The Open University of Tanzania

PhD Research Proposal

1. Candidate: Simon Deus Lugandu

2. Supervisor: Professor Emmanuel J. Luoga,

Department of Forest Mensuration and Management
Sokoine University of Agriculture

3. Faculty: Faculty of Business Management

Open University of Tanzania

4. Proposed Degree: PhD

5. Title: Governing Forest Reserves in Tanzania: The Impact of Joint Forest

Management Institutions on Forest Quality and Local Livelihood.

29 March 2011
Table of Contents

1. Candidate: Simon Deus Lugandu................................................................................................1

2. Supervisor: Professor Emmanuel J. Luoga, ..............................................................................1
3. Faculty: Faculty of Business Management...............................................................................1
4. Proposed Degree: PhD..................................................................................................................1
5. Title: Governing Forest Reserves in Tanzania: The Impact of Joint Forest Management
Institutions on Forest Quality and Local Livelihood.......................................................................1
6. Introduction...................................................................................................................................3
6.1 Conceptual framework.......................................................................................................................3
6.2 Statement of the Problem...................................................................................................................4
6.3 Research Purpose/ Objectives ...........................................................................................................5
6.4 Literature Review...............................................................................................................................6
6.4.1 Policy and Legal Frameworks..........................................................................................................................6
6.4.2 Devolution of Forest Management..................................................................................................................7
6.4.3 Institutions in Forest Management...................................................................................................................8
6.4.4 Property Rights................................................................................................................................................9
6.5 Research Questions...........................................................................................................................10
7. Research Methods and Materials................................................................................................12
7.1 Study Area.........................................................................................................................................12
7.2 Data Collection..................................................................................................................................13
7.3 Data Analysis....................................................................................................................................13
9. References....................................................................................................................................14
.........................................................................................................................................................15
9. Other relevant information.........................................................................................................15
9.1 Financial Arrangements...................................................................................................................15
9.2 Time Frame.......................................................................................................................................16
10. Appendices.................................................................................................................................18
10.1 Household Questionnaire................................................................................................................................18
10.1 Village Natural Resources Committee (VNRC) Questionnaire.....................................................................21

2
6. Introduction

6.1 Conceptual framework

For long time management of natural resources (especially forests) has been characterised by
extensive state control without involvement of local communities until the past decade where a
major policy shift of devolving control over natural resources from government agencies to local
communities started taking place (Gomdya-Ssembajjwe, 2000). Failures of the centralised
management regime are widely documented (URT, 2001, FAO, 1997, Gombya-Ssembajjwe,
2000). For the case of Forest Reserves, where this study will focus, the Tanzania’s National Forest
Programme notes the following:
“Central and local government forest reserves are faced with low capability of the
government institutions to manage these resources to meet the growing demands for
fuelwood and other forest products and services. Centralized forest management has
contributed to both market and policy failures in the forestry sector resulting to forest
degradation due to encroachment, over-utilization, wildfires, unclear boundaries, lack of
systematic management and inadequate resources for controlling illegal harvesting as well
as inefficient revenue collection system” (URT, 2001).
Joint Forest Management (JFM), which covers a situation where two or more parties jointly manage
forest resources according to an agreement, is among the participatory methods that can be used to
manage forest reserves between village communities and central government or local authorities
(MNRT, 2003). Since JFM is chosen by the government of Tanzania as an alternative to forest
resources management it should be thoroughly studied in order get information that contributes to
the forest management policy reforms with an ultimate goal of improving the quality forest
resources and livelihood of people living adjacent to forests.

Joint Forest Management (JFM) will be used in studying the institutional arrangements and their
subsequent effects to forest quality and local livelihoods. JFM is an outcrop of Participatory Forest
Management (PFM) in which local communities have a stake over governance and use rights of
the resource while the ownership rests with the government. Currently many of the forest reserves
which practice JFM are under central government ownership more than with the local government,
therefore this study will concentrate on exploring the institutions in these central government
owned forests with the view of getting knowledge that can as well be utilised by local governments
in the governance of their forest resources. The conceptual framework of the research is
diagrammatically presented in Figure 1.

