Stefano Ponte

By Ruth Wairimu John as part of the NEPSUS Series

Since the inscription of the Selous Game Reserve into the UNESCO register of World Heritage in Danger in 2014 and increased anti-poaching measures, the number of elephants in nearby villages has drastically increased. Sadly, this success for wildlife conservation does not come without consequences for the local population. An increasing amount of wildlife also means that more elephants damage crops and disturb free movement in villages adjacent to the reserve. During our field research, we visited Ngarambi-Lienga, one of the villages affected.

Ngarambi-Lienga village is historically linked to the Majimaji war in Tanzania where the ritual leader Kinjekitile Ngwale lived. The Majimaji rebellion against German colonial rule took place from 1905 to 1907. During the war, Kinjekitile Ngwale, an important leader of the rebellion, extracted water from a spring near Matumbi and Ngarambi hills and mixed it with traditional medicine. Kinjekitile then gave the medicinal water to his followers so they would be protected from German bullets. Yet, German troops killed many of Kinjekitile fighters and were able to win the war. As a consequence of the rebellion, Kinjekitile was hanged by German colonizers in 1905. Today, the original spring where Kinjekitile prepared the mixture is still accessible and visited. The memory of Kinjekitile is appreciated by the people of Ngarambi.

Water remains a sensitive issue in Ngarambi-Lienga. For the past three years (2016 to 2018), villagers have been competing with elephants for water resources from Ngarambi River. Furthermore, they also compete for staple food supply such as maize, sorghum and vegetables. As the village does not have any piped water or taps, villagers have to fetch water from a stream. During the rainy season, water supply can easily meet domestic needs in the valley. However, in the dry season the stream lacks water on the surface. Consequently, villagers have to dig one-meter holes down in the sand to get water from the base.

Elephants approach the waterholes during the night and drink from them. Due to their weight, the holes tend to collapse and elephants bury the wells with sand. This has become a daily pattern, where villagers prepare holes in the morning and elephants destroy them at night. The photo below shows elephants’ footprints near to one of the wells.

When villagers report water shortages to the responsible authority, they are usually told to wait for the problem to be resolved. Unfortunately, there is no solution in sight and villagers seem to wait endlessly. In the meantime, they are sharing water with elephants. This is a risk, as elephants urinate and leave their dung near to the freshwater source, endangering the water quality. Apart from all human-elephant conflicts over water, the villagers for example tried to rescue a baby elephant from the well at the village. They have no other option than learning how to live with elephants in the village, as shown in the photo below.

The government arrangements over wildlife in this area are lacking or insufficient to enable villagers to live under acceptable conditions while sharing their land with increasing populations of wildlife.

While conservation efforts are important, they have to be accompanied by measures that make it possible for people to co-exist with wildlife in ways that maintain or improve their livelihoods, such as the provision of piped water and initiatives to facilitate alternative livelihood activities.

By Robert Katikiro as part of the NEPSUS Series

In March 2018 I visited Mnazi Bay-Ruvuma Estuary Marine Park (MBREMP) in Mtwara as part of a field research trip with the coastal working group of the NEPSUS project to carry out data collection. The trip was a memorable event in my career as it provided an opportunity to gauge changes that might have occurred since the time I worked with MBREMP in the late 2000s and early 2010s. Between 2007 and 2014 I was at MBREMP occasionally, with a substantial amount of my time spent in Germany for postgraduate studies. I joined MBREMP full time in early 2015 as a conservation warden. I left later on that year to join the University of Dar es Salaam. MBREMP was officially established in 2000 by government notice and became operational in 2002. Support from UNDP/GEF project, and later from FFEM and MACEMP, made MBREMP as a prestigious organisations in Mtwara. I joined MBREMP when it was in its early years and its main focus was to instil the spirit of conservation in the area.

