The Open University of Tanzania

PhD Research Proposal

1. Candidate: Simon Deus Lugandu

2. Supervisor: Professor Emmanuel J. Luoga, Department of Forest Mensuration and Management

Sokoine University of Agriculture

3. Faculty: Faculty of Business ManagementOpen University of Tanzania

4. Proposed Degree: PhD

5. Title: Governing Forest Reserves in Tanzania: The Impact of Joint Forest Management Institutions on Forest Quality and Local Livelihood.

10 April 2023

Table of Contents

6. Introduction...................................................................................................................................2

6.1 Conceptual framework.........................................................................................................................2

6.2 Statement of the Problem.....................................................................................................................3

6.3 Research Purpose/ Objectives..............................................................................................................4

6.4 Literature Review.................................................................................................................................5

6.4.1 Policy and Legal Frameworks.........................................................................................................................5

6.4.2 Devolution of Forest Management..................................................................................................................6

6.4.3 Institutions in Forest Management...................................................................................................................7

6.4.4 Property Rights................................................................................................................................................8

6.5 Research Questions...............................................................................................................................9

7. Research Methods and Materials................................................................................................11

7.1 Study Area...........................................................................................................................................11

7.2 Data Collection....................................................................................................................................12

7.3 Data Analysis.......................................................................................................................................12

9. References....................................................................................................................................12

9. Other relevant information..........................................................................................................14

9.1 Financial Arrangements.....................................................................................................................14

9.2 Time Frame.........................................................................................................................................15

10. Appendices.................................................................................................................................17

10.1 Household Questionnaire................................................................................................................................17

10.1 Village Natural Resources Committee (VNRC) Questionnaire.....................................................................20

1

6. Introduction

6.1 Conceptual framework

For long time management of natural resources (especially forests) has been characterised by

extensive state control without involvement of local communities until the past decade where a

major policy shift of devolving control over natural resources from government agencies to local

communities started taking place (Gomdya-Ssembajjwe, 2000). Failures of the centralised

management regime are widely documented (URT, 2001, FAO, 1997, Gombya-Ssembajjwe,

2000). For the case of Forest Reserves, where this study will focus, the Tanzania’s National Forest

Programme notes the following:

“Central and local government forest reserves are faced with low capability of the

government institutions to manage these resources to meet the growing demands for

fuelwood and other forest products and services. Centralized forest management has

contributed to both market and policy failures in the forestry sector resulting to forest

degradation due to encroachment, over-utilization, wildfires, unclear boundaries, lack of

systematic management and inadequate resources for controlling illegal harvesting as well

as inefficient revenue collection system” (URT, 2001).

Joint Forest Management (JFM), which covers a situation where two or more parties jointly manage

forest resources according to an agreement, is among the participatory methods that can be used to

manage forest reserves between village communities and central government or local authorities

(MNRT, 2003). Since JFM is chosen by the government of Tanzania as an alternative to forest

resources management it should be thoroughly studied in order get information that contributes to

the forest management policy reforms with an ultimate goal of improving the quality forest

resources and livelihood of people living adjacent to forests.

Joint Forest Management (JFM) will be used in studying the institutional arrangements and their

subsequent effects to forest quality and local livelihoods. JFM is an outcrop of Participatory Forest

Management (PFM) in which local communities have a stake over governance and use rights of

the resource while the ownership rests with the government. Currently many of the forest reserves

which practice JFM are under central government ownership more than with the local government,

therefore this study will concentrate on exploring the institutions in these central government

owned forests with the view of getting knowledge that can as well be utilised by local governments

in the governance of their forest resources. The conceptual framework of the research is

diagrammatically presented in Figure 1.