3
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework of the Study

Benefits and
Costs
Forest Production and
Protection before
Devolution

Forest
Condition
Effect on:

Devolution of Joint Forest

Forest Management • Local
Livelihood
Management (JFM) Benefits and
Institutions Costs • Forest
Quality

Forest Production and

Protection after
Devolution

Forest
Condition

6.2 Statement of the Problem

Tanzania has about 33.5 million hectares of forests and woodland that constitute 38% of the total
land area of the mainland; of which forest reserves cover 12.5 million hectares, Non-reserves
forest land 19 million hectares, and forests within national parks 2.0 million hectares (MNRT,
1998, MNRT, 2001). These forests, which provide critical wood resources and other forest
products as well as performing important services such as watershed catchments are depleted at a
very high rate. According to the data provided by the Forest and Beekeeping Division degradation
has brought down the forest cover from 44% in 1971 to 38% in 1999 at an estimated rate of
deforestation between 130,000 and 500,000 ha per annum (MNRT, 2001). The main causes of
forest depletion are reported to be heavy pressure of agricultural expansion, livestock grazing,
wildfires, over exploitation and unsustainable use of wood resources (Kihiyo, 1998, MNRT, 2001,
TASONABI, 2001). Due to the failures of the centralised management regime to adequately
reverse the deforestation trend the government of Tanzania introduced a Participatory Forest
Management (PFM) methodology known as Joint Forest Management (JFM) since 1998 in some
forest reserves. Since JFM regime is still at early stages there arises the need to thoroughly
undertake research in order to know what new benefits to forest quality and livelihoods it brings as

4
compared to the past centrally management regimes and consequently feed to the on going
devolution of forest management in Tanzania.

During the participatory Forest Management (Ole Merts et al, 2005) the government of Tanzania
through the Forest and Beekeeping Division in the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism
indicated the need to enhance research on the following areas: Impact of PFM on forest quality and
livelihood and identify where and under what conditions PFM is viable; benefits from Community
Based Forest Management (CBFM) and JFM; legislation awareness; and integration of PFM into
local government system. This research project intends to contribute to this national PFM research
priority areas.

Conventional policy analyses have normally been addressing management of forest resources in
terms of technical aspects. The core concern of these analyses is frequently about ecological or
economic assessment of performance of forest management. What has not been given much
attention in these analyses is the institutional arrangements that best serve the objectives of
maintaining the integrity and biodiversity of forests and of asset building for individuals,
household and whole communities. For over the past decade local institutions (set of rules and
norms) that guide decisions about resource management have increasingly received attention from
governments, development partners and Non Governmental organisations. These organisations,
seeing themselves as stakeholders, want to know how community based institutions work and how
they can be supported, reoriented or created to advance particular environment and development
goals (FAO, 1997). A number of studies on institutional arrangements have been done in the world
(FAO, 1997, Wai, 1998, Ganesh, 2002) but very few can be traced in Tanzania (Liz Willy, 1997,
Kihiyo and Kajembe, 2000). Since studies in institutional arrangements in management of forest
resources are few, particularly at community or local level, one can believe that there is a great
need to undertaking analyses of the institutions in order to provide of empirical evidence, to policy
makers and project managers and communities, on the institutions and interactions that influence
human behaviour on practice of resource management and use.

6.3 Research Purpose/ Objectives

Purpose
The purpose of this survey will be to explore the impact of Joint Forest Management (JFM) regime
have on the forest quality and livelihood of people living adjacent to the forests, through an
institutional analysis approach. Joint Forest Management means involvement of local communities

5
or Non-governmental organisations in the management and conservation of forests and forest land
with appropriate user rights as incentives (FBD, 1998).

Objectives
1. To examine developments in institutional arrangements since the introduction of Joint
Forest Management regime (JFM) in Ukwiva Forest Reserve and adjacent communities.
2. To assess the effect of Joint Forest Management (JFM) on forest quality
3. To assess the effect of Joint Forest Management regime (JFM) on the livelihood of
communities living adjacent to the forest
4. To provide policy recommendations for sustainable management of forest resources and
improvement of livelihood to community living adjacent jointly managed forests

6.4 Literature Review

6.4.1 Policy and Legal Frameworks

Tanzania formulated and published a new Forest Policy in 1998, which among other things
acknowledges that the government’s capacity to manage forest resources is limited and that there
is need to restore relationship between government and people in the management and ownership
of forest resources (URT, 1998, Kihiyo, 2000). This direction is supported by the following policy
statement:
Policy statement (3): To enable participation of all stakeholders in forest management and
conservation, joint management agreements, with appropriate user rights and benefits, will
be established. The agreement will be between the central government, specialised
executive agencies, private sector or local governments, as appropriate in each case, and
organised local communities or other organisations of people living adjacent to the forest.

