Assessing the effects of eviction on household food security of livestock keepers from the Usangu wetlands in SW Tanzania

J A Ngailo

Uyole Agricultural Research Centre P.O.Box 400, Mbeya Tanzania.
jerryngailo@yahoo.com

Abstract

The study on effects of recent eviction of livestock keepers from the Usangu wetlands in Mbarali District Tanzania on selected affected respondents was carried out in Mbarali and Kilwa Districts. The motive of the eviction by government authorities was based on the need to conserve the wetlands and associated areas.

The main objective of this research was to study the consequences of such evictions on food security of the affected livestock keepers. Data for this work was collected from 74 respondents from six selected villages, 3 in Mbarali and Kilwa 3 in Districts. The methods used were a variety of participatory methods and household questionnaires. Participant observation and secondary data sources were also used to supplement information.

Results from analyses have clearly shown that 56% of respondents had the worst food insecurity because food scarcity occurred since many of livestock keepers lost their food reserves during the unplanned evacuations. Livestock contributed over 60% of income required to buy food. Prices after evictions for several foodstuffs such as maize, rice, meat, and many other commodities skyrocketed making life very difficult and miserable to many of the evicted households. This was because unilaterally planned, haphazard, and mandatory relocations forced many to leave without any preparations and forced them to settle in areas without life assurances. The high death rates of animals due to diseases, trekking long distances and during transportation to new areas of settlement in Kilwa, also caused decline of herd size.

Key words: conservation, environment, food insecurity, livestock keeping, relocation

Introduction

One of the first and foremost goals of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) formally established by the United Nations General Assembly in 2002 was eradicating hunger and extreme poverty (MDGs, 2000). Specific targets included halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people who suffer from hunger and the proportion of people whose income is less that $1 a day. In reality, achieving these targets is the responsibility of each government in the Developing World. However, developments skeptics assert that, even if by the year 2015 such goals are met in full, about 900 million  people will still remain in chronic poverty mostly in the Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia because of many reasons including some bad policy decisions that are negative to development. However, for Tanzania attaining food security has been in some cases affected by policy decisions that have affected certain sections of its population. For instance, on the ninth day of March 2006, as part of a move to safeguard environment, the government issued a notice to ban all livestock keepers’ activities in Mbarali and in the Usangu Game Reserve (UGR) and other areas (Ngailo et al 2009). In relation to the same, a strong notice was issued to those with exceedingly high numbers of livestock to reduce them. He decision was reached after hastily concluding that the drought incidences in the wetlands, the shortage of electricity, and the deaths of wildlife in Ruaha National Park was a result of overpopulation by livestock leading to the degradation of environment, that also caused eratic flows of Great Ruaha River (GRR) and a tremendous decline in water levels in Mtera (Figure 1) and Kidatu dams that generated over 80% of hydro-electricity. Both dams are supplied by the GRR. The critical shortage of electricity resulted into extreme power rationing throughout the country critically affected almost every sector of the economy and mostly small and medium scale enterprises (Ngailo and Samiji, 2008).  As a result of this notice, all livestock keepers were evicted from the wetlands and many places in the Usangu plains in Mbarali District. The wetlands are interconnected with the GRR in the Rufiji Basin and finally ends up in the Indian Ocean in the east of the country.Surprisingly, power shortage and food insecurity in country has been experienced even after the eviction of livestock keepers even during prevalence of heavyrains.

However, natural resources generally are exploited for development purposes and the unexpected prohibition from use may results into extreme and devastating impacts on livelihoods of the affected communities. Evictions can lead to various dimension of poverty in households that are self provisioning and relatively income and food secure (Brockington 2005; Ngailo et al 2009).To bureaucrats and conservationists the eviction process was regarded as part of a progressive step but on the other hand causing a deepening poverty cycle on part of affected livestock keepers. In all parts of the contested wetlands, natural resources particularly pasture, water and land were the critical limiting resources for development, not merely needed for productions of various types, but also in the broader context of the population-agriculture-environment nexus.

