Tanzania’s policies and laws

in support of

Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems

Report by

Tanzania Natural Resource Forum

Acronyms

AF Agro-forestry

ANSAF Agricultural Non State Actors Forum

AU African Union

BMELV Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection

CBD Convention on Biological Diversity

CBNRM Community-Based Natural Resource Management

CBO Community Based Organisation

CC Climate Change

CSO Civil Society Organisation

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations

GIAHS Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems

GNP Gross National Product

ICESCR International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

ICRAF World Agro-forestry Centre

IP Intellectual Property

KNCU Kilimanjaro Native Coffee Union

MADC Ministry of Agriculture, Food Security and Cooperatives

MEA Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

MKUKUTA National Strategy for Growth and Poverty Reduction

MLFD Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development

MNRT Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MVIWATA MtandaowaVikundivyaWakulima Tanzania/National Network of farmer’s groups

NAPA National Adaptation Programme of Action

NAS National Agro-forestry Strategy

NASCO National Agro-forestry Steering Committee

NCA Ngorongoro Conservation Area

NCAA Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority

NEMC National Environmental Management Council

NORAD Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation

NPP Ngorongoro Pastoralist Project

PES Payment for Environmental Services

RAMSAR Convention on Wetlands signed in Ramsar Iran

REDD Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation

SADC Southern Africa Development Community

TAPHGO Tanzania Pastoralist and Hunter-Gatherer Organisation

TEV Total Economic Value

TIPEI Tanzania Indigenous Poverty Eradication Initiatives

TK Traditional Knowledge

TNRF Tanzania Natural Resource Forum

TTB Tanzania Tourism Board

UCRT Ujamaa Community Resource Team

UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNESCO United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organisation

UPOV Union for Protection of Plant Varieties

URT United Republic of Tanzania

WMA Wildlife Management Areas

WSSD World Summit on Sustainable Development

Contents

1 Introduction to the study ........................................................................................................................... 5

2 Context, significance, value and extent of GIAHS in Tanzania ................................................................... 7

2.1 The context of GIAHS .......................................................................................................................... 7

2.2 Characteristics and qualities of important agricultural systems ........................................................ 7

2.3 The extent of GIAHS in Tanzania ......................................................................................................... 9

2.4 The Kihamba (Chagga homegarden) system Kilimanjaro ................................................................. 10

2.4.1 Summary of dynamic conservation of the Kihamba GIAHS pilot project .................................. 12

2.5 The Maasai pastoral system .............................................................................................................. 14

2.5.1 Summary of dynamic conservation of Maasai pastoral system GIAHS pilot project................. 16

3 Historical policy and practice perspective ............................................................................................... 19

3.1 Overview of policy and practice for smallholder production in Tanzania ........................................ 19

3.2 Historical events impacts on the Chagga homegarden system Kilimanjaro ..................................... 20

3.3 Key events with impact on the Maasai pastoral system ................................................................... 21

4 Analysis of the national policy framework............................................................................................... 23

4.1 The agricultural policy context in Tanzania ...................................................................................... 23

4.2 Tanzania policies and legislation ....................................................................................................... 25

4.3 International conventions related to environment and natural resources ...................................... 30

5 Best practices and lessons learned in relation to GIAHS ......................................................................... 33

5.1 The importance of learning lessons for improving practice ............................................................. 33

5.2 Restocking, Ewoloto, practiced in Ngorongoro Pastoralist Project .................................................. 34

5.3 Strengthening Community Forums ................................................................................................... 34

5.4 Payment for ecosystem services in Simanjiro ................................................................................... 35

5.5 The Multiple land use concept in Ngorongoro Conservation Area (NCA) ........................................ 35

6 Conclusions and recommendations ......................................................................................................... 36

6.1 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................... 36

6.2 Recommendations ............................................................................................................................ 38

List of literature and reports consulted ...................................................................................................... 40

List of Annexes ............................................................................................................................................ 43

People met and consulted by email ........................................................................................................ 43

Terms of Reference ................................................................................................................................. 44

1 Introduction to the study

During the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg, South Africa, the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and United Nations launched a Global Partnership Initiative on conservation and adaptive management of Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS).

The goal of the initiative is: to identify and safeguard GIAHS and their associated landscapes, agricultural biodiversity and knowledge systems through catalyzing and establishing a long-term programme to support such systems and enhance global, national and local benefits derived through their dynamic conservation, sustainable management and enhanced viability (Koohafkan and Altieri 2011,p.7).

The three main objectives of GIAHS are to:

1. Leverage global and national recognition of the importance of agricultural heritage systems andinstitutional support for their safeguard:

global recognition through the creation of Agricultural Heritage Systems category withsupport of Governments, FAO governing bodies, UNESCO, World Heritage Centre and otherpartners

national recognition, awareness and improved understanding of threats that suchagricultural systems face, of their global importance and of the benefits that they provide atall levels

2. Capacity building of farming communities and local and national institutions to conserve andmanage GIAHS, generate income and add economic value to goods and services of such systemsin a sustainable fashion:

Identify ways to mitigate risks of erosion of biodiversity and traditional knowledge, landdegradation and threats posed by globalization processes, and skewed policies andincentives

Strengthen conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and natural resources, reducingvulnerability to climate change, enhancing sustainable agriculture and rural developmentand as a result contributing to food security and poverty alleviation

Enhancing the benefits derived by local populations from conservation and sustainable useof their resources and their ingenious systems and rewarding them through payment forEnvironmental Services, Eco-labelling, Eco-tourism and other incentive mechanisms andmarket opportunities

3. Promote enabling policies, regulatory and incentive environments to support the conservation,evolutionary adaptation and viability of GIAHS:

Assessment of existing policies and incentive mechanisms and identification of modalities toprovide support for sustainable agricultural practices

Promotion of national and international processes leading to improved policies and

incentive mechanisms (Ibid.)

FAO started the initiative in 2002 with the aim to gain international recognition, support dynamic

conservation and adaptive management of GIAHS. In 2008 FAO initiated the project in Kenya and

Tanzania: “Supporting Food Security and Reducing Poverty in Kenya and Tanzania through Dynamic

Conservation of Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems”. The project was supported by the

Federal Republic of Germany through the Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer

Protection (BMELV). In Tanzania the project partnership with the Ministry of Agriculture, Food Security

and Cooperatives (MADC), the Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development (MLFD), the National

Environmental Management Council (NEMC), the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism (MNRT),

The Tanzania Tourism Board (TTB), the Tanzania Natural Resource Forum (TNRF) and the Ujamaa

Community Resource Team (UCRT). The project focuses on two different agricultural systems namely

the Chagga homegarden system and the Pastoralist System of the Maasai, with pilot project sites in

Shimbwe Juu, Moshi district and at Engaresero by lake Natron, Ngorongoro district. These systems are

of particular interest to the GIAHS initiative, because of their customary use and adaptive management

of biological and natural resources compatible with conservation and sustainable use; The significant

contribution to food production, livelihoods and rural development; The social and cultural features

significant to cultural diversity and national identity; The systems have important adaptive elements

found to be “climate smart”. In 2011 an independent external evaluation of the project recommended

that Tanzania’s different sector policies and laws, which have impacts on traditional forms of agricultural

systems, should be brought to the attention of relevant stakeholders so as to provide an opportunity to

formulate a way forward in addressing the need for support to GIAHS in Tanzania’s policies, laws and

institutional framework. The understanding of linkages between policies, laws and the indigenous

agricultural systems are important for informing processes of policy improvement. To implement this

recommendation on policy, laws and GIAHS, this study was commissioned (see ToR annex 2). The study

highlight the historic and contemporary impact of different sectors policy and law of on valuable forms

of traditional agriculture and make recommendations for how to strengthen GIAHS in a policy

perspective. Particular attention is given to the pastoral system of the Maasai and the Kihamba (Chagga)

home-garden system on Kilimanjaro.

The approach of the study involves review of literature, interview key informants, and taking part in the

GIAHS policy workshop on 6th and 7th December 2012, where preliminary findings were validated and a

declaration on GIAHS was prepared.

This report presents the findings of the study. Following this general introduction, chapter two explains

the values, qualities and characteristics of important agricultural systems, with subsections specifically

focusing on the Maasai pastoralist system and the Kihamba system on the slopes of Kilimanjaro. Chapter

three highlights historical trends, changes, specific interests, evolution of the systems vis a vis policy and

governance in pre-colonial, colonial and post colonial periods. Specific examples from the pastoralist

and Kihamba system are highlighted. Chapter four analyze how relevant policies, support GIAHS and

how various policies provide challenges to GIAHS, shortcomings, strengths, gaps and scope for

improvement are identified. Conventions, national plans and processes are given consideration. Chapter

five gives examples of practices relating to important agricultural systems and finally conclusions and

recommendations are given in chapter six. All annexes are attached to the end of this report.

2 Context, significance, value and extent of GIAHS in Tanzania

2.1 The context of GIAHS

Agriculture1 has been practiced for thousands of years and agricultural practices have been developed

through careful adaptation, using trial and error as well as careful observations of the many parameters

influencing the ecosystems. Social and economic conditions prevalent in the given context where

agriculture is practiced also come into play, and must be considered part of the system, including the

important role of women and of customary political management institutional arrangements for land

allocation and recourse to justice.

Some of the agricultural practices or farming systems combine the retention of useful trees and bushes

in cultivated fields. These traditional agro-forestry systems were developed and adapted by farmers

through generations of observation of and adjustment to the natural environment. Existing sustainably

managed agro-ecosystems represent successful strategies developed through the interaction between

man and the ecosystem to provide a surplus for man’s use. Agriculture has evolved from flood plain

cultivation (the River Nile delta, Rufiji river delta etc.), to clearing and burning of bush and forest in

upland areas. Some agricultural practices are carried out combining cultivation and rearing of animals

and others exclusively crop cultivation or exclusively livestock rearing. The introduction of draught

power for ploughing and tilling land increased the efficiency of farming. Later in the second half of the

20th century ‘the green revolution’ was launched, with high technological farming practice and external

inputs such as artificial fertilisers and chemicals to control pests and fungi, making great changes in

production methods and reflecting back on social arrangements, such as on women’s role, land tenure

and distribution and more. Areas with uniform conditions suited for these high technological

mechanised farming practices were categorized as ‘high potential agricultural areas’. Landscapes which

didn’t fall within this category, remained under traditional production regimes such as the ones we

under this study term ‘traditional agricultural systems’ or as the Global Partnership Initiative launched

by FAO refer to as ‘Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems’. The importance of the GIAHS is

significant, as despite focus on the green revolution, GIAHS actually produce 30-50% of the domestic

food consumed in the developing world, providing an important contribution to food security

(Koohafkan and Altieri 2011,p.5). In Tanzania the contribution from traditional agricultural systems to

food security and the GNP is higher as will be elaborated in more detail in chapter four, when outlining

the agricultural policy context in Tanzania.

2.2 Characteristics and qualities of important agricultural systems

GIAHS have a number of qualities and unique values in common, which warrant special attention. GIAHS

are defined as ‘land-use systems and landscapes rich in globally significant biological diversity, these

systems have evolved from a community’s co-adaptation to its environment and its needs and

aspirations for sustainable development’. The GIAHS approach recognizes the crucial importance of the

well being of family farming communities, while directing activities towards sustainable agriculture and

rural development (Koohafkan & Altieri 2011)

1 A broad definition of agriculture is used: “the science or practice of cultivating the soil and rearing animals” (Allen 1990).

Overview of GIAHS characteristics

Characteristics of GIAHS Attributes of GIAHS

GIAHS are a significant part of the local economy and people’s social and cultural identity

-Management is part of men, women and children’s daily work routines and therefore well known and understood -The systems are locally significant for household food security & food sovereignty (See footnote 12) -The systems contribute to well-being, providing multiple goods and services to the families (food, medicine, shelter, fuel, tools and more)

GIAHS may conserve the environment and water catchments and provide important lessons for CC adaptation

-Long term adaptation of the systems conserves ecosystems and biodiversity as an integrated part of management -The systems use and conserves important water catchment areas -The systems use locally available genetic plant and animal resources, often with unique local technical knowledge -The systems may act as a carbon sink (depending on type)

GIAHS generates local knowledge and expertise, using local genetic material, observation and experimentation

-The systems are built on experience, know how, technical knowledge and expertise, with inbuilt learning and adaptation -The systems provides a potential for learning how to develop adaptive management strategies, including adaptation to climate change -Local knowledge of uses, management and development of plant and animal resources may be invaluable to pharmaceutical, agricultural and other industries.

Generally GIAHS systems are productive entities, and it is estimated that between 20 and 40 per cent of

the world’s food production is derived from these systems, making significant contributions to food and

livelihood security. The systems make use of the locally available natural resource base and human

capital, building resilience by optimising on genetic resources, diversified production systems2 and

sources of income.

These smallholder agricultural systems have through decades been adapted to local ecosystems and the

local economy in support of livelihoods, and are furthermore indispensable resources for the wider

society to learn how to improve management of modern agro-ecosystems worldwide. For example,

many local smallholder families prepare for and cope with climate change, minimizing crop failure by

using drought tolerant local varieties, practice water harvesting, mixed cropping, agro-forestry,

transhumance (modern and mobile) and gathering of wild plants and a range of other strategies. These

management practices act as a buffer against drought, disease, pests and climate influences, both at

field and landscape level. Women in particular, who often do the bulk of the practical work on farm,

2 When considering total output from grains, fruits, vegetables, fodder and animal products in the same field, small intensive farms are more productive than extensive large-scale monoculture farms, in the order of 20 to 60 percent (Ibid).

hold considerable ecological knowledge and play a critical role in conservation and utilisation of on-farm

agro-biodiversity and off-farm biodiversity. The knowledge passed from generation to generation on the

intricacies of complex agro-ecosystems is pivotal in the day-to-day husbandry as well as preventing and

coping with impacts from ecological, climatic and socio-economic fluctuations (Koohafkan and Altieri

2011,p.9-12).