2

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework of the Study

Devolution of Forest

Management

Forest Production and Protection before

Devolution

Forest Production and Protection after

Devolution

Benefits and Costs

Benefits and Costs

Forest Condition

Forest Condition

Joint Forest Management

(JFM) Institutions

Effect on: Local

Livelihood Forest

Quality

6.2 Statement of the Problem

Tanzania has about 33.5 million hectares of forests and woodland that constitute 38% of the total

land area of the mainland; of which forest reserves cover 12.5 million hectares, Non-reserves

forest land 19 million hectares, and forests within national parks 2.0 million hectares (MNRT,

1998, MNRT, 2001). These forests, which provide critical wood resources and other forest

products as well as performing important services such as watershed catchments are depleted at a

very high rate. According to the data provided by the Forest and Beekeeping Division degradation

has brought down the forest cover from 44% in 1971 to 38% in 1999 at an estimated rate of

deforestation between 130,000 and 500,000 ha per annum (MNRT, 2001). The main causes of

forest depletion are reported to be heavy pressure of agricultural expansion, livestock grazing,

wildfires, over exploitation and unsustainable use of wood resources (Kihiyo, 1998, MNRT, 2001,

TASONABI, 2001). Due to the failures of the centralised management regime to adequately

reverse the deforestation trend the government of Tanzania introduced a Participatory Forest

Management (PFM) methodology known as Joint Forest Management (JFM) since 1998 in some

forest reserves. Since JFM regime is still at early stages there arises the need to thoroughly

undertake research in order to know what new benefits to forest quality and livelihoods it brings as

3

compared to the past centrally management regimes and consequently feed to the on going

devolution of forest management in Tanzania.

During the participatory Forest Management (Ole Merts et al, 2005) the government of Tanzania

through the Forest and Beekeeping Division in the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism

indicated the need to enhance research on the following areas: Impact of PFM on forest quality and

livelihood and identify where and under what conditions PFM is viable; benefits from Community

Based Forest Management (CBFM) and JFM; legislation awareness; and integration of PFM into

local government system. This research project intends to contribute to this national PFM research

priority areas.

Conventional policy analyses have normally been addressing management of forest resources in

terms of technical aspects. The core concern of these analyses is frequently about ecological or

economic assessment of performance of forest management. What has not been given much

attention in these analyses is the institutional arrangements that best serve the objectives of

maintaining the integrity and biodiversity of forests and of asset building for individuals,

household and whole communities. For over the past decade local institutions (set of rules and

norms) that guide decisions about resource management have increasingly received attention from

governments, development partners and Non Governmental organisations. These organisations,

seeing themselves as stakeholders, want to know how community based institutions work and how

they can be supported, reoriented or created to advance particular environment and development

goals (FAO, 1997). A number of studies on institutional arrangements have been done in the world

(FAO, 1997, Wai, 1998, Ganesh, 2002) but very few can be traced in Tanzania (Liz Willy, 1997,

Kihiyo and Kajembe, 2000). Since studies in institutional arrangements in management of forest

resources are few, particularly at community or local level, one can believe that there is a great

need to undertaking analyses of the institutions in order to provide of empirical evidence, to policy

makers and project managers and communities, on the institutions and interactions that influence

human behaviour on practice of resource management and use.

6.3 Research Purpose/ Objectives

Purpose

The purpose of this survey will be to explore the impact of Joint Forest Management (JFM) regime

have on the forest quality and livelihood of people living adjacent to the forests, through an

institutional analysis approach. Joint Forest Management means involvement of local communities

4

or Non-governmental organisations in the management and conservation of forests and forest land

with appropriate user rights as incentives (FBD, 1998).

Objectives

1. To examine developments in institutional arrangements since the introduction of Joint

Forest Management regime (JFM) in Ukwiva Forest Reserve and adjacent communities.

2. To assess the effect of Joint Forest Management (JFM) on forest quality

3. To assess the effect of Joint Forest Management regime (JFM) on the livelihood of

communities living adjacent to the forest

4. To provide policy recommendations for sustainable management of forest resources and

improvement of livelihood to community living adjacent jointly managed forests

6.4 Literature Review

6.4.1 Policy and Legal Frameworks

Tanzania formulated and published a new Forest Policy in 1998, which among other things

acknowledges that the government’s capacity to manage forest resources is limited and that there

is need to restore relationship between government and people in the management and ownership

of forest resources (URT, 1998, Kihiyo, 2000). This direction is supported by the following policy

statement:

Policy statement (3): To enable participation of all stakeholders in forest management and

conservation, joint management agreements, with appropriate user rights and benefits, will

be established. The agreement will be between the central government, specialised

executive agencies, private sector or local governments, as appropriate in each case, and

organised local communities or other organisations of people living adjacent to the forest.

