We are going to put the seedlings in one car and then bring more people in another car with spades to push the car when it gets stuck. We have to plant the seedlings no matter what; we have invested a lot of resources in raising these seedlings’.

Inaccessibility due to poor roads during the rainy season was not the only problem affecting planting and survival of the seedlings in Mchakama landscape. The presence of monkeys in Mchakama forests was another problem. Mr. Makalla informed us that whenever monkeys see people planting trees on Kilwa lands, they think it is cassava. When they realize it is not cassava, they uproot the plants and throw them away. Last year (2017), monkeys uprooted about 1,000 seedlings. It was a huge loss. However, villagers found a solution to the monkey problem using their indigenous knowledge. Villagers prepared an odorous material made from fish scales, water and dirty oils, which monkeys dislike. After a week, this mixture becomes as resistant as glue. It is usually used to patch holes when a boat is leaking. However, when applied to the seedlings, the leaves sometimes change color.

Furthermore, forest fires also pose risks on the future of the seedlings. However, the solution to unplanned wildfires, early burning, is already being applied. In Kilwa District, early burning was introduced through the REDD+ project (Reduced Emission from Deforestation and Degradation) that was implemented by the MCDI in different villages, including Mchakama. Practically, early burning is done deliberately early in the dry season (end of April and early May) when grasses and tree leaves are moist to reduce the chances and extent of dry season uncontrolled forest fires, which are known to heavily contribute to carbon emissions and to several ecological disruption. In other words, early burning (sometimes known are prescribed and/or planned burning) is set deliberately in order to control the occurrence and spread of more-impactful fires in a particular fire-prone landscape. In Kilwa, early burning is done as part of their carbon-offsetting set of activities.

On the factors causing rapid disappearance of the Erythrina schliebenii in the wild

Locally, different parts of the Erythrina schliebenii are used for medicinal purposes as a cure to various diseases (including impotence), said one of the elders at Mchakama village. In March 2018, one kilogram of the mnungunungu seeds was sold at 50,000 Tshs (roughly 25 US$). China is one of the international markets for these seeds. This proves that both local and international forces are behind the rapid disappearance of the Erythrina schliebenii trees in the wild, the elder insisted.

On the sustainability of the seeds of a good Anthropocene in Mchakama village

The villagers of Mchakama village are among the groups that are trying their best to protect the extinction of global species from their natural environment. This is great news. Erythrina schliebenii had been declared extinct in the natural environment. Previously, Erythrina schliebenii was known to be present only near Lake Lutamba, where they were recorded by Hans-Joachim Schlieben in 1934/1935.

In Mchakama village, the NEPSUS forest group managed to visit a place a where we could physically observe a large Erythrina schliebenii tree (Figure 2). On a transect walk, we also managed to observe how the Erythrina schliebenii seedlings are planted in the 10% biodiversity zone within the VLFR (Figure 3). Planted seedlings were growing nicely, proving that gardenification of wildland is possible. That was very impressive, but raised a number of conservation-related questions.

• Will the villagers propagate the seeds of a good Anthropocene on their own in the absence of donor funding and any external support? Do they have the capacity to further mobilize, collect Erythrina schliebenii seeds, raise the seedlings in the nurseries and then plant the seedlings either in the VLFR and/or anywhere in their village lands?
• The medicinal value of the Erythrina schliebenii has not changed. Will the villagers in Mchakama manage to control illegal harvesting of the Erythrina schliebenii in their natural environment and even in the VLFR?
• Erythrina schliebenii tree is one of many endemic and critically endangered species in the Kilwa landscape. Compared to many other places in Tanzania, tiny and fragmented coastal forests in Kilwa landscape are part of a global biodiversity hotspot (the Coastal Forests of Eastern Africa Biodiversity Hotspot). To what extent setting aside the 10% of the VLFR for biodiversity conservation is enough to incorporate the remaining tiny patches of coastal forests in Mchakama and other villages in Kilwa District? This question calls for far-looking local-level biodiversity conservation efforts beyond commercialization because VLFRs were established for commercial purposes (timber concessions). Remember, that villagers agreed to join the FSC-Group Certificate Scheme also to benefit from the promised premium price from their forest products.
• How can local-level biodiversity conservation efforts be linked to national, regional and international biodiversity conservation efforts, especially those targeting critical global ecosystems?

Some responses to these questions are straightforward. Some require science-policy dialogues as well as the engagement of a number of state and non-state actors across scales to agree on the way forward. Very obviously, however, is the reality that continuous financial and technical support is required in order to safeguard the remaining endemic and critically endangered species in the Kilwa landscape, especially in coral rags and the tiny and fragmented areas of still existing coastal forests. To a large extent, enhanced biodiversity conservation efforts in the Kilwa landscape would safeguard rapidly disappearing endemic species, but also secure various ecosystem services required by the rural poor in Kilwa for their livelihood and survival. It is from the forest and nature that the villagers in Kilwa District obtain timber for local use and sale, honey, medicinal plants, mushrooms, and natural vegetables, among others (see Figure 4).

[1] Bennett et al (2016). Bright spots: seeds of a good Anthropocene. Front Ecol Environ 2016; 14(8): 441–448, doi:10.1002/fee.1309

[2] IUCN SSC East African Plants Red List Authority. 2012. Erythrina schliebenii. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2012: e.T32916A2827908. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2012.RLTS.T32916A2827908.en. Downloaded on 14 September 2018.

