Landscape Governance and Sustainable Land Restoration: Evidence from Shinyanga, Tanzania
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Landscape Restoration in the Shinyanga Region: Context
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Conceptual Framework: Good Governance in Natural Resource Management
3.2. Study Area
3.3. Data and Materials
3.3.1. Design
3.3.2. Formation of the Focus Groups and Key Informants
3.3.3. Analysis
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Application of the Governance Aspects of Shinyanga Restoration
4.1.1. Participation, Representation and Legitimacy
4.1.2. Effectiveness in Power Dynamics, Actor Interactions and Empowerment
4.1.3. Respect for Local People and Knowledge Processes
4.1.4. Equity and Fairness
4.1.5. Accountability and Transparency
4.2. Emerging Insights
4.2.1. Governance Structures Ought to Build on Existing Systems to Support Buy-in by Communities
4.2.2. Equitable Benefit-Sharing Mechanisms and Representation
4.2.3. Incentives Are Essential and Need to Be Enhanced
4.2.4. Performance and Accountability Instruments Need to Have Been in Place
4.2.5. Consistent Long-Term Financing and Investments and Continuous Locally Relevant Technical Support for Communities Are Necessary
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Stakeholders | Roles of Actors in Ngitili Management |
---|---|
Governmental institutions | |
National government—the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources | Facilitated the HASHI program implementation process at the national level—provided guidance and education |
Tanzania Forest Service Agency (TFS) | A semi-autonomous government agency in charge of conservation, development, and utilization of forest resources. It promotes and provides district forest and natural resource management experts to oversee in tree nursery management and training on tree management to communities |
National Forest Resources and Agroforestry Management Centre (NAFRAC). | Worked with local communities, supporting them with the planning of environmental conservation project activities. Implemented the project after HASHIs completion at the regional level, and provided tree seedlings |
Tanzania Forestry Research Institute (TAFORI) | Conduct, coordinate forestry research as well as ensure the documentation and dissemination of ngitili results for sustainable forest management |
Agricultural extension officers | Directly worked with communities and informed farmers to better decisions to increase agricultural production within ngitili areas. In some areas-initiated conservation and restoration activities as in Busongo village |
Local district authorities led by the ward executive officer, WEO, village executive officer VEO | Facilitated project implementation and approval of village by-laws, maintaining law and order, administrative duties |
Police and judiciary | Enforce the law and assist in conflict resolution |
Community/ village-based institutions | |
Village government | Provide linkages between the local community and formal institutions at district and national levels, project implementers, and other stakeholders. Also sets and enforces village by-laws; issue fines and permits for illegalities |
Village committees such as environmental, land, and wazee wa zengwa, baraza la wazee (village elder) committees; Local councilors (Diwani) | Address natural resource conflicts, and provide education on social welfare including health, education, nutrition, land, water, and environmental conservation |
Village guards | Mgambo/mlinzi protect and make arrests those who destroy the ngitilisSungusungu law enforcement and apprehending offenders in the village |
Primary and Secondary schools | Provide education to children on restoration and conservation matters |
Religious organizations (churches, mosques) Hospitals and dispensaries | Advocate and provide education on conservation of trees, conflict resolution, advocate for peace |
Communities/ Private ngitili owners/ Private benefactors/ youth and women groups | Voluntary establishment, management, and protection of ngitilis |
Non-governmental institutions | |
Tanganyika Christian Refugee Service (TCRS) | Advocated for behavioral change, and provided training on tree management, drip irrigation, and water purification methods, established nurseries and supplied tree seedlings, provided water pipes, water storage units, energy-saving, and improved cookstoves |
OXFAM | Introduced sisal plantation within Ngitilis and engages youth in restoration agenda |