The importance of GIAHS initiative stands out against the background of issues related to food security

and nutrition in the face of climate change, scarce natural resources and rural poverty. The combination

of innovation, ecological knowledge and optimising on agro-biodiversity is thought to increase resilience

to climate change, and over the last two decades it has been observed that resilience to climate and

ecological disasters is closely linked to agro-biodiversity (ibid.).

2.3 The extent of GIAHS in Tanzania

In Tanzania there are a number of outstanding traditional agricultural systems that deserves attention, and these are distributed across the whole country, in highland, grassland, forest, wetland and coastal ecosystems. Some of these systems may not qualify as globally important, but may be of significant importance locally. Therefore we take a broad view looking at agricultural livelihood systems, signifying that all these systems have over time more or less been carefully adapted to the ecological, economic and social context of the areas where they are practiced. However common to all GIAHS and most agricultural systems is that they are adapted to specific ecological conditions and sustainable management is based on specific technical knowledge. In many cases these landscapes make up unique cultural landscapes with significant values and “The term ‘cultural landscape’ embraces a diversity of manifestations of the interaction between humankind and its natural environment” (Rossler 2012). “Cultural landscapes are those where human interaction with natural systems has, over a long time, formed a distinctive landscape”(Mitchell et al 2009). There are many examples to illustrate this in Tanzania, here we mention just a few: Overview of extent of important smallholder systems in Tanzania

Characteristics Distribution

Pastoralist Systems Extensive livestock production, using a range of ecosystems and aiming to optimize on abundant grazing resources and minimize risks associated with drought and disease. Crops are often also cultivated

Throughout Tanzania, particularly where crop cultivation is a challenge – about 90% of Tanzania’s livestock are managed by pastoralists and agro-pastoralists

Agro-pastoralist Systems

Agro-pastoralist systems are similar to pastoralist systems, however cattle may be used for ploughing, and commercial and subsistence crop cultivation is integrated into the system

As above – but in higher rainfall areas, or in patches with better soils as crop cultivation features in the system

Silvi-pastoral Systems

Ngitiri grazing and tree reserves are managed for providing dry season grazing. Communally agreed restrictions on use of both pasture and wood resources are enforced through traditional systems

Practiced by Sukuma agro-pastoralists throughout Shinyanga Region.

Agri-silvo-pastoral systems

The Faidherbia albida (F.albida) system combines crop cultivation, trees partly covering fields with broad canopies. After crop harvest the tree provide protein rich seed pods as livestock fodder complementing roughage maize stover grazed by livestock. The F.albida tree is unique with reverse phenology, dropping foliage contributing nitrogen rich fertile leaves at the beginning of the crop growing season and does not shade crops through to harvest.

The system is mainly found in areas with alluvial soils, most commonly in Southern Tanzania, but also to a lesser extent here and there throughout the country, as the tree is versatile and can grow under a wide range of conditions.

Home garden systems

Home-gardens are adapted to mountainous rain forest type ecosystem, where continuous vegetation cover is essential. Emulating the eco-system, intercropping and mulching is carried out to ensure continuous groundcover and harvesting and planting is carried out in one operation so by the time the crop is carried from the site a new plant is in place.

Kilimanjaro, Meru, Usambara, Mara, Bukoba, Pare are all mountainous ecosystems where various home gardens systems are practiced

Pit Cultivation and Mound Cultivation

Matengo pit cultivation is a system designed to optimize on water, where a small pit is dug filled with decaying biomass and left to decay, and seeds are planted to optimize on the compost and make best use of scarce rainfall. Grass mound systems are similar in approach, but are above ground and in higher rainfall areas, often dambos or in miombo woodland

Matengo is found in Mbinga District in SW Tanzania Grass mound cultivation is mostly practiced in southern Tanzania, often close to wetlands (dambos) or in miombo woodland in conjunction with forest fallow systems

Bush and Forest Fallow Systems

These systems are also called ‘slash and burn’ or shifting cultivatio. Farmers cut branches with foliage from trees and burn just before planting, but do not destroy the regenerative capacity of trees and bushes. The ash and heat from burning increases soil fertility. After two to three years of cultivation, trees and bushes are left to regenerate in the fallow period, and new land is opened for cultivation.

The whole coastal strip of Tanzania in coastal thicket forests, and in the miombo woodlands of southern Tanzania

2.4 The Kihamba (Chagga homegarden) system Kilimanjaro

The Kihamba home-garden, agro-forestry system practiced on the eastern and southern slopes of

Mount Kilimanjaro has evolved over more than five centuries. The bantu Chagga migrated from Taita

region, four to five hundred years ago, to the southern and eastern slopes of Mt. Kilimanjaro where they

over the years adapted the natural vegetation of the mountain mist forest into a multilayered agri-

silvicultural system providing food, timber, fodder, medicine and cash crops. Kihamba means ‘the

inherited land’ and is where the family life of the Chagga people evolves, they are born, come of age,

marry and are buried in the Kihamba. Useful trees and vines were kept while less useful species were

gradually replaced by cultivated fruit and timber trees such as avocado, mango and grevillea. However

most of the 82 tree species represented are remnants of the original forest cover of which the most

common are: Albizia schimperiana; Ranvolfia caffra; Cordia Africana; Commiphora eminii; Magi-ritaria

discoidea. Approximately 500 plant species are represented of which more than 100 for human use

(Banzi 2012). The main crop is coffee and bananas intercropped with several food and tree crops with

up to over 100 different species in one plot. Coffee was first introduced in the late 19th century, and

suitable for the ecology, was fairly quickly adopted allowing farmers to incorporate emerging cash needs

into household economies. Banana covers the upper shrub layer (4-6m) and coffee a lower layer (1.5-

2m). The main crops are coffee, bananas, millet, maize, pawpaw, beans and livestock for milk and meat.

The system is supplied with water by an intricate traditional irrigation system with storage ponds

(Nduwa). The 1200 km2 area had 1.3 million inhabitants in 2003 and farm sizes were 0.5-2 ha. The area

has a history of supporting the highest rural population densities in Africa, without compromising

sustainability. The Kihamba biomass and high levels of biodiversity and sustainable management are

critical for Mt. Kilimanjaro ecosystem, including its function as a water catchment area supplying the

surrounding regions and as a carbon sink.

The farmers practicing the Kihamba system in most cases have a lowland farm with maize, millet and

beans. In response to recent years falling coffee prices farmers have diversified into other cash crops

such as ground nuts, sunflower and vegetables: Tomatoes; Green pepper; Chilly; Onions. However cash

income has not reached the level derived in the past from reasonably priced coffee. Livestock are stall

fed in the highlands and herded in the lowlands. The family’s home is in the highland home garden in a

single dwelling, villages as such do not exist. Mobility is limited to the cultivation season where the

family travels from the home-garden to tend lowland fields and return within the same day. There is a

flow of nutrients from lowland plots to home gardens as grain, crop residue and fodder is transported

uphill to the Kihamba (Kitalyi & Soini 2004).

The home-garden system of Kilimanjaro has often been showcased as a viable model for sustainable

land use. The system has flourished with growing production for almost two and a half century with

coffee as the main cash crop, complemented by bananas, livestock, timber trees, beekeeping and a

number of other crops for home use and sale.

However the viability of the system has come under severe pressure due to demographic, economic and

ecological changes. The Chagga home-garden system and associated livelihoods face a number of

related challenges (Kitalyia & Soini 2004):

1) Water availability and rainfall patterns have become erratic resulting in excess water when heavy

rainfall and diminishing water availability in between downpours. This is due to a number of factors:

75% of glaciers on the mountain have disappeared since 1912; Changes from indigenous vegetation to

exotic species in the home-gardens combined with cultivation of riverbanks is believed to contribute to

drying up of rivers and springs; The traditional irrigation system has partly collapsed further loosing

scarce water resources, due to inadequate water storage capacity and leakage from distribution

channels.

2) The world market decreased coffee prices contribute to increased poverty and inability to purchase

necessary farm inputs. Alternative income has not reached the level of the previous cash earnings from

coffee. With the low farm input levels the home-gardens are becoming less productive. Poor extension

services and policy change on availability and distribution of farm inputs has aggravated the problem.

3) There is an increased lack of incentive for the youth to stay on farm, which results in migration to

urban areas, which result in shortage of labor for farm operations. This furthermore disrupts the

transfer of knowledge to new generations in managing this complex, bio-diverse system.

4) Due to pests and diseases coffee plants are weakened, resulting in decreased yields.

These identified constraint areas are clearly examples of “low hanging fruit” for policy makers, extension

service and other implementing agents to turn into successful improvements. We shall return to

implications for policy and practice in chapter four below.

2.4.1 Summary of dynamic conservation of the Kihamba GIAHS pilot project

World market coffee price has decreased, coffee pests and diseases have multiplied, price of inputs are

high providing serious challenges for the viability of the system. The GIAHS project3 works to address

this key threat, in a selected project site, in Shimbwe Juu village4, Moshi district, Kilimanjaro Region. The

community in Shimbwe Juu is committed to maintain the integrity and biodiversity of the Kihamba

system through an action plan that lays out the way forward (Banzi 2012)

Outline of the project for dynamic conservation of GIAHS in Shimbwe Juu

THE ACTION PLAN FOR CONSERVING THE KIHAMBA AT SHIMBWE JUU 1) Strengthening community institutions in environmental management and marketing; 2) Improve management of coffee through organic farming, certification and training; 3) Rehabilitation and increasing capacity of traditional irrigation system i.e. furrows and ponds

(Nduwa) 4) Introduction of vanilla as an additional source of income; 5) Introduction of aquaculture for raising trout as an additional source of income/protein; 6) Soil erosion control (terraces/ground cover plants/mulch); 7) Community conservation and transmission of traditional knowledge; 8) Establishment of a Kihamba heritage museum; 9) Recognition of the area as a National Heritage Site.

THE STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION

3 The Project partners involved are: Ministry of Agriculture Food Security and Cooperatives (lead); Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development; National Environmental Management Council; Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism (Antiquities Div.); Kilimanjaro Native Coffee Union (KNCU); Tanzania Indigenous Poverty Eradication Initiatives (TIPEI); World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) –TZ; Moshi District (LGA); The Community of Shimbwe Juu; Zonal Irrigation Office. 4 in a 619 ha area with a human population of 2,569, at about 1800-2600 meters elevation in the Montane Humid Tropical Forest zone.

The assessment of the coffee crop pests, diseases and management practices has been carried out; KNCU has been consulted and accepted to build capacity to farmers on organic farming; 630 farmers are participating in revival and improvement of coffee production; With GIAHS support, KNCU has expanded its central coffee nursery from 9,000 to 58,000 grafted improved seedlings and will be able to serve farmers beyond the project boundary; So far KNCU has distributed over 21,000 improved coffee seedlings to farmers to replace aged coffee trees and to establish new coffee farms; Internal and external inspections on organic farming compliance have been done and about 400 farmers are certified as organic farmers and selling their coffee crop as organic grade. Most farmers do not use agrochemicals, which make the certification process easier; KNCU has opened a coffee collection centre in the village to facilitate marketing of the crop.

Vanilla production has been introduced by a local organization TIPEI; Following training, about 80 farms have established the vanilla crop, which is expected to start producing 2012.

Assessment of the irrigation system for rehabilitation has been carried out and a combined design for the irrigations system and aquaculture has been submitted; Procurement of the contractor is expected soon.

The aquaculture assessment found that trout is the best suited for this environment. Trout was first introduced by the Germans in the rivers Weruweru and Olmotonyi in the 19th century and have now become naturalized.

Base line and biodiversity survey for Shimbwe Juu has been conducted and a report produced.

A soil and water assessment revealed that soil erosion is a problem, especially on plots with annual crops and a proposal for soil and water conservation has been submitted.

The establishment of a model Kihamba is in progress and the selected ‘model’ (based on best practice) will have most of the components of the traditional Kihamba system, such as tree layer, banana layer, coffee layer, climbers, yams and vegetables.

Lessons learned from the Kihamba, Shimbwe Juu, Moshi

• Traditional farming systems are characterized by traditionally developed intelligent

solutions/practices in natural resources management, each being unique to particular ecological

and sociological conditions, but all aimed at sustainable utilization to meet socio-economic ends.

Support to these systems is an important requirement to meet emerging challenges and threats

• The ongoing degradation of the Kihamba has a real risk of transforming Mt. Kilimanjaro from a

lush and bio-diverse area into an eroded, barren area. Therefore scaling up the present efforts

on Mt. Kilimanjaro in support of the Kihamba system would be highly desirable

• This system, like most GIAHS areas, is intricate. Interventions in one component of the system

often require adjustment of other components in order to be effective and to maintain the

balance of the system. Working across sectors and levels is therefore essential. This has also

been an extremely valuable learning experience for the agencies and people involved

• In many countries farmers are not secured in cases where their agricultural heritage systems

fail, the impact of which may destabilize the socio and political economy. Policies could be far

more helpful in addressing these concerns by specific statements

Challenges:

• The high cost of implementation of this action plan made it necessary to prioritize activities to

match with available funds

• Increasing human population has resulted in fragmentation due to dividing farm plots for

inheritance, in some cases beyond economic viability.