The commitment to this direction to local level management of forest resources is manifested in

this government statement “It is important to ensure that the right institutions at local level are in

place for collaborative management arrangements. Also all relevant stakeholders have to

participate in designing the rules, regulations and norms, which finally govern the daily running of

such local institutions. The recognition that the Government is poorly equipped to manage forest

resources at the local level, and that local people often have both sound technical knowledge and a

range of institutional structures for forest management, need be considered. The existing village

assemblies and village councils by statute provide the necessary organizational framework that

can be utilized in the implementation of forest management at local level” (URT, 2001).

5

The management and utilisation of natural resources in Tanzania is shaped by several policies and

regulations including the Forest Policy of 1998 and Forest Act of 2002; Beekeeping Policy of 1998

and Beekeeping Act of 2002; Land Policy of 1999, Land Act of 1999 and Village Land Act of

1999; Environment Policy of 1997; Wildlife Policy of 1998 and Wildlife Conservation Act of

1974 (under review); Mineral Policy of 1997, and Mining Act of 1998, and National Water Policy

of 2002.

6.4.2 Devolution of Forest Management

There is a significant paradigm shift in governance, conservation and Management of natural

resources in the past one decade, from the state centred control approach to the one where local

people play a much more active role. Usually driven by broader decentralisation and local

government reform policies, the aim is to increase resource user participation in Natural Resources

Management (NRM) decisions and benefits by restructuring the power relations between central

state and communities through transfer (or devolution) of decision making and control to local

level organisations (Campbell, 2004). Community management system seeks to guarantee access

and control over forest resources to the communities living in them, but mainly to those who

depend on the forest to satisfy their economic, social, cultural and spiritual needs (WRM, 2002).

Participatory forest management approaches emphasise on people and communities to be end users

of forest resources (FAO, 1997). These approaches have in recent decades being internationally

accepted and seen as important options in the field of natural resources management. The prior

approaches in 1960s and 1970s were highly technical and standardised mostly focusing on

projected fuel wood and timber shortages and favoured the creation of vast timber plantations,

which at the end, however failed. At the same time indigenous people and communities were

accused of being agents causing forest degradation (WB, 2002) and were ignorant and destructive

(WMR, 2002). In 1978, during the World Forestry Congress "Forests for People," a gradual

change of perspective started to gain acceptance on an international scale, insofar as people started

recognising that those who know most about forests are those living in them (WRM, 2002). In

1980s community participation in management of forest resources came into being as development

organisations and rural development specialists began to absorb lessons of failed technical and

standardised approaches to forest resources management.

Forest resources are common pool resources. A common pool resource is a resource from which it

is difficult to exclude potential consumers, and that is subject to substractive and potentially

rivalrous consumption (Kihiyo?, 1997). There are several schools of thought articulating on the

6

management of a resource that is used in common. Although some scholars advocate for market

mechanisms (Reference) and other state control in the management of these resources

(Ssembojjwe, 2000) advocates that both market and the state have failed to improve upon the local

people’s welfare in some of the domains of economic life, due to the fact that it is difficulties in

establishment of mechanisms to control shirking and corruption in these two systems. There is

need for alternatives for management of common pool resources, and in case of forests an

alternative option is know as participatory forest Management (Ssembojjwe, 2000).

The conventional approach (preservation of natural protected forests) to forest management has led

to degradation of forests in the light of the limited government resources to effectively control the

large reserved and public forests (Kihiyo, 1998; URT, 2001a; Gombya-Ssembojjwe, 2000). The

approach also has limited opportunities for other stakeholders to take part in their management.

The Government of Tanzania in its National Forest Programme (URT, 2001a) recognise the fact

that there is weakness in the centrally management of forest resources and that there was a failure

to recognise rights of the communities and other partners in forest resources management such that

new options such as Community Based Forest Management (CBFM) and Joint Forest

Management (JFM) were necessary to be introduced.