Visiting MBREMP after some years, I was full of excitement and uncertainty. Passing through the villages where I used to work drew the attention of people who knew me from that time. Some were still perceiving me as a staff of MBREMP, who in their minds had been away perhaps for other tasks related to conservation. Others were questioning me about livelihood issues and their linkages with conservation activities. At every opportunity that emerged, people asked me nearly the same questions that they used to pose to me during the years I worked with MBREMP.

I also learnt that the MBREMP area has expanded and now covers 23 villages, some of which are far from the sea and do not have a direct connection with sea-based activities. At a stop at Msimbati village, where we went with my NEPSUS colleagues for interviews, I became very busy with a dozen of inquiries from members of communities who recognized me. In particular, they wanted me to react on how the presence of gas extraction companies could positively change their livelihoods and improve the relationship between the Marine Park and local communities. In this village, women working on fish smoking and trade struck me directly with a key question: why had their activities not grown, given that I used to encourage them to pursue them to generate alternative incomes?

The youths I met, a majority of whom were still in school when I was working with MBPREMP, had different concerns. For them, the issues of waged labour and opportunities outside their village was the major focus. Some of them asked why the previously important trade of sea cucumbers had stopped, and whether I could help to link them with traders to start it again.

MBREMP has been striving to ensure that all villages within its jurisdiction area practiced conservation activities. But people want to know how they could benefit economically from conservation in their villages. They are also nervous and sometimes aggressive when they recall the unfulfilled promises that were made during the processes of establishing MBREMP. In their eyes, these promises included the handing out of fishing boats, fishing loans and capital for business ventures.

I also noticed that villages that used to be difficult to work with are now somewhat easier to operate in, although elements of resistance are still present. Especially during early years of establishment of MBREMP, Nalingu village and Mkubiru (one of its sub-villages) refused to cooperate with the Marine Park. After a few years, however, people in Mkubiru dropped their resistance and accepted to work with the Marine Park. These villages are located in core areas of the MBREMP and their resistance to conservation posed not only a hurdle to achieving marine conservation objectives but also produced tensions in the area. They are both seafront villages—a critical characteristic for marine biodiversity conservation. Concerted efforts, including awareness raising and sensitization campaigns, could have contributed to entice Mkubiru to get on board of the Marine Park from the beginning. MBREMP actually established one of its alternative income projects in Mkubiru. It was a project that provided a fishing boat and nets that could allow fishers to navigate in deep waters.

Mkubiru is now a full-fledged village. It has its own village government and this too could be one of the reason that they resumed cooperating with MBREMP. But when we talked to the Nalingu Ward Executive Officer and the Village Executive Officer they told us that there is still a lot of resistance against the Marine Park in the ward where Mkubiru is located. This was not good news to me, given that many efforts had been undertaken to address the previous conflicts amicably – with mixed outcomes.

After being away from MBREMP and through learning from other marine protected areas around the world, I’m highly convinced that recurring resistance from these villages goes well beyond conservation. It is about struggles over natural resources between powerful and established institutions and organisations versus poor people living in areas closer to these resources. My recent trip revealed that the contests between established institutions, in this case between the government and MBREMP, and local communities, are still very much in place and revolve around controlling resources.

I started to think about the time when I was directly meeting community members, especially in conservation liaising, awareness raising, conservation extension, and translating and mainstreaming of research results. I realized that dependency on marine resources, both for household consumption and as a source of income, is changing. This time people were telling me how the decrease in fish availability, which according to their views was partly attributed to increasingly population and destructive fishing gear (especially dynamite and beach seines), has largely changed their dietary composition. They simply consume less fish than they used to, and this is not a small thing.

Various efforts and initiatives were undertaken, both during my time and in recent years, to thwart illegal and destructive fishing activities. However, the outcomes of these campaigns are questionable when analysed critically through the environment-human nexus. The ecological outcomes may be appealing, but the direct link to socio-economic development is hard to ascertain. There are indeed signs of improvement: better housing quality (more houses have iron sheet roofs); more small-scale businesses; and availability of electricity; and an increase of economic activities associated with electric power, such as cafeterias equipped with TVs, or micro-businesses based on the charging of mobile phones. However, the people I met did not link these developments with the improved status of marine resources and biodiversity in MBREMP. They linked it with increasing remittances from people who have migrated to urban and peri-urban areas and from agricultural activities, especially the resurgence of cashewnut farming. As local communities express their dissatisfaction, the challenges faced by MBREMP are far from having being addressed.