• Unreliable and erratic rainfall is reducing productivity of the system

• Changes in world market coffee price is reducing viability of the system. Exploration of new

markets and promotion at local markets (including tourism) is urgently required

Conclusions and recommendations:

• Traditional agricultural systems have stood the challenges of environmental change and

population growth. These agricultural systems have a large untapped source of knowledge,

which could potentially contribute to improved land use and enhancement of food security

• In order to promote farmers’ developed techniques, deliberate efforts must be taken to first

document what farmers are doing and work towards their improvement. The immediate future

challenge is to raise awareness and understanding of these systems among decision makers and

to build productivity and livelihood enhancing improvements into the present systems without

destroying their unique advantages. However, initiatives must come from farmers, or in close

collaboration, articulating key issues and proposals for the way forward.

2.5 The Maasai pastoral system

The Maasai, a Nilo-Hamitic ethnic group living in Kenya and Tanzania are arguably one of the most

famous and well known ethnic groups in Africa. In the somewhat exaggerated words of Thomas Spear

“everyone knows the Maasai”. Earliest writings on the Maasai include travelogues by Gustav Fischer

(Fischer, 1884) and Joseph Thomson (Thomson, 1885). Since then, literature on Maasai ranging from

ethnographic accounts (Merker, 1910) to language (Mol, 1977) and customary law (Maguire, 1928)

abound. A part of their oral literature has also been admirably recorded by a Maasai author (Kipuri,

1983). However, in spite of such extensive studies, there is generally no consensus among scholars on

the origin of the Maasai. In the words of Dorothy L. Hodgson, Professor of Anthropology at Rutgers

University, “Historians, archaeologists, linguists, and others are still exploring reconstructing, and

debating the pre-colonial history of the Maasai. Central to their findings and ensuing debates and

disagreements are their very definitions of Maasai identity.” (Hodgson, 2001:1) Although this study does

not focus on identities of the Maasai, it is worthwhile mentioning on the outset that the study is

confined on pastoral Maasai as opposed to other pastoralists. However, it is worth noting that

pastoralism is practiced throughout Tanzania, and that the Maasai pastoralists are mostly in the north,

but also in coastal and southern parts of the country, while agro-pastoral production features in the lake

zone and the southern highlands. The regions where Maasai pastoralist production is the dominant

economic activity are Arusha and Manyara (specifically Simanjiro and Kiteto districts for Manyara region

and Ngorongoro, Monduli and Longido districts in Arusha region). Altogether, it is estimated that

pastoralists and agro-pastoralists manage 61 million hectare (610,000 km2) of Tanzania’s landmass, and

that they own approximately 18.5 million cattle, 13.1 million goats and 3.6 million sheep, or 90 % of the

national herd (the third largest in Africa) (National Livestock Policy 2006). According to the 2003

National Census, there are 2.2 million people practising pastoralist or agro-pastoralist production in

Tanzania.

Unlike the more sedentary agricultural tribes such as the Wanyakyusa and Wasukuma, the Maasai have

no centralized leadership. Each smaller community is considered a functional unit that can manage its

own affairs. This is probably to suit their mobility, which is a part and parcel of pastoral mode of

production.

Pastoralism, then, has been described as an extensive system of animal production that involves varying

degrees of mobility where families depend on livestock and their by-products for a significant level of

their subsistence and income (UNDP 2008). The main distinguishing feature of the system is mobility,

which is an intelligent response to the unpredictable weather and other ecological conditions of the

rangelands, and includes reserving forage, optimizing on abundant grazing in areas where rain has

fallen, avoiding drought and avoiding disease such as Ningana fever.

Among the Maasai, pastoralism is not only the source of livelihood but also an amalgam of culture,

identity and knowledge. Most Maasai consider pastoralism to be their identity. Pastoralism plays a great

role in day to day interactions. Friends and family relatives, for example, refrain from using their given

names (culturally considered to be less formal and at times lack of respect) and instead opt to exchange

say a goat or calf and passionately call each “Ndawo” (my calf), “Mbalelo-aiy” (my kid) etc. A very large

segment of Maasai folklore, philosophy and taboos is derived from years of pastoralism.

The system is centered on interdependency between people and nature with widespread taboos and

prohibitions against environmental degradation. This particular practice accounts for the presence of

abundant wildlife in most of the pastoral areas in northern Tanzania, as killing or harming of wildlife is

considered taboo. Scholars have tried to quantify the contribution of Pastoralism to the maintenance of

spectacular landscapes, abundance of wildlife particularly large mammals and the ever thriving tourist

industry as totaling 83.5 Billion US $ (Nelson 2012). The “attention grabbing” image of the Maasai has

also contributed significantly to the thriving tourist industry in both countries (Nagol 2009).

A rich and dynamic indigenous and traditional knowledge system including long exposure to adapting to

ever changing weather and rangeland conditions, has made it possible for pastoralism to survive in the

harshest of environmental conditions in the rangelands of Tanzania (Laltaika and Faida 2010). The type

of livestock kept by the community for close to a hundred years has become highly adapted to the local

climatic and ecological conditions. Such adaptation brings in the interdependency between livestock and

wildlife even closer. For example, it has been observed that the number of wildlife has dropped as a

result of banning pastoralists from grazing in the Ngorongoro Crater in the 1970’s, among other places

(Runyoro et al., 1995).

Food security and employment are probably the most important contributions of pastoralism to the

welfare of the Maasai as a community. Researchers have pointed out that recent exodus of Maasai

youths to big cities such as Dar es Salaam to work as night watchmen along with acute famines in most

of the districts inhabited by the Maasai is closely linked to dwindling herds of livestock and land

grabbing that makes it difficult for pastoralism to thrive. (Riley et. al. 2012)

In addition food security and employment as described above, pastoralism is estimated to contribute

about 14% of Tanzania’s GDP. (Tenga et al 2008). It also contributes significantly to protein needs of the

nation (Tenga et al 2008). In spite of all these, there is wide spread misinformation and xenophobia (to

use the word used by Tenga, leading researchers in the field) against pastoralism resulting into

unfriendly policies and laws that go as far as criminalizing many practices considered essential for

pastoralism to thrive.

Two main paradigms have contributed to the current state of discrimination against pastoralism. These

are Hardin’s tragedy of the commons theory (Hardin, 1968) and the ‘carrying capacity’ narrative (Pratt

and Gwynne 1977). Tragedy of the commons asserts that due to the lack of property rights to the

commons, the randomly and extensively used commons (which are also ineffectively governed) are

bound to degradation due to lack of accountability. The carrying capacity on the other hand,

presupposes that a given piece of land can carry only a given number of livestock. This concept is based

on models from temperate lands, and requires an equilibrium environment with predictable rainfall for

it to be effective. However, in environments such as the rangelands of Africa, where rainfall is

unpredictable within and between seasons, carrying capacity as a concept does not make sense unless

at tremendous scale (such as ‘East Africa’), because the productivity of pasture is dependent on rainfall,

and livestock and wildlife need to move to where there is pasture to optimize on the grazing. At the

same time, overgrazing cannot happen, as without water or grass, the cattle have to move or they will

die. Despite science having disproven the theories of ‘tragedy of the commons’ and ‘carrying capacity’,

these misconceptions persist with policy makers, and underpin the unhelpful policies and laws under

which the pastoralists have to operate (Mattee & Shem 2006).

Laws and policies influenced by these two paradigms have sought to “modernize” pastoralists by

encouraging destocking and fragmenting rangelands. Wildlife conservation policies have also been used

to evict pastoralists from their lands to make way for national parks and forest reserves. Specific

impacts of these policies and laws on pastoralism are discussed in the next chapter.

2.5.1 Summary of dynamic conservation of Maasai pastoral system GIAHS pilot project

The Engaresero Village, by Lake Natron in Ngorongoro District has a surface area of 104,550 ha., a

human population of 5,539, a livestock population of 15.000 (cattle), 46.000 (shoats). The environment

is semi arid grassland, wooded grassland, forests and soda-lake shore. The area has a high tourism

potential, with Oldonyo Lengai and the oldest homo sapiens footsteps, approximately 120.000 years old,

it has waterfalls, wildlife and it is the breeding ground for the lesser flamingo (Mwaigomole 2012).

Outline of the pilot project for dynamic conservation of GIAHS in Engaresero

THE ACTION PLAN FOR CONSERVING PASTORAL SYSTEMS IN ENGARESERO

1) Develop standard site selection process and criteria; 2) Potential sites were evaluated: Engaresero village chosen as the pastoralist system is intact; 3) A Free Prior and Informed Consent5 procedure in the community was followed; 4) Threats and opportunities presented by the site were analyzed and a draft Community Action Plan was developed by the project team (national level partners); 5) The draft Community Action Plan was presented to the community, to indicate priorities and to include suggestions for its improvement; 6) The revised draft was presented to the Project Facilitating Committee (directors at ministry departments) and community for approval; 7) The community set up committees for each of the components of the action plan to work with the project team.

STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION

Strengthen community institutions for planning, NRM and tourism: CBO established to manage

Engaresero Village as a GIAHS area. Tasks are: to address challenges facing pastoralism (livestock

diseases, water issues); to maintain community development fund; to manage the tourism enterprise;

to ensure money accrued from tourism is used for the benefit of all community members.

Improve management of pastures (was not implemented due to drought)

Construction of 2 water dams. The designs for 2 dams are ready, EIA done awaiting EIA certificate and

tendering.

Improvement of animal health care. 43,872 livestock were treated for various common diseases and 2

cattle crushes constructed.

Development of the area as a pastoral/cultural tourism destination. A community tourism

development plan was developed; 30 tour guides trained to be employed by the CBO when tourists

need guides; 5 walkie talkies, first aid kits and bicycles supplied. CBO makes USD 200 per day (low

season) for the community fund and have 5,000 USD in the account. The Engaresero Cultural Tourism

program was promoted at the Karibu Tourism Fair held in Arusha, June 2012.

Women’s arts and crafts cooperative established. Women groups formed and 24 women trained on

business management and product development including quality control, price setting and marketing.

Transmission of traditional knowledge and community conservation through establishing an

information center (museum/botanical garden) to showcase pastoralist practices, medicinal plants and

items used in the pastoral way of life will be displayed as well as arts and crafts. TTB will build the

5 Under current international law, governments are obligated to consult Indigenous communities before any development affecting their lands

and resources takes place, and even more broadly, any decisions directly affecting Indigenous Peoples and their self-determination require their consultation and consent. The UN Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples advises on the proper implementation of Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC): “The element of ‘free’ implies no coercion, intimidation or manipulation; ‘prior’ implies that consent is obtained in advance of the activity associated with the decision being made, and includes the time necessary to allow Indigenous Peoples to undertake their own decision-making processes; ‘informed’ implies that Indigenous Peoples have been provided all information relating to the activity and that that information is objective, accurate and presented in a manner and form understandable to Indigenous Peoples; ‘consent’ implies that Indigenous Peoples have agreed to the activity that is the subject of the relevant decision, which may also be subject to conditions.”

museum and MFLD to provide piped water. Pastoralist Traditional Knowledge on environmental

conservation was documented and a draft is available. 2000 flyers and 600 posters on pastoralism &

advertising Engaresero as a tourist attraction developed & distributed.

Recognition of the area as a National Heritage. Proposal for inclusion of GIAHS considerations in the

national heritage act was submitted to MNRT.

Lessons learned from the pilot project supporting the Maasai Pastoralist system in Engaresero:

In Engaresero, the community has become cautious of outside actors as there are a range of

external interests at play from the government, NCAA, RAMSAR, tourist companies, soda ash

extraction plant development, hunting companies etc.

The Free Prior and Informed Consent procedure provided the transparency that allowed the

project to be accepted and owned by the community. I.e. people realized that the pilot project

gives direct support to the pastoralist production system and generate income from tourism to

meet livelihood challenges

Cultural tourism in areas where pastoralists coexist with wildlife can improve economic

wellbeing if pastoralists are empowered to manage and benefit from tourist attractions. Income

generated through tourism can supplement the livestock economy and compensate for any

eventual loss of access to grazing or water resources.

Many policy makers think that the Maasai pastoral land use systems degrade the environment.

It is important to show and prove that the Maasai’s ecological knowledge, range management

practices and livelihood system actually conserve wildlife, their habitats and the landscapes as a

whole. Grazing patterns of livestock increase total range of resources available to wildlife. By

supporting pastoralists address emerging challenges in a focused manner, improved

conservation of wildlife, their habitats and landscapes can be achieved.

Challenges

Drought in 2008/09 and early 2011 meant that the activity on pasture improvement & hay

bailing was postponed

Delays in the formulation of the CBO and its constitution and delays in approval of these by the

district authorities.

District not keeping its agreement in handing over the authority to collect gate entry fees to

Engaresero from tourists.

Poor standards of design and long EIA process delayed construction of the dam. To date the

dam construction not been started

Conclusions and recommendations

The GIAHS initiative aims to identify and understand cultural practices and indigenous

knowledge systems which shapes, conserve and manage the natural resources and their

associated landscapes and biodiversity.

When assisting pastoral communities to dynamically safeguard good practices and knowledge

systems GIAHS supports pastoral communities in meeting emerging challenges, which threaten

both the pastoral systems, landscapes, biodiversity and livelihoods.

With a holistic approach, building on existing structures and practices in dialogue with local

managers to move towards achieving sustainable natural resource management, is possible.

In order to provide appropriate support and promote sustainable pastoral production systems it

is necessary to understand challenges and the principals governing the system, including the

institutional systems in place and their contribution towards conservation, biodiversity, food

security and the national economy.