6.4.3 Institutions in Forest Management

Institutions are the rules that can influence human behaviour and are created by people to govern

use and management of their resources (FAO, 1997; Wai, 1998). Institutions can be formal –

written and issued by legislative process or formal decree – or informal – generally unwritten and

mainly from customs. Whether the rules are formal or informal has little to do with the impact it

has on people’s behaviour as this depends on whether the rules are enforced and whether people

think the rules make sense and fair (FAO, 1997). In other words the rules must be working.

Working rules are “common knowledge and are monitored and enforced. Common knowledge

implies that every participant know the rules, and knows that others know the rules, and knows

that they also know that the participant knows the rules” (Ostrom, 1990).

Studies have confirmed that whether rules are formal or informal have high chance of succeeding

in ensuring long term sustainability of common pool resources such as forest resources if efforts

are made to adapt eight design principles (Ostrom E, 1990, 1999). These principles include; clearly

defined boundaries; congruence between appropriation and provision rules and local conditions for

management of public forests; a system of collective choice arrangements for setting rules and

regulations for managing the forest; monitoring among members; graduated sanctions; conflict

7

resolution mechanisms; minimal recognition of rights to organise; and existence of nested

enterprises (Kajembe G.C. et al, 2004).

Informal institutions have been practiced for centuries. Examples from India show that some

religious groups (Vaishya) refuse to cut trees or kill animals (Bhagirath et al, 2004). These rules

have practical significance in that they prevent overuse of forest resources and ensure the

sustainability of the resource (Gombya-Ssembajjwe, 2000). In many cases, the same formal

institutional arrangements yield different results as a consequence of differences in the existing

informal rules and norms across communities (Bhagirath et al, 2004). The efficiency of these

institutions depends on how they adapt to socio-economic, political and environmental conditions

of a place.

Institutional arrangements influence individuals to participate in collective action if individuals

perceive that: they will have long term benefits, there are mutual benefits for working with one

another, the set rules are effective (enforced and well understood), and the set of rules can sustain

themselves. Wai (1998) has documented experiences from irrigation systems from Nepal and

summarized that institutional arrangements which have these characteristics are more likely to

enable individuals to build a productive working relationship and results in realisation of their

fuller potential. Recent studies have identified some key issues that have an influence on the

community management of natural resources, including the rights and entitlements (e.g. land

tenure), benefits of natural resources sharing, political and ecological limitations, accountability of

the stakeholders and representatives groups, enabling national policy and regulatory frameworks

(Campbell, 2004, Gombya-Ssembajjwe, 2000).

6.4.4 Property Rights

Property rights regime over forest resources in many countries has been undergoing changes over

time. Kihiyo et all (2000) gives an example of Tanzania (Tanganyika by then) that since 1891

when Tanganyika became a colony of German forest policies formulated have been against

maintaining and encouraging local institutions to manage resources. It is argued that one of the

reasons for massive degradation of natural resources in developing countries is lack of well

defined and secure property rights (-------). The recognition by the states for crafting institutional

arrangements for community forest resources management has recently received high attention. An

effort to understand the incentives that motivate human behaviour in a particular place at a

particular time and the impact of those behaviours on the natural resource base is the interest of

this study.

8

There are four types of property rights drawing from the literature on the commons (________):

Withdrawal right - The right to enter a defined physical area and obtain resource units or products

of the resource system (e.g. cutting firewood or timber, harvesting medicinal plants etc);

Management right – The right to regulate internal use patterns and transform the resource by

making improvements (e.g. tree planting and thinning trees); Exclusion right – The right to

determine who will have an access right, and how that right may be transferred; and Alienation

right – The right to sell or lease management and exclusion rights. The degree of transfer of these

rights from state control to local communities has an impact to community incentives for

sustainable resources management.

6.5 Research Questions

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

forests?