The history of people engaging with the sea within MBREMP has created significant hurdles to access fisheries resources. During my previous stay at MBREMP we were often faced with the problem of dealing with community members whose gears were confiscated by a patrol conducted by MBREMP. The issues that were being discussed by MBREMP personnel included what alternatives these people had, and where and how they could access the illegal gear they were using. I met the same scenario during my recent visit there: people are still complaining about patrols.

However, I think that it is actually the absence of robust mechanisms to address destructive fishing activities that has resulted not only in socio-psychological stress and large negative economic impacts through falling fish stocks. The relationship between village authority and MBREMP authority is still unclear as it was in past years. Although this may not appear obvious to outsiders, various efforts that are pursued to bring these two layers of authority together are frequently disrupted by power differences. In the past, MBREMP used considerable resources to raise awareness of its activities to other government institutions in Mtwara. The intention was to ensure that MBREMP and local government dance to the same tune when it comes to conservation. Unfortunately, other institutions considered MBPREMP a rival, which had negative spill over effects to community members. I noticed the same dynamic during my recent visit, when some local community members went as far as telling us that they were told by some officials from the district that it is better for MBREMP to go away. Additionally, there is still conflict between informal fishers associations and the formal institutions of the state, which MBREMP is also a part of.

In the context of emerging community-based organisations that support conservation, a few remarks can be made. In the past, it was difficult for the MBREMP-established committees(such as the Village Liaison Committees, VLC) to gain autonomy and implement their duties smoothly. The boundary between the VLCs and the Village Environmental Management Committees (VEMCs) was blurred. In some villages, it was perceived that the VLCs were replacing the VEMCs. Thanks to changes made in recent years, the distinction between the two is now clearer.

New local institutions, and especially the Beach Management Units (BMUs), have also emerged and are trying to exerting their influence on MBREMP. This is a noticeable change that needs to be taken into account, particularly in looking at how changes in governance and institutions affect conservation and local livelihoods. Better ways are urgently required in order to set up an institutional framework that will help village-based institutions (including village government) to be more effective in natural resource conservation. This is especially the case as local institutions often find themselves pursuing other agendas that are in conflict with marine conservation. This is especially the case in relation to recent activities related to gas extraction.

During my recent visit, my colleagues asked me why MBREMP has not been at the frontier of tourism, given the beauty of the area and its diverse resources. MBREMP is known for its rich biodiversity with diverse ecosystems, including hundred species of fish and coral reefs, seagrass, sea birds, marine turtles, sand dunes and mangrove forest. There is also a magnificent and pristine coastline for sunbathing, but it has remained largely unutilised. I told them of the plans we had during my stay at MBREMP, including a tourism investment framework. I also reminded them that Mtwara region was considered a ‘backwater’ for many decades. Since the inauguration of the Mkapa Bridge in 2004, which facilitated communication between the southern part of Tanzania and the rest of the country, Mtwara has witnessed remarkable changes. Still, tourism infrastructure remains very limited. Tourism is not yet a core business of marine conservation in mainland Tanzania: it is considered a by-product of conservation. But strong investments in eco-tourism can ensure a sustainable source of finance for running conservation activities. It can also promote MBREMP regionally and internationally and thus link it with other conservation networks, people and potential tourists. The waters around MBREMP are ideal for many tourist purposes, including underwater photography, snorkelling, diving and ship cruising. The benefits arising from these activities could be integrated into the local economy and help to boost livelihoods of local people.