The commitment to this direction to local level management of forest resources is manifested in
this government statement “It is important to ensure that the right institutions at local level are in
place for collaborative management arrangements. Also all relevant stakeholders have to
participate in designing the rules, regulations and norms, which finally govern the daily running
of such local institutions. The recognition that the Government is poorly equipped to manage
forest resources at the local level, and that local people often have both sound technical
knowledge and a range of institutional structures for forest management, need be considered. The
existing village assemblies and village councils by statute provide the necessary organizational
framework that can be utilized in the implementation of forest management at local level” (URT,
2001).

6
The management and utilisation of natural resources in Tanzania is shaped by several policies and
regulations including the Forest Policy of 1998 and Forest Act of 2002; Beekeeping Policy of 1998
and Beekeeping Act of 2002; Land Policy of 1999, Land Act of 1999 and Village Land Act of
1999; Environment Policy of 1997; Wildlife Policy of 1998 and Wildlife Conservation Act of
1974 (under review); Mineral Policy of 1997, and Mining Act of 1998, and National Water Policy
of 2002.

6.4.2 Devolution of Forest Management

There is a significant paradigm shift in governance, conservation and Management of natural
resources in the past one decade, from the state centred control approach to the one where local
people play a much more active role. Usually driven by broader decentralisation and local
government reform policies, the aim is to increase resource user participation in Natural Resources
Management (NRM) decisions and benefits by restructuring the power relations between central
state and communities through transfer (or devolution) of decision making and control to local
level organisations (Campbell, 2004). Community management system seeks to guarantee access
and control over forest resources to the communities living in them, but mainly to those who
depend on the forest to satisfy their economic, social, cultural and spiritual needs (WRM, 2002).

Participatory forest management approaches emphasise on people and communities to be end users
of forest resources (FAO, 1997). These approaches have in recent decades being internationally
accepted and seen as important options in the field of natural resources management. The prior
approaches in 1960s and 1970s were highly technical and standardised mostly focusing on
projected fuel wood and timber shortages and favoured the creation of vast timber plantations,
which at the end, however failed. At the same time indigenous people and communities were
accused of being agents causing forest degradation (WB, 2002) and were ignorant and destructive
(WMR, 2002). In 1978, during the World Forestry Congress "Forests for People," a gradual
change of perspective started to gain acceptance on an international scale, insofar as people started
recognising that those who know most about forests are those living in them (WRM, 2002). In
1980s community participation in management of forest resources came into being as development
organisations and rural development specialists began to absorb lessons of failed technical and
standardised approaches to forest resources management.

Forest resources are common pool resources. A common pool resource is a resource from which it
is difficult to exclude potential consumers, and that is subject to substractive and potentially

7
rivalrous consumption (Kihiyo?, 1997). There are several schools of thought articulating on the
management of a resource that is used in common. Although some scholars advocate for market
mechanisms (Reference) and other state control in the management of these resources
(Ssembojjwe, 2000) advocates that both market and the state have failed to improve upon the local
people’s welfare in some of the domains of economic life, due to the fact that it is difficulties in
establishment of mechanisms to control shirking and corruption in these two systems. There is
need for alternatives for management of common pool resources, and in case of forests an
alternative option is know as participatory forest Management (Ssembojjwe, 2000).

The conventional approach (preservation of natural protected forests) to forest management has led
to degradation of forests in the light of the limited government resources to effectively control the
large reserved and public forests (Kihiyo, 1998; URT, 2001a; Gombya-Ssembojjwe, 2000). The
approach also has limited opportunities for other stakeholders to take part in their management.
The Government of Tanzania in its National Forest Programme (URT, 2001a) recognise the fact
that there is weakness in the centrally management of forest resources and that there was a failure
to recognise rights of the communities and other partners in forest resources management such that
new options such as Community Based Forest Management (CBFM) and Joint Forest
Management (JFM) were necessary to be introduced.