Rules compliance, in this study, refers to the extent to which the various working rules are

enforced or complied. The consequence of greater compliance reflects positive collective action

towards management of natural resources (Nadia, 2000). Rules can be understood as statements

that determine what types of actions are permissible (may), obligatory (must) or forbidden (must

not) (Crawford and Ostrom, 1995, FAO, 1997). It is becoming an accepted fact that depletion of

forest resources is specifically high in places where there are inadequate and/ or poorly enforced

rules guiding the use of forest resources (Ostrom, 1990). I expect to find that compliance of rules

after introduction of JFM will have increased.

In understanding the changes and extent in rules compliance in JFM management regimes the

following variables will be measured:

Clearly defined boundaries

Congruence

Collective choice arrangements

Monitoring

Graduation sanctions

Conflict resolution mechanism

Minimal recognition of rights to organise

Nested enterprise

9

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

In all communities people manipulate their rules due to changes in their needs or come into

conflict with or contact with other groups. As institutional arrangements change people change

their behaviour towards natural resources and this can often have an impact (which may be

positive or negative) on the resource base (FAO, 1997). The type of forest management regime

and strategy can have impact on the stocking of the forest resource (Luoga et al, 2005).

Although there have been controversial results, Liu Dachang and David Edmund (CIFOR,

2003) have generally found in China that forest cover improves as a result of devolution of

forest management. In this study the expected finding will be that the forest quality improves

with the introduction of JFM strategy. Following variables will be measured across the

management regimes under the study:

Change in Stand Density

Change in Stand Volume

Tree Species richness and diversity

Tree Regeneration and ground cover

Improvement in water discharge

Reduction incidence of fire

Reduction in illegal activities

3. What is the effect of Joint Forest Management on livelihoods of the people living adjacent

to state forests?

Devolution of policies Joint Forest Management (JFM) apart from increasing people’s

participation in natural resources management it is intended to satisfy the economic, social and

spiritual needs of the people living adjacent to the forest resource. The government of Tanzania

strategy to establish JFM aims at ensuring sharing costs and benefits (MNRT, 2001). Some

studies CIFOR, 2003, Luoga et al, 2006) show that there are increases in material and

environmental benefits that community receive from devolved forest management regime. In

this study I expect to find that Joint Forest Management strategy improves the livelihood of

people living adjacent to the forest resource. The following specific variables will be

measured:

Food security

Household income

Means of reducing wood use

Availability, accessibility and use of wood forest products

10

Availability, accessibility and use of non wood forest products

Perception and participation of communities in JFM

Village conflicts

Gender relations

Fodder supply

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

resources and improved community livelihood?

Findings of research question No. 1- 3

7. Research Methods and Materials

7.1 Study Area

The study area is Kilosa district in Morogoro region.The study will be conducted in Ukwiva

Catchment Forest Reserve (UCFR) and within four adjacent villages. UCFR was declared a

forest reserve in 1954 by government notice GN 407 of 3/12/1954. The

gazetted area is 135,000 acres (54 635 ha) (GN 407). The reserve is located at

6_ 58' - 7_ 21' S and 36_ 34' - 36_ 51' E, 35 km from Kilosa (north east

boundary) (Reference). The reserve covers an extensive area of the eastern

escarpment and upland plateau of the Rubeho (Usagara) mountains with an

altitudinal range of 600 to 2050 m.

The climate found in this forest reserve is oceanic rainfall with continental

temperatures. It is estimated that the reserve receives rainfall amounting

1000 mm/year on woodland; and 1200 mm/year on forest with a mist effect at

higher altitudes and groundwater effect at lower altitudes (Lovett and Pocs,

1993).

There are three vegetation zones namely the eastern escarpment (mostly

grassland on the upper slopes, becoming woodland on the lower slopes); the

upland plateau (covered by late successional secondary dry montane forest)

and the riverine forest. In the woodland there are trees such as Acacia sp.,

Brachystegia boehmii, Diplorhynchus condylocarpon, Kigelia africana,

Pterocarpus angolensis, Vitex sp. Brachystegia microphylla occurs at slightly

higher altitudes. The riverine forest is reported to contain Khaya anthotheca

11

(formerly K. nyasica) and Milicia excelsa. The dry montane forest which is at

1600-1700 m. a.s.l. is dominated by Macaranga kilimandscharica in valleys.

