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.

By Mette Fog Olwig as part of the NEPSUS Series

New Partnerships for Sustainability (NEPSUS) is a Tanzanian-Danish research project that involves fifteen researchers with different disciplinary backgrounds and expertise. This is a great strength but, at the same time, a challenge. It was therefore not without some concern that I took on the role of organizing a workshop aimed at coding qualitative data with NVivo (specifically NVivo 12). NVivo is a software which supports the organization, coding and analysis of qualitative data. It can be challenging for researchers to analyze qualitative data if they usually work with quantitative data.

Furthermore, NVivo has several features that can lead to a rather quantitative analysis. This is problematic if the qualitative data used has not been collected in a statistically significant manner. A central challenge to the workshop design was therefore to organize an NVivo coding process that ensured an inductive and qualitative approach to the analysis. Having now worked through the process, I would like to share my experiences as they may be useful to other large, interdisciplinary research teams.

NEPSUS does not have the option of using NVivo for Teams because of unreliable internet and cost requirements. If practical, however, NVivo for Teams allows participants to work simultaneously on a single NVivo project file on one server. In NEPSUS, we instead worked asynchronously on individual NVivo project files. We used analytical codes (explained later), not purely thematic codes. Furthermore, we only coded the sentences that we considered relevant to the analysis. This means that although every sentence is of course read as part of the coding process, not necessarily every sentence is coded. In my experience, this saves time as coding thematically, and coding every sentence, can easily transform the analytical process into a mechanical one.

Why Coding?

The project includes various sources of quantitative and qualitative data and it can be difficult for all members of the team to understand and benefit from all the data. Even though it is not an easy task to coordinate a coding process that involves more than ten researchers, it proved significantly useful. After coding, it is much easier for all members of a research group to find and use relevant qualitative data. Another advantage we identified was that the preparation process for coding led to important conversations concerning synergies, analysis, definitions and interpretation of data among the team members.

Step 1: Organize and Clean the Qualitative Data

Before coding, all the qualitative data, including key informant interviews, focus group discussions, participant observations and secondary documents, need to be in their final form and well organized. This means:

• All the qualitative data is organized in folders in a logical way that is clear to everyone who will be coding.
• Interviews are transcribed as correctly as possible
• All files are free of grammatical errors and spelling mistakes
• All background information is included in the relevant file (such as name of interviewees, date recorded, etc.). NEPSUS has collected data pertaining to three different natural resource sectors, wildlife, coastal resources and forestry. We prepared Excel sheets for each sector – see image below for an example of the information recorded for each instance of participant observation in the forestry sector.

Step 2: Organize a Coding Workshop/Retreat

Coding is not just a process of organizing data, it is also an analytical process. This means that the organization of data will depend on the analytical approach that is adopted. In order for the researchers involved in coding to establish and work with a common analytical framework, joint preparation is crucial. We organized a one-week workshop in Bagamoyo, Tanzania, located a few hours’ drive from Dar es Salaam, where most of the researchers live. Since they have many other work obligations, it was important to gather the participants in a location far enough from their workplace so that they would not be disturbed.

Step 3: Create a Codebook

The first part of the workshop was concerned with developing a codebook. A codebook is an overview of all the relevant codes and their descriptions. In NVivo, it is possible to work with first-level codes, often referred to as parent nodes. These parent nodes can then contain subthemes that are called child nodes. A parent node includes the information from all the child nodes as well as any information that has been coded to the parent node, but not a child node. We chose to use Excel for our codebook (see image below for an excerpt from the codebook). It is also possible to create a codebook directly in NVivo. In this case, you first create all the parent nodes and child nodes in NVivo and then export the structure as a codebook. However, when discussing and editing the codebook as a group, I considered the Excel format to be easier to use.

We decided to work only with codes that were central to our analytical foci and agreed on avoiding the creation of purely descriptive codes. The aim was to end up with approximately 50 parent nodes. Even when there is a codebook, it is difficult for the coder to remember that the codes exist if there are too many. In order to select the appropriate codes, we adhered to the following procedures:

Do not code unnecessarily

We did not include codes for information that we did not need to look for in the qualitative data. For example:

• If the information is common knowledge or already known to the researchers (e.g. the year a partnership was established), we did not include it. However, if the objective of the code is to demonstrate confusion about dates among respondents, it could be coded.
• If the information is already captured in the quantitative survey, e.g. if the quantitative survey asks whether villagers have experienced an increase in the number of elephants, there is no reason to code for this information in the qualitative data. If, however, the interviewees elaborate on the consequences of this, or add other kinds of information that go beyond the survey, it could be coded.