GIAHS is playing a critical role in changing perceptions among policy makers and other actors.

Collaboration with the government to “list” the project area as a national heritage under

national heritage law will be a major success in this effort (Mwaigomole 2012).

3 Historical policy and practice perspective

3.1 Overview of policy and practice for smallholder production in Tanzania

It is recorded that, in 1875, a German explorer named Karl Peters signed “treaties” with local tribes,

convincing them to hand over their land to the Gesellschaftfür deutsche Kolonisation6 Upon recognition

of such treaties by the then German Chancellor, Otto von Bismarck, the lands in question were declared

part of a German Protectorate. Effective colonization began immediately, only to be brought to an end

by the aftermath of the First World War (Iliffe, 1979:25). Pursuant to the Treaty of Versailles, the League

of Nations assigned German colonies to the British. In 1919, the part that is now the Tanzanian mainland

fell under the British colonial powers until 1961, when the country attained independence under the

leadership of Mwalimu Julius Kambarage Nyerere. Tanzanian legal and policy history, therefore, can be

divided into pre-colonial, colonial (German and then British), and post-independence periods. This part

revise historical evolution of legal and policy instruments related to traditional agricultural systems

particularly Chagga home gardens and Maasai Pastoralism from pre-colonial through colonial to

independence period.

In the first 30 years of independence Tanzania implemented agricultural related policies, plans,

strategies and programs. Initially in the 1960s agricultural policy was market-oriented interventions

formulated and implemented according to Five Year Development Plans. With the 1967 Arusha

Declaration, agricultural policy became government-led interventions, including nationalization of

private sector enterprises responsible for major export commodities, state farms, state processing and

marketing enterprises were established and Cooperative Unions controlled by the state. However

around 1980 it was realized that these interventionist policies did not work in favor of the national

economy. By mid-1980s, the government, supported by development partners, started economic and

structural adjustments dismantling interventionist instruments in the economy including in the

agricultural sector. Private sector became again active in the value chain of most agricultural and

6 Society for German colonization

livestock products, producer price control was lifted, and state enterprises became privatized (URT

2011). These policy reforms are still in progress and will be covered in more detail in chapter four.

Historical change in policy, practice and governance is highlighted and related to evolution of the

systems. Significant events impacting on important agricultural livelihood systems in Tanzania is given

with particular focus on the Maasai pastoralist system and agro-forestry systems.

3.2 Historical events impacts on the Chagga homegarden system Kilimanjaro

Timeline: Key historical events with impacts on the Kihamba system

14-1500 The Chagga people migrate

The Chagga migrated from Taita Region to the southern and eastern slopes of Mt. Kilimanjaro and started to transform the mountain mist forest into an agri-silvicultural farming system

1600 Trading caravans brought change

Introduction of bananas is believed to have occurred in this period. (Koponen 1998 in Soini s.d.) Maize cassava and sweet potatoes were bought by Portuguese and sugar cane from Asia with Arab traders (Krapf 1860; Moore & Puritt 1977)

1893 Catholic mission introduce coffee

Introduction of coffee as a cash crop led to major modifications to the Kihamba system. Rangelands were converted to coffee growing and made it necessary to stall feed cattle, reducing milk production, as Zebu cattle are less suitable for stall feeding

1912 The railway arrived in Moshi

The arrival of the railway to Moshi opened the area up for large scale European colonization. It was particularly the grazing lands that were proclaimed vacant and taken over by Europeans ( Mtei 1974; Masseliere de la 1999 in Soini s.d.)

1950s Expansion of coffee as a cash crop

Soon there were no longer unused land available suitable for home-gardens. Due to the expansion of coffee planting, food crops moved down the slope to the lowland (Maro 1974; Fernandes et al. 1984 in Soini s.d.). With a relative good income from coffee, farmers started purchasing improved cattle (Aminu-Kano et al. 1992 in Soini s.d.).

1960 Land scarcity

No more lowland plots available close enough for farmers to travel from highland farms and return in a day ( Maro 1974 in Soini s.d.).

1961 Independence

With declaration of Tanzanian independence from British rule, new party and government administrative units replaced earlier chiefs and chief’s councils.

1967 The Arusha Declaration

The agricultural policy environment became characterized by government-led interventions. These included the nationalization of private sector enterprises throughout the value chain of major export commodities. This resulted in the establishment of state farms, state processing and marketing enterprises and state controlled Cooperative Unions (URT 2011).

1973-75 Ujamaa Villagisation Programme

The Ujamaa program required people to abandon traditional systems and provide land for collective farms and create nucleus village settlements. The people on Kilimanjaro resisted this program as it would be detrimental to their land use system. Therefore resettlement under the Ujamaa Villagisation Programme was not implemented in the area and there were no implications on land use and ownership (Aminu-Kano et al 1992; Mlambiti 1985 in Soini s.d.)

2004 National agro-forestry strategy developed

This important cross sector agro-forestry strategy, was never institutionalized in policy and legislation. It is thought that this was due to funding from NORAD ended abruptly.

3.3 Key events with impact on the Maasai pastoral system

There is consensus among many historians that the Maasai had occupied a large part of the Kenyan and

Tanzanian rangelands before the coming of colonialists. Their real and perceived war-like lifestyles7

(Krapf, 1860) had made most of their neighbors fearful of any attempt to invade Maasailand. As already

expounded, pre-colonial Maasai pastoralism operated under customary law.

The coming of colonialists ushered a new era and commencement of anxiety among the Maasai both in

Tanzania and in Kenya. German colonialists, influenced by existing literature on “ferocity” of the Maasai,

decided to put them in a reserve. Harold Sippel, a German legal Historian recounts:

“In the case of pastoralists, e.g. the Maasai, a gigantic reserved area was established for the

purpose of preventing the nomadic herdsmen from disturbing the rights of pasture of European

and Boer farmers and from stealing white men’s cattle in Kilimanjaro region…the so called

Maasai Reservant (Maasai reserve) created in 1907 in Arusha and Moshi districts, had a size

roughly of 1,500.000 acres and approximately 11,300 inhabitants. But even this vast area was

insufficient for feeding the enormous livestock of the Maasai Cattle-breeders. In spite of that

fact the Maasai herdsmen were not allowed to leave their “protected areas” together with their

cattle and they were punished by confiscation of cattle or by corporal punishment if they dared

do so.”8 (Sippel 2004:18)

Like the Germans, the British also perpetuated the notion of “Maasai Reserve” in the pretext that it

needed to restore the affluence of the once respected Maasai “tribe”. Although the “reserve” (later on

named Maasai district), was expanded compared to the German period, it constituted mostly of arid and

semi-arid lands with important water sources under private ownership of European settlers. A number

of taxes and ad hoc administrative punishments were introduced to restrict movement beyond

Maasailand (Hodgson 2001).

7Krapf, for example, describes the Maasai as 'truculent savages' who are 'dreaded as warriors, laying all waste with fire and sword, so that the

weaker tribes do not venture to resist them in the open field . . .

After independence, the notion of “Reservant” or reserve was done away with (one would say deferred)

as the constitution provided that any Tanzanian could freely move and live in the place of his choice

within the United Republic of Tanzania.9 In 2002, however, this constitutional right was tested as the

government of Tanzania, divided the Maasai into two separate regions of Arusha and Manyara. When

the region was divided, the assumption was that the Maasai would still move freely back and forth from

Arusha to Manyara and other regions. Recently, however, a number of regional commissioners have

issued statements to the effect that Maasai herders and (other pastoralists) need to apply for a “permit”

to move from one region to another in Tanzania.

Post-independence period is also characterized by widespread eviction of Maasai pastoralists from their

ancestral lands mainly for wildlife conservation. The chart below shows key historical events affecting

Maasai pastoralism.

Timeline 2: Key events with impacts on the Maasai pastoral system in Tanzania

1800 migration

Arrival of the Maasai in the present day Tanzania (after a disagreement between Sendeu and Lenana on who should ascend to the hereditary throne of their father Batiany

1853-1867 occupation of northern highlands

The age of the first Ilnyangusi10. The Maasai conquer and occupy most of the highland region (Saitoti 1989)

1890-1919 Tanganyika under German rule

German colonization of Tanganyika. Maasai pastoralists are confined into a specially designated Maasai Reserve (Sippel 2004)

1920-1960 Tanganyika under British rule

The British builds on the “Maasai reserve” notion and expands it to include present day districts of Longido, Monduli, Ngorongoro, Kiteto and Simanjiro.

1973-75 Ujamaa Villagisation Programme

One of the primary purposes of Ujamaa was to establish collective villages “Vijijivya Ujamaa”. Although villagisation was not appropriate to the pastoral way of life, the overall impact was minimal as pastoralists had to continue to use their extensive livestock production systems in the rangelands and the program did not prohibit transhumance.

1961-1990

Eviction of the Maasai from their lands to pave way for wildlife conservation. Manyara,

9See Article 17 of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania 1977 as amended.

10 The Maasai are divided into age groups or “generations”. Ilnyangusiis is one of such age groups. For reasons not very clear among historians

and anthropologists, the name Ilnyangusi was used more than 100 years later for yet another age group “Ilnyangusi 2” (also known as Irmakaa)

Conservation against the people

Serengeti, Tarangire, Mkomazi and other national parks that used to be a part of pastoralists lands were gazetted and the notion of no human residence in wildlife areas was enforced

2002 Presidential directive

The President issues circular directing measures to encourage sedentary lifestyles among pastoralists: This Directive (Warakawa Rais Namba 1 2002) directs district and regional authorities to take measures aimed at minimizing mobile pastoralism (ufugajiwaKuhamahama) in the country.

2010 Law on grazing

Parliament of the United Republic of Tanzania passes the Grazing Lands Act. The law, based on the “livestock per unit” paradigm empowers the government to issue a three year notice requiring a pastoralist to “harvest” a given number of his stock upon being notified that his herd exceeds the required “unit”. (See Section 20).

4 Analysis of the national policy framework

4.1 The agricultural policy context in Tanzania

Currently there is a strong focus on commercialization and scaling up investment and innovation for

sustainable agricultural growth and food security in the agricultural policy environment in Tanzania.

Large scale commercial farming is seen as an important way of increasing food production, which is

actively supported through a number of initiatives under the overall heading ‘Kilimo Kwanza’

‘Agriculture First’. Attention is paid to creating a facilitating environment for private investment in

agriculture (Vorley et. al. 2012). The current approach for commercialization and scaling up in Tanzania

has raised concern that small scale farmers are being ignored in the process. “The Tanzania’s green

revolution grand plan (Kilimo Kwanza) is doomed to have little impact on the improvement of

agriculture because the process of its preparation neglected the needs and priorities of small-scale

producers,…” (The Citizen 2011)11. Small scale farmers are responsible for the main part of food

production in Tanzania and women play a critical role, for example, women are reported to produce

about 70 per cent of all food crops in Tanzania (Vorley et. al. 2012). The recent publication ‘Tipping the

balance’ raise the following big questions related to inclusive sustainable development for commercial

investment in agriculture: (a) whether that commercial investment will support, bypass, or marginalize

small-scale producers and women; and (b) what role public policy can play in tipping commercial

investment and the benefits of agricultural markets in the direction of pro-smallholder and pro-women

models of development, while respecting the environment (ibid.). Therefore the key in policy and

practice is that appropriate support is provided for the small scale sector as production supplies food

products locally, nationally and internationally. The small scale and traditional agricultural sector

provides employment for millions of people and contributes to food sovereignty12 at various levels. In

11 http://farmlandgrab.org/11954

http://thecitizen.co.tz/magazines/-/9137-new-agriculture-plan-ignores-small-farmers

12

"Food sovereignty" is about the right of peoples to define their own food systems. People who produce, distribute and consume food are at the centre of decisions on food systems and policies, rather than the demands of markets and corporations that have come to dominate the global food system. In 2007, delegates from across the world gathered for the international forum on food

fact appropriate support to small scale producers can lead to quick impact and success as productive

capabilities can be fairly simply enhanced by addressing specific needs identified by small scale

producers. It is timely to take a look at how to complement the focus on large scale commercial farming

and for that purpose the principles of ‘food sovereignty’ (see footnote 12) provide useful insights for

broadening our understanding of smallholder agricultural producer priorities.

When developing policies to shape agricultural investment and markets in favour of small-scale farmers,

five interrelated relevant areas are important, which are useful to keep in mind for the analysis of policy

and smallholder agriculture:

• Policy matters – but currently policy is biased against smallholders A lack of appropriate policy and physical infrastructure tends to favour large-scale over small-scale

farming by raising the cost of procuring produce from multiple scattered smallholdings. This is thought

to be partly due to limited understanding of small scale agriculture combined with small scale producers

do not have a strong enough voice and power to shift the balance

• Investment climates that support smallholder investment and corporate investments in agriculture, are not the same, though they have some elements in common

In general, commercial investors are attracted by the returns that can be generated from large-scale

agriculture, which may or may not include smallholders as out-growers.