6.4.3 Institutions in Forest Management

Institutions are the rules that can influence human behaviour and are created by people to govern
use and management of their resources (FAO, 1997; Wai, 1998). Institutions can be formal –
written and issued by legislative process or formal decree – or informal – generally unwritten and
mainly from customs. Whether the rules are formal or informal has little to do with the impact it
has on people’s behaviour as this depends on whether the rules are enforced and whether people
think the rules make sense and fair (FAO, 1997). In other words the rules must be working.
Working rules are “common knowledge and are monitored and enforced. Common knowledge
implies that every participant know the rules, and knows that others know the rules, and knows
that they also know that the participant knows the rules” (Ostrom, 1990).

Studies have confirmed that whether rules are formal or informal have high chance of succeeding
in ensuring long term sustainability of common pool resources such as forest resources if efforts
are made to adapt eight design principles (Ostrom E, 1990, 1999). These principles include; clearly
defined boundaries; congruence between appropriation and provision rules and local conditions for
management of public forests; a system of collective choice arrangements for setting rules and

8
regulations for managing the forest; monitoring among members; graduated sanctions; conflict
resolution mechanisms; minimal recognition of rights to organise; and existence of nested
enterprises (Kajembe G.C. et al, 2004).

Informal institutions have been practiced for centuries. Examples from India show that some
religious groups (Vaishya) refuse to cut trees or kill animals (Bhagirath et al, 2004). These rules
have practical significance in that they prevent overuse of forest resources and ensure the
sustainability of the resource (Gombya-Ssembajjwe, 2000). In many cases, the same formal
institutional arrangements yield different results as a consequence of differences in the existing
informal rules and norms across communities (Bhagirath et al, 2004). The efficiency of these
institutions depends on how they adapt to socio-economic, political and environmental conditions
of a place.

Institutional arrangements influence individuals to participate in collective action if individuals

perceive that: they will have long term benefits, there are mutual benefits for working with one
another, the set rules are effective (enforced and well understood), and the set of rules can sustain
themselves. Wai (1998) has documented experiences from irrigation systems from Nepal and
summarized that institutional arrangements which have these characteristics are more likely to
enable individuals to build a productive working relationship and results in realisation of their
fuller potential. Recent studies have identified some key issues that have an influence on the
community management of natural resources, including the rights and entitlements (e.g. land
tenure), benefits of natural resources sharing, political and ecological limitations, accountability of
the stakeholders and representatives groups, enabling national policy and regulatory frameworks
(Campbell, 2004, Gombya-Ssembajjwe, 2000).

6.4.4 Property Rights

Property rights regime over forest resources in many countries has been undergoing changes over
time. Kihiyo et all (2000) gives an example of Tanzania (Tanganyika by then) that since 1891
when Tanganyika became a colony of German forest policies formulated have been against
maintaining and encouraging local institutions to manage resources. It is argued that one of the
reasons for massive degradation of natural resources in developing countries is lack of well
defined and secure property rights (-------). The recognition by the states for crafting institutional
arrangements for community forest resources management has recently received high attention. An
effort to understand the incentives that motivate human behaviour in a particular place at a

9
particular time and the impact of those behaviours on the natural resource base is the interest of
this study.

There are four types of property rights drawing from the literature on the commons (________):
Withdrawal right - The right to enter a defined physical area and obtain resource units or products
of the resource system (e.g. cutting firewood or timber, harvesting medicinal plants etc);
Management right – The right to regulate internal use patterns and transform the resource by
making improvements (e.g. tree planting and thinning trees); Exclusion right – The right to
determine who will have an access right, and how that right may be transferred; and Alienation
right – The right to sell or lease management and exclusion rights. The degree of transfer of these
rights from state control to local communities has an impact to community incentives for
sustainable resources management.