It follows therefore that, eviction as a development intervention to establish a protected area in locations where poor households have depended for over half a century, had some socio economic conflicts but also induced a deepening poverty cycle among affected households. Scarcity of quantitative information on the effect of eviction in food security is wanting. The inadequacy of information on possible effects of eviction on livelihoods normally prevents ideas on proper policy rectification on the same. It precludes future organized and humanly relocation exercises that take into account peoples’ socio-economic conditions. Curran and Tshombe (2001) asserted that the evidence necessary to answer the question as to how displaced people are negatively affected by conservation has been difficult to locate. Sufficient data to ascertain this claim has not been collected by those who criticise conservation or by conservationists themselves by displacing communities.

The general objective of this paper was to provide quantitative information based on vivid conditions that would assist policy and decision makers in similar situations not only in Tanzania but also in other parts of the world to forge appropriate policy interventions.  

Specific objectives were:

• To assess how the evictions had affected food security of evicted cattle keepers.To study short and long term coping mechanisms considered by livestock keepers

• to safeguard their livelihoods through the study of alternative livelihood strategies.

Methodology

Description of the study Areas

The approximate geographical location of the Usangu wetland is about latitudes 7⁰41’ and 9⁰25’ South, and longitudes 33⁰40’ and 35⁰40’ East (Figure 1) in the Southwestern part of Tanzania. Many small and large rivers flow past the Usangu plains from the Livingstone and the Uporoto mountain ranges feeding the Great Ruaha (GR) that covers an area of about 68,000 km² within the Rufiji basin. Great Rufiji Basin covers an area of 178,000 km^2.

Figure 1.The map showing the Usangu wetlands, Mtera and Kidatu HEP dams and the Western and Eastern Wetland (Source: Modified from Mwakalila, 2005)

The GR encompasses the Usangu area to cover a total area of 20,811 km². The villages selected for this study were in Mbeya and Lindi Regions. Without adequate research areas in Coast, Ruvuma, Mtwara and Lindi Regions were proposed for livestock keepers’ settlement. The areas were thought to have plenty of land, pasture and water resources crucial for livestock keeping. In our study we talked with livestock keepers who settled in Mbarali and Kilwa Districts. The villages that were selected were Kiranjeranje, Nanjirinji, Somanga and Marendego in Kilwa District and in Mbarali District Mawindi, Ikanutwa and Igunda villages were earmarked for this research.

Selection of key respondents

Sampling frame:

Villages were sampled at random but the 74 respondents were picked up without randomization. The sampling frame for respondents was solely livestock keepers who were relocated to new areas out-side the Usangu wetlands and to distant places in Lindi Region.

Sampling Unit:

All households that were affected by the eviction exercises were the target for selected for inclusion. Ethnic groups such as the Wasangu, Wahehe, Wasukuma and Wabarbaig were all considered for inclusion in the sample since they were the main ethnic groups who kept livestock in the wet lands. All selected household members were asked whether they have been ejected from the wetlands.

Collection of secondary data

Evictions data from other sources generated by other various researchers and scholars were also reviewed. Important sources for this subject were found in Mbarali and Kilwa District Councils offices, Uyole Agricultural Research Institutes, from Departments in the Ministries of Agriculture and Cooperatives on crop yield levels and Ministry of Livestock Development on number of livestock and crop yield data and price trends.

Collection of primary data

Quantitative and qualitative methods

Households questionnaires with open ended questions were used to collect most data. Through respondents’ and researchers’ interactions, counting and measuring resulted into summaries of quantitative data e.g. tables and graphs etc by combining with parametric descriptions gave strength to our findings.

Qualitative data were provided by respondents as general views but most of discussions the time all moderated by researchers’ on-field experience.

Other methods used were:

Informal discussions

The investigators made several on-spot interviews with some individuals on the effects of relocation on food security.

Key informant interview

By these methods views of some selected members of the affected communities were captured and this avoided an overly top down analysis of the institutional context. Key informants provided an excellent views community representing the affected respondents on the possible effects of eviction on livelihoods and specifically on food security.