Tanzania Social Action Fund (TASAF) | Enable poor households to increase incomes and opportunities while improving consumption. Some of the funds go towards restoration and conservation activities |
World Agroforestry (ICRAF) | Provided technical support to the HASHI project from planning to the implementation phase |
Tanzania Traditional Energy Development and Environment Organisation (TATEDO) | Implementing REDD+ pilot projects within Ngitili areas in the Shinyanga region. Furthermore, introduced biogas as an alternative source of energy, and trained communities on restoration and conservation |
Development Associates Ltd. (DASS) | Involved local communities in exploring how the communities were to benefit from through Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) schemes |
CARE International | Involved in education, health, microfinance, and environmental programs within the villages |
Jumuita | Local NGO that is involved in greening the landscape through indigenous trees provides training and seedlings to the school |
Farm Concern | Improved farming methods and conservation agriculture |
AMREF | Provide training to youth and tree seedlings to be used in ngitilis |
Acacia Buzwagi benefactors | Employ local communities to the primary gold mine |
BioRe Tanzania | Provide training to the youth and incentive the integration of cotton in the ngitili areas |
Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD) | Funded the HASHI project |
Identified Missing Actors in Restoration in the Villages | FGD Villages in Shinyanga | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ndololeji | Busongo | Ikonda A | Bubinza | Magalata | Ngulu | Bukwangu | Kilago | Mwendakulima | Manyada | Mwambiti | Mwamishali | Bomani | Mwambegwa | |
Agricultural extension, and Forest officers | ||||||||||||||
Traditional healers/ medicine men/women | ||||||||||||||
Women groups | ||||||||||||||
Youth groups | ||||||||||||||
Judiciary (law court) | ||||||||||||||
Livestock herders/ pastoralists | ||||||||||||||
Religious institutions | ||||||||||||||
Actors within the timber trade | ||||||||||||||
Actors within the charcoal trade | ||||||||||||||
Local councilors | ||||||||||||||
NGOs with ongoing projects in the villages | ||||||||||||||
Police | ||||||||||||||
Schools | ||||||||||||||
Small-scale gold miners | ||||||||||||||
Electricity Supply Company and water companies | ||||||||||||||
Village land committees | ||||||||||||||
Buyers of REDD credits | ||||||||||||||
Health institutions | ||||||||||||||
Member of Parliament |
References
- Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; IPBES Secretariat: Bonn, Germany, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Makaudze, E. The impact of climate change, desertification, and land degradation on the development prospects of landlocked developing countries. In UN Office of the High Representative of the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States; UN-OHRLLS: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Nkonya, E.; Mirzabaev, A.; von Braun, J. Economics of land degradation and improvement: An introduction and overview. In Economics of Land Degradation and Improvement—A Global Assessment for Sustainable Development; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 1–14. [Google Scholar]
- Fao and Global Mechanism of the UNCCD. Sustainable Financing for Forest and Landscape Restoration; Discussion Paper; Global Mechanism of the UNCCD at FAO: Rome, Italy, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Goldstein, J.H.; Pejchar, L.; Daily, G.C. Using return-on-investment to guide restoration: A case study from Hawaii. Conserv. Lett. 2008, 1, 236–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- FAO. Restoration of grasslands and forests for climate change mitigation and adaptation, and the promotion of ecosystem services. In Proceedings of the FAO Regional Conference for Asia and the Pacific, Thirty-Second Session, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, 13 March 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Colfer, C.J.P.; Feintrenie, L. A dozen indicators for assessing governance in forested landscapes. In Collaborative Governance of Tropical Landscapes; Routledge: London, UK, 2011; pp. 233–248. [Google Scholar]