• Policies must respond to the diversity of rural societies The challenge of promoting inclusive sustainable development in rural areas will remain unaddressed

unless investment policies respond to the diverse needs and aspirations of the many different segments

of rural societies.

sovereignty, Nyeleni, in Sélingué, Mali. These delegates deepened their collective understanding of the key principles and published what is now known as the 6 pillars of food sovereignty

[2]:

1. Focuses on Food for People: Food sovereignty puts the right to sufficient, healthy and culturally appropriate food for all individuals, peoples and communities, including those who are hungry, under occupation, in conflict zones and marginalised, at the centre of food, agriculture, livestock and fisheries policies; and rejects the proposition that food is just another commodity or component for international agri-business. 2. Values Food Providers: Food sovereignty values and supports the contributions, and respects the rights, of women and men, peasants and small scale family farmers, pastoralists, artisanal fisherfolk, forest dwellers, indigenous peoples and agricultural and fisheries workers, including migrants, who cultivate, grow, harvest and process food; and rejects those policies, actions and programmes that undervalue them, threaten their livelihoods and eliminate them. 3. Localises Food Systems: Food sovereignty brings food providers and consumers closer together; puts providers and consumers at the centre of decision-making on food issues; protects food providers from the dumping of food and food aid in local markets; protects consumers from poor quality and unhealthy food, inappropriate food aid and food tainted with genetically modified organisms; and resists governance structures, agreements and practices that depend on and promote unsustainable and inequitable international trade and give power to remote and unaccountable corporations. 4. Puts Control Locally: Food sovereignty places control over territory, land, grazing, water, seeds, livestock and fish populations on local food providers and respects their rights. They can use and share them in socially and environmentally sustainable ways which conserve diversity; it recognizes that local territories often cross geopolitical borders and ensures the right of local communities to inhabit and use their territories; it promotes positive interaction between food providers in different regions and territories and from different sectors that helps resolve internal conflicts or conflicts with local and national authorities; and rejects the privatisation of natural resources through laws, commercial contracts and intellectual property rights regimes. 5. Builds Knowledge and Skills: Food sovereignty builds on the skills and local knowledge of food providers and their local organisations that conserve, develop and manage localised food production and harvesting systems, developing appropriate research systems to support this and passing on this wisdom to future generations; and rejects technologies that undermine, threaten or contaminate these, e.g. genetic engineering. 6. Works with Nature: Food sovereignty uses the contributions of nature in diverse, low external input agroecological production and harvesting methods that maximise the contribution of ecosystems and improve resilience and adaptation, especially in the face of climate change; it seeks to heal the planet so that the planet may heal us; and, rejects methods that harm beneficial ecosystem functions, that depend on energy intensive monocultures and livestock factories, destructive fishing practices and other industrialised production methods, which damage the environment and contribute to global warming.

• Effective implementation is vital There is a major gap between good policy intentions and what is happening on the ground. Policy and

law can be supportive, but without adequate financing of efficient implementation will not make

required impact.

• Politics matter Vested interests undermine socially optimal outcomes. At times implementation may be skewed by in

favour of powerful interests (Vorley et. al. 2012).

Ideas and interests of small scale farmers represented in agricultural related policy and law in Tanzania

was recently described as follows. Smallholder farmers in general and women in particular lack in

contributing to the process of formulation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation/review of

policies. This is due to the processes not being participatory enough to capture the views, outcries,

concerns, frustrations and other burning issues of representative smallholder farmers in general and

women in particular. Policy making processes typically take place in urban ministries‘ offices, and hotels

in male-dominated decision-making environments where voices of smallholder farmers in general and

women in particular are not adequately represented, if at all (Ibid.).

However barriers to representing small scale farmer priorities are gradually being overcome, as recently

some smallholder farmer organizations and CSO’s in Tanzania, such as MVIWATA and ANSAF, as well as

some members of parliament and parliamentary working groups are raising smallholder farmer issues of

priority in forums where policies are made and reviewed (Ibid.). Furthermore ideally policy making and

reviews must start at the grassroots where members of farming communities articulate their concerns,

which then feed into policy formulation processes, which will help ensure that policies address local

issues appropriately (Pact 2005). Various manuals and guidelines are available on policy law and

governance as well as on advocacy processes on how best to influence policy making (Ibid.)

4.2 Tanzania policies and legislation

Findings below show that policy and legislation in support of GIAHS and small scale farming in Tanzania

have scope for improvements. Although there is mention of indigenous knowledge, agro-forestry and

organic farming as well as support to alternative farming systems, however there are no direct policy

statements showing how concrete support be provided. Furthermore policies may impact differently on

small holder agricultural production systems or policies may at best be indifferent. In this section we

identify and present some examples of strengths, shortcomings, gaps etc., including some commitments

in international conventions. The section finally presents a matrix with strengths, weaknesses and

opportunities of policies, laws, plans, strategies and conventions relating to GIAHS. First we look at a few

concrete examples from relevant policies.

The Agricultural and livestock policy 1997 mentions indigenous knowledge once in relation to research

and extension (p.10) and the ministry will promote agro-forestry and organic farming is mentioned

once (p.31). Pastoralists are more frequently mentioned, both in supportive terms and in more

restrictive terms.

The National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA) for Tanzania suggests that Alternative Farming

Systems is an important resource (p. 9 and 34) and suggest Promoting indigenous knowledge (p. 34

Sector: Agriculture and Food Security (including Livestock)).

The Tanzania’s Forest Policy 1998 encourages Agro-forestry practices and recognizes the contribution of

trees outside forests in agricultural production and for conservation. However the Forest Act 2002 has

provisions related to tree tenure, which constrain Agro-forestry practices: The minister can declare any

indigenous species a “reserved tree” regardless of where they grow. The Forest Act protects trees from

cutting and removal without permission, which can have limiting effect on investments in planting or

retention of “reserved trees”.

The Cultural Heritage Policy 1997 states under the heading 3.5 Cultural and Environmental

Conservation in section 3.5.1 Traditional knowledge, skills and technology which are environmentally

friendly shall be identified and their use encouraged. However, how this cultural policy intention can be

implemented in the Agricultural sector may be a challenge. A Cultural Heritage Act is being drafted, but

official permission is awaited to go ahead and complete the process.

The National Agro-forestry Strategy (NAS) 2004 supports Agro-forestry (AF) and GIAHS. The strategy is

designed to scale up the use and spread of AF techniques. NAS envisions that 4 mill HH will adopt and

benefit from AF practices by 2025.

The goal of NAS complements Tanzania’s Development Vision 2025 and the National Strategy for

Growth and Poverty Reduction (MKUKUTA), which aim to increase HH income while conserving the

environment.

However, the National Agro-forestry Strategy has major limitations. The process funded by NORAD,

ended abruptly and the institutionalization in policy and legal frameworks for its cross sector

implementation has not yet been completed.

It was the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security (MAFS) & Ministry of Natural Resources and

Tourism (MNRT) that constituted the National Agro-forestry Steering Committee (NASCO) in 1993 and

NASCO formulated the National Agro-forestry Strategy.

Although MAFS & MNRT recognize the importance of a strategy to guide implementation of Agro-

forestry and NASCO to oversee this, there is no structure to institutionalize the NAS and NASCO in

national policy and legal frameworks.

Tanzania is a signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity,13 there are no measure taken to

protect traditional ecological knowledge of the Maasai and other local communities. The dominant

thinking is to consider local communities as a nuisance and cause for environmental degradation. It is

submitted that for the current community based conservation reforms to succeed, community rights of

13

Article 8(j) of which obliges member states to protect traditional knowledge of local and indigenous communities embracing traditional lifestyles.

the locals must be acknowledged and safeguarded. This is also true as far as the protection of cultural

heritage is concerned. The latter is the subject matter of our discussion in this section.

Like policies, legislation relevant to GIAHS also has scope for improvement. This subsection analyses

relevant laws with the intention of showing their strengths, weaknesses and gaps, the laws have been

grouped into five parts namely those related to (i) land tenure (ii) Traditional knowledge and Genetic

resources (iii) Cultural heritage (iv.) Agriculture, livestock development and food security (v) Natural

resources and the environment

(1) Land tenure

The most relevant land laws for the purposes of this study are the Land Act and Village Land Act 1999.

The two Acts read together lay down the foundation for administration of land issues in Tanzania. The

Land Act vests all land in Tanzania under the President as a trustee and goes on to provide for three

categories of land namely Village Land, Public Land and Reserved Land. Based on this categorization,

Village Land is administered by Village Councils as per provisions of the Village Land Act. The main

strength of this legal regime when it comes to GIAHS is that village assemblies and village land

committees are empowered to make binding land use plan decisions on their land. Pastoral

communities can decide to carry out land use plans and decide to set aside their lands for pastoralism as

opposed to cultivation. Likewise, Kihamba systems can be strengthened through local arrangements

without “consent” from higher authorities. According to the Land (Conditions of Right of Occupancy)

Regulations, 2001 land granted for the purpose of say pastoralism must mandatorily be used for

pastoralism. This legal position offers a window of opportunity for Maasai pastoralists, for example, to

choose investors whose investments do not cause unnecessary inconvenience on pastoralism.

The main weakness of the current land law regime is lack of security on collective rights to land.

Although the law permits issuance of certificates of “customary” land rights, they are often at times

applied for by individuals as opposed to a community. There is, therefore, room for conflicts between

“individual” and collective rights to land. Based on tenets of property rights protected by the

Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania, lack of specific provisions on group rights to land is

prejudicial to pastoralism. A researcher on land rights (Rutten 1992) taking the Kajiado area in Kenya as

a case study, has equated such individualization of land rights (where individuals acquire constitutional

rights to protect their land from “trespassers”) to “selling wealth to buy poverty”.

This report notes with appreciation recent attempts by the Ujamaa Community Resource Team (UCRT)

to apply for group rights of marginalized communities particularly the Hadzabe Hunter-gatherers.

Although a certificate has been issued, the decision to do so was based on an administrative discretion

(to protect the Hadzabe from intruders) rather than a position of the law. It is proposed that the

forthcoming constitution provides specifically for group rights to land for pastoralist and other

communities.

(2) Traditional Knowledge and Genetic Resources

The main legislation for promoting science, technology and innovation related to GIAHS are the Patent

Act 1987 and Plant Variety Protection (Plant Breeders Rights) Act 2002. Like most of the Intellectual

Property (IP) laws in Africa, these two Acts are a relic of Tanzania’s colonial past whereby policies aimed

at plundering and looting resources without encouraging local ingenuity. The Patent Act provides for

protection of inventions which are new, involves an inventive step and are industrially applicable. This

criterion does not give room to protection of indigenous knowledge systems and innovations based on

traditional knowledge. The Plant Variety Protection (Plant Breeders Rights) Act, likewise, is based on

western tenets of innovation thus it favors modern plant breeders at the expense of traditional

communities and their land races.

Save for scanty provisions in the Forestry Act 2002 and the National Environment Management Act

2004, there is no specific law to protect genetic resources associated with traditional knowledge of local

and indigenous communities in Tanzania. As a result, there is no incentive among communities to

preserve genetic resources of their livestock (as evidenced by heightened desires to “modernize”

livestock breeds among the Maasai) and their agro-biodiversity (as exemplified by the Chagga who have

recently developed a tendency to clear off their coffee and plant tomatoes and other seasonal crops).

The impact of genetic erosion on food security cannot be over emphasized. Among the Maasai

pastoralists, for example, locally adapted livestock have more than 50% chances of surviving through

drought than their newly introduced counterparts including “high yield” breeds (TAPHGO 2009).

Likewise traditional kihamba system offers not only food needed at family level but also enough forage

for cows.

It is submitted that concerned government functionaries should devise mechanisms to promote the use

of and protect traditional knowledge and associated genetic resources.

(3) Cultural heritage

The legal regime for protecting cultural heritage in Tanzania is comprised of among other legislation, the

Antiquities Act 1964, National UNESCO National Commission Act 2008, and the National Museums Act

1980. All these Acts red together form the basis for preservation and promotion of cultural and

traditional practices of national or local significance. Specifically, the Antiquities Act provides for

preservation and protection of sites and articles of paleontological, archaeological, historical or natural

interest. The UNESCO National Commission Act, likewise, establishes a commission charged with

implementing UNESCO activities in Tanzania. It is well known that UNESCO’s mission includes but not

limited to preservation and protection of sites with international cultural and natural significance. Finally

the National Museums Act establishes the national museum whose primary function is collecting,

conserving, displaying and researching on all materials relating to Tanzania’s Cultural and Natural

heritage. We submit that both Maasai pastoralism and Kihamba are a part of the cultural heritage of

Tanzania.

The term culture does not command a universally accepted definition. However, a definition that comes

closer to the purposes of this study provides that culture is “that complex whole which includes

knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capacities and habits acquired by man as a

member of society.” We prefer this definition due to its incorporation of knowledge thus supporting the

thesis for protecting traditional knowledge as discussed in 2 above. The term tradition on the other

hand, has been defined as “values, practices, outlooks and institutions that one generation within any

given society inherits from the generation(s) that preceded it.” As already provided in the introductory

remarks to this study both pastoralism and the Kihamba systems are significant cultural heritage

practices whose history goes back more than 100 years. It is advised that pastoralism in Ngaresero be

preserved as a UNESCO landscape of international significance.

(4) Agriculture, Livestock development and Food Security

Many laws in Tanzania have a bearing, direct or indirect on agriculture, livestock development and food

security. The most relevant for the purposes of this study include the Food Security Act of 1991, the

Seeds Act of 2003, The Plant Protection Act of 1997, and the Protection of New Plant Varieties (Plant

Breeders Rights) Act, 2002. The main strength of these laws when it comes to GIAHS is the fact that in

one way or another they all aim at enhancing food security. According to the FAO, food security exists

when ‘all people, at all times, have access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary

needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life’ (FAO, 1996:2). According to this definition,

the two most important factors for food security are accessibility and availability. Food insecurity,

therefore, is a result of a lack of either food accessibility, or unavailability, or both. The right to food

(which encompasses both availability and accessibility) is recognized as a fundamental human right in

international law. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR, 1945) and the International

Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR, 1966), among other international law

instruments, provide for the right to adequate food. According to the African Commission on Human

and Peoples Rights (African Commission), state parties must protect access to food from interference by

powerful third parties. (Mbazira 2004)

As already discussed, in chapter one, both pastoralism and the Kihamba systems are food security

“safety valves” for communities concerned. It is submitted therefore that the government of Tanzania

takes deliberate steps to implement the GIAHS project in order to enhance food security which, as

discussed, is a fundamental human right.