My recent visit to MBREMP was very rewarding. Not only I got to see old friends and people again, but also learnt of new socio-cultural dynamics that might be of great assistance in my future research. One of my dreams, to see conservation activities implemented by MBREMP integrated in the overall environmental and socio-economic development plans of Mtwara region, is still far from being realized. MBREMP is still operating as a separate entity from local government. District councils and other stakeholders, including central government, are not sufficiently enabling MBREMP to pioneer marine conservation and largely consider it a rival.

Those entrusted with power and authority should change the way they perceive marine conservation and start cooperating more fully with MBREMP. The district council should exemplify this to assert that MBREMP is at the core of its environmental and livelihood development plans. And these institutions should all work for ensuring sustainable management of natural resources.

By Rasul Ahmed Minja as part of the NEPSUS Series

When I joined the NEPSUS team of researchers in 2016, all with different academic and rich research backgrounds, I couldn’t hide my excitement and shared the news with a close workmate. The excitement further grew when I learnt that I would be part of a research work package on coastal resources, whose members would be conducting field research in Mtwara region, Tanzania. My joy at the prospect of conducting fieldwork in Mtwara was triggered by two basic factors. First, I had never been to Mtwara before; and second, I had heard from colleagues that the region was changing fast, offering an exciting prospect for a researcher.

The discovery of gas at Mnazi Bay, a planned expansion of the Mtwara port and the commissioning of the Dangote cement plant, had all been tipped to trigger economic growth in the region. Suddenly, the number of local flights to Mtwara increased, several lodges and guest houses mushroomed and the ‘hustle and bustle’ of Mtwara town became more noticeable. When our team paid the first field visit to Mtwara in February 2017, President John Pombe Magufuli care through town to inaugurate projects and speak in public. Presidential visits to the regions always attract large entourages and many visitors from nearby regions. Therefore, finding relatively affordable accommodation was challenging, but we eventually succeeded. During our second and third visits (in August 2017 and March 2018), however, we managed to find cheap and comfortable accommodation without any problem.

The Fieldwork Experience

Generally, and as expected, we met honest and welcoming residents. Having introduced ourselves as staff members of the University of Dar es Salaam, a prestigious and flagship higher learning institution in the country, we received great support from local residents. One of my other discovered excitement while in Mtwara has always been the easiness with which one can move around town. My most favorite mode of transport when not with the rest of the team is riding BodaBodas (motorbikes) and Bajaji (motorized tricycles). They are relatively cheap and since there is no heavy traffic in Mtwara town, moving from one location to another is relatively easy and fast. This relieve me of the usual headache one gets trying to negotiate the notorious traffic jams of Dar es Salaam. In fact, I never saw a single taxi during my stay in Mtwara. This was a startling finding to me!

Our team’s main research focus is on sustainability partnerships in coastal resources, mainly fish, corals and mangroves. We gathered data through key informant interviews, focus group discussions and field observation. A separate team collected data for a survey using the sophisticated Open Data Kit (ODK) software.

Crackdown on Illegal Fishing Practices in Mtwara

As recently as 2015, Mtwara region was named as one of the 16 mainland coastal districts and municipalities practicing blast (dynamite) fishing, and one of the top four hotspots (see “Can Dynamite Fishing Be Stopped in Tanzania?” The Citizen, Tuesday October, 2015). Dynamite fishing is one of the illegal fishing practices identified in Tanzania’s legal instruments guiding the fisheries sector. About nine pieces of legislation contain provisions and penalties applicable to the use of explosives, including dynamite to conduct fishing activities. Besides the use of dynamite as a way of killing fish, other illegal fishing practices include the use of illegal gear, such as under size mesh, monofilament nets, beach seines and other destructive gears.

Key enabling factors for dynamite fishing are the “easy availability of cheap materials for making explosive devises, wealthy ‘god fathers’ who finance the operation and market the fish, lack of local marine resource ‘ownership’ i.e. in-operational BMUs [Beach Management Units], ineffective law-enforcement at the district level as a result of corruption of local magistrates and a lack of perception as to the seriousness of the crime, and lack of political will at all levels” (see Multi-Stakeholder Consultation for Anti-Dynamite Fishing Campaign Tanzania, April 2014, p. 4. www.cmsdata.iucn.org).