The trees in this zone include Agauria salicifolia, Aphloia theiformis, Bridelia

micrantha, Catha edulis, Diospyros whyteana, Halleria lucida, Macaranga

kilimandscharica, Maesa lanceolata, Maytenus acuminata, Nuxia congesta,

Parinari excelsa, Polyscias fulva, Rapanea melanophloeos, Xymalos

monospora (Lovett and Pocs, 1993).

7.2 Data Collection

Primary socio-economic data will be collected from households and Village Natural Resources

Committees (VNRC) using Survey Questionnaires and Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) such

as Focused Group Discussion methods respectively. Four villages adjacent to the forest reserve

will be selected using simple randomly sampling method. In each village, which is estimated to

have 800 households a systematic random sampling will be used to select 5% or equivalent to 40

households for the questionnaire survey. Secondary data will be collected from village, district and

project level offices, complemented with reference materials from similar researches, government,

and progress reports relevant to the subject matter.

Regarding changes in forest quality primary data will be collected using the survey questionnaire

which rates the community perception about the changes in the forest quality. Secondary data

about forest quality will be collected using existing aerial photographs and other forest inventory

reports in order to supplement the community perceptions.

7.3 Data Analysis

Questionnaire data will be analysed using descriptive statistics such as frequencies, tables,

histograms, charts will be used to summarise results. Regression analysis using Logit model will

be used to test whether there is significant difference of the forest management regimes on

improving the forest quality and livelihoods. Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS)

computer software package will be employed to aid statistical analysis. The qualitative data

analysis will use classification and presentation of information. Analysis of change in forest

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

of forest inventories.

12

9. References

1. Forestry Beekeeping Division (1998): National Forestry Policy

2. Kajembe, G. C. 1994. Indigenous management systems as a basis for community forestry

in Tanzania: A case study of Dodoma urban and Lushoto Districts. Tropical Resource

Management Paper Series no. 6. Wageningen Agricultural University, The Netherlands.

3. Uganda Forestry Resources and Institutions Centre (UFRIC), 2000. Community – Based

Forest Resources Management in East Africa.

4. URT, 2001a. United Republic of Tanzania, Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism.

Forestry and Bee keeping Division. National Forest Programme in Tanzania 2001 – 2010

5. Tom Campbell, 2004. Devolved Natural Resources Management as Means of Empowering

the Poor: Rhetoric or Reality? (In MS-TCDC, (2004): Capacity Implications for Good

Local Governance: Experiences and Prospects)

6. Gombya-Ssembajjwe W. S., 2000. Basic Concepts for Successful Community Participation

in Forest Management (In UFRIC, (2000): COMMUNITY Based Forest Resource

Management in East Africa)

7. Vincent B.M.S. Kihiyo (1998). Forest policy changes in Tanzania: Towards community

participation in forest management. The World Bank/WBI’s CBNRM Initiative Case

Received: February 4, 1998

8. Alexander Smajgl et al (_____). Framework and Models for Analysis and Design of

Instituional Management in Outback regions. CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems. Australia

9. FAO, 1997. Crafting Institutional arrangements for community forestry. Community

Forestry Field Manual.

10. WRM's (World Rainforest Movement) bulletin Nº 61, August 2002. Community-Based

Forest Management

11. World Bank (2002). Findings. Africa Region. No 72. January 2002: Tanzania: Managing

Forest Resources

12. Bhagirath Behera and Stefanie Engel, 2004. The Four Levels of Institutional Analysis of

Evolution of Joint Forest Management (JFM) in India. A new Institutional Economics

Approach. A paper presented at the Annual Conference of the International Association for

the Study of Common Pool Resources in Mexico, August 9 – 13, 2004

13. United Republic of Tanzania (URT), 2002. Land Management Programme - LAMP Phase

II, President’s Office, Regional Administration and Local Government (PO-RALG),

Dodoma.