Site visits

As with preceding methods researchers paid visits to livestock keeping facilities and farms of evicted livestock keepers. This allowed the research team to identify among others unexplored, issues that were not covered in other methodologies.

Data Analysis

Simple statistical parameters of descriptive statistics providing means, proportions in percentages, frequencies, standard deviations, coefficient of variations of data of the affected communities with regard to some parameters was performed with the Scientific Package for Social Scientists (SPSS 2000) software to assist analysing the impact of the eviction process as indicated by a number of parameters collected as qualitative primary data.

Results and discussion

Land ownership for crop production before evacuation of livestock keepers from wetlands

Most (>95%) of the land used by occupants was individually owned. Land was one of the most attractive and important things that enticed many of the pastoralists to flock the wetlands. In the wetlands, they had the possibility to own and utilise vast areas of the cultivable land at all times of the year and use the extensive pasture resources. Table 1 show that many of the land owners had the opportunity to occupy large tracts of land for all purposes. Over 60 % of the respondents occupied over 20 acres (>9ha) of very fertile soil mostly from alluvial material considered to be rich in plant nutrients. Very few (4.1%) had owned land of less than 10 acres. There were some of the livestock keepers who owned over 100 acres of land for all purposes but mostly for livestock keeping.

Land had an economic, social, and cultural dimension that could not easily be manipulated by pastoralists. Land water, pastures are the natural capitals, very crucial for wealth generation (DFID 1999). It is from these assets that having sustainable livelihood is possible. The attraction to Mbarali were the natural resources available for production of ample foods, utilization of pasture and water to feed a large number of livestock.

None among the key Ministries and other organization e.g. Ministries of Natural Resource and Tourism, Energy, Livestock Development and Water including the Tanzania National Parks (TANAPA) or the government at large had considered providing complete compensation to evictees for their land that was important for addressing food security. This also shows how the whole process between ministries was uncoordinated and lacked dedication of protecting the livestock keepers from succumbing to any form of poverty. At the end it was politics that probably played on the foreground. This was disastrous because in absence of land both livestock keeping and cultivation food insecurity dominates. 

Eviction had implications on strategies to keep, acquire new lands and establishment of new crops. This was more difficult especially when the affected communities went to areas where they have never been there before. The value of lands that were forfeited and left behind by the evicted pastoralists was high and was not fully compensated. To most livestock keepers farming was part of an altrenative strategy towards livelihood diversification, which is understood to minimize the vulnerability of small-scale farmers’ households against risks and shocks and more so for food security.

Households food security before eviction

The effects of evictions on food insecurity to the households of selected respondents were studied using a mixture of qualitative and quantitative methods Table 2. Results were variable between those who were evicted and remained in Mbarali District and those who relocated to Kilwa. The majority of evicted households cultivated their own food and this enabled them produce enough food for themselves before eviction. Whereas over 75% had good to very good food security situation before eviction (Table 2), over 80% worse to worst had food security problems. Over 56% of respondents complained of worst food situation and this is an extremely large number of respondents.  What was required by evictors was the need to conduct the exercise in manner that will not result into evictees suffering from food insecurity or any related factors. Careful scrutiny of the areas for settlements was necessary and since those who were affected did not receive any food assistance in the receiving villages; this had a serious food effect on them. Although most of them were also good farmers, they could not succeed to produce good crops because the soils explained above had low fertility and the rains were poor and unreliable, all such were detrimental to crop production. Proper planning was needed for resettlement to avoid such bad effects of eviction. Proper planning could have been a result of a good land resource survey that would have led to identification of opportunities and constraints. In such a case solutions to food insecurity would have been identified.

The food security that the majority had before was due to the fact that livestock keepers had ample land some had over 20 hectare per household and even more for cultivation of various cash and food crops. The area in the wetlands was favourable because it was fertile enough to permit good crop growth because in seasons with low rainfall, livestock keepers applied irrigation. As a result of this many households were confident of having enough food to support families for whole the year.