6.5 Research Questions

1. What is the extent of compliance to working rules enforcement in the jointly managed
forests?

Rules compliance, in this study, refers to the extent to which the various working rules are
enforced or complied. The consequence of greater compliance reflects positive collective action
towards management of natural resources (Nadia, 2000). Rules can be understood as statements
that determine what types of actions are permissible (may), obligatory (must) or forbidden (must
not) (Crawford and Ostrom, 1995, FAO, 1997). It is becoming an accepted fact that depletion of
forest resources is specifically high in places where there are inadequate and/ or poorly enforced
rules guiding the use of forest resources (Ostrom, 1990). I expect to find that compliance of rules
after introduction of JFM will have increased.

In understanding the changes and extent in rules compliance in JFM management regimes the
following variables will be measured:
• Clearly defined boundaries
• Congruence
• Collective choice arrangements
• Monitoring
• Graduation sanctions
• Conflict resolution mechanism
• Minimal recognition of rights to organise

10
• Nested enterprise

2. What is the effect of JFM on improvement of Forest quality?

In all communities people manipulate their rules due to changes in their needs or come into
conflict with or contact with other groups. As institutional arrangements change people change
their behaviour towards natural resources and this can often have an impact (which may be
positive or negative) on the resource base (FAO, 1997). The type of forest management regime
and strategy can have impact on the stocking of the forest resource (Luoga et al, 2005).
Although there have been controversial results, Liu Dachang and David Edmund (CIFOR,
2003) have generally found in China that forest cover improves as a result of devolution of
forest management. In this study the expected finding will be that the forest quality improves
with the introduction of JFM strategy. Following variables will be measured across the
management regimes under the study:
• Change in Stand Density
• Change in Stand Volume
• Tree Species richness and diversity
• Tree Regeneration and ground cover
• Improvement in water discharge
• Reduction incidence of fire
• Reduction in illegal activities

3. What is the effect of Joint Forest Management on livelihoods of the people living adjacent
to state forests?

Devolution of policies Joint Forest Management (JFM) apart from increasing people’s
participation in natural resources management it is intended to satisfy the economic, social and
spiritual needs of the people living adjacent to the forest resource. The government of Tanzania
strategy to establish JFM aims at ensuring sharing costs and benefits (MNRT, 2001). Some
studies CIFOR, 2003, Luoga et al, 2006) show that there are increases in material and
environmental benefits that community receive from devolved forest management regime. In
this study I expect to find that Joint Forest Management strategy improves the livelihood of
people living adjacent to the forest resource. The following specific variables will be
measured:
• Food security

11
 • Household income
• Means of reducing wood use
• Availability, accessibility and use of wood forest products
• Availability, accessibility and use of non wood forest products
• Perception and participation of communities in JFM
• Village conflicts
• Gender relations
• Fodder supply

4. What recommendations can be made to ensure sustainable management of state forest

resources and improved community livelihood?
• Findings of research question No. 1- 3

7. Research Methods and Materials

7.1 Study Area

The study area is Kilosa district in Morogoro region.The study will be conducted in Ukwiva
Catchment Forest Reserve (UCFR) and within four adjacent villages. UCFR was declared a
forest reserve in 1954 by government notice GN 407 of 3/12/1954. The
gazetted area is 135,000 acres (54 635 ha) (GN 407). The reserve is located at
6_ 58' - 7_ 21' S and 36_ 34' - 36_ 51' E, 35 km from Kilosa (north east
boundary) (Reference). The reserve covers an extensive area of the eastern
escarpment and upland plateau of the Rubeho (Usagara) mountains with an
altitudinal range of 600 to 2050 m.

The climate found in this forest reserve is oceanic rainfall with continental
temperatures. It is estimated that the reserve receives rainfall amounting
1000 mm/year on woodland; and 1200 mm/year on forest with a mist effect at
higher altitudes and groundwater effect at lower altitudes (Lovett and Pocs,
1993).

