FINAL REPORT AND WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS

WORKSHOP ON AFRICAN ENVIRONMENTAL HISTORY AND

APPLIED RESEARCH STORA BRÄNNBO HOTELL & KONFERENS,

SIGTUNA

17-18 APRIL, 2004

Edited by Anneli Ekblom and Annika Dahlberg

Arranged by the Department of Human Geography, Stockholm university, the Centre for Environmental and Development Studies (CEMUS), and African and Comparative Archaeology, Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, Uppsala university.

Funded by the Swedish Research Council (Ämnesrådet för Humaniora och Samhällsvetenskap, Vetenskapsrådet)

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction and scientific objective.................................................................................... 1 Organisation .........................................................................................................................2 Summary of papers and discussions.....................................................................................6 Welcome address and keynote........................................................................................................................6 Session 1: The past, the present and the boundaries of knowledge. The state of environmental history ...................................................................................................................................6 Session 2: Understanding socio-environmental interactions on different spatial and temporal scale.........................................................................................................................................9 Session 3: Epistemology and methodolog......................................................................................................10 Session 4: Final discussion..........................................................................................................................12 Results of the workshop...................................................................................................... 13 Workshop Participants........................................................................................................ 15 Abstracts of keynote and position paper ............................................................................ 17

INTRODUCTION AND SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVE

During two days in April 2004 a number of scholars met at Brännbo kursgård, Sigtuna, to discuss the role of African environmental history as well as applied environmental research in present-day management issues. Historical studies and research on present-day issues are often conducted in isolation from each other. For example, research of a more applied nature, dealing with pressing current situations such as land degradation, conservation, and intensified land use, is often informed by short time-scales with little knowledge of the long term processes constituting the socio-ecological systems of today. Also, until recently there existed a divide within both historical and archaeological studies, where social aspects were separated from environmental. A similar division often exists in studies of the present, even if there has been a slight improvement over the last couple of decades. An improved knowledge of the interacting dynamics of natural and social processes informed by a long-term perspective is of fundamental importance for an understanding of present landscapes. This is of special urgency in Africa where our historical knowledge of social and environmental systems is fragmentary and where present-day environmental change directly affects people’s livelihoods.

There is thus a strong need for closer links between historical studies and applied research on present-day environmental issues, and the meeting between these two fields is important for sustainable management. There is a strong interest in these questions among many researchers in Sweden, – researchers who are dispersed over several universities and departments and representing numerous disciplines. While co-operation in various forms (e.g. through research networks) are common between Swedish researchers and their African counterparts, there has been less energy expanded on building arenas within Sweden for the exchange of experiences and the exploration of ideas, i.e. for creating opportunities for novel approaches to research.

The workshop brought together researchers from different fields who share an interest in the dynamics of African landscapes and the co-evolution of social and ecological processes. Participants were invited with the aim to mix researchers from different disciplines and universities, to include both senior researchers and doctoral students, and to achieve gender balance. The goal was to create a setting for inspired discussions that would result in valuable inputs to ongoing research, as well as spawn ideas for future research co-operation with cross-

3

fertilisation between disciplines and networks. The workshop was organised to coincide with a PhD course on African environmental and development history organised by CEMUS research school CEFO (Uppsala university), and PhD students presented papers and chaired workshop-sessions.

The concrete aim of the workshop was to discuss how different historical perspectives and approaches – in combination with studies of present-day landscape dynamics - can contribute to sustainable land management in various African settings. The workshop served as a platform to strengthen our collective knowledge-base by giving an overview of the present state of research in Sweden and internationally. It provided an arena for discussions on critical research issues to be developed and to formulate future collaboration. Discussions focused on how environmental history can be strengthened to address the issues faced by applied science and how communication between academia and praxis (e.g. policy formulation) can be enhanced.

ORGANISATION

The workshop was co-ordinated by three partners; the Department of Human Geography, Stockholm University, the Centre for Environmental and Development Studies (CEMUS), and African and Comparative Archaeology at the Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, Uppsala University. All participants were asked to submit brief descriptions of their research and background and these were circulated before the workshop. Announcements went out to a wide range of departments in Sweden active in research on environmental issues in Africa. The workshop was structured around group discussions, and therefore presentations were given as short position papers, c. 15 minutes each. Presentations and discussions were grouped in four sessions:

• Session 1: The past, the present and the boundaries of knowledge. The state of environmental history.

• Session 2: Understanding socio-environmental interactions on different spatial and temporal scales.

• Session 3: Epistemology and methodology

• Sessions 4: Applying historical perspectives and knowledge to the present

Each session was initiated by one or two presentations after which the participants were divided in three smaller discussion groups. The composition of the groups was changed between each session so that all participants had the chance to interact. Some guiding questions for each session had been circulated before the workshop, but the discussions in the individual groups were allowed to flow freely. In the last session the discussions of the individual groups were summarised by the chairpersons. One of these, Kebrom Tekle, summarised his overall impression of the workshop and of the role of environmental history and other environmental research as a starting point for the final discussion with the whole group. The workshop was concluded with an excursion to Alsike prästgård arranged by Paul Sinclair. Here participants, after learning about the management of a Swedish small scale organic farm, discussed long- and short-term socio-environmental interactions manifested in the cultural landscape and the interplay between local and expert knowledge and between local management and global forces.

4

Workshop Programme Saturday 17 April Introduction 9.30-10.15 Coffee and registration

10.15-10.30

Welcome address, Anneli Ekblom and Mats Widgren

10.30-10.45

Introduction to the activities of CEFO and CEMUS, Anders Öckerman

10.45-11.45

Africas environmental footprints: tracking past and present, James McCann

11.45-12.00

Questions and discussions relating to James McCanns lecture

Lunch 12.00-13.00

Session 1. Past, present and boundaries of knowledge, the state of environmental history: Moderator: Mats Widgren

13.00-13.15

Problems in the understanding of vegetation dynamics, past and present, Anneli Ekblom

13.15-13.30

The need of an understanding of social history: a foresters view, Marja Ojanen-Järlind

13.30-15.00 Group discussions

Coffee /tea 15.00-15.30

Session 2. Understanding socio-environmental interactions on different spatial and temporal scales: moderator Anneli Ekblom

15.30-15.45

People and Climate Change, Karin Holmgren

15.45-16.00

Socio-environmental interactions, southern and eastern Africa, Paul Sinclair

16.00-16.15

Urban islands in the savanna, Robert Munson

16.15-18.00 Group discussions

Workshop dinner 20.00

5

Sunday 18 April Breakfast 8.00

Session 3. Epistemology and methodology: Moderator Fredrik Haag 9.00-9.15

Queries into the severed and new entanglements of Tarangire, Tanzania: from a multitude of landscapes to a Park and back again, Camilla Årlin

9.15-9.30 Negotiating environmental values, Karin Reuterswärd

9.30-10.00

Formulating an interdisciplinary approach for understanding change, Mats Widgren and Tomas Håkansson

10.00-10.15

Monetary vs environmental dependency in rural Pondoland, Flora Hajdu

Coffee and discussions 10.15-11.00 Group discussions

Session 4. Applying historical knowledge in future planning: moderator Mats Widgren

11.00-11.15

Summary of session discussion by the PhD students chairing the session

11.15-11.30

Introduction to the session by Kebrom Tekle

11.30- 12.00

Final discussion in the whole group

Lunch 12.00-13.00

Session 4. continued discussions 13.00-14.00

Final discussion in the whole group

Coffee 14.00-14.30

Excursion 14.30-17.00

Alsike prästgård farm, guided by Prof Paul Sinclair

6

SUMMARY OF PAPERS AND DISCUSSION

Welcome address and keynote The workshop was opened by Mats Widgren who gave a short welcome address (fig 1), after which James McCann talked on “Africa’s environmental footprints: tracking past and present” (fig 2). He summarised the changing directions of environmental history in Africa that have challenged earlier ‘degradation narratives’. He called for more research on environmental history in Africa, research that resists simplistic metanarratives such as the maltheussian degradation narrative and the overoptimistic narratives of good environmental management. He voiced the need of environmental research that does not, as stated by McCann “neglect the role of a globalizing political ecology that forces certain local practices and that is more historical than we may imagine”. The talk emphasised the importance of an environmental history that can help explain the conditions of today, and that can show how they are embedded in historical processes on both local and global scales. Ending with a gaze towards the future he opened up for a discussion on which routes African environmental history is taking. Predicting several directions for interactions between environmental history, environmental research and environmental management programmes he suggested several lines of potential research that inspired the following discussions.