Analytical codes based on the quantitative survey

• We went through the preliminary findings of the quantitative survey to determine interesting trends, paradoxes and gaps that the qualitative data could help to answer. We then created codes which could help us to find these answers.

Analytical codes based on cross-cutting issues and emerging hypotheses

• Having conducted fieldwork multiple times, the research team members had already identified some findings that challenged current understandings in the literature. They had also developed ideas for interesting trends and paradoxes as well as hypotheses that might explain them. For each natural resource sector we worked on selecting key codes based on these hypotheses. The underlying idea was that the codes could help find the data needed in order to support, nuance or challenge the hypotheses. In addition, I prepared codes based on cross-cutting issues identified by the team during a previous debriefing meeting following the fieldwork. Using this approach enabled us to work closely with the data, which is a key factor to successful inductive research.

Analytical codes that arise while coding

• Once we had begun the coding process, coders suggested nodes that they found were missing in the codebook (discussed later).

The process of selecting approximately 50 codes to create the first version of the codebook took one day. The codes are key to the analysis. Identifying the most appropriate and interesting codes is therefore central to good analytical work and should not be rushed.

Step 4: Go through the Codebook

Once I had received all the proposed codes, (including parent nodes, potential child nodes, and descriptions for parent nodes and child nodes as shown Figure 3), I combined them into one codebook. We then went through the codebook as follows:

• I asked each member to read through the codebook and make comments.
• In a plenum session, we discussed each parent node and child node.
• This discussion was carried out for a whole day. This time frame was very important because it enabled us, amongst other things, to:
• discover synergies and cross-cutting issues
• agree on definitions and terms, notice and resolve misunderstandings
• challenge each other’s assumptions (e.g. could this be an example of a misunderstanding of a rule by villagers or is there a possibility that they pretend to misunderstand?)
• As a result of these discussions, we revised node names and descriptions, created new parent nodes and child nodes and deleted others.

This part of the process was important for creating a codebook as relevant and understandable as possible. Once we agreed on the first version of the codebook, I created an NVivo project and manually entered all the nodes from the codebook (no files were added yet). While NVivo allows the exporting of existing nodes as a codebook, it is, to my knowledge, not possible to import a codebook.

Step 5: Set Up NVivo Projects

As everyone had been introduced to NVivo’s general features and operating principles in earlier workshops, we did not have to spend a lot of time familiarizing ourselves with the software. I will not provide a detailed description of the technical aspects of the software here, as there are many useful tutorials available. Before setting up the NVivo projects, however, we ensured that everyone had the latest version of NVivo. It is furthermore an advantage if everyone works on either a PC or a Mac, as there are some known problems with merging projects coming from a PC and a Mac.

Each team member focused primarily on one natural resource sector in their research, and I asked the team members working on the same sector to jointly use one computer when setting up an NVivo project for their sector (e.g. all the researchers working on the wildlife sector sat together and created ‘NVivo Project Wildlife’ while working on only one computer). Each group got a copy of the NVivo project I had created with all the nodes from the codebook. Each group then added a structure of folders under ‘files,’ in which the qualitative data would be placed. However, at that point of time we had not yet imported the files with qualitative data.

Step 6: First Test-coding

We decided on a two-step test-coding process to ensure intercoder reliability. In other words, we assessed how similarly each coder understood and applied the codes from the codebook. Still working together on one computer, each group imported one qualitative data file (containing e.g. a key informant interview, a focus group discussion, secondary document or participant observation) into their project, coded it together, discussed and clarified which codes to use.

Step 7: Second Test-coding

After the first test-coding, each team member copied the relevant NVivo project and saved it on their own computer. They also added their initials to the project name, e.g. ‘NVivo Project Forestry MFO.’ After that, team members working on the same sector chose one qualitative data file and imported it into each member’s NVivo project. Then, each team member coded the data file individually without speaking to each other and compared the results afterwards. We repeated this process until the team members felt that they were coding in a similar way. It is, of course, unlikely that everyone will ever code in exactly the same way, no matter how much you train. This iterative repetition nevertheless helps to improve homogeneity.

Step 8: Coding Individually

Once everyone was ready to code individually, we proceeded as follows:

• The team members working on the same sector divided the qualitative data files between them. We used Excel sheets, as exemplified in Figure 1. Each qualitative data file was only coded by one person.
• When ready to begin coding a new qualitative data file, the coder would import that file, indicate in the Excel sheet that the file had been imported to NVivo and then start coding.
• Since we were all sitting in the same room, each team discussed questions related to coding as they arose. If a matter could not be resolved within the groups, we would discuss it in plenum the following day.