[3] Clarke, G. P., Burgess, N.D., Mbago, F, M., Mligo, C., and Mackinder, B (2011). Two extinct trees rediscovered near Kilwa, Tanzania. Journal of East African Natural History, 100 (1&2): 133-140.

Fadhili Bwagalilo as part of the NEPSUS Series

A central controversy is hampering plans for sustainable natural resource management in many Tanzanian villages: who owns and controls the so-called ‘open areas’? Open areas are designated village lands that can contain extensive forests. However, they have not been allocated to any specific use. Villagers consider these lands to be their collective property to be used for conservation or consumptive activities. On the contrary, the government agency in charge of forest management (Tanzania Forest Service, TFS) claims that trees in open areas fall under their management. Through timber harvesting, TFS uses these forests as a source of revenue. A Village Land Forest Reserve (VLFR) on the other hand, is a village forest land with de jure management plans, it is a portion of village forest land which is solely managed by the community of a village(s) council.

The ambiguity about forest property rights arose when TFS was established in 2011. Back then, it was given a mandate to manage state forests and forests which are neither governed by communities nor are privately owned. The problem is that the organization’s mandate to control forests in open areas is still not clearly defined, due to a contradiction between TFS and Village councils. Both, The Land Act (1999) and the Forest Act (2002) vest forests on village land in the village council, however, TFS seems to take control of forests on village land too.

When TFS was established, Tanzania had already seen twenty years of challenges related to public forest governance. This had led to the introduction of Community-Based Forest Management (CBFM), propagated since the early 1990s. Currently both CBFM, which assigns forest management duty to village government authorities, and central government forest management co-exist in some areas. The TFS seems to operate in National Forest Reserves and in many areas where actors’ responsibility for forest management remains undefined. TFS is thus claiming responsibility for managing all forests, except those under community governance or private ownership.

In one of the villages we visited, CBFM is not practiced. TFS is thus in charge of the forest on village land (called ‘open area’). If TFS fells trees on this land, the village is meant to obtain 10% of the total harvest value. However, the village has no commercial control of trees located in open areas. This rule applies to all villages with and without Village Land Forest Reserves (VLFR). Contrary to open areas, VLFRs are village forests lands with de jure management plans while “open areas” are village forests with de facto management plans, both under village lands.

When walking through one of the villages we did our fieldwork in, we observed piles of harvested timber along the roadside. Surprisingly, none of the village leaders had been aware of the timber harvest and they were not able to tell us who may have been responsible for it. One of the members of the village natural resources committee had accompanied us on this walk, and he seemed to be baffled because the committee had not issued any permit to harvest timber. And even if someone had a permit from TFS, he/she should have requested clearance and a permit from the village government first. Such a permit is issued after an agreement is reached at a village general meeting. The village leaders blamed TFS for what had happened, given that it is their responsibility to ensure that timber harvest activities only take place if officially permitted. Additionally, village representatives complained that TFS had never disbursed the 10% of the revenue accrued from timber harvest that should be transferred to the village.

Our observations suggest that the legal controversy is affecting forest management in many open areas. A considerable part of the benefit from timber harvest to be shared with the villages by TFS seems to be missing. This not only makes valuable trees in open areas susceptible to illegal harvest, but it also prevents the local government from providing necessary security or investing in other sustainable practices. Consequently, villagers lack a feeling of ownership with regard to forests in open areas, and thus are not likely to contribute to their sustainable management.

Community-Based Forest Management and its limits

Although CBFM was devised to curb the challenges encountered in state forest governance, there are still unanswered questions regarding its effectiveness. In one of the villages we worked in, CBFM has been practiced since 2004 – yet the sustainability of the forest is in jeopardy. This village has a diverse mix of dalbegia melanoxylon (Mpingo) trees, both in their Village Land Forest Reserve (VLFR) and in the open area. In the VLFR, Mpingo (the most valuable tree species because of its harvestable size) has been almost completely depleted. As a matter of fact, the village is now planning to expand its VLFR to attract more harvesters of Mpingo trees in open areas – where timber harvest is also taking place under the TFS regime. Furthermore, we were informed by local villagers about cases of harvesters in open areas felling volumes beyond their permit and thereby taking advantage of the lack of proper control.

Even in CBFM villages, forest sustainability is under threat, as the availability of harvestable-sized trees of timber value is already limited, especially among Mpingo trees. The main concern among local leaders is that if the VLFR stops generating revenue for the village government, CBFM could fail to support local livelihoods and eventually put conservation efforts at risk. This could become the case if one of the alternative uses for forest land, especially the establishment of lucrative new sesame seed farms, start to gain more relevance.

The experience we made during our fieldwork calls for forest experts to revisit forest governance structures and allow quick establishment of a VLFR. The current process and procedures are time-intensive and involve expenses which the villages cannot afford. The establishment of a Village Land Forest Reserve in another village where we carried out research is a good example of this problem. After more than 20 years and around €400,000 of investment, the forest reserve is still far from operating. Second, the presence of a forest reserve does not mean that villagers are now keen on biodiversity conservation. Instead, the VLFR is more likely to be perceived as a gold mine for the rural population, given that timber harvesting is their main income source.

Both village land forest reserves and open areas face sustainability challenges. Villages are seeking to expand their forest reserves because they want to increase the possibility of harvesting trees. If these lands generate too little revenue, the pressure to use them for other purposes will be increased. Open areas seem to be treated as if they were available for everyone. The NEPSUS project is seeking to provide some answers to these dilemmas.

Who owns and controls forests in open areas? A legal controversy and challenges for sustainable forest management in Tanzanian villages.