Session 1: The past, the present and the boundaries of knowledge. The state of environmental history. Session 1 started with a paper by Anneli Ekblom on the need of environmental history for understanding past and present vegetation dynamics in the coastal region of southern Africa. She raised the inherent methodological problems of understanding long-term vegetation dynamics, including problems of interpretation in pollen analysis, the lack of general basic research in vegetation history, phenology and ecology, and the limitations of uniformitarianism as a model for understanding change. Although the present is the one model available for an ecological understanding of past vegetation patterns this very model constrains our knowledge of past vegetation dynamics. She also pointed out the importance of environmental history as a platform for discussions on environmental management today by exemplifying her own role as an environmental historian in the village community of Chibuene, southern Mozambique.

While Anneli Ekblom described how she as a palaeoecologist became increasingly interested in the conditions of the present, and realised that a better understanding of present environmental dynamics was a prerequisite for understanding the past, Marja Ojanen-Järlind gave another perspective in her talk. As a forester, she initially believed that the equation of sustainable forest management, i.e. the growth of trees ≥ the cutting of trees, would be easily applicable in southern Zimbabwe’s communal areas. However, she gradually came to realise that understanding contemporary use of forest resources demanded an understanding of the historical processes behind the contemporary situation. Such understanding is necessary for a researcher who aims to produce relevant knowledge and information for the promotion of sustainable future use of forest resources. Environmental history became integrated in her research, something that was also requested by the village community with which she was involved.

7

Fig 1. Welcome address by Mats Widgren Fig 2. Keynote presenter James McCann Fig 3. Group discussion (from right to left) Anders Lindahl, Thomas Håkansson, Fredrik Haag, Marja Ojanen-Järlind, Ingvar Backéus, Camilla Årlin and Maria Ryner.

8

After these presentations that illustrated how the past is an integrated part of the present the session continued with discussions in smaller groups. Guiding questions had been pre-circulated to the group, asking:

1. Are we succeeding in linking the past with the present, - the present with the past?

2. What are the limitations of our knowledge of past environments and of socio-environmental dynamics?

3. Is there a need for a special ‘African’ environmental history, what are the benefits and pitfalls?

4. What are critical areas of research for further studies?

The group discussions moved beyond these questions. In one group the discussion centred on the question of the need of an ‘African’ environmental history, where some questioned the relevance of a ‘separate’ history that is a mere construction with roots in the colonial project. Others argued that there is a role for a specific African environmental history that can address the socio-environmental conditions specific to Africa. One participant stressed the important role environmental history can have in creating a base for informed decisions when it comes to environmental policymaking. Ethiopia was raised as an example, where policymakers have based their decisions on a shared belief in previous dramatic deforestation. However, environmental history has shown that the alarm of deforestation was widely exaggerated, and that this has laid the foundation for ill informed decisions when it comes to environmental management. Another participant raised the problem that although environmental history and other environmental research have contributed to a better understanding of environmental dynamics, the research results are not disseminated to a wider audience. In the “new scramble for Africa”, as labelled by one participant, environmental management is more and more in the control of NGO’s. These organisations, often backed by large capital, have much power. However, they often have preconceived ideas about the cause and solution to a specific problem, and have little interaction with the scientific community. In addition it was pointed out that many NGO’s do not involve the local communities on local terms but rather imposes decisions and management policies.

Another group, when debating the limitations of knowledge, focused on the problems of research funding. Research is ultimately controlled by research funding and funding organisations thus in reality control what knowledge is produced and how. Returning to the issue of the importance of environmental history for policymaking and environmental management the group discussed the limited knowledge we posses when it comes to environmental dynamics in the past and present. The history of environmental management in Africa has shown the danger of drawing general conclusions on the basis of limited data. The need to be cautious and critical when presenting data was stressed, including the importance of accounting for methodology and representativity. The need of quantifiable data for policymaking was highlighted by some participants, while others warned against providing simple figures on complex problems and referred to past mistakes in how science has been used in environmental policymaking and management. An objection was made in one group concerning whether the role of environmental historians was merely to give advice to donors and policymakers or if research on environmental history was not an issue of importance in itself? Although there were different opinions on the role that environmental history has for present management, there was general agreement that there is a great need of further research when it comes to understanding past and present environmental dynamics.

9

Session 2: Understanding socio-environmental interactions on different spatial and temporal scales.

The papers presented in session 2 contributed with an appreciation of the wide range of temporal and geographical scales of African environmental history. The session was initiated by Karin Holmgren and Helena Öberg’s summary of climatic variability in eastern and southern Africa, and possible correlations with socio-economic change during the last millennium. Their deep time analysis shows that climatic variability has had an impact on past societies. They also showed that there are no easy correlations between climate change and social transformations, but that climate change can have disastrous effects on already vulnerable societies. The lesson learnt is that social resilience in a world ecosystem is a challenge for decision-makers if sustainable development is to be reached on global and local levels.

Philippe Lavachery and Paul Sinclair gave an example of the potential of GIS techniques for integrating different sets of data on several scales. The changing settlement patterns of Central Africa, as indicated by the location of archaeological sites dated from 12000 BP to present, were correlated with soil distribution based on the FAO soil map. This enables an assessment of changing soil preferences and site locations over time that tentatively can be correlated with landuse patterns. These correlations show the potential of large scale regional landscape analysis for elucidating interactions between the physical environment and people. A more recent account of socio-environmental interactions was given by Robert Munson, who presented his study on the transformations of the landscape of the Mt Kilimanjaro and Mt Meru in northern Tanzania during the German colonial era. Based on archive studies and photographs from two German missions he showed how the introduction of new plants by the Germans, their new land-use policies and their general conception of the landscape transformed the environment towards a European ideal.

Spontaneous questions to the presenters tied in with the pre-circulated questions, i.e.:

1. How can we combine different spatial and temporal scales, and how can these best be used for a better understanding of socio-environmental dynamics?

2. What is the relevance of different time-scales (e.g. Quaternary, Holocene, last 100 years, last year…) for understanding the past (and the present)? What are the limitations and how do we deal with them – e.g. differences in resolution?

3. Are we combining the social and the ecological to the extent often stated in research descriptions? That is, are we really approaching an understanding of true interactions?

A reaction to Holmgren and Öberg´s presentation was that in aiming to understand the interrelationships of socio-natural processes we have to attempt to separate processes from events and try to resolve the issue of causation. There was general agreement however that different scales, whether long- or short term, and whether local, regional, or global, are all important as a focus of study and that they compliment each other. The discussions thus centred on the problems of combining different scales: what may be a correlation on one scale is not visible on another scale.

In one group the discussions moved on to the issue of whether communities today are more vulnerable to change than before? There was general agreement that communities are more vulnerable today and that therefore the ability of a community to adapt to the quickly changing environmental conditions of today is very important. The group concluded on a lighter tone by noting that although globalisation is part of the reason why communities are more vulnerable today than in the past, globalisation also contributes with solutions. For example, through the internet people can search for information and get in contact with each other in a way which was not possible before. Especially in cases of oppressive governments and dictators who previously

10

worked with heavy censorship and restrictions on information to the people, the internet has presented new opportunities. Another group, when focusing on question 3 above, discussed weather we should strive towards a unified analysis of social and ecological processes and systems, or if we should instead study them as separate entities in order to understand the dynamics.