The situation wasn’t similar in areas where they resettled particularly in Kilwa where most of them settled. In the District of Kilwa good number settled in the Lowland Zone (Coastal zone). The rainfall in this zone is unreliable, very hot (average temp 35⁰C), humid (relative humidity 80-85%) and mainly with sandy soils of low fertility and water holding capacity (KDP (2008). In such areas crop failures are a common phenomena. And this is why most of them experienced more incidences of food shortage than in the wetlands.

The concept of food security originated in the international development literature of the 1970s, and was originally utilized on an aggregate (country or regional) level to refer to the ability of a sociopolitical entity to produce or import sufficient food supply to maintain its population (Harrison, 2004). The Sustainable Livelihood Approach (SLA 1999) defines food security as a situation in which all people, at all times, have physical, social, and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food which meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life (Carney, 2002).

However, the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) (2003) defines household food security, as the ability of a household to obtain sufficient food at all times so as to be able to live a healthy and sustainable active life. Both the SLA (1999) and FAO (2003) definitions put at the center stage the need for the household to have adequate and high quality nutrition which the livestock keepers lacked.

Figure 2 indicates how the evictees in both Kilwa and Mbarali obtained their food. Evictees addressed food security before than after evictions because most households could adequately produce their own food. Households that depended on the market for food were less than 10%. According to key informants, all respondents, besides keeping livestock, evictees also cultivated different varieties of crops such as rice, maize, beans, sweet potatoes, groundnuts; finger millet etc and this had strengthened their food security situation before eviction.

Figure 2. Mode of getting food

Purchasing food from the market obviously was one of the coping strategies by evictees but at all times it depended heavily on household income. Given the situation they were in, most households were not able to buy sufficient amounts of food for their families.

The household food security of the cattle keepers was ensured because many (>80%) of those interviewed as already stated above, were also good cultivators. While in the wetlands, each year regardless of weather situations using draft power they had the ability to produce adequate amounts of food for their families. The soils in the wetlands were very suitabl for cultivation of a variety of crops (SMUWC 2005).

Displacement to new areas had greatly affected them because firstly, the soils were dissimilar and secondly, weather patterns were also diverse from what they were used to. Thirdly, their largest herds of livestock were reduced and most of the animals particularly the healthy, tough and hardy animals were all sold to take care of the displacement costs. This left many households especially the majority of those who settled in Mbarali and Kilwa to have problems in carrying out farming activities in absence of reliable draught power. 

Inability of livestock keepers to reserve food

Normally food security is an important component of household survival and it is only possible if households can reserve sufficient amounts to satisfy all family members for now and future. Majority of evictees were able to store an average of over 9 tons of staples (rice or maize combined) annually before eviction (Table 3). This amount was reduced to about 71 and 122 kg for maize and paddy respectively and much less for beans and other foodstuffs after eviction. Significant effects of evictions according to farmers were vividly noted in the first season after relocation and many continued to suffer in subsequent seasons too.

A variety of crops were grown some of them included maize, rice, finger millet, groundnuts and sweet potatoes. All crops were for purposes such as food and trade but besides animals e.g. cattle, goats and sheep, rice was the most important crop for trade. Sales of most food crops were done only if there was surplus in the households. Many rice varieties were grown to suit both family food needs and the market. For instance, Kilombero rice variety was preferred most because it has good cooking qualities that also fetch good price in the market and hence was also very suitable for household tastes.

Over 50-60% of the rice crop was sold to earn cash for the family. Rice has the ability to address both food and income security. Ngailo et al (2007) while studying about rice in the Sukumaland where livestock keepers also cultivate rice found it to strongly take care of both food and income securities. Relocation meant that all of such advantages or opportunities were missed by most respondents because in some locations where cattle keepers settled such a crop and many other could not grow. Eviction had an impact on food situations because during the period food security changed drastically from better to worse.

This was related to the fact that most of the evictees had no enough and good lands for farming and also due to lack of timing of the season. Those who departed earlier in month of March in 2006 could only utilise part of the rainy main season (Masika) for crop production and this was a cause of inadequate crop for a family.