Step 9: Editing the Codebook

At the beginning of each working day, we discussed the possibility of adding new nodes that had come up the previous day, and that coders considered relevant. We discussed them in group sessions in order to clarify how to best name the nodes and formulate their descriptions. Sometimes we decided that the issue covered by the potential new code was already included in an existing node. Through these discussions we were able to continuously discover synergies and cross-cutting issues, clarify definitions and terms, and challenge each other’s assumptions.

Step 10: Working in Many Standalone NVivo Projects

It produces some challenges to work with various standalone NVivo projects at the same time and save them on individual computers. The final goal is to merge all the individual projects into one overall project. In order to ensure that this process works smoothly, we developed the following procedures:

New nodes

• It is easy to add new nodes to everyone’s projects. As described under Step 4, I had created an NVivo project that contained nothing else but all the nodes from the codebook. Whenever we agreed on new nodes, I would add them to the NVivo project and send the project to everyone. Each person would then import the project into their NVivo projects (merging the two). In order to make sure everyone had the latest version of nodes, I included the date in the name of the NVivo project I sent them.

Edit node names or delete nodes

When importing a project, NVivo simply merges everything. Changing node names or deleting nodes is therefore more complicated:

• If, for example, one person deletes a node and then later merges his or her project with the project of someone who has not deleted the node, the node will appear again.
• If one person changes the name of a node while another person does not and their two projects are merged, two nodes will appear – one with the old name and one with the new name.
• One solution is for everyone to send their project to a designated NVivo file manager who merges all the projects, makes the necessary adjustments, and then distributes a new version. However, due to various reasons this was not a feasible solution for us.

Editing files

If two projects contain the same qualitative data file and one person edits just one word in their version, NVivo will perceive them as two different files when merging the projects. For this reason, I asked everyone to not import a qualitative data file until they are ready to begin coding it. Hence, they did not import all files at once. Thereby we enabled coders to edit the qualitative data file while working on it until the point when they had to share their NVivo project with the others. An alternative solution is to ask coders to write comments in memos. In this case, the changes can be incorporated once the individual projects have been combined and before they are distributed again.

Step 11: Finishing the coding

I recommend finishing the coding process at a time when all coders are able to work together. If there is a lot of data to code, this may not be realistic. However, since participants will likely need different codes, it is important to code different types of interviews while everyone is together.

We decided to complete the process of coding after the end of the workshop in the following way:

Coding individually with deadlines

We divided the work between the researchers and set a deadline for the coding process to be completed.

New nodes

In the case that one or more of the nodes we established during the workshop are inadequate, coders should contact me with suggestions for new nodes. I will then distribute a new NVivo project with the new node architecture to everyone. By now, all participants should be able to import the NVivo project with nodes on their own. I will also distribute a new codebook with additional entries. We further emphasized the following:

• Coders should not add nodes on their own
• Coders should not edit node names on their own
• Coders should refer to the codebook to see full code descriptions
• Coders should remember to frequently back up their individual NVivo projects

Merging Projects

Once the coding process is completed, team members should merge the projects so that the research project ends up having one NVivo project for each sector as well as one for the whole research project. As I have mentioned earlier, it is possible to merge NVivo projects more frequently and then send the new versions to everyone. Thereby you can edit the project more extensively in the merged version before distributing it (in terms of e.g. changing node names, and editing files).

Classifications

Adding classifications, cases and attributes to the qualitative data files imported to NVivo can be very useful for the analysis. NVivo has very clear-cut guidelines for doing this.

Afterthoughts: Interdisciplinary Coding

NVivo is a useful tool for organizing qualitative data and making it more accessible. In addition to this, I found that one of the most rewarding aspects of coding was that it provided the researchers with a structure for discussing and analyzing the data together as a group. It also turned out to be a useful exercise for highlighting the nature of qualitative data and why it is important. As I mentioned before, NEPSUS is an interdisciplinary group of researchers of which some are not used to working with qualitative data. Throughout the preparation and the actual coding process, several of the researchers involved emphasized their changed perception of qualitative data. They pointed out that it had become clearer to them why qualitative data is important, and what sort of information can be acquired from qualitative data. This is, perhaps, the most important outcome of the workshop.

The process I highlighted in this blog post is by no means the only way of carrying out a coding process with NVivo. Every research project has its own challenges and characteristics, but I hope the readers who wish to do something similar will find it helpful.