Session 3: Epistemology and methodology The discussions of session 3 centred around the epistemology of science in general and it was clear in these discussions that the mixing of scholars from both human and natural sciences created a tension concerning opinions of what knowledge and science is. Camilla Årlin introduced the session with a presentation of her PhD studies in Tarangire National Park, Northern Tanzania. In her study of beliefs, practices, movements and dwelling in the Tarangire area from the mid 1700’s until present she challenges stereotyped definitions of the history of the Tarangire area as “wilderness void of human activity”. With her use of actor network theory (cf. Latour) as a framework of analysis she stressed the need of an explicit formulation of theoretical frameworks for disentangling what she calls the “hybridisation” of humans and nature.

Karin Reuterswärd’s presentation dealt with the interactions and tensions between conservation ideals on a national and international scale and the values of local communities, based on her own research in the Usambara mountains, northeastern Tanzania. It showed the importance of incorporating local initiatives in environmental management projects but also pointed towards the epistemological problems that this may entail. The issue of methodology was brought to the fore in Mats Widgren and Thomas Håkansson’s presentation of the planned project “The political ecology of trade networks, food production and land-cover change, Northeast Tanzania 1850-2000” (see project description in the appendix). This interdisciplinary project aims to analyze the mechanisms and driving forces behind land use and land cover changes in northeast Tanzania through a regional and historical perspective.

Flora Hajdu’s study in the former homeland of Transkei, South Africa, stresses the importance of being critical to public views and common agreements concerning environmental problems on a regional scale. In the presentation she focused on her investigations of the relations between local livelihood patterns and the state of environment. Contrary to the general perception of the former homelands as environmentally degraded and populations as isolated and environmentally dependent, Hajdu’s study shows an environment that is highly resilient and a population dependent mainly on monetary incomes. The presentation showed by a modern example how the preconceptions construe our understanding and elucidated the importance of choosing methodologies that may challenge preconceived ideas. The guiding questions of the third session were:

1. How do the methods we use construe (and/or limit) our understanding of the past?

2. How do these methods represent human/environmental interactions? How can methods be further developed to appreciate the complexity of socio-environmental interactions?

3. How can methods be developed to appreciate the complexity of interactions over many scales in time and place?

4. It is often stated that the understanding of socio-ecological dynamics is constrained by the general philosophy of science that carries with it an inherent division between ‘social’ and ‘natural’.

a) Does science inherently limit the possibility of understanding socio- environmental dynamics?

11

b) Is a true unification of social and ecological processes possible?

c) Can (or should) the structure of academia be changed to accommodate a unified analysis?

5. Are our present disciplinary frameworks and tools sufficient, or should interdisciplinary studies develop their own unique frameworks and tool-kits?

The discussions picked up on the presentations in this and previous session. It was clear that participants were concerned not to simplify complex phenomena in order to provide easy guidelines concerning environmental management and social development. Many participants stressed the importance of incorporating many different perspectives on environmental management, including the views and knowledge held by local communities. Others made a difference between making complexity simple and explaining complexity in a simple way. The conflict between political decision-makers and media wanting simple results and the scientists being unable or unwilling to satisfy those wishes was also discussed. The role of NGO’s and the danger of their sometimes arrogant attitude towards local communities were raised again. Some participants stressed the need of data on past socio-environmental interactions for informing today. It was also emphasised that, so far in the workshop, there had been a tendency to forget that policymaking does not only take place on a national level, but also formally and informally on a local level, and that all levels are in need of better knowledge for informed decisions.

In one group the need of a changing epistemology was discussed, one that allows for the incorporation of different stories of change. This was countered with the argument that as scientists attached to universities, the institution afforded the highest credibility when it comes to research, we carry a responsibility to produce results, and to communicate them, as opposed to saying that scientists’ view of the world is as good as anyone else’s. However, as discussed in one group, there has also been a shift when it comes to the epistemology of science with the introduction of concepts such as “local knowledge”. This concept marks a change in the way we view knowledge as it introduces the possibility of several parallel knowledges in science. Examples were also given of how, in the present workshop, we have communication problems because of different scientific language and that presentations had excluded parts of the audience.

Finally, the groups discussed the conservative attitude against interdisciplinarity that exists in many departments. A restructuring of the faculty and departmental systems of the universities was called for that allows for the hybridisation of different disciplines. Institutions like CEMUS and CTM were given as positive examples. Interdisciplinary research cooperation where scholars can meet over specific themes of research was voiced as an ideal of which there are now some examples. However, in all groups the problems associated with working interdisciplinary was a recurring theme. PhD students voiced frustration over the fact that interdisciplinary projects are often criticised for doing “everything to little”, an attitude that has to change if we want interdisciplinarity to really work. It was also pointed out that publishing interdisciplinary work is difficult, even when it comes to interdisciplinary journals, as there are completely different traditions of presenting research. For example, in human sciences self-reflexivity is expected whereas in natural science this is seen as “unscientific”. These are problems that have to be taken seriously as PhD students are presently encouraged to carry out interdisciplinary work, but at the same time there is little acceptance of such work in the academic structure.

Session 4 and Final discussion: Applying historical knowledge in future planning. Session 4 was originally planned along the same lines as previous sessions. However, since the presentations planned for this session could not be given the time was instead used for a final discussion among all participants. The pre-circulated questions for this session were:

12

1. When we write environmental history we must consider whose environment and whose history we are describing. Who is the audience, and should our scientific endeavour differ depending on the audience?

2. Many post-modern thinkers stress that science (natural and social) is power. What are the ethical implications of science, whether explored in the form of ‘pure science’ or more action-oriented? How may our research affect power relations and what are our responsibilities?

3. What are the implications of scientists taking an active role in society? At what scales should we exert influence (local, regional, national, etc) – if at all?

4. The need for an historical perspective in addressing the present state of the environment is more commonly stressed than before. But, to what degree does an improved understanding of historical processes actually influence present policymaking?

These questions all relate to previous discussions in the groups, and the chairpersons were asked to summarise these. As a starting point for the final discussion Kebrom Tekle was asked to summarise his impression of the discussions and to express his opinion on the role of African environmental history for the future. Here he raised a number of important issues: Is there a need of a special ‘African’ environmental history? Who would be included in such a history and whom would it serve? He stressed the importance of incorporating the local communities in the research design, as well as in the implementation of management plans based on research results. He also talked about the responsibility of the research community to communicate research results to policy makers and NGOs, and to do this in such a way that results can be used for management decisions. Finally, he stressed the need of an environmental history that can be applied to present day situations and that directly addresses the pressing issues of today.

The final discussion started with the role of environmental history for environmental management today and in the future. Two main positions were evident among the participants, where one emphasised the importance of research that is directly applicable to present-day environmental problems. The other main standpoint defended the right of research to investigate scientific questions that may not be directly applicable, but that continues to build the common knowledge base. The PhD students were asked to comment on whether they thought that all PhD projects should be obliged to come up with results that have practical applicability, and the responses varied. One participant pointed out that PhD students have in fact successfully argued for the practical applicability of their research, since many of the PhD students (present at the workshop) were funded by donor organisations for whom applied aspects are important. Another participant stated that if research is to be directly applicable the requirement on scientific rigour should be relaxed. Presently it is very difficult to combine research of a more applied nature with ‘pure research’ in the shape of a thesis. However, participants also raised the concern that science should not be controlled in the sense that that it must be directly applicable, as it cannot be expected that all projects should come up with concrete recommendations for future environmental management. Rather, science must be allowed to pursue knowledge for its own sake, in Africa as well as in other parts of the world.