There are three vegetation zones namely the eastern escarpment (mostly
grassland on the upper slopes, becoming woodland on the lower slopes); the
upland plateau (covered by late successional secondary dry montane forest)
and the riverine forest. In the woodland there are trees such as Acacia sp.,

12
Brachystegia boehmii, Diplorhynchus condylocarpon, Kigelia africana,
Pterocarpus angolensis, Vitex sp. Brachystegia microphylla occurs at slightly
higher altitudes. The riverine forest is reported to contain Khaya anthotheca
(formerly K. nyasica) and Milicia excelsa. The dry montane forest which is at
1600-1700 m. a.s.l. is dominated by Macaranga kilimandscharica in valleys.
The trees in this zone include Agauria salicifolia, Aphloia theiformis, Bridelia
micrantha, Catha edulis, Diospyros whyteana, Halleria lucida, Macaranga
kilimandscharica, Maesa lanceolata, Maytenus acuminata, Nuxia congesta,
Parinari excelsa, Polyscias fulva, Rapanea melanophloeos, Xymalos
monospora (Lovett and Pocs, 1993).

7.2 Data Collection

Primary socio-economic data will be collected from households and Village Natural Resources
Committees (VNRC) using Survey Questionnaires and Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) such
as Focused Group Discussion methods respectively. Four villages adjacent to the forest reserve
will be selected using simple randomly sampling method. In each village, which is estimated to
have 800 households a systematic random sampling will be used to select 5% or equivalent to 40
households for the questionnaire survey. Secondary data will be collected from village, district and
project level offices, complemented with reference materials from similar researches, government,
and progress reports relevant to the subject matter.

Regarding changes in forest quality primary data will be collected using the survey questionnaire
which rates the community perception about the changes in the forest quality. Secondary data
about forest quality will be collected using existing aerial photographs and other forest inventory
reports in order to supplement the community perceptions.

7.3 Data Analysis

Questionnaire data will be analysed using descriptive statistics such as frequencies, tables,
histograms, charts will be used to summarise results. Regression analysis using Logit model will
be used to test whether there is significant difference of the forest management regimes on
improving the forest quality and livelihoods. Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS)
computer software package will be employed to aid statistical analysis. The qualitative data
analysis will use classification and presentation of information. Analysis of change in forest

13
quality will base on comparing trends of forest cover as taken from aerial photographs and reports
of forest inventories.

9. References
1. Forestry Beekeeping Division (1998): National Forestry Policy
2. Kajembe, G. C. 1994. Indigenous management systems as a basis for community forestry
in Tanzania: A case study of Dodoma urban and Lushoto Districts. Tropical Resource
Management Paper Series no. 6. Wageningen Agricultural University, The Netherlands.
3. Uganda Forestry Resources and Institutions Centre (UFRIC), 2000. Community – Based
Forest Resources Management in East Africa.
4. URT, 2001a. United Republic of Tanzania, Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism.
Forestry and Bee keeping Division. National Forest Programme in Tanzania 2001 – 2010
5. Tom Campbell, 2004. Devolved Natural Resources Management as Means of Empowering
the Poor: Rhetoric or Reality? (In MS-TCDC, (2004): Capacity Implications for Good
Local Governance: Experiences and Prospects)
6. Gombya-Ssembajjwe W. S., 2000. Basic Concepts for Successful Community Participation
in Forest Management (In UFRIC, (2000): COMMUNITY Based Forest Resource
Management in East Africa)
7. Vincent B.M.S. Kihiyo (1998). Forest policy changes in Tanzania: Towards community
participation in forest management. The World Bank/WBI’s CBNRM Initiative Case
Received: February 4, 1998
8. Alexander Smajgl et al (_____). Framework and Models for Analysis and Design of
Instituional Management in Outback regions. CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems. Australia
9. FAO, 1997. Crafting Institutional arrangements for community forestry. Community
Forestry Field Manual.
10. WRM's (World Rainforest Movement) bulletin Nº 61, August 2002. Community-Based
Forest Management
11. World Bank (2002). Findings. Africa Region. No 72. January 2002: Tanzania: Managing
Forest Resources
12. Bhagirath Behera and Stefanie Engel, 2004. The Four Levels of Institutional Analysis of
Evolution of Joint Forest Management (JFM) in India. A new Institutional Economics
Approach. A paper presented at the Annual Conference of the International Association for
the Study of Common Pool Resources in Mexico, August 9 – 13, 2004