(5) Natural Resources and the Environment

Environmental and natural resource related laws relevant for this study are the Wildlife Act of 2009, the

Forestry Act 2002 and the Environmental Management Act 2004. The importance of these laws for the

success of GIAHS in Tanzania cannot be over emphasized. The interdependence between livestock and

wildlife in Maasai rangelands has already been described. Agro-forestry, on the other hand, cannot be

discussed in isolation from forestry laws in general. The main strength of these laws in the light of

GIAHS is incorporation of community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) principles. CBNRM

has been described as a “paradigm shift” in the conservation circles departing from the colonial “fines

and fences” to more collaborative approaches where communities are regarded as partners and not

enemies of conservation.

While CBNRM has undoubtedly managed to put a silver lining in the public relation landscape of many

protected areas which hitherto epitomized enmity between conservation officials on one hand and local

communities in and around protected areas on the other, it has not solved all our conservation

problems.

Progress in Ecology and conservation sciences in general inform that sustainability of life on the planet

requires more than setting aside areas of land for conservation. The field of Ecology informs that in an

interdependent world there are critical processes that provide life support to living things in the form of

air, water, timber, nutrients and even recreation to mention but a few. Not only are these provisions

critical for the maintenance of life but they also cannot be contained in one place thus rendering the

“protected areas” model of protection less useful.

Economists, on the other hand, have managed to quantify and come up with an economic value of such

services. Considering such nature provisions public goods whose maintenance is beneficial to all,

economists have suggested a model to incentivize protection of such services in the form of payment for

ecosystem services. This study has already shown that pastoralism contributes significantly to the

success of tourism in northern Tanzania. It is also undeniable that the Kihamba system protects much

needed trees and vegetation for regulation of whether, water catchment and acting as carbon sinks. It is

submitted therefore that payment for ecosystem services schemes be designated to incentivize the

Maasai and Chagga communities continue practice pastoralism and Kihamba systems respectively for

the benefit of the whole country.

4.3 International conventions related to environment and natural resources

The UN conventions on desertification, biodiversity and climate change in general terms, seek to

mobilize the political will to bring about sustainability in the management of the life supporting systems

found in the earth’s natural resources. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in particular in

Article 10c directly supports traditional agricultural systems by stating: “protect and encourage

customary use of biological resources in accordance with traditional cultural practices that are

compatible with conservation or sustainable use requirements” and further in Article 8j: “respect,

preserve and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous communities embodying

traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity”.

Matrix of policies, laws, plans strategies and conventions relating to GIAHS

Law /Policy/ International Convention

Strength Weakness Opportunity

Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania 1977

Protects fundamental rights and freedoms including the right to movement

Contains many “draw back clauses” whereby many if not most of the fundamental human rights are qualified, enforceable “subject to the laws of the land”

Tanzania is in the process of rewriting its constitution, which is an important opportunity for inclusion of new provisions

Village Land Act, Empowers villagers to form Does not guarantee Section 29 obliges

1999

land committees and carry out land use plans at the village level

collective ownership of land thus endangers the future of pastoralism due to rangelands fragmentation.

customary land users to use the land sustainably and in accordance with land use forms prevalent in the area.

Wildlife Conservation Act 2009

Offers villagers an opportunity to benefit from wildlife conservation through Wildlife Management Areas (WMA) schemes

Does not recognize the interdependence and historical coexistence between wildlife and livestock.

Research on the role of livestock in shaping landscapes and maintaining forage can help change the attitude

Forest Act 2002 Protects Genetic Resources through requiring a permit for all researchers on forest products

Does not provide protection for traditional knowledge related to such genetic resources such as traditional medicinal knowledge

Forest committees established by the act (at village level) can use other government functionaries to protect traditional knowledge along with genetic resources

The protection of New Plants varieties ( plant Breeders Rights) Act, 2002

Aims at protecting new plant varieties to enhance food security

Protection is granted to plants which are Distinctive, Uniform and Stable (DUS test) and this leaves out land races which are pillars of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture in developing countries

As Tanzania is not a member of the UPOV (Union for Protection of Plant Varieties) there is an opportunity to amend the law without contravening this international convention

The Patent Act of 1987

Protects and promotes inventiveness in Tanzania

Adopts a western style of identifying an invention through the New, Inventive and Industrially applicable method thus locking out traditional knowledge based inventions

The law can be amended to provide for Disclosure of Origin (DOO) of genetic resources for patent applicants on inventions based on genetic resources obtained in Tanzania

The Plant protection Act 1997

Regulates importation of new plant varieties to protect plants in Tanzania against harmful invasive species

Does not contain specific provisions for protecting indigenous plants

Can be used to designate zonal measures to protect indigenous trees against invasive species

Agricultural and Livestock Policy 1997

Mentions indigenous knowledge once in relation to research and extension and promotion of agro-forestry and organic farming once

There is no coherent statements showing how concrete support be provided

It is timely to follow up and expand and operationalize these important areas for agricultural development

National Climate Change Adaptation

The plan suggests that Alternative Farming Systems are an important

Financial constraints have restricted the coverage of the plan. Plan is submitted

The plan focus on 14 priority areas amongst others water conservation,

Programme of Action (NAPA)

resource and suggests promoting indigenous knowledge in Agriculture, Food Security and Livestock Sector

for Funding to United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and it is hoped that other development partners will assist

water harvesting and recycling as well as community catchment conservation

Tanzania Forest Policy 1998 and Forest Act 2002

The Policy encourage Agro-Forestry practices and recognizes the contribution of trees outside forests in agricultural production and conservation

The Forest Act protects indigenous species as “reserved trees” regardless of where they grow. Which can act as a disincentive for planting and retaining “reserved trees” on farmland

Careful review of this provision and propose adjustments to ensure that the act provide incentives for planting and retaining “reserved trees” on farmland

The Cultural Heritage Policy 1997

Traditional knowledge, skills and technology which are environmentally friendly shall be identified and their use encouraged.

How this is to be implemented in the agricultural sector may be a challenge.

A Cultural Heritage Act is being drafted. It is important to monitor the process and make relevant contributions.

The National Agro-forestry Strategy (NAS) 2004

Designed to scale up the use and spread of Agro-forestry (AF) techniques. NAS envision that 4 mill HH will adopt and benefit from AF practices by 2025

The Agro-forestry Strategy has not been institutionalized in policy and law, due to abrupt end to funding.

It should be examined if NAPA can be used as leverage for securing funds for policy and law development for AF development

The National Strategy for Growth and Poverty Reduction (MKUKUTA)

MKUKUTA aims to increase HH income while conserving the environment

The important statement in

MKUKUTA 1, on pastoralism

being a sustainable

livelihood has been left out.

The next round of consultation (in????) should see civil society united to support Tanzania’s small scale investors and producers to increase growth and reduce poverty in the country

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)

CBD protect and encourage customary use of biological resources compatible with conservation or sustainable use and respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous communities

Tanzania has taken no measure to protect traditional ecological knowledge of local communities, and the Convention has not been domesticated

Tanzania is a signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity, which provides a commitment to incorporate the CBD’s provisions into Tanzania Policy and Law or ‘domesticate’ the convention

National Livestock Policy 2006

The livestock policy is biased against agro-pastoralism and pastoralism. It ascribes

A policy that undermines the livestock economy will have negative impacts on

them to practice uncontrolled mobility, poor animal husbandry practices, to have poor livestock genetic resources, accumulation of livestock and no market orientation. This is despite extensive consultation with civil society during policy formulation.

food security and the national economy, if implemented. It is therefore important that a better understanding of the current highly productive systems informs the development of a new policy, and appropriate support is given to the livestock economy of the country.

5 Best practices and lessons learned in relation to GIAHS

5.1 The importance of learning lessons for improving practice

There are a number of examples of sustainably managed systems, which serve to inform policy and

practice. There are also examples of conversion of GIAHS to modern cropping systems, which have

resulted in environmental and social disaster. A number of lessons have been learned over time showing

that the GIAHS systems are very difficult or at times impossible to replace with other agricultural

systems. In 1970 the Canada supported wheat scheme in Hanang converted Barabaig pastoral grazing

land to mechanized farms for growing wheat, which had detrimental social and environmental

impacts14.

Clearing Faidherbia albida trees in cultivated fields to grow hybrid maize, in the agro-silvopastoral

system, caused water logging, making cultivation impossible (Olsen 1992). Severe soil erosion was

observed and became a serious problem when replacing the Kihamba agro-forestry system with mono-

cropping on the slopes of Mt. Kilimanjaro (Banzi 2012).

However when projects have learned to build on local knowledge and practice good results has been

achieved. The Ngorongoro Pastoralist Project is a good example and the GIAHS pilot project sites in

Ngaresero and in Shimbwe Juu, show how an applied focused approach can reverse deteriorating trends

in the systems and restore viable economies. Two other examples of how to build on good practices,

that is payment for ecosystem services in Simanjiro district and multiple land use in the Ngorongoro

Conservation Area (NCA) may also provide useful examples of good practice and could be useful for

14 “In Tanzania a Canadian aided wheat scheme is causing even greater concern. Since it began in 1970, Canada has committed $44 million to

the project with the hope that the Tanzanian Government will be able to run it independently in the foreseeable future. Yet the prospect of that is nil. In addition, $1.5 million was spent on equipment for each of the six farms in the Hanang district (totalling 60,000 acres). “The land for the wheat schemes was taken from the Barabaig, a pastoral people who both occupied and grazed their cattle on the land. They have now been forced to overgraze on the surrounding land. The schemes themselves are far too intensive for the area, and a report on Agricultural and Livestock Production in Arusha Region noted with alarm that the technology being applied to these large scale fully mechanised operations is alarmingly similar to the technology used in western Canada which contributed to the catastrophic soil erosion (dust bowls) of the 1930s. “The farms are laid out prairie style with no allowance for tropical downpours. Erosion is already severe as huge gullies cut through the fields – indeed £22,000 was spent on one farm trying to fill such a gully, without success. This catalogue of disasters might be excusable if the schemes were at least producing wheat on a comparable scale. In fact, Tanzania is now estimated to be producing less wheat than when the project began, and any prospects of even sustaining production without massive inputs are bleak.” (Tanzanian Affairs 1986)

informing future policies. However, a thorough mapping of GIAHS in Tanzania is needed, providing

detailed information of strengths, weaknesses and opportunities, so as to provide a sound basis on

which to learn lessons and develop good approaches and practices that will strengthen these valuable

important agricultural systems.

5.2 Restocking, Ewoloto, practiced in Ngorongoro Pastoralist Project

The Ngorongoro Pastoralist Project (NPP) 1998-2008 was originally initiated due to widespread poverty

among the habitants of NCA, with more than half of the population living below the poverty line. The

project supported the pastoralist Maasai in bringing their pastoralist production system back to viable

levels. The project worked in four areas, namely: Water development and rehabilitation for livestock

and human consumption; Support to private veterinary services including community animal health

workers; Empowering local institutions and communities and restocking destitute families making use of

the existing Maasai mechanism for restocking, Ewoloto. Ewoloto is a traditional form of mutual

assistance, where clans restock poor family members so as to allow them to build up a herd that can

sustain the household. In order to initiate project assistance the community donated livestock to the

destitute family, then the project matched the number of livestock given – for project purposes the

agreed limit was 9 livestock units. Maize was also given to ease the recipients making the transition

while waiting for animals to mature and become productive. This example of building on traditional

structures led to strengthening community values and to communities finding new and innovative ways

of tackling poverty and improving livelihoods. The use of traditional institutions, worked to help people

solve problems of poor households burdening the community as a whole to again become self reliant,

live with dignity and make contributions to society (Sorensen and Kipuri 2005).

5.3 Strengthening Community Forums

The 'Community Forums' is a joint initiative coordinated by the Tanzania Natural Resources Forum

(TNRF) and Ujamaa Community Resource Trust (UCRT). Both organizations work to improve

accountability, transparency and local empowerment in natural resource management governance. The

community forum was established in 2007 as a partner project between the two organizations with

funding from the Ford Foundation, and with support from other partner organizations (eg. PINGOs and

Pastoralist Women Council) to combine their efforts to better address overlapping goals. The

community forums were established to achieve improved natural resource governance at the local level,

increase information flow across communities and between communities and government (local,

regional and national) as well as between communities and civil society, and increase involvement of

local communities in national policy debates. The community forums help to bridge the gap between

national policies and local governance, while striving for improved, transparent, and informed natural

resource management, with a focus on pastoralist communities. It introduces the important idea that

women can be leaders in communities where men have dominated customary leadership. It provides a

commonly recognized and accepted forum for women to get together, discuss their problems and to

think through possible solutions. As recognized leaders, and as an accepted forum, women now have

the power to propose solutions to government leaders as well as customary leaders in the larger

community forum. While most women living in villages are poor and desire development projects, they

see the forum as just as, if not more important than, more specifically economic-based development

interventions. The forum could act as a gate way for improved, appropriate, more efficient and

accountable community development (Goldman 2010).