It was stated, with examples, how PhD students who are under pressure to reach specific types of results end up producing poor science. Many of the PhD students present agreed with this, and the dangers of producing simple answers to complex questions was voiced again. It was also emphasised that science does not necessarily have to be applicable in a specific project in order to be useful and applicable in a broader perspective. In reaction to statements from the PhD students, Yonas Yemshaw provocatively claimed that the African continent cannot afford to pursue research simply for its own sake, and that all researchers involved in research in Africa have a responsibility to produce result that are applicable and that can ameliorate pressing situations of socio-environmental problems. Other participants agreed that research should be

13

obliged to be applicable and useful to policymakers and managers. However, others objected that if an attitude of a “law of applicability” is applied to all research projects, then basic research that is needed to amend the general lack of basic environmental knowledge would no longer be supported by funding organisations. The statement caused immediate reactions, and it was noted that this is a development that can already be seen since basic and empirical research, including fieldwork, is not supported to the same degree as before.

The discussion again moved to the need of making priorities when it comes to research interests. Training and capacity building in Africa was raised as an important priority and also the need to involve local communities. This should not only occur in implementation of results, but also in the actual research process itself. Yonas Yemshaw also raised other priorities important for a sound environmental management in Africa, including access of technology and knowledge where environmental history has and important role to play. Other needs mentioned were the regulation of market subsidiaries from the north, an improved health situation and a sound and stable governance. It was pointed out that many of these priorities are not directly environmentally related nor can they be solved on a local or national scale. This made someone ask if we are wasting our energy in projects on long- and short-term socio-environmental interactions on a local scale while being fully aware that many of the environmental and social problems we are studying are unsolvable on that scale.

RESULTS OF THE WORKSHOP

The workshop was successful in establishing a firm basis for an improved future contact between researchers, departments and disciplines. This was particularly enhanced through the numerous discussions that provided a good foundation for future formal and informal co-operation. To what extent this will result in novel research projects will have to be evaluated in the future. However, the mix of researchers from such a wide range of disciplines also demonstrated the difficulties inherent in interdisciplinary research. A recurring issue in the discussions was the role of science and here some disagreements was evident among participants. There are apparent difficulties in meeting across disciplines, and some central disagreement ultimately spring from different views on what science is and what scientific knowledge is. This discussion will not move further unless we first realise that there are differences in our epistemological outlook, and that these need to be understood, discussed and treated with respect. Such a discussion would necessitate a whole new workshop. Although many of the pre-circulated questions referred to how we can understand and appreciate socio-environmental dynamics, this line of discussion was not pursued in the groups. This may be due to the fact that all of the participants already share an interest in going beyond the dichotomy of the social and environmental, wherefore the focus of the discussion was on the issues of epistemology and methodology rather than on discussing boundaries. The discussions were lively and engaged, encouraged through the informal environment of the workshop. Also, the close association between the workshop and the course on African environmental history was important for the structure of the workshop and the PhD students were given prominent roles in the discussions. However, as indicated above the discussions did not really utilise the pre-circulated questions and therefore became very broad. In the evaluation, the PhD students pointed out that the questions should have been more specific and that if they had been the discussions may have been more focused. However, the broad type of questions were also enabling in that they allowed for meeting points among such a wide range of research interest. In this way the groups could chose to deal with specific issues, and discuss co-operation networks and future research programmes. Despite some interesting disagreements there was a general consensus among participants that environmental history has a strong role within

14

environmental management today, and that the knowledge base on socio-environmental dynamics needs to be further expanded. This should be done in various ways, e.g. through basic research, dissemination of results to policymakers and local community and through the raising of a public debate on environmental issues.

15

Fig 4. Excursion to Alsike Prästgård guided by Paul Sinclair. Some of the participants, from left to right: Robert Munson, Marja Ojanen-Järlind, Yonas Yemshaw, Thomas Håkansson, Birgitta Farelius, Kebrom Tekle, Ingvar Backéus, Anneli Ekblom, Mats Widgren, James McCann, Ingrid Karlsson, Paul Sinclair and Camilla Årlin. Fedra in the front of the picture.

WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS

Ingvar Backéus Ingvar.Backeus@ebc.uu.se Evolutionary Biology Centre

Annika Dahlberg annika.dahlberg@humangeo.su.se Dept of Human Geography, Stockholm university

Bodil Elmqvist Bodil.elmqvist@miclu.lu.se Centre for Environmental Studies, Lund University

Anneli Ekblom Anneli.ekblom@arkeologi.uu.se African and Comparative Archaeology, Dept of Archaeology and Ancient History

Birgitta Farelius Birgitta.Farelius@teol.uu.se Dept of theology, history of religions

Oscar Franzén Gmh@cemus.uu.se Cemus, Uppsala university

Fredrik Haag Fredrik.haag@geo.uu.se Applied Environmental Impact Assessment, Uppsala University, Cemus course

16

Flora Hajdu FloHa@Tema.LiU.SE Dept of Water and Environmental Studies, Tema V, Linköping University, Cemus course

Karin Holmgren karin.holmgren@natgeo.su.se Dept of Physical Geography, Stockholm university

Thomas Håkansson Natrix@mindspring.com Dept of Human Ecology, Lund University

Ingrid Karlsson Ingrid.Karlsson@kus.uu.se Kollegiet för utvecklingstudier

Anders Lindahl Anders.Lindahl@geol.lu.se Laboratory for Ceramic Research, Dept of Geology, Lund university

James McCann mccann@bu.edu African Studies Center, Boston University

Robert Munson nebr_bob@hotmail.com African Studies Center, Boston University/Ludwig-Maximilian-Universitaet

Elin Norström Elin.norstrom@natgeo.su.se Dept of Physical Geography, Stockholm university

Marja Ojanen-Järlind Jarlind@telia.com, SLU, CEMUS course Maria Ryner Maria.ryner@natgeo.su.se

Dept of Physical Geography, Stockholm university Karin Reuterswärd Karin.reutersward@humangeo.su.se

Dept of Human Geography, Stockholm university Paul Sinclair Paul.sinclair@arkeologi.uu.se, African and Comparative Archaeology, Dept

of Archaeology and Ancient History, Uppsala university

Anneli Sundkvist anneli.sundkvist@arkeologi.uu.se Dept of Archaeology and Ancient History, Uppsala university

Kebrom Tekle Kebrom.Tekle@ebc.uu.se Evolutionary Biology Centre, Uppsala University

Mats Widgren Dept of Human Geography, Stockholms university Mats.Widgren@humangeo.su.se

Yonas Yemshaw y.yemshaw@afornet.org Nairobi, African Forest Research Network (AFORNET)

Camilla Årlin Camillaarlin@operamail.com Dept Human Geography, Stockholm University

Anders Öckerman CEMUS, Uppsala universitet anders.ockerman@cemus.uu.se

17

ABSTRACTS OF KEYNOTE AND POSITION PAPERS

(obs not for citation!)

Africa's Environmental Footprints: Tracking Past and Future

James C. McCann, African Studies Center, Boston University In the first decade of the 21st century the history of Africa's environments has become a substantial and expanding field of study, reflecting its germination in a number of different sites as well as in different academic cultures. My goal in this paper is to explore the directions this research has taken in the past and to divine something about the future directions. Does the research produced reflect Africa's distinctive forces of nature, or does it more closely reflect the special academic cultures and scholarly traditions of Europe and North America? What influences are evident from Africa's own intellectual traditions? Is there such a thing as an African environmental footprint, or footprints, that distinguishes our common field of study or does Africa more properly belong to a set of global forces that make it unexceptional?

The role of the researcher in the potential application of knowledge on landscape change and evolution.