- De Groot, R.S.; Blignaut, J.; Van Der Ploeg, S.; Aronson, J.; Elmqvist, T.; Farley, J. Benefits of investing in ecosystem restoration. Conserv. Biol. 2013, 27, 1286–1293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Dressler, W.; Büscher, B.; Schoon, M.; Brockington, D.A.N.; Hayes, T.; Kull, C.A.; McCarthy, J.; Shrestha, K. From hope to crisis and back again? A critical history of the global CBNRM narrative. Environ. Conserv. 2010, 37, 5–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mansourian, S. Understanding the relationship between governance and forest landscape restoration. Conserv. Soc. 2016, 14, 267–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sayer, J.; Bullb, G.; Elliott, C. Mediating Forest Transitions: ‘Grand Design’ or ‘Muddling Through’. Conserv. Soc. 2008, 6, 320–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sikor, T.; Lund, C. Access and property: A question of power and authority. Dev. Chang. 2009, 40, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Patterson, J.; Schulz, K.; Vervoort, J.; Van Der Hel, S.; Widerberg, O.; Adler, C.; Hurlbert, M.; Anderton, K.; Sethi, M.; Barau, A. Exploring the governance and politics of transformations towards sustainability. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2017, 24, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Van Oosten, C. Forest landscape restoration: Who decides? A governance approach to forest landscape restoration. Nat. Conserv. 2013, 1, 119–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barrow, E.; Mlenge, W. Trees as key to pastoralist risk management in semi-arid landscapes in Shinyanga, Tanzania and Turkana, Kenya. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Rural Livelihoods, Forests and Biodiversity, Bonn, Germany, 19–23 May 2003; pp. 19–23. [Google Scholar]
- Mlenge, W. An Indigenous Natural Resources Management System in Shinyanga. ALIN-EA Nairobi Kenya 2004, 3–56. [Google Scholar]
- Barrow, E.; Mlenge, W. Case Study 2: Forest Restoration in Shinyanga, Tanzania. In Linking Conservation and Poverty Reduction: Landscapes, People and Power; Fisher, R.J., Maginnis, S., Jackson, W., Barrow, E., Jeanrenaud, S., Ingles, A., Friend, R., Mehrotra, R., Farvar, T., Laurie, M., et al., Eds.; Earthscan: London, UK, 2008; pp. 53–61. [Google Scholar]
- Barrow, E. 300,000 Hectares Restored in Shinyanga, Tanzania—But what did it really take to achieve this restoration? SAPI EN S Surv. Perspect. Integr. Environ. Soc. 2014, 7, 2. [Google Scholar]
- Duguma, L.A.; Minang, P.A.; Mpanda, M.; Kimaro, A.; Alemagi, D. Landscape restoration from a social-ecological system perspective? In Climate-Smart Landscapes: Multifunctionality in Practice; World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF): Nairobi, Kenya, 2014; p. 63. [Google Scholar]
- Kamwenda, G.J. Ngitili Agrosilvipastoral Systems in the United Republic of Tanzania. 2002. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10919/66692 (accessed on 23 January 2021).
- Mondiale, B. Strengthening Forest Law Enforcement and Governance: Addressing a Systemic Constraint to Sustainable Development; The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Sabella, M. Roots for Good Forest Outcomes: An Analytical Framework for Governance Reforms; The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Minang, P.; Duguma, L.; Bernard, F.; Nzyoka, J. Transparent and Accountable Management of Natural Resources in Developing Countries: The Case of Forests. World Agrofor. Cent. ICRAF 2017, 1–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Minang, P.A.; Duguma, L.A.; van Noordwijk, M.; Prabhu, R.; Freeman, O.E. Enhancing multifunctionality through system improvement and landscape democracy processes: A synthesis. In Climate-Smart Landscapes: Multifunctionality in Practice; Minang, P.A., van Noordwijk, M., Freeman, O.E., Mbow, C., de Leeuw, J., Catacutan, D., Eds.; World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF): Nairobi, Kenya, 2015; pp. 389–405. [Google Scholar]
- FAO PROFOR. Framework for Assessing and Monitoring Forest Governance; Program on Forests (World Bank) and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- McCall, M.K.; Minang, P.A. Assessing participatory GIS for community-based natural resource management: Claiming community forests in Cameroon. Geogr. J. 2005, 171, 340–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United Republic of Tanzania, URT; Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism. Draft National Forest Policy. November 2008. Available online: http://www.tnrf.org/files/E-MNRT-FBD_Zero_Draft_National_Forestry_Policy_Stakeholders_Version_2008.pdf (accessed on 25 January 2021).
- Morgan, D.L. Focus groups as qualitative research. In Qualitative Research Methods; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1996; Volume 16. [Google Scholar]
- Wikipedia, Shinyanga. 12 May 2021. Available online: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinyanga_Region (accessed on 3 June 2021).