14
 13. United Republic of Tanzania (URT), 2002. Land Management Programme - LAMP Phase
II, President’s Office, Regional Administration and Local Government (PO-RALG),
Dodoma.
14. Wai Fung Lam (1998). Governing irrigation systems in Nepal. Institutions, Infrastructure
and Collective action
15. Ganesh P. S. and Elinor Ostrom (2002). Improving irrigation governance and management
in Nepal
16. LisWily (1997). Finding the right institutional and legal framework for community based
natural forest management. The case of Tanzania. CIFOR Special Publication
17. Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism (2003). Usimamizi Shirikishi wa Misitu. Forest
and Beekeeping Division, Dar Es Salaam
18. Tanzania Specialist Organisation on Community Natural Resources and Biodiversity
Conservation (TASONABI). 2001. Forest Landscape Restoration: Tanzania Country
Report
19. Nadia Rabesahala Horning (2000). Explaining Compliance with Rules governing Common
Pool resource use and conservation: Dynamics in Bara Country, South-western
Madagascar. Paper presented for delivery at the meeting of International Association for
Study of Common Property, Bloomington, Indiana, May 31 – Jne 4 2000.
20. Crawford Sue E. S. and Elinor Ostrom (1995). “A grammar of Institutions”. American
Political Science Review. 83 (3) (Sept): 582 – 600.
21. Ostrom E (1990). Governing the Commons: The evolution of institutions and collective
action, Cambridge University New York.
22. CIFOR (2003). Local Forest Management: The impact of devolution Policies.
23. Lovett J.C. and T. Pocs (1993). Assessment of the condition of the Catchment Forest
Reserves, a Botanical appraisal. Catchment Forest Project Report, 93.3. Forest Division/
NORAD, Dar Es Salaam, April 1993.

9. Other relevant information

9.1 Financial Arrangements

Item Unit No Unit Cost Total cost
Units
Stipend to Principal Researcher Month 18 300,000.0 5,400,000.00
0
Stipend to Research Assistant Month 12 100,000.0 1,200,000.00
0

15
Transport Month 9 200,000.0 1,800,000.00
0
Literature and consumables Lump sum 1 500,000.0 500,000.00
0
Data entry Month 4 250,000.0 1,000,000.00
0
Purchase of software (SPSS) Pc 1 600,000.0 600,000.00
0
Purchase of Laptop Pc 1 1,800,000.0 1,800,000.00
0
Stationeries for questionnaires Lump sum 1 500,000.0 500,000.00
0
Total 12,800,000.00

9.2 Time Frame

Activity Activity Details Duration Time
No:
1 Proposal Writing 9 months March 2006 – November 2006
- Literature Review
- Methodology Development
- Proposal Writing
- Submission
- Presentation and Approval
2 Field Visits and Data Collection 11 months January 2007 – Nov 2007
- Field visit
- Data coding
- Data Entry and Cross checking
- Data analysis
3 Thesis Writing 7 months Dec 2007 – June 2008
- Results Interpretation
- Thesis Writing
- Submission of First Draft to
Supervisor
4 Revision and Correction of Thesis First 4 months July 2008 – October 2008
Draft
- Correction of First Draft
- Submission of Second Draft to
Supervisor
5 Revision and Correction of Thesis 3 months November 2008 – Jan 2009
Second Draft
- Correction of Second Draft
- Submission of Third Draft to
Supervisor
6 Submission and Presentation 3 months Feb 2009 – April 2009
- Revision and Correction of
Third Draft
- Submission to Supervisors
- Submission to Examining Board
and Presentation
- Submission of Error Free Hard
Bound Thesis

Date: __________________________________ Signature: ___________________________

16
Simon Deus Lugandu
Candidate

Comments by Supervisor:

Date: __________________________________ Signature: ____________________________

Prof. Emmanuel Joachim Luoga

Supervisor

17
10. Appendices

10.1 Household Questionnaire

1. Household Composition

Name of household member 2. Relation to 3. Year 4. Sex 5. Education

household head1) born (0=male
(yyyy) 1=female)
1 Household head
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

2. We would like to ask some questions regarding the head of this household.
1. What is the marital status of household head?
Codes: 1=married and living together; 2=married but spouse working away; 3=widow/widower; 4=divorced;; 5=never
married; 9=other, specify:
2. How long has the household head lived in the village?
years
3. Does the household head belong to the largest ethnic group/caste in the village?
(1-0)