Annika Dahlberg, Department of Human Geography, Stockholm university Research on environmental history in Africa is continuously coming up with new findings and presenting rewritten and adjusted histories of places, people, forms, and processes. As researchers we need to reflect on how the knowledge and opinions emanating from our data and analyses are used – or not used as the case may be. The idea that knowledge, or ownership, of history may convey power is not new, but one does not often find references to this debate in descriptions of local or regional case studies. To what extent should the researcher take responsibility for the potential effect of his or her findings? Are there cases where findings should be disseminated with care, or even withheld altogether? And what about the opposite situation – when the researchers try to convey new insights to planners and policymakers, and they refuse to acknowledge it: How far should the researcher push? The questions above have been phrased in very general terms, and I do not profess to have answers to them. However, through a very brief description of two examples from a research project in the Mkuze Wetlands, KwaZulu-Natal in South Africa, I want to provide a base on which we can start a discussion on these issues. It should be noted that the wetlands are ‘shared’ between nature conservation land (a World Heritage Site) and communal land inhabited by poor rural communities. Wetlands, including rivers, are very dynamic and constantly change as various processes interact over time. The Mkuze river can be shown to have changed course several times throughout history. In the early 1970s what was then considered a relatively minor human intervention ended up switching the course of over 80% of the river water. The conservation organisation have for various reasons wanted to rehabilitate the former river course, and in 2003 work on this project commenced. This was done without much (or any) professional assessment of the likelihood of success and/or of potential side-effects. It was also done in spite of quite heavy cautions from the research group who, based on a detailed survey of the landscape in combination with in-depth knowledge of other wetland systems, stated that the chances of succeeding were very slim. Should we have pushed further? The Mkuze wetlands have for over a century witnessed more or

18

less violent conflict over its natural resources. Conflicting strategies of management and use have mainly been found between village people and the conservation services. Today South Africa has declared that conservation of valuable landscapes, habitats and species should go ahead, but that it should do so in co-operation with local people. An ongoing research project is looking at the environmental history of the area, and has suggested two (at least) parallel histories. The research team stresses that both narratives are valid, but is there a potential risk that one narrative or the other – or both – are used to inflate rather than deflate the present conflict?

The role of environmental history, examples from the coastal region of southern Africa

Anneli Ekblom, African and Comparative Archaeology, Dept of Archaeology and Ancient history, Uppsala University

Working with research on the past and present environment there are many roles in which the researcher can engage. One lies in revising the rooted images of the environmental problems in Africa and another in providing new data for a better understanding on long term socio-environmental dynamics. Separating these two potential roles may not be possible, which in turn stresses the need for realising that science is a social and political exercise that is far from neutral.

History and archaeology are important tools in challenging images of the past African landscape as unmanaged, or “wilderness imposed”. As archaeological and historic research expanded after independence, many researchers within these fields have however adopted degradation narratives as a matter of fact. Still we know very little about the past environment of the coastal areas. Paleoecological investigations are very few in the region but investigations from the wider region suggest a complex relationship between climatic change and human influence in the shaping of the landscape. Meanwhile, the ecological debates has stressed that the basic presumption of the “imposed wilderness idea”, namely the presence of a state of nature that, could be in a state of a forever stable equilibrium, can no longer be seen as a representation of the African landscape. The complex ecology of southern Africa with the extreme variations in rainfall, the regular presence of fire´s, natural and induced and, the varying edaphic circumstances stresses a multi-causality of change that is space and time dependent.

There are inherent limitations to our knowledge and the possibilities of representing the landscape. Our tools for understanding the past landscape are generally not sensitive to complex dynamics on local and short term scales. Environmentalists whether interested in the dynamics of the past or the present are also caught in a delicate dilemma; the understanding of the environmental dynamics of the past is limited by our poor understanding of the present, in turn restricted by the lack of knowledge on the long term social and biophysical conditions that has contributed to shape the present. The inherent complexity of the landscape stresses the need, not only, for a close incorporation of a wide range of tools for understanding the landscape, crosscutting different spatial and temporal scales and artificial boundaries between sciences, but also for an accommodative approach towards different narratives of the landscape.

19

Monetary vs. environmental dependence in rural Pondoland, South Africa Challenging a rigid South African narrative of environmental dependence and

degradation in the former homelands

Flora Hajdu, Department of Water and Environmental Studies, Linköping University

This presentation shortly summarizes the results from a study in a rural area in the former homeland of Transkei, South Africa. The project has studied local livelihood patterns and the reasons for choices about livelihood strategies. So far, much of the results point to a quite resilient environment and a population dependent mainly on monetary incomes. This challenges extensive literature and firmly held public views portraying the environment of the former homelands as severely degraded due to population pressure, and the population itself as isolated and highly environmentally dependent. A question for discussion could be why this narrative is so stubborn in South African, and especially with regard to the homelands.

Climate change in Africa during the past millennium and its implications for societal development

Karin Holmgren and Helena Öberg, Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University

Climatic records from Africa have shown that both temperature and the amount of rainfall have varied over the past millennium. Changing water resources in semi-arid regions clearly must have regional influences on both ecological and socio-economic processes. Through a detailed analysis of the available historical and paleoclimatic evidence from southern and eastern Africa covering the past millennium we can show that, depending on the vulnerability of a society, climatic variability can have an immense impact on societies, sometimes positive and sometimes disastrous. We emphasize that the interconnected issue of world ecosystem and social resilience is the challenge for decision-makers if sustainable development is to be reached on global and local levels.

Reflections on the historical contingency of contemporary environmental conditions The gradual realisation of the importance of social history for the understanding of

today, a foresters view

Marja Ojanen-Järlind, SLU A forester, before entering deeper into the conditions of forests as resources and people as daily users of forest products, believed that the equation of sustainable forest management, i.e. growth of trees ≥ drain of trees, would be easily applicable even in Zimbabwe’s communal areas. The problems would be mainly technical: how to assess reliable growth/drain figures for a large number of different tree species and how to assess land-use areas, where trees were growing. Awakening to the real world happened quite soon: status of forested areas and tree populations changed daily and seemingly unpredictably. Additionally, much of the general “knowledge” obtained before the fieldwork showed to be questionable, e.g. communal areas had the worst natural conditions for agriculture; people living there were mainly evicted from commercial farming areas; and deforestation was a big problem everywhere. Therefore understanding both contemporary and historical processes concerning trees and forests in the context of complex rural societies is a prerequisite for a researcher who wishes to produce relevant knowledge and information for promotion of sustainable use of forest resources.

20

Queries into the severed and new entanglements of Tarangire, Tanzania : from a multitude of landscapes to a Park and back again

Camilla Årlin, Department of Human Geography. Stockholm University The idea of nature and culture as separate/separable entities is at the very heart of the modernist agenda, which at the end of the 19th century formulated the idea of national parks and the preservation of wilderness. It first took the shape of a national park protecting the ‘wild beauty’ of Niagara Falls in the United States. From there the idea rippled across the imperial world reformulating itself through the policy and networks of governments and organizations and in different ways it was, and is still, attached to spaces of wildness to separate these from the harms of the developed (Cronon 1996). In Tanzania the establishment of game reserves, conservation areas and National Parks came about through a conflict between the two very disparate agenda alluded to above. Agenda one, which was first and foremost opted for by the colonial government in both Tanzania and on Downing Street in London, was to make a ‘savage wilderness’ into an economically viable protectorate within the British Empire. As such, it focused on three things: farming, commercial livestock breeding, and mining. The main antagonists to this agenda were vector borne diseases including the insects acting as the vectors, game [in contrast to wildlife], vegetation housing both of the fore mentioned, and ‘the conservative native’. Agenda two, in contrast, was one of wholesale preservation. Building on conceptions of the ‘African’ pristine and sensitive nature and the [visual] experience of both, agenda two was mainly opted for by an English aristocracy – all members of the British Museum and The Society for the Preservation of the Fauna of the Empire – with Game Officers and a few others acting on the ground. The main antagonists were here perceived as development, development policy, ‘un-sportsmanlike hunters’ [in the shape of ‘natives’ and ‘Americans’], and ‘natives’ who did not remain [conservative] ‘natives’. To illustrate the discrepancy in these two agenda we can turn to a Tanzanian Secretariat file entitled “Game Preservation Policy” dating to 1926-27, for where the Director of Game preservation writes, “[T]he native has not yet reached the stage of civilization at which he is capable of appreciating properly the gifts of nature – such as a fine game population and valuable timber forests – and of conserving them.” , the Director of Agriculture states “The first care of the Agricultural Department is the increase of native food-crops. The first care of game preservation is the protection of the pests that cause every year the greatest and most dangerous destruction of those crops.” The angry conclusion being “If in uninhabited or agriculturally useless tracts it is thought worth while to establish Game Reserves in which ‘European Scientists’ can amuse themselves, there can be no objection, provided the Scientific bodies will meat the cost of managing such reserves.” (Tanzanian National Archives, AB-1247).