14. Wai Fung Lam (1998). Governing irrigation systems in Nepal. Institutions, Infrastructure

and Collective action

13

15. Ganesh P. S. and Elinor Ostrom (2002). Improving irrigation governance and management

in Nepal

16. LisWily (1997). Finding the right institutional and legal framework for community based

natural forest management. The case of Tanzania. CIFOR Special Publication

17. Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism (2003). Usimamizi Shirikishi wa Misitu. Forest

and Beekeeping Division, Dar Es Salaam

18. Tanzania Specialist Organisation on Community Natural Resources and Biodiversity

Conservation (TASONABI). 2001. Forest Landscape Restoration: Tanzania Country

Report

19. Nadia Rabesahala Horning (2000). Explaining Compliance with Rules governing Common

Pool resource use and conservation: Dynamics in Bara Country, South-western

Madagascar. Paper presented for delivery at the meeting of International Association for

Study of Common Property, Bloomington, Indiana, May 31 – Jne 4 2000.

20. Crawford Sue E. S. and Elinor Ostrom (1995). “A grammar of Institutions”. American

Political Science Review. 83 (3) (Sept): 582 – 600.

21. Ostrom E (1990). Governing the Commons: The evolution of institutions and collective

action, Cambridge University New York.

22. CIFOR (2003). Local Forest Management: The impact of devolution Policies.

23. Lovett J.C. and T. Pocs (1993). Assessment of the condition of the Catchment Forest

Reserves, a Botanical appraisal. Catchment Forest Project Report, 93.3. Forest Division/

NORAD, Dar Es Salaam, April 1993.

9. Other relevant information

9.1 Financial Arrangements

Item Unit No Units

Unit Cost Total cost

Stipend to Principal Researcher Month 18 300,000.00

5,400,000.00

Stipend to Research Assistant Month 12 100,000.00

1,200,000.00

Transport Month 9 200,000.00

1,800,000.00

Literature and consumables Lump sum 1 500,000.00

500,000.00

Data entry Month 4 250,000.00

1,000,000.00

Purchase of software (SPSS) Pc 1 600,000.00

600,000.00

Purchase of Laptop Pc 1 1,800,000.00

14

1,800,000.00 Stationeries for questionnaires Lump sum 1

500,000.00 500,000.00

      Total 12,800,000.00

9.2 Time Frame

Activity No:

Activity Details Duration Time

1 Proposal Writing- Literature Review- Methodology Development - Proposal Writing- Submission- Presentation and Approval

9 months March 2006 – November 2006

2 Field Visits and Data Collection- Field visit- Data coding- Data Entry and Cross checking- Data analysis

11 months January 2007 – Nov 2007

3 Thesis Writing- Results Interpretation- Thesis Writing- Submission of First Draft to

Supervisor

7 months Dec 2007 – June 2008

4 Revision and Correction of Thesis First Draft

- Correction of First Draft- Submission of Second Draft to

Supervisor

4 months July 2008 – October 2008

5 Revision and Correction of Thesis Second Draft

- Correction of Second Draft- Submission of Third Draft to

Supervisor

3 months November 2008 – Jan 2009

6 Submission and Presentation- Revision and Correction of

Third Draft- Submission to Supervisors- Submission to Examining Board

and Presentation- Submission of Error Free Hard

Bound Thesis

3 months Feb 2009 – April 2009

Date: __________________________________

Simon Deus LuganduCandidate

Signature: ___________________________

15

Comments by Supervisor:

Date: __________________________________

Prof. Emmanuel Joachim LuogaSupervisor

Signature: ____________________________

16

10. Appendices

10.1 Household Questionnaire

1. Household Composition

Name of household member 2. Relation to household head1)

3. Year born (yyyy)

4. Sex (0=male1=female)

5. Education

1 Household head2345678

2. We would like to ask some questions regarding the head of this household. 1. What is the marital status of household head?

Codes: 1=married and living together; 2=married but spouse working away; 3=widow/widower; 4=divorced;; 5=never married; 9=other, specify:

2. How long has the household head lived in the village?years

3. Does the household head belong to the largest ethnic group/caste in the village? (1-0)

Forest resource base1. How far is it from the house/homestead

to the edge of the nearest natural or managed forest that you have access to and can use?