In the past, and particularly between 1999 and 2003, there were several initiatives by communities, government and donor-funded projects to curb the use of explosives. One of the initiatives which managed to at least reduce incidents of dynamite fishing was the Finnish government-funded project known as Rural Integrated Project Support (RIPS) Mtwara. Working closely with a local community-based umbrella organization (SHIRIKISHO) and local communities, RIPS set up a community based monitoring scheme which recorded significant success in curbing blast fishing. However, this achievement was short-lived. Reasons for unsustainability of initiatives similar to RIPS are multiple and well-documented: the weakening of collaborative efforts between the central government and local communities; too much reliance on donor funding, to the extent that projects close down or lose their initial impetus when donors leave or shift their focus to other sectors; and insufficient monitoring, control and surveillance of fishing activities (see “Regional Assessment of Fisheries Issues, Challenges and Opportunities for Eastern Africa Region: Towards the formulation of the policy framework and reform strategy for fisheries and aquaculture in Africa, a report submitted to the African Union – Inter African Bureau for Animal Resources (AU-IBAR), December 2012, www.au-ibar.org/…/1925-regional-assessment-of-fisheries-issues-c…).

Dynamite fishing resurfaced with such intensity that it alerted the authorities at the national level. On 7th September 2016, the Vice President of the United Republic of Tanzania, Samia Suluhu Hassan, announced that the central government would send a special force (Kikosi Maalum) that would be deployed to curb illegal fishing (see “Kikosi cha Kudhibiti Uvuvi Haramu Kutumwa Mtwara”).

The Need for Review of the Fisheries Legislation

For a national campaign on blast fishing to achieve the desired outcome, which is to put an end to this destructive fishing practice, the long-awaited review of the national fisheries legislation cannot be over-emphasized. The imperative to review the Fisheries Act No. 22 of 2003 and its regulations which were enacted in 2009, was meted out way back in 2015 at a seminar organized by the National Environmental Management Council (NEMC) in Mtwara. Since then the Minister responsible for agriculture, livestock and fisheries development, Dr. Charles Tizeba, has repeatedly reiterated the urgency to make amendments of the Act in December 2016 (see “Minister orders arrest of criminals engaged in dynamite fishing”, DailyNews.co.tz, 20 December 2016), and again in March 2017 (see “Serikali kubadili sheria ya uvuvi” Mwananchi, Jumanne, 21 March 2017).

The impending review of the fisheries legislation is prompted by the need to adopt much stricter provisions on illegal fishing practices (not only blast fishing) by issuing significant penalties to culprits. According to the Minister, the government mulls penalties to be raised from the current 200,000 Tanzanian shillings to 5 million shillings, which should be imposed on offenders along with a six-month jail sentence. More interestingly, the Minister mooted the government interest to treat people convicted of illegal fishing practices as ‘economic saboteurs’, an offence that does not allow a suspect to be given bail in Tanzania.

Stamping out blast fishing is no longer business as usual

When our team arrived in Mtwara in March 2017, we learnt that in one of the villages we were researching a major crackdown to curb illegal fishing had just been carried out by the district authority, led by the District Commissioner. The DC minced no words in a public rally in that village when he announced the operation and ordered 31 individuals whom he deemed to be the ‘ring-leaders’ to surrender themselves and their banned fishing gear (see “Mkuu wa Wilaya alia na uvuvi haramu Mtwara”, MCL Digital, https://www.youtube.com).