So in the clash between the two agenda, a segregation of space – creating landscapes of development and landscapes of preservation – was seen as the only plausible solution. But here is the problem, it was never possible – even if the preservationist and the developer believed it was, and acted on this belief – to establish a universal grid for where and what was wilderness, which areas and who was developed/ developable. Within the framework of segregated landscapes there was no space or understanding for practice or landscapes that did not conform to a dichotic relation between ‘nature’ and ‘culture’, in other words, there was no space for hybrids or fluid entanglements. Add to this the short-term knowledge of a newly established colonial government, as well as the untutored gaze on the ‘African’ environment - which the European preservationist must be seen to represent as it saw inhabited and used lands as ‘empty’ - in a country twice the size of Sweden, with disparate and diverse subsistence strategies, cultures, languages and practices, and you will have the root of the people/park dilemmas existing today.

21

Today more than thirty percent of Tanzania has been converted into national parks, game reserves and conservation areas by the colonial as well as [or even more so] by the independent Tanzanian state. With the preservation agenda gaining world wide power from the middle of the 20th Century until today, this has increasingly meant ‘locking the gate’ to all contradicting landscape definitions and practices held by people who once lived in or who surround these areas today - definitions and practices that to a large extent have shaped the very areas from which they are excluded. For as Neumann writes, “[t]he idea of a nature as a pristine, empty African wilderness was largely mythical and could only become reality by relocating thousands of Africans whose agency had in fact shaped the landscape for millennia.” (Neumann 1995) And at the same time as people are not allowed by law to be entangled with nature, nature – in the form of elephants etc – is protected by law and may entangle unthreatened with people. The discrepancy of this is made all the more clear in a drought situation – as has been the case in one of my field sights – where it is seen as ‘natural’ for elephants to move into inhabited areas in the search for food, at the same time as it is seen as illegal for a farmer or livestock keeper to search for food/water in ‘the wilderness’ and even more so to protect his crops from marauding elephants. Under such circumstances it is not surprising that the gazetting of proclaimed ‘wilderness’ areas is highly contested by the communities affected (see e.g. Neumann 1998, Brockington 2002), nor that attempts are made to retie the severed entanglements with spaces of preservation – resulting in phenomena like ‘community conservation’ but also ‘poaching’. My PhD project, which is mainly funded by Sida/SAREC commenced in January 2002. Building on a year of fieldwork, and some archival research it aims to capture the multitude of heterogeneous landscape histories surrounding Tarangire National Park, Northern Tanzaniai. In 1957, when Tarangire was first declared a Game Reserve, at least seven different groups of people surrounded the space initially gazetted. Even though most of these groups claim to have used and/or settled within the area that became Tarangire Game Reserve, the area was seen by policy makers as having little or no human population (past and present) due to its high concentration of tsetse flies. However, the presence of iron-age settlement sites, visual remnants of hunting and gathering (such as dug out animal traps and honey hunting ‘ladders’ in baobab trees), and, more importantly, the memory of people contradicts the tsetse fly narrative. Tracing views, practices, movements and dwelling from the mid 1700’s until today the project seeks to confront stereotyped definitions of Tarangire as ‘tsetse infested wilderness, void of human activity’ with the definitions arising from past and present practises of the peoples who border the park today or who once practised/settled/moved within its present day boundaries. A significant focus is placed on the history of the area prior to the establishment of the park and on the processes/actors involved in its establishment. Specifically three main themes are followed over time: Firstly, the settlement history of Western Tarangire and its surrounding area, secondly, landscapes of practice, the identity/places they generate and the effects of change in the formulation of these landscapes, and finally, tsetse politics and agency past and present. The project relies on oral history, aerial photography, field evidence and documentary sources and is framed conceptually by recent developments within European landscape research in general and at the Department of Human Geography, Stockholm University in particular. Theoretically it stems, broadly speaking, from writings on the production of nature (see e.g Smith 1990, Urry 1995, Grove 1995, Adams & McShane 1996) and political ecology (see e.g Collet 1987, Brockington & Homewood 1996, and Neumann 1995, 1998). More specifically however, it is theoretically oriented to a fusion of Sarah Whatmore’s feminist hybrid geography (Whatmore 2002), critical discourse analysis (Chouliaraki & Fairclough 1999) and Tim Ingolds theorys of dwelling and movement (Ingold 2000). Over the past 15 years there has been a growing amount of research on park/people relations and community conservation. The main bulk of this research in Tanzania concerns pastoral peoples such as the Maasai, no attempts to document areas of fluid ethnicity, as well as fluid

22

subsistence - such as the area along Tarangire’s western border - have been made. Likewise, few in-depth historical analysis’s of the development, conflict and affect of protected areas in Africa have been conducted, Brockington (2002), and Neumann (1998) being notable exceptions. Likewise the enormous effects of Tsetse policy on the environment and people during British rule in Tanzania has up until the 1990’s received little attention. Capitalising on the work of John Ford (1971) three ‘recent’ case studies – those of Giblin, Hoppe and Neumann - on the social aspects of tsetse control in Tanzania have shown the importance and problematic nature of these policies and the need for further explorations of site-specific effects (Giblin 1990, 1992, Hoppe 1997, Neumann 2001). References: Adams, J & Mcshane, T. O. 1996. The Myth of Wild Africa. University of California Press. Berkley. Brockington, D. 2002. Fortress concervation – the Preservation of the Mkomazi Game Reserve, Tanzania. James

Currey. Oxford. Cosgrove, D. & Daniels, S. 1988. The iconography of landscape. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. Chouliaraki, L. & Fairclough, N. 1999. Discourse in late modernity : rethinking critical discourse analysis. Edinburgh

: Edinburgh Univ. Press Cronon, W.1996. The Trouble with Wilderness; or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature.. In Uncommon Ground:

Rethinking the Human Place in Nature. W. Cronon (ed.) Pp. 69-90. New York. Giblin, J. L. 1990. Trypanosomiasis Control in African History: An Evaded Issue? In The Journal of African History

Vol. 31(1), pp.59-80. -1992. The Politics of Environmental Control in Northeastern Tanzania, 1840-1940. University of Pennsylvania

Press. Philadelphia. Grove, R. H. 1995. Green Imperialism: Colonial expansion, tropical island Edens and the origins of

environmentalism, 1600-1860. Cambridge University press. Cambridge. Ford, J. 1971. The Role of the Trypanosomiases in African Ecology: A Study of the Tsetse Fly Problem (London:

Oxford University Press). Homewood, K. & Rogers, W. A.. 1991. Maasailand Ecology: Pastoralist Development and Wildlife Conservation in

Ngorongoro, Tanzania. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. Hoppe, K. A. 1997. Lords of the Fly: Environmental Images, Colonial Science and Social Engineering in Brittish

East African Sleeping Sickness Control, 1903-1963. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Boston MA: Boston University.

Ingold, Tim. 2000. The Perception of the Environment – essays in livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. Routledge. Little P. D. 1996. Pastoralism, biodiversity, and the shaping of savanna landscapes in East Africa. In AFRICA 66: (1)

37-51 1996. Luig, U & Von Oppen, A. 1997. Landscape in Africa: Process and Vision : An introductory essay. In: Paideuma Vol

43, 1997. Neumann, R. P. 1995 “Ways of seeing Africa: Colonial recasting of African society and landscape in Serengeti

National Park. In Ecumene. Vol 2(2) 1995. -1998. Imposing Wilderness – Struggles over Livelihood and Nature Preservation in Africa.University of California

Press. Berkeley. Olwig, K. 1996. Recovering the substantive nature of landscape. In:Ann. Assoc. Am. Geographers Vol. 86. Smith, N. 1990. Uneven Development: Nature, Capital and the Production of Space. Blackwell.