Forest resource base

1. How far is it from the house/homestead 1. … measured in terms of distance km
to the edge of the nearest natural or (straight line)?
managed forest that you have access to 2. … measured in terms of time (in
and can use? minutes of walking)? min
3. Does your household collect firewood? (1-0)
If ‘no’, go to 8.
4. If ‘yes’: how many hours per week do the members of your household spend on
collecting firewood for family use? (hours)
5. Does your household now spend more or less time on getting firewood than you
did 5 years ago?
Codes: 1=more; 2=about the same; 3=less
6. How has availability of firewood changed over the past 5 years?
Codes: 1=declined; 2=about the same; 3=increased
If code ‘2’ or’ 3’, go to 7.
7. If declined (code ‘1’ on the Response Rank 1-3
question above), how has the 1. Increased collection time (e.g., from further
household responded to the away from house)
decline in the availability of 2. Planting of trees on private land
firewood? Please rank the most 3. Increased use of agricultural residues as fuel
important responses, max 3. 4. Buying (more) fuelwood and/or charcoal

18
 5. Buying (more) commercial fuels (kerosene,
gas or electricity)
6. Reduced the need for use of fuels, such as
using improved stove
9. Other, specify:
8. Has your household planted any woodlots or trees on farm over the past 5 years?
If ‘no’, go to next section. (1-0)
9. If yes: what are the main purpose(s) of Purpose Rank 1-3
the trees planted? 1. Firewood for domestic use
Please rank the most important purposes, max 3. 2. Firewood for sale
3. Fodder for own use
4. Fodder for sale
5. Timber/poles for own use
6. Timber/poles for sale
7. Other domestic uses
8. Other products for sale
9. Carbon sequestration
10. Other environmental services
19. Other, specify:

Q. What is your knowledge and feeling about the following common pool resource institutions in
relation to your community and the Forest reserve/ resource?
Principle Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Comment
Agree Disagree
Q1. Clearly defined boundaries:
Individuals or households with rights to
withdraw resource units from common
pool resource and the boundaries of the
common pool resource itself are clearly
defined
Q2. Congruence: The distribution of
benefits from appropriation rules is
roughly proportionate to the costs imposed
by provisional rule
Q2b. Congruence: Appropriation rules
restricting time, place, technology and/ or
quantity of resource units are related to
local conditions
Q3. Collective choice arrangements: Most
individuals affected by operational rules
can participate in modifying operational
rules
Q4. Monitoring: Monitors who actively

19
audit common pool resource conditions
and user behaviour, are accountable to
these users and/ or are the users
themselves
Q5. Graduation sanctions: Users who
violate rules are likely to receive graduated
sanctions (depending on the seriousness
and context of an offence) from other
users, from officials accountable to these
users, or from both
Q6. Conflict resolution mechanism: Users
and their officials have rapid access to low
cost, local arenas to resolve conflicts
among users or between users and officials
Q7. Minimal recognition of rights to
organise: The rights of users to devise
their own institutions are not challenged
by external government authorities
Q8. Nested enterprises: Appropriation,
provision, monitoring, enforcement,
conflict resolution and governance
activities are organised by multiple layers
of nested enterprises

Q. Since the introduction of Joint Forest Management on the forest reserve and communities
adjacent to it what is your idea about the trend of the quality of forest resources in respect of the
variables below?
Variable Trend Remarks
Increasing No Change Decreasing
Stand density
Stand volume
Tree species and diversity
Tree regeneration
Ground cover
Water discharge
Fire Incidences
Illegal activities

20
Area under pasture

Q. In your opinion, what were the likely effects of institutional change i.e. from state management
to Joint Forest management in local livelihood?
Impact Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree
Increase equal access to resource base
Threat alternative livelihood
Unnecessary restrictions
Excessive collection charge
Help reduce poverty
Able to meet the household demand
Decrease access to forest
Increase wood forest products
Increase non wood forest products
Increase in household income
Food security ensured
Reduce village conflicts
Improve gender relations
Increase fodder supply

10.1 Village Natural Resources Committee (VNRC) Questionnaire

21