1. … measured in terms of distance (straight line)?

km

2. … measured in terms of time (in minutes of walking)? min

2. Does your household collect firewood? If ‘no’, go to 8.

(1-0)

3. If ‘yes’: how many hours per week do the members of your household spend on collecting firewood for family use? (hours)

4. Does your household now spend more or less time on getting firewood than you did 5 years ago? Codes: 1=more; 2=about the same; 3=less

5. How has availability of firewood changed over the past 5 years? Codes: 1=declined; 2=about the same; 3=increased If code ‘2’ or’ 3’, go to 7.

6. If declined (code ‘1’ on the question above), how has the household responded to the decline in the availability of firewood? Please rank the most important responses, max 3.

Response Rank 1-31. Increased collection time (e.g., from further

away from house)2. Planting of trees on private land3. Increased use of agricultural residues as fuel4. Buying (more) fuelwood and/or charcoal

17

5. Buying (more) commercial fuels (kerosene, gas or electricity)

6. Reduced the need for use of fuels, such as using improved stove

9. Other, specify:7. Has your household planted any woodlots or trees on farm over the past 5 years?

If ‘no’, go to next section. (1-0)8. If yes: what are the main purpose(s) of

the trees planted? Please rank the most important purposes, max 3.

Purpose Rank 1-31. Firewood for domestic use2. Firewood for sale3. Fodder for own use4. Fodder for sale5. Timber/poles for own use6. Timber/poles for sale7. Other domestic uses8. Other products for sale9. Carbon sequestration10. Other environmental services19. Other, specify:

Q. What is your knowledge and feeling about the following common pool resource institutions in

relation to your community and the Forest reserve/ resource?

Principle Strongly

Agree

Agree Disagree Strongly

Disagree

Comment

Q1. Clearly defined boundaries:

Individuals or households with rights to

withdraw resource units from common

pool resource and the boundaries of the

common pool resource itself are clearly

defined

Q2. Congruence: The distribution of

benefits from appropriation rules is

roughly proportionate to the costs imposed

by provisional rule

Q2b. Congruence: Appropriation rules

restricting time, place, technology and/ or

quantity of resource units are related to

local conditions

Q3. Collective choice arrangements: Most

individuals affected by operational rules

can participate in modifying operational

18

rules

Q4. Monitoring: Monitors who actively

audit common pool resource conditions

and user behaviour, are accountable to

these users and/ or are the users

themselves

Q5. Graduation sanctions: Users who

violate rules are likely to receive graduated

sanctions (depending on the seriousness

and context of an offence) from other

users, from officials accountable to these

users, or from both

Q6. Conflict resolution mechanism: Users

and their officials have rapid access to low

cost, local arenas to resolve conflicts

among users or between users and officials

Q7. Minimal recognition of rights to

organise: The rights of users to devise

their own institutions are not challenged

by external government authorities

Q8. Nested enterprises: Appropriation,

provision, monitoring, enforcement,

conflict resolution and governance

activities are organised by multiple layers

of nested enterprises

Q. Since the introduction of Joint Forest Management on the forest reserve and communities

adjacent to it what is your idea about the trend of the quality of forest resources in respect of the

variables below?

Variable Trend Remarks

Increasing No Change Decreasing

Stand density

19

Stand volume

Tree species and diversity

Tree regeneration

Ground cover

Water discharge

Fire Incidences

Illegal activities

Area under pasture

Q. In your opinion, what were the likely effects of institutional change i.e. from state management

to Joint Forest management in local livelihood?

Impact Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

Increase equal access to resource base

Threat alternative livelihood

Unnecessary restrictions

Excessive collection charge

Help reduce poverty

Able to meet the household demand

Decrease access to forest

Increase wood forest products

Increase non wood forest products

Increase in household income

Food security ensured

Reduce village conflicts

Improve gender relations

Increase fodder supply

10.1 Village Natural Resources Committee (VNRC) Questionnaire

20