Cambridge,Massachusetts. Urry, J. 1995. Consuming Places. Routledge. London. Whatmore, S. 2002. Hybrid geographies – natures, cultures, spaces. Sage Publications. London.

23

Urban Islands in the Savanna: Moshi and Arusha and the Changing Landscape of Colonialism (the changing landscape in northern Tanzania during the German

colonial period, c. 1885-1914)

Robert Munson, African Studies Center, Boston University #The face of northern Tanzania1 surrounding Mt Kilimanjaro and Mt Meru has changed much over the last 120 years. Of these changes, most of the botanical and landscape changes were initiated early, during the German colonial era. The German period introduced many Asian, Australian, European and American plants to the area. In general, the Germans brought the plants to Africa and the European economic and political dominance provided fertile soil in which they could root. However, subsequent adoption by Africans generally ensured the long-term success of the new arrivals. Parallel to this, the German conception of development and the increasing involvement of this area in the outside, European-dominated world helped to alter the landscape towards a productive creation Europeans would understand. My complete study looks at the colonial era developments (c. 1880-1916) to determine the landscape changes caused by the plants and the new influences, the exact nature of the alterations and what the consequences were. I examine these from a biogeographical perspective: how and why the various species changed in their distribution across the landscape and how the human actors affected their distributions across the landscape. In this paper, I only look at two examples. The sources in Germany and Tanzania used for this study cover a wide-range. First, the colonial records in the Bundesarchiv, Berlin and the Tanzanian National Archives, Dar es Salaam provide a solid foundation. Church records in Leipzig, Germany and Moshi, Tanzania as well as several other small archives complement the government’s records and bring the focus onto the missions. Scientific journals, maps and reports from the colonial period, primarily housed in Germany, provide an important insight into the botany - the study as well as practical use - and landscape of colonialism. Photographic collections in Germany from the colonial time provide a glimpse into the past and information not present in the written records. Finally, my field research in Tanzania ties all the above together by helping me to understand the landscape and some of the views of the Africans in the Kilimanjaro and Meru area.

Northeast Tanzania 1850-2000: The political ecology of trade networks, food production and land-cover change

Thomas Håkansson* and Mats Widgren** *Division of Human Ecology, Lund University ** Department of human Geography,

Stockholm university

The project aims at analyzing the mechanisms and driving forces behind land use and land cover changes in a regional and historical perspective. It contributes to the research on human resource use and global environmental change through its genuine historic perspective (i.e. not deterministic). Land use and land cover change will be traced in a 150 year perspective and causes

1 I use “Tanzania” and “Deutsch-Ostafrika” interchangeably although they do not represent the exact same territorial area, however both are precise enough for the study’s area in northern Tanzania. During the German period a designation such as “Tanzania” would have been unrecognizable to the people living in the area, while on the other hand, “Deutsch-Ostafrika” while correct then is not so familiar now. I have decided to simply use both in order to implicitly emphasize the historical continuity. I only use “Tanganyika” during the British mandate period.

24

for land use change will be sought in the history of population, trade networks, political changes and possibly also climate change. It is an interdisciplinary effort, based on historical geography, historical anthropology and physical geography with remote sensing. We will test the implications of current revisionary approaches to environmental exploitation in Africa, which downplay, or reject, the claim that current economic activities result in a depleted resource base and reduced food production. A range of sources, including historical maps, travel accounts, satellite imagery, census data and archival material will be utilized, and researchers carrying out ongoing local case studies in the region will be engaged as expert consultants. The project is carried out in cooperation between the two geography departments at Stockholm University (Human and Physical) and the division of Human Ecology at Lund University. Abridged version of project proposal 1. INTRODUCTION Studies of the present and the historical global situation are either firmly based in the natural sciences (climate, land cover, biodiversity) or in cultural and social studies (conflicts, culture, trade, population). Links between these two approaches are either weak or based on simplistic assumptions. This project seeks to develop frameworks for a truly historical and cultural understanding of causes and effects of land cover change. In order to better apprehend mechanisms at a global scale, without losing contact with the complexities of local realities, we will focus our efforts on an regional study, and on how processes of change can be traced across various scales of interaction. It is based on three integrated sub-projects in human geography (post-doctoral project), anthropology (senior researcher) and physical geography with remote sensing (doctoral project). It contributes to the research on human resource use, food security and global environmental change through its genuine historical perspective and a conviction that local decisions governing land use and food production are largely dependent on processes and events occurring at a regional and global scale. Following recent research on environmental change in Africa we also question claims that necessarily emphasise population growth as either a solution to environmental problems and sustainable food production or as a major cause for resource depletion. A fundamental concern is to analyse both factors that contribute to investment in sustained food production and environmental management, and factors that cause disinvestment in local resources. Land use and land cover changes will be traced over 150 years in relation to the history of population, trade networks, political changes and climate. 2. BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES Efforts to assess global land cover changes and its causes ultimately depend on data gathered at micro and meso scales. As noted by Lambin et al. (2001): "…the rich array of local-level human-environment case studies can be used to create regional “generalities” of land-use and land-cover change that promise to improve understanding and modeling of critical themes in global change and sustainability studies." (p. 266) Hence, by bridging the gap between detailed local case studies and generalised macro-scale studies, regional historical analysis holds a key position in understanding and tackling many of the grand questions characterising recent and past environmental change on the continent.

25

According to Lambin and Ehrlich (1997) two processes of change are of particular importance for the understanding of long-term sustainability of land use in Africa: the continuous degradation in land-cover conditions over the decade (e.g., loss of vegetation cover) and the continuous improvement in land cover (e.g., gain in vegetation cover). Similarly, as shown in a study from southwestern Ethiopia, both phases of contraction and expansion in cropland were documented during times of population growth, as a result of the combined effect of climatic, socio-political and biological causes (Reid et al. 2000). As shown by Lambin et al. (2001), Mortimore (1998), Broch-Due and Schroeder (2000), and others, simplified explanations, related to population pressure or poverty, of grand environmental challenges, such as tropical deforestation, rangeland modification, desertification, agricultural intensification and urbanization, underlie much of the common understanding of the causes behind land use and land cover changes. Studies further demonstrate that such simplistic explanations generally rely on deductive models, and the use of short-term data from localised studies (Guyer and Lambin 1993; Niejmeijer 1996). Neither contemporary nor historical food production systems in Africa can be understood and measured in relationship to static equilibrium models of optimal resource use (Goldman1995; Dahlberg 1994; Kjekshus 1977). We will apply a political-ecology approach that focuses on the social relations that structure peoples’ access to and control of basic resources and how these relationships are linked to extra local, regional and global processes in shaping local environments (Chew 2001; Hornborg 2001; Broch-Due and Schroeder 2000; Widgren and Sutton 2003; Håkansson 1989). Unlike, Neo-Malthusian and Boserupian perspectives (cf. Netting 1993, Turner et al. 1993, Djurfelt 2001), we argue, that increased population densities do not by themselves lead to environmental degradation or to agricultural intensification. Thus, we view the forms of land use, productivity, and the distribution of resources as the result of interactions and power relationships at several levels of inter-community integration from local social institutions (Håkansson 1989, 1995, 1998) to regional/global processes (Hornborg 2001; Ferguson 1994). The building of local assets may occur when political power and long-term security is based on regional resources rather than dependent on external national/global linkages (Gudeman 2001). 3. HYPOTHESES The project will examine four parameters that affect food production and human environmental impact: 1. population. 2. climate. 3. trade, exchange, and markets, and 4. conflict. Thematically, Håkansson will focus on the issues of trade, exchange and the impact of national and global political and economic factors of change. Börjeson will examine the role of population dynamics as a factor of regional interaction, including migration patterns and conflicts, and their relation to extreme weather events. The main task of the doctoral project will be to work with land-cover changes (see project description below). 1. Population. We will obtain spatial and temporal profiles of the co-variation between population dynamics and food production in order to evaluate the importance of other underlying causes of land use and cover change, such as trade networks, and social and political relations. A hypothesis is that, changes in agricultural practices and productivity also affect population and migration patterns, as well as vice versa, thus creating self-reinforcing processes of change. The population variable must therefore be treated primarily as a regional factor of change (cf. McCann 1995). This is a fact that is largely neglected in more unidirectional and deterministic theories on the role of population in agricultural development, e.g. Malthusian and Boserupian scenarios.