Was there sufficient employment of a collaborative approach between the district authorities and local communities in carrying out the clampdown on dynamite fishing in Mtwara? More importantly, will the current success story be sustained? These are some of the issues to ponder, as another study that looked into fishers’ perceptions on the recurrence of dynamite fishing practices reported that ‘the views of almost 60% of key informants made it clear that as long as fishers feel criminalized and left behind in management and development plans, any efforts to persuade them to support a reduction of dynamite fishing are likely to encounter significant opposition and little commitment from community members’ (see Robert E. Katikiro and Jairos J. Mahenge, 2016. “Fishers’ Perceptions of the Recurrence of Dynamite Fishing Practices on the Coast of Tanzania”, Frontiers in Marine Science, Volume 3, Article 233, p.8).

Observed in recent years is a renewed hope and vigour to abolish dynamite fishing owing to an ongoing robust national campaign. This campaign has enlisted the support of various stakeholders, institutions and agencies, ranging from local communities, marine conservationists (such as the Tanzania Dynamite Fishing Monitoring Network), fisheries division, to the police and navy. A multi-stakeholder approach to this long-standing problem is a welcome move. Involvement of relevant parties brings to the table their various experiences which can be useful in charting out how best to tackle the problem. Cognizant of the benefits of employing a multi-pronged approach to blast fishing, the government set up a Multi-Agency Task Team (MATT) in June 2015. MATT, which is led by the police, is also composed of members from the Fisheries Division, Tanzania Forest Services, the Wildlife Division, Tanzania Intelligence and Security Services, and the Attorney General Chambers’ office. Besides focusing on fisheries governance management, monitoring and surveillance, MATT traces financiers and suppliers of dynamites. This is a much incisive approach that does not just end with the arrest of dynamiters. Apart from being motivated by availability of detonation materials, the lucrative short-term profits tend to lure blast fishers. It was once reported in 2009 that one blast could result to a fish catch of up to 150-400kgs, thus leading to earnings of between US $ 400 and $ 1800 market price (see S. Wells, “Dynamite fishing in northern Tanzania: pervasive, problematic and yet preventable”, Marine Pollution Bulleting, 58, no.1 (2009): 20-23).

Other initiatives which have been undertaken, and in my view ought to be sustained for the long-term success of the national crackdown on blast fishing, include awareness campaigns on ecological, economic, environmental and social impacts of dynamite fishing. Local communities need to be made aware of the association between blast fishing, coral reef destruction, low fish catch records and deteriorating livelihood conditions. The media is a useful tool in this case. Recent footage of destruction of illegal nets in public view has gone a long way to send a powerful message that authorities have now adopted a zero tolerance policy and there is noticeable political will to end this menace to marine resources and coastal livelihoods. Indeed, ‘the fight against blast fishing is no longer business as usua’ as stated by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP), Daniel Nyambabe, at the two-day seminar in Mtwara in November 2015 (see Lucas Liganga, “Tanzania sets strategy to end chronic blast fishing”, The Citizen, November 29, 2015).

Already, authorities and local fishers have started to appreciate current efforts to end blast fishing. In 2015, the then Mtwara Urban District Commissioner, Fatma Salim Ally, noted that blast fishing was the norm of the day in 19 villages along the coast(see Lucas Liganga, “Tanzania sets strategy to end chronic blast fishing”, The Citizen, November 29, 2015). Two years later, some fishers in the Mtwara Mikindani municipality hailed the crackdown on blast fishing as they began to see increased fish catch (see channelten.co.tz, Youtube footage, April 21, 2017).

With political will both at the national and local levels, a visible zero tolerance policy with all stakeholders, amendments of the Fisheries Act, continuous awareness raising campaigns on dynamite fishing laws and destructive effects of illegal fishing practices as well as close cooperation between all the relevant agencies, we have ample reasons to sound optimistic that dynamite fishing will be made history, not only in Mtwara but in the whole country. Authorities have to ensure that there is no laxity in stamping out dynamite fishing, and in particular, see to it that dynamite fishers are no longer let scot-free after being netted with vivid evidence.

A simple way to sum up my fieldwork experience in Mtwara thus far is that it has been a balancing act between being a curious researcher in a fast-changing location, observing problematic issues and pondering on possible solutions, and enjoying my time as a first time visitor to a blossoming town. Mtwara, here I come again!