5.4 Payment for ecosystem services in Simanjiro

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) defines Ecosystem Services as “the benefits people obtain

from Ecosystems“. These are the conditions and processes derived from ecological complexities through

which nature “sustains human life“(Daily 1977). An ecosystem presupposes a geographical area of a

variable size where plants, animals, the landscape and the climate all interact together. Four broad

categories of ecosystem services have been identified. These are (i) provisioning: e.g. production of food

and water (ii) regulating: such as control of climate and diseases (iii) supporting: nutrient cycles and

pollination (iv) Cultural: i.e. spiritual and recreational benefits particularly tourism. It should be noted

that ecosystem services can be national, regional or global as in the case of the Congo Rain Forests as

well as other forest areas acts as “Carbon sinks“ and regulates climatic conditions of a number of Central

African counties.

Due to increasing threats facing many of the most critical ecosystems worldwide, economic attempts

have been made to quantify their value in order to encourage protection. The main approaches are

Total Economic Value (TEV) and Indirect Use (IU). The TEV approach for example, puts in monetary

terms what it would cost a local authority (such as a municipality) to replace a wetland with a water

purification plant once a wetland has been tampered with. Wetlands’ main functions include water

purification. Indirect Use on the other hand, provides pecuniary estimates of the costs due to absence of

a particular recreational facility. Payment for ecosystem services therefore can be seen as a concept

that seeks to create incentives or compensation/payment schemes to encourage resource users to look

after ecosystems and also to pay for their cost of maintaining the ecosystem services (Pagiola and Platais

2002) According to the IUCN Academy of Environmental Law, PES tackles the twin issues prevalent in

most developing countries namely poverty and environmental degradation.

In the Simanjiro plains of the Maasai steppe a PES arrangements, named Conservation Easement has

been introduced working as an innovative incentive for land and wildlife stewardship, where

communities receive payment as compensation for not farming the land (Ujamaa Community Resource

Team 2012). This conservation easement is practiced in Simanjiro district particularly Terrat Village

(Sachedina and Nelson 2010). Information obtained from residents of Simanjiro points to the fact that

this is an example to be emulated by other tourism stakeholders (Rokonga 2012). In this particular

scheme the village authority in Terrat receives monetary incentives (amount not confirmed) to formally

prohibit farming in an area that acts as a breeding ground for wildebeest.

5.5 The Multiple land use concept in Ngorongoro Conservation Area (NCA)

The Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority, (NCAA) a body established by the Ngorongoro

Conservation Act of 1959 to administer the area, attempts to work hand in hand with local communities

through the Pastoralists Council. The area is a multiple land use area where Maasai pastoralists practice

their livestock economy alongside wildlife populations and a growing tourism industry attracted to the

unique cultural landscape around the Ngorongoro Crater and archaeological sites and the Maasai

pastoralists, who exhibit themselves, their culture and crafts in cultural bomas. The main weakness or

impediment to CBNRM in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area is the more than fifty year old colonial

legislation (The Ngorongoro Conservation Act 1959) which concentrates all powers to the NCAA.

According to Shivji & Kapinga:

“An examination of the power of the [Ngorongoro Conservation Area] Authority under the 1959

Ordinance (now Act) reveals typical powers of a governmental authority, namely, executive

powers and legislative powers, under which the authority may make rules of a general and

special nature in relation to the management and affairs of the area, as well as over the

conduct of the residents within the NCA. The Authority also has quasi-judicial powers in respect

of powers by the conservator (or his nominee) or against orders made under the Ordinance.”

There is a need to amend the law to incorporate democratic principles of an independent country. The

amended law should address principles of CBNRM, which has been developed over recent decades to

involve communities in day to day governance activities of conservation areas and rights to secure

livelihoods of the community without which sustainability of the environment is endangered. The re-

imposition of the ban on subsistence farming in 2009, for example, has not only led to famine among

communities but also threatens the integrity of social and cultural organizational structures of the

Maasai community. In times of severe hardship the cultural taboo against eating wildlife could be

weakened.

In spite of these weaknesses, the NCA remains an example of an institutional arrangement for the

coexistence between people and wildlife. The most important step at the moment for NCA to become

sustainable is to amend the legislation to provide for PES schemes for compensating local inhabitants for

not cultivating in the area and provide an acceptable welfare. As NCA is among the highest tourist

revenue earner in East Africa there are no good economic reasons for not having a fair PES scheme

working in NCA. Cultivation is considered to be a threat to wildlife conservation, while pastoralism is

seen to be compatible.

6 Conclusions and recommendations

6.1 Conclusions

Tanzania’s small scale agricultural production systems, including GIAHS, produce a wide range of food

products as well as fodder and wood products where agro-forestry is part of the system. All in all they

are essential contributors to food and livelihood security and to Tanzania’s economy as a whole.

Furthermore they provide employment, contribute to ecosystem integrity, sustainable management of

biodiversity and environmental services and are an important part of our wealth at local, national and

international levels, both in terms of production and the ecological knowledge held by the men and

women managing the systems on a daily basis. Agricultural systems in fragile environments fulfill

essential key roles in combining the provision of food and livelihoods through wise use of natural

resources. In turn land managers practice sustainable management of the environment also for the

benefit of downstream users, including adaptive management to combat and minimize impact of

climate change.

These systems are living examples of how people’s experiences have been refined and tested through

trial and error and have become practical knowledge, techniques and expertise, which are held by

individuals, groups of specialists and the community as a whole.

The knowledge has become culturally embedded in local practice and maintenance of quality depends

on amongst other the integrity of the ecosystem, the economic context and the integrity of community

organizational structures and institutions.

These agricultural production systems are in fact in most cases irreplaceable, as the adaptations made

within the natural limits of the ecosystem over time by communities (taking into consideration the

market and other external factors), have become balanced agricultural systems which are well suited to

the particular ecosystem and socio-economic context. Therefore it is important to note that replacing

these systems with modern agricultural methods is in most cases not a viable option, as it may

devastate local livelihoods and sustainable management of the environment. Likewise inadequate

policies undermine the integrity of GIAHS and other small scale farming systems, the viability of the

economy and also weaken climate change resilience and the capacity to adapt to CC challenges.

Furthermore small scale intensive agriculture is in many cases more productive than extensive large

scale monoculture farms, and for that reason, seen in a national economic perspective, deserves and

requires appropriate support in policy and practical implementation in terms of production, marketing

and infrastructure development to fulfill its potential role and contribute optimally to food production

and national economies.

Although attention is paid to small scale producers to some extent, generally Tanzania’s policy

framework currently favors modernization, which implies commercialized, high input agricultural

production and desires change in technological capacities and approaches. However, it is also arguable

that coherent and specifically targeted support to small scale agricultural production systems with

enabling policy and legal frameworks, financed and implemented will potentially boost small scale

agricultural production substantially, improve environmental services and rural livelihoods and food

security as well as contributing to reduced poverty.

The ongoing review of Tanzania’s Constitution is an important ‘window of opportunity’ for GIAHS and

small scale producers.15 This important opportunity for a policy intervention in Tanzania will be to work

with the constitutional review process and seek to have the concerns of small scale crop and livestock

producers articulated and incorporated in the new Tanzanian Constitution. The rationale for such a

statement, unconditionally supporting small scale agricultural production systems in Tanzania is that

small scale agricultural production is the backbone of the Tanzanian economy, provide employment,

food and livelihood security, reduce poverty, maintains valuable ecological knowledge and part of

cultural identities. The production systems are specifically adapted to prevailing ecological, social and

economic conditions, therefore small scale agricultural production systems deserve recognition

irrespective of their level of integrity at present. The rationale is that challenged agricultural systems,

provided with the required support can again function optimally and contribute fully to local and

15

It is widely believed that the relative success of Community Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) in Namibia in part can be contributed to the fact that CBNRM is supported by Namibia’s constitution.

national food and livelihood security and supply regional, national and international markets where

appropriate.

Evidence from the GIAHS pilot project areas has shown that land managers are knowledgeable about

the many intricate dynamic management issues at local level. Therefore policy making and reviews must

start at the grassroots where the relevant people concerned articulate their concerns, which then are

fed into policy formulation. This will help ensure that policies are efficiently addressing local issues

appropriately.

6.2 Recommendations

1) Showcase outstanding examples: It makes good sense to provide support in policy and practice

to showcase and support outstanding examples of viable land and landscape husbandry.

Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems with significant agricultural productivity,

provision of environmental services such as water catchment conservation, biodiversity

conservation and carbon sequestration, if given appropriate support will ensure future viability.

2) Existing jurisdiction and tenure arrangements must be recognized: Common for any selection

for support of GIAHS must recognize existing jurisdiction in terms of management decisions,

land and resource access rights and other such important tenure arrangements for land as well

as for other resources, such as water, forest (plus carbon) and wildlife. Existing institutional and

tenure arrangements, including arrangements for land allocation and management, should be

supported and must not be tampered with or changed by external processes. Importantly, these

arrangements must not be removed nor placed under another jurisdiction. This will ensure that

locally adapted and effective institutional arrangements and knowledge systems are

strengthened, rather than undermined by removing authority from local to a more central level.

3) All GIAHS systems in Tanzania to be assessed and proposals to be made for action in terms of

intervention for practical improvements and policy development. Furthermore the geographical

extent, total volume and value of GIAHS should be ascertained including value of contribution to

environmental conservation, biodiversity conservation, environmental services, employment as

well as the value of produce for sale, home use, food security and the national economy. GIAHS

being small scale in nature, it is relevant to estimate small scale farmer’s including GIAHS total

contribution to GNP.

4) Self motivated selection should be applied: A process of self motivated selection for GIAHS

should be applied, as well as Free Prior and Informed Consent procedures to be followed. Based

on criteria recognizing the will of the people living and working with GIAHS to build on existing

principles of agro-ecosystem management, innovation and adaptation, agro/biodiversity

conservation, knowledge and viable local management institutions.

5) Support fund mechanism: Other areas with GIAHS, although possibly not fully eligible for

selection or not selected (possibly not of global significance but of local significance) should be

provided with options for seeking support in practice based on own identified needs and

aspirations through a support fund mechanism, where the same criteria as with GIAHS are

applied. Possibly the criteria are not met, but the incentive to meet the criteria will be part of

the mechanism. This will ensure that potential GIAHS and small scale agricultural systems give

the managers the opportunity to regenerate or revitalize their systems.

6) Monitor upcoming relevant policy reviews: Upcoming relevant policy reviews must be

monitored and strategies for engagements developed. - Is the new forest policy still open for

inclusions? The Agricultural policy? A new land policy? REDD? Climate Change? And so on

7) Formulation of policy statements must be based on broad consultation and articulated in an

inclusive manner so as to embrace the diverse needs of GIAHS and small scale farming operating

in different contexts. Furthermore policy statements must be followed up by considerations for

implementation, as appropriate financing mechanisms are required for successful policy

implementation.

8) Inform public opinion, media, key policy and decision makers: To contribute to development of

national policies and legislation are important, however informing public opinion, media, key

policy makers and decision makers are equally important. A communication strategy should be

designed to highlight and inform about qualities of GIAHS and about small scale agricultural

production and the great potential for improving production with appropriate targeted support.

9) There is need to document principles in management practice, structure and governance of

GIAHS. In order to devise the best possible support, promote sustainable agricultural heritage

systems and develop appropriate policies, it is essential to understand local knowledge systems,

principals of management practice and governance systems. Therefore documenting, in clear

terms, key principles and experiences of customary management systems must be undertaken.

How do we in practical terms best reach out & give relevant support to GIAHS ?

1) Information sharing, communication and decision making for appropriate action: Support to

community forums to bring forward updates on issues, good practice & ways forward.

Experience from elsewhere has shown that community forums have been efficient for

information sharing, communication, decision making for appropriate action. There is need for

establishing close collaboration with national and local civil society to ensure a vibrant and

genuine multi-stakeholder dialogue on GIAHS

2) Opportunity for showcasing: The AU and SADC may offer opportunities to showcase on the

ground lessons and good practice.

3) Strategic articulation of GIAHS concerns in Tanzania’s new constitution: There is need to

strategically phrase the formulation for the Tanzanian Constitution so that statements fully

cover the concerns of GIAHS and ensures appropriate future support. There is need to explore

different routes for ensuring that GIAHS concerns are in Tanzanian constitution, e.g. need to link

with national CSOs currently working for the interest of small scale farmers like MWIWATA,

ANSAF and the Katibu Initiative (Kai). Other opportunities lie in monitoring when formulation or

review of policies, laws and instruments takes place, relevant to GIAHS. Currently it is important

to follow developments with the coming Cultural Heritage Act.

List of literature and reports consulted

Allen R.E. (1990) Concise Oxford Dictionary. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Banzi F. (2012) Kihamba Agro-forestry System on Mt Kilimanjaro. Presented at GIAHS Policy workshop,

Blue Pearl Hotel 6th -7th December 2012

FAO, [Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations] (1999) Rome declaration on World Food Security and World Food Summit Plan of Action, (document W3613/E), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, World Food Summit, 13–17 November 1996, Rome Available at ,http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/w3613e/w3613e00.htm (accessed 28 December 2012).

Fischer G.A. (1884) “Dr. Fisceher’s Journey in the Masai” Proceedings of the Royal Geographical Society

vi 76-63

Goldman Mara 2010 External evaluation. Community Forums Initiative. Tanzania Natural Resource

Forum and Ujamaa Community Resource Team.

Hardin, Garrett. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science 162: 1243–1248.