26

2. Climate. An hypothesis is that extreme weather events, related to recent global warming or historically documented cases, such as the recurrent El Nino event, greatly affects regional patterns of food production and exchange. In order to combat the challenges of current global warming scenarios, which predicts an increase in catastrophic weather events, we will trace the history of such events in the study region and explore their effects on land use, trade networks, population movements and conflicts. 3. Trade and exchange. Economic dependency through the capitalist world system created an extension in space of economic relationships that often led to a decline in local asset development in Africa and elsewhere (Guyer 1995). In eastern Africa exchange of goods and services were, and are, still partly embedded in a ‘moral economy’ of social relationships, such as marriage and kinship, that interface with markets and trade. We hypothesise that the influences of world-systems processes on regional trade and social exchanges affected land use and food production. For example: a) Food import from outside the region leads to a decline in local food production and deterioration in soil / vegetation conditions. b) Market or government produced risks and low prices leads to decline in food production and low investment in land. c) Intensity of marriage and kinship relations between cultivators and pastoralists is directly related to their ability to adapt to new economic and demographic conditions. 4. Conflict. Warfare, raiding, and ethnic tensions have a direct impact on the ability for communities by affecting regional trade, cooperation, and economic security in many parts of Africa. However, contrary to for example Larson et al. (2002 p. 6), we see conflicts, not simply as ‘special cases’ of national development, but as an important factor for understanding the history of food production and land use changes in a regional context (cf. Widgren in print, Widgren and Sutton 2003). For example: a) conflicts may exclude land from productive and/or sustainable use, and create disincentives for sustainable land use, and b) conflicts may not always have been merely detrimental for economic interactions between groups of people, but have also co-existed along with trade and exchange networks, as part of sustained economic interactions (Börjeson 2003). Referenser Broch-Due, V & R. A. Schroeder (eds.). 2000. Producing Nature and Poverty in Africa. Uppsala: Nordic Institute of

African Studies. Bunnell, T.G. and Coe, N.M. 2001. Spaces and scales of innovation. Progress in Human Geography, 25(4): 569-589. Börjeson, Lowe. 2003. In Widgren, M. & J.E.G. Sutton (eds.). Chew, Sing, C. 2001. World Ecological Degradation. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press. Dahlberg, A. 1994. Contesting Views and Changing Paradigms. The land degradation debate in Southern Africa.

Discussion Paper 6, Nordiska Afrikainstitutet, Uppsala. Djurfeldt, G. 2001. Mera Mat. Att brödföda en växande befolkning. Arkiv förlag, Lund. Ferguson, J. 1994. The Anti-Politics Machine. Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press. Gibson, C. C. et al. 2000. The concept of scale and the human dimensions of global change: a survey. Ecological

Economics, 32: 217-239. Goldman, A. 1995. Threats to Sustainability in African Agriculture: Searching for Appropriate Paradigms. Human

Ecology, 23:291-334. Gudeman, S. 2001. The Anthropology of Economy. Oxford: Blackwell’s. Guyer, J. I. 1995. Introduction: The Currency Interface and Its Dynamics. In J. I. Guyer (ed.) Money Matters.

London: James Currey. Guyer, J & E. F. Lambin 1993 Land Use in an Urban Hinterland: Ethnography and Remote Sensing in The Study of

African Intensification. American Anthropologist 95(4). Hornborg, A. 2001. The Power of the Machine. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

27

Håkansson, N. T. 1989. Social and Political Aspects of Intensive Agriculture in East Africa: Some Models from Cultural Anthropology. Azania (Journal of the British Institute in Eastern Africa) 24:12-20.

- 1995. Irrigation, Population Pressure, and Exchange in Pre-Colonial Pare of Tanzania. In Barry Isaac (ed.) Research in Economic Anthropology. Vol 16. Pp 297-323. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

- 1998. Rulers and Rainmakers in Pre-Colonial South Pare, Tanzania: The Role Exchange and Ritual Experts in Political Fragmentation. Ethnology 37:263-283.

Kjekshus, H. 1977. Ecology Control and Economic Development in East African History. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Lambin, E. F. et al. 2001. The causes of land-use and land-cover change: moving beyond the myths. Global Environmental Change 11: 261-269.

Lambin, E. F. and Ehrlich, D. 1997. Land-cover Changes in Sub-Saharan Africa (1982-1991): Application of a change Index Based on Remotely Sensed Surface Temperature and Vegetation Indices at a Continental Scale: REMOTE SENS. ENVIRON. 61:181-200.

Larson, R., H. Holmén and M. Hammarskjöld. 2002. Agricultural Development in Sub-Saharan Africa. Afrint Working Paper No. 1. Dept. of Sociology, Lund University.

Liverman, D. Et al. 1998. People and Pixels. Linking Remote Sensing and Social Science. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

McCann, J.C. 1995. People of the Plow. An agricultural history of Ethiopia, 1800-1990. The University of Wisconsin Press, Wisconsin.

McConnell, W. J. 2000. Human-environment relations in Madagascar: the importance of spatial and temporal perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation in Geography, Clark University, Massachusetts.

Mortimer, M. 1998. Roots in the African Dust. Sustaining the Drylands. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press. Netting, Robert McC. 1993. Smallholders, Householders: Farm Families and the Ecology of Intensive, Sustainable

Agriculture. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Niemeijer, D. 1996. The Dynamics of African Agricultural History: Is it Time for a New Development Paradigm?

Development and Change, 27:87-110. Nyerges, E. 2000. The Ethnography of Landscape: GIS and Remote Sensing in the Study of Forest Change in West

African Guinea Savanna. American Anthropologist 102(2):271.289. Reid, R.S. Et al. 2000. Land-use and land-cover dynamics in response to changes in climatic, biological and socio-

political forces: the case of southwestern Ethiopia. Landscape Ecology, 15: 339-355. Singh, A. 1989. Digital change detection techniques using remotely-sensed data: Int. J. Remote sensing. 10. 989-1003. Turner, B.L., Hydén, G. and Kates, R. (eds) 1993. Population Growth and Agricultural Change in Africa. Gainesville:

University Press of Florida. Widgren, Mats and John E. G. Sutton (eds). Forthcoming 2003. Islands of Intensive Agriculture in Eastern Africa.

Oxford: James Currey. - In print. bin Ladin och bevattningstunnlarna – två perspektiv på hållbar samhällsutveckling. I essäbok utgiven om områdesgruppen för Kultur, Säkerhet och Hållbar samhällsutveckling. Riksbankens jubileumsfond

Holocene Land Use in Central Africa : a GIS perspective

Philippe Lavachery and Paul Sinclair Using GIS techniques, it is now possible to integrate sets of data that could not be computed easily before. For instance the importance of soils for the understanding of prehistoric land use patterns can now be assessed. Distribution maps of more than 400 dated Holocene sites in Central Africa were compiled in three chronological groups ca 12000-3500BP, ca 3500-1000BP and 1000BP-recent. Soils within a 5km buffer around each site were compared statistically with the overall distribution in the FAO soils map to address three questions. Did prehistoric people choose specific soils for settlement? Did land use patterns change through time? Is there any correlation between technological and/or socio-economical changes and shifts in land use? The results seem clear: prehistoric communities preferred certain soils types, patterns of land use changed during the Holocene and these changes can be correlated to the appearance of farming in Central Africa.

28