- FAO. The State of Food and Agriculture 2010-11: Women in Agriculture—Closing the Gender Gap for Development; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Zainal, Z. Case study as a research method. Jurnal kemanusiaan 2007, 5. [Google Scholar]
- Vaughn, S.; Schumm, J.S.; Sinagub, J.M. Focus Group Interviews in Education and Psychology; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Krueger, R.A. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Kajembe, G.C.; Kessy, J.F. Joint forest management in Urumwa Forest Reserve, Tabora, Tanzania: A process in the making. In Forests, Chiefs and Peasants in Africa: Local Management of Natural Resources in Tanzania, Zimbabwe and Mozambique; Sokoine University of Agriculture: Morogoro, Tanzania, 2000; Volume 34, pp. 141–154. [Google Scholar]
- Katani, J.Z. The Role of Multiple Institutions in the Management of Micro Spring Forests in Ukerewe, Tanzania; Wageningen University: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Wainaina, P.; Minang, P.A.; Nzyoka, J.; Duguma, L.; Temu, E.; Manda, L. Incentives for landscape restoration: Lessons from Shinyanga, Tanzania. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 280, 111831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mansourian, S.; Vallauri, D. Restoring forest landscapes: Important lessons learnt. Environ. Manag. 2014, 53, 241–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Selman, P. Community participation in the planning and management of cultural landscapes. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2004, 47, 365–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rantala, S.; Bullock, R.; Mbegu, M.A.; German, L.A. Community-Based Forest Management: What scope for conservation and livelihood co-benefits? Experience from the East Usambara Mountains, Tanzania. J. Sustain. For. 2012, 31, 777–797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United Republic of Tanzania (URT). 2016 Tanzania in Figures. National Bureau of Statistics Dar es Salaam. 2017. Available online: https://nbs.go.tz/nbs/takwimu/references/Tanzania_in_Figures_2016.pdf (accessed on 15 March 2021).
- Sayer, J.; Sunderland, T.; Ghazoul, J.; Pfund, J.L.; Sheil, D.; Meijaard, E.; Venter, M.; Boedhihartono, A.K.; Day, M.; Garcia, C.; et al. Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 8349–8356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Wily, L.A. Participatory forest management in Africa: An overview of progress and issues. Defining the Way Forward: Sustainable Livelihoods and Sustainable Forest Management through Participatory forestry. In Second International Workshop on Participatory Forestry in Africa; United Republic of Tanzania: Arusha, Tanzania, 2002; pp. 18–22. [Google Scholar]
- Gilmour, D. Forty years of community-based forestry: A review of its extent and effectiveness. FAO For. Pap. 2016, 176, 140. [Google Scholar]
- UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). Defining Core Characteristics of Good Governance. 1997. Available online: http://magnet.undp.org/policy (accessed on 26 September 2019).
- Duguma, L.A.; Minang, P.A.; Kimaro, A.A.; Otsyina, R.; Mpanda, M. Shinyanga: Blending old and new agroforestry to integrate development, climate change mitigation and adaptation in Tanzania. In Sustainable Development through Trees on Farms: Agroforestry in Its Fifth Decade; van Noordwijk, M., Ed.; World Agroforestry (ICRAF): Bogor, Indonesia, 2019; pp. 121–131. [Google Scholar]
Governance Attribute Clusters and Specific Attributes | Mean Score on Scale of 5 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Male Group (n = 14) | Female Group (n = 13) | Youth Group (n = 8) | |
1. Legitimacy and participation | 4.35 | 3.65 | 4.02 |
1.1 Representation and involvement of all actors | 4.50 | 3.31 | 4.13 |
1.2 Consultations involved in the planning activities of Ngitili | 4.57 | 3.62 | 3.88 |