Hodgson, Dorothy, L. (2001) Once Intrepid Warriors: Gender, Ethnicity and the Cultural Politics of Masai

Development. (Bloomington: Indiana University Press)

Kaelo, Dickson Ole, (2012) Characterizing the Maasai pastoralist System. Paper presented at the FAO’s

Globally Important Agricultural Heritage System (GIAHS) Policy Workshop, Dar es Salaam 6th -7th

December 2012

Kaonga M Ed. 2012

Kipuri, N. (1983). Oral literature of the Maasai.(Nairobi: Heinemann Educational Books).

Kipuri, N & Sorensen C (2008) Poverty, Pastoralism and Policy in Ngorongoro. Lessons Learned from

Ngorongoro Pastoralist Project, Ereto. International Institute for Environment and Development.

Kitalyia A & Soini E 2004 The Prunus Tribune 2, World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi, Kenya.

Koohafkan P & Altieri M (2011) Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems. A Legacy for the

Future. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome.

Krapf, J. L. (1860) Travels, Researches, and Missionary Labours during Eighteen Years of Residence in

Eastern Africa. London: Frank Cass (2nd edn).

Laltaika E.I and Joy Faida, (2010) “Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation: What role for Intellectual

Property and Traditional Knowledge?” Paper presented at the Annual Scientific Conference of

the African Technology Policy Studies ATPS The State of Science, Technology and Innovations in

Africa: Implications for Achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDG's) held from 25-27

November 2010 inCairo, Egypt (Unpublished)

Maguire, R.A.J. ((1928) “The Maasai Penal Code” Journal of African Society 28 (109): 12-18

Mattee A.Z. & Shem M. (2006). Ambivalence and contradictions. A review of the Policy Environment in Tanzania in Relation to Pastoralism. IIED Issue paper 140.

Mbazira, C., (2004) Reading the right to food into the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, ESR Review 5(1) 5

Merker, Moritz (1910) Die Masai. Ethnographische Monographie eines ostafrikanischen Semitenvolks. 2nd edn (Berlin: Dietricht Reimer)

Mitchell N. Rossler M. Tricaud P. (2009) World Heritage Cultural Landscapes. A Handbook for Conservation and Management. World Heritage papers 26.

Mol, Franz., (1977) Maa: A Dictionary of the Maasai Language and Folklore (Nairobi: Marketing and Publishing)

Msuya T.S. & Kideghesho J.R. (2012) Mainstreaming Agro-forestry Policy in Tanzania Legal Framework

129-40. In Kaonga M (Ed.) Agro-forestry for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services – Science in

Practice. Published online by InTech.

Mwaigomole G. (2012) GIAHS of Tanzania. Maasai Pastoralism at Engaresero. Presented at the Policy

Workshop. Blue Pearl Hotel 6th & 7th December 2012.

Nagol, Elias Moringe, (2009) “Is the Sacred for Sale? Tourism and Misappropriation of Traditional

Cultural Expressions of the Maasai” Paper Presented at the Workshop on Livestock Keepers’

Rights, Traditional Knowledge and Intellectual Property Held at the Golden Rose Hotel, Arusha-

Tanzania 18-19 December 2009

Nelson, Fred (2012) “Natural conservationists? Evaluating the impact of pastoralist land use practices

on Tanzania's wildlifeeconomy” Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice 2012, 2:15

Olsen J (1992). The Management of Faidherbia albida in agri-silvopastoral systems in southern Zambia.

MSc dissertation, University College of North Wales.

Pact 2005 Policy Law and Governance. Advocacy Expert Series. Available on http://www.pacttz.org/

Pact 2005 Civil Society and Advocacy. Advocacy Expert Series.

http://www.pactworld.org/galleries/resource-center/legislative_roadmap_english_2.pdf

Pratt, DJ, and MD Gwynne (1977). Rangeland management and ecology in East Africa.London: Hodder

and Stoughton.

Riley, Erin E. Onesmo Ole Ngurumwa, Thomas Olesangale (2012) Urban Pastoralists: A Report on the

Demographics, Standards of Living, and Employment Conditions of Migrant Maasai Living in Dar

es Salaam ( Dares Salaam: Legal and Human Rights Centre LHRC and Livelihood Support Systems

LSS 2012)

Rossler M (2012) World Heritage Cultural Landscapes. GIAHS Scientific and Steering Committee Meeting

29-30 October 2012, FAO, Rome, Italy.

Runyoro, Victor A, Heribert Hofer, Emmanuel B Chausi, and Patricia D Moehlman.(1995). Long-term

trends in the herbivore populations of the Ngorongoro Crater, Tanzania. In

Sachedina, Hassan, and Fred Nelson. (2010). Protected areas and community incentives in savannah

ecosystems: a case study of Tanzania’s Maasai Steppe. Oryx 44: 390–398 Serengeti II: dynamics,

management, and conservation of an ecosystem, ed. Sinclair, ARE, and P Arcese, 146–168.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Saitoti, Tepilit Ole (1989) The World of a Maasai Worrior-An Autobiography (University of California

Press,

Shivji, Issa G, and Wilbert B Kapinga (1998) Maasai rights in Ngorongoro, Tanzania. London:

IIED/HAKIARDHI.

Sippel, Harold (2004) “Aspects of Colonial Land Law in German East Africa” Identity in Africa-Processes

of Development and Change (University of Bayreuth) 3-38

Tenga, Ringo, AmonMattee, NtenguaMdoe, Raymond Mnenwa, SengondoMvungi and Martin Walsh

(2008) A study on the Options for Pastoralists to Secure their livelihoods in Tanzania: Current

Policy, Legal and Economic Issues (Unpublished)

Thomson J., (1885) Through Maasailand (London: Sampson, Low, Martor, Searle and Rivington)

Ujamaa Community Resource Team (2012). Case Study: Conservation Easements – innovative incentives

for land and wildlife stewardship. http://www.ujamaa-crt.org/case-study-conservation-easements.html

United Republic of Tanzania (1987) Patent Act, Number 1 of 1987

United Republic of Tanzania (1999)The Village Land Act, Number 4, 1999

United Republic of Tanzania (1999) The Land Act, Number 5 of 1999

United Republic of Tanzania (2002) Grazing-Land and Animal Feed Resources Act Number 13 of 2010 United Republic of Tanzania (2002) Plant Variety Protection (Plant Breeders Rights) Act Number

22 of 2002

United Republic of Tanzania (2002) Forest Act Number 14 of 2002

United Republic of Tanzania (2004) National Environment Management Act Number 20 of 2004

United Republic of Tanzania (2006) National Livestock Policy. Ministry of Livestock and Development.

United Republic of Tanzania (2007) National Adaptation Programme Action Plan. Vice Presidents Office,

Division of Environment

United Republic of Tanzania, (2011) Tanzania Agriculture and Food Security Investment Plan (TAFSIP)

2011/12 to 2020/21 Working Paper No 3.

Vorley B, Cotula L & Chan M. (2012) Tipping the Balance: Policies to shape agricultural investments and

markets in favour of small-scale farmers

Warakawa Rais Namba 1 (2002) Juuya Ufugaji. Jamhuriya Muunganowa Tanzania.

List of Annexes

People met and consulted by email

People met:

Name Position and Organization

Toon Rottjers Country Director, TRIAS -Arusha

Shomet Naikosia Program Advisor, TRIAS - Arusha

Firmet Banzi MAFC

Grace Mwaigomole Ministry of Livestock Development and Fisheries

Prosper Ngowi Mzumbe University, REPOA

Ms. Vibeke Jensen Representative and Director, UNESCO

Dr. Kamamba Director, Antiquities Department, MNRT

Aichi Kitalyi AFOREDA

Katrine Plesner Coordinator, NAFAKA Staples Value Chain Activity

People consulted by email:

Name Organization

Audax Rukonge Agricultural Non-State Actors Forum, ANSAF Forum

Diana Tempelman FAO Representative Tanzania

Marco Arpakwa Globally Important Agricultural Systems Initiative, Arusha

Terms of Reference

Study: Impacts of Tanzania’s policies and laws on traditional agricultural systems

Position: Policy Expert – traditional agricultural systems in Tanzania

Start Date: 7 November 2012

Duty Station: Arusha

Reporting to: TNRF Head of Programs

1. Project Overview

In partnership with the Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS) Initiative of FAO, TNRF

is conducting a study on the impacts of Tanzania’s policies and laws on traditional agricultural systems.

This study aim to provide valuable contributions to environmental management, wildlife and

biodiversity, local livelihoods and cultural diversity with emphasis on the Pastoral system of the Maasai

and the Chagga Home Garden system, which include management of a range of resources, including

livestock, water, trees, crops, pasture, wildlife, photographic tourism, hunting tourism etc. and

institutional arrangements regulating access, user patterns including seasonal mobility. The study is an

input to a Policy workshop, to be organized by FAO in December 2012, which will make

recommendations on contributing to a (more) supportive policy environment for valuable forms of

traditional agriculture systems in Tanzania. This global GIAHS initiative is implemented by FAO in

collaboration with a number of international and local partners in eight pilot countries.

The GIAHS Initiative

Worldwide, specific agricultural systems and landscapes have been created, shaped and maintained by

generations of farmers and herders based on diverse natural resources, using locally adapted

management practices. These systems have resulted not only in outstanding landscapes, maintenance

and adaptation of globally significant agricultural biodiversity, indigenous knowledge systems and

resilient ecosystems, but, above all, in the sustained provision of multiple goods and services, food and

livelihood security and quality of life.

In order to safeguard and support world’s agricultural heritage systems, in 2002, FAO started an

initiative for conservation and adaptive management of GIAHS. The initiative aims to establish the basis

for international recognition, dynamic conservation and adaptive management of GIAHS and their

associated values.

GIAHS in East Africa

Since 2008 the GIAHS Initiative was extended to Kenya and Tanzania through a project supported by the

Federal Republic of Germany through the Federal Ministry of Food, agriculture and Consumer Protection

(BMELV). In Tanzania, the project is implemented in partnership with the Ministry of Agriculture, Food

Security and Cooperatives (MAFC), the Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development (MLFD), the

National Environmental Management Council (NEMC), the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism

(MNRT), the Tanzania Tourism Board (TTB), the Tanzania Natural Resource Forum (TNRF) and the

Ujamaa Community Resource Team (UCRT).

The GIAHS project focuses on two different indigenous agricultural systems: Upland-agro-forestry

systems and pastoral systems with focus on broader policy implications of already identified systems –

the pastoralist systems of the Maasai and the Chagga Homegarden system. The upland-agroforestry and

pastoral systems are of particular interest to the GIAHS initiative because of their - customary use and

adaptive management of biological and natural resources compatible with conservation and sustainable

use requirements; a substantive contribution to local food security and rural development; social and

cultural features significant to the cultural diversity and identity of their countries; and they are often

found to be “climate smart”. It is imperative to underscore the understanding of the linkage between

policies, laws and the indigenous agricultural systems to inform policy within countries other on-going

initiatives that could benefit from the process.

2. Objectives

The objectives of this assignment are:

To prepare a study (report) which analyse the historic and contemporary impacts of the policies and laws in Tanzania of different sectors (e.g. Agriculture, Livestock, Sustainable Development, Land, Environment, Wildlife and Tourism) on valuable forms of traditional agriculture and makes recommendations for their improvement, In this case the focus is on the Pastoral System of the Maasai and the Chagga Homegarden System.

To present the findings of the policy study as an input to a policy fora on GIAHS in Tanzania to be held in December

To incorporate the stakeholders’ feedback from the policy fora in the final report

3. Approach and Scope of Work

The policy expert will work under the supervision of the Head of Programmes of TNRF. TNRF and the

project partners including FAO will provide additional inputs and guidance to this assignment.

The study will involve desk review and interviews with project partners, experts and other stakeholders,

including primary production managers, and International Livestock Research Institute and World

Initiative for Sustainable Pastoralism. The scope of work for this assignment is further defined by the

reporting structure below

The expected contents of the report are as follows:

Outline of extend, significance and value of GIAHS type systems in Tanzania, with emphasis on the pastoral systems of the Maasai and the Chagga Home Garden Systems and agro-forestry systems (environmental, social, cultural and economic significance, including contribution to food security).

Historical policy perspective: Where ever relevant highlight pivotal impacts, changes and interests in a historical policy and practice perspective: evolution of systems vis a vis policy and governance (pre-colonial, colonial, post colonial)

Analysis of national policy framework in different sectors today and their impacts on the system, identifying shortcomings, strengths, gaps etc. Linkages to Tanzania’s participation and commitments in international policies should also be included.

Examples of best practices for the management and sustainable development of these systems, which may inform future policies and practices

Recommendations.

4. Outputs

The Service Provider will be responsible for the following deliverables:

Inception report

Draft report (approximately 30 - 40 pages)

Presentation of the draft report at the policy forum in December 2012

Final report which incorporates feedback from the policy workshop 5. Required Qualifications

Masters degree in Natural Resource Management, Agriculture/Livestock or a related field with more than 5 years of experience

Demonstrated interest in indigenous agricultural systems (agro-forestry and/or pastoralism)

Sound knowledge of the relevant Tanzanian Policies and laws of different sectors (e.g. Agriculture, Livestock, Sustainable Development, Land, Environment, Wildlife and Tourism)

Demonstrated excellent (English) writing skills and a capacity to present complex issues in a concise manner.

Able to work under strict deadlines

6. Timing

Days allocated for consultant are 30 days

Draft annotated outline by 15 November 2012

Draft report (approximately 30-40 pages) by 30 November 2012

Presentation of the draft report at the policy forum by first week of December 2012

Incorporation of feedback from the workshop and final report (approximately 30-40 pages) by 20 December 2012