1.3 Actors involved in monitoring | 4.57 | 3.69 | 3.88 |
1.4 Actors in Ngitili involved in decision making processes | 4.14 | 3.69 | 3.63 |
1.5 Actors in Ngitili involved in the land use allocation decisions | 4.36 | 3.92 | 4.63 |
1.6 Actors in Ngitili involved in the land use practice choices | 3.93 | 3.69 | 4.00 |
2. Empowerment of actors | 4.16 | 3.52 | 3.59 |
2.1 Ngitili ownership building the capacity of actors | 4.21 | 3.46 | 3.88 |
2.2 Ngitili building the land tenure rights | 3.64 | 2.69 | 3.13 |
2.3 Ngitili building the management rights of natural resources | 4.57 | 4.00 | 3.75 |
2.4 Ngitili building the capacity of local institutions | 4.21 | 3.92 | 3.63 |
3. Ownership of information and knowledge and processes | 3.83 | 3.89 | 3.88 |
3.1 Access to information on Ngitili | 3.93 | 4.00 | 3.63 |
3.2 Rights to manage information | 3.71 | 3.69 | 4.00 |
3.3 Control of information | 4.07 | 3.69 | 3.25 |
3.4 Right to use of information | 4.14 | 4.08 | 4.00 |
3.5 Individual and group decision making ability | 4.14 | 4.23 | 4.13 |
3.6 Involvement in negotiation processes | 3.57 | 3.92 | 4.13 |
3.7 Rights to use of information for action | 3.21 | 3.62 | 4.00 |
4. Respect for local people and their knowledge | 4.39 | 4.00 | 4.88 |
4.1 Respect the Indigenous Technical knowledge (ITK) | 4.43 | 4.08 | 5.00 |
4.2 Respect for Local Ecological Knowledge (LEK) | 4.36 | 3.92 | 4.75 |
5. Equity | 3.36 | 2.79 | 3.13 |
5.1 Choice in power and control of natural resources in Ngitili | 4.64 | 3.62 | 4.13 |
5.2 Gain in resource control rights and responsibilities | 4.29 | 3.15 | 4.50 |
5.3 Loss of resource control or access rights in Ngitili | 1.14 | 1.62 | 0.75 |
6. Effectiveness and competence | 4.07 | 4.19 | 4.38 |
6.1 Satisfied with the outputs of Ngitili | 4.29 | 3.92 | 4.50 |
6.2 Extent to which Ngitili is a success | 3.86 | 4.46 | 4.25 |
Districts | Villages | State of Communal Ngitili | Gender Engagement | Number of Actors Involved in Ngitili | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
External | Internal | Total | ||||
Kishapu | Ndololeji | Stable | Good | 2 | 4 | 6 |
Busongo | Good | Good | 12 | 7 | 19 | |
Ikonda A | Declining | Average | 2 | 5 | 7 | |
Bubinza | Good | Average | 2 | 6 | 8 | |
Magalata | Not willing to be expressed | Only male | 2 | 7 | 9 | |
Kahama rural | Ngulu | Stable | Good | 3 | 6 | 9 |
Bukwangu | Good | Average | 5 | 6 | 11 | |
Kahama Urban | Kilago | Good | Average | 4 | 6 | 10 |
Mwendakulima | Declining | Good | 5 | 6 | 11 | |
Shinyanga | Manyada | Declining | Good | 4 | 6 | 10 |
Meatu | Mwambiti | Good | Good | 5 | 8 | 13 |
Mwamishali | Good | Good (Female-led) | 3 | 5 | 8 | |
Bomani | Declining | Poor | 1 | 5 | 6 | |
Mwambegwa | Good | Average | 6 | 7 | 13 | |
Total number of actors | 56 | 84 | 140 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Nzyoka, J.; Minang, P.A.; Wainaina, P.; Duguma, L.; Manda, L.; Temu, E. Landscape Governance and Sustainable Land Restoration: Evidence from Shinyanga, Tanzania. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7730. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147730
Nzyoka J, Minang PA, Wainaina P, Duguma L, Manda L, Temu E. Landscape Governance and Sustainable Land Restoration: Evidence from Shinyanga, Tanzania. Sustainability. 2021; 13(14):7730. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147730
Chicago/Turabian StyleNzyoka, Judith, Peter A. Minang, Priscilla Wainaina, Lalisa Duguma, Lucas Manda, and Emmanuel Temu. 2021. "Landscape Governance and Sustainable Land Restoration: Evidence from Shinyanga, Tanzania" Sustainability 13, no. 14: 7730. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147730
APA StyleNzyoka, J., Minang, P. A., Wainaina, P., Duguma, L., Manda, L., & Temu, E. (2021). Landscape Governance and Sustainable Land Restoration: Evidence from Shinyanga, Tanzania. Sustainability, 13(14), 7730. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147730