The eviction exercise did not take into account of such an important factor. This could be noted from the fact that no food aid was provided by the government to assist livestock keepers households with food poverty in areas of settlements. This resulted into majority of respondents complaining bitterly that they did not have sufficient food resources some of them are not getting enough food even at this moment.

Incidences of food shortages after eviction

Respondents were asked if they experienced any food shortages that have been caused by eviction in the present location. Figure 3 provides some information on this subject, 59% of respondents faced shortages. About 30% did not note any food shortages.

Figure 3. Were there food shortages due to relocation?

The situation was more critical to those who relocated to Lindi because out of the 22 cattle keepers who were interviewed from Kilwa, 100% had faced the problem.

Number of meals taken per day

The number of meals taken per day was also assessed in the respondents’ households (Table 4). Usually many of the households of cattle keepers and particularly the Wasukuma remarked that, under normal circumstances i.e. before eviction a family could afford three meals per day. Table 4 provides some responses on the same just after eviction had taken place. Only Over 78% of respondents took two meals per day only after eviction. This was caused by scarcity of food during this time due to the fact that some of their food was destroyed when law enforcing agents ejected them out of their homes. They had no opportunity to make a planned and smooth relocation to new areas. Planned relocation would have involved stocking adequate foods to cater for the needs at certain period of time.

Only a large proportion (93.2%) of those who participated in the study had the chance to take two meals, many in this group had earlier shifted without adequate food for their households. The worst situation was revealed when some of them were forced out of their homes without adequate food reserves. Some respondents lamented that in some cases their remaining houses were set on fire by law enforcing agents hence decimating not only the buildings they have built over the years but also all their food reserves.

Having fewer meals was a sign of food insecurity and that food security also is more critical problem when food is of substandard in nature. In many households, food seems to have been sufficient before eviction because many of them cultivated food crops and were able to sale between 50-60% of their surplus to other areas as far as Dar-es-salam.

The Ihefu wetlands lie within the Usangu plains which although are characterized by semi arid climate but a large proportion of the soils have the ability to produce enough food because there was always a possibility to irrigate. The resettlement exercise with a focus to conserve the wetlands and water sources, set within already unstable and dynamic contexts of economic and social change, exacerbated the pre-existing conditions of poverty. Brockington (2002) and Kiwasila and Brockington (1996) observed the same in other areas in Tanzania.

Unfavourable changes in food prices

The situation after and before show that prices of various food commodities were lower before eviction. Those affected witnessed a radical change in food prices (Table 5). Radical changes in prices of food had exacerbated food insecurity particularly in households whose many of their livestock died during transportation process. Over 75% of respondents asserted that food prices were not affordable and unrealistic. Deaths of animals during transportation or shifting to other areas were related to the fact that the animals were live banks collapsed. Livestock played multiple roles because besides playing other social roles, their sales during food scarcity greatly averted the hunger problem. Sometimes live animals were bartered for food and this was very common in many livestock households. 

 Some important foodstuff e.g. maize and beans, the price increased by 30-40%.  Coupled with high rates of deaths of most animals that would have been sold to avert the food insecurity crisis, many affected households were left helpless. Majority of the 59% of respondents are those who went to Kilwa and they are the ones who suffered most because of the lengthy journey to Kilwa. This journey was not only very expensive and dangerous but resulted into record mortalities of their weary animals.

A report by Ministry of Livestock Development (MoLD) fact finding team indicated that in areas e.g. of Namtumbo, Tunduru, Songea and Lindi etc etc where they visited and separately discussed about with few resettled livestock keepers indicated that over 70% of their animals died en-route (MoLD, 2008). A well planned eviction would have allowed a step by step acclimatization of the animals while gradually proceeding to final destinations in the coast. Sadly, no food assistance was advanced to the suffering households particularly during their journey to such areas or even cope with resettlement.

In short, evictions exacerbated “food poverty” in some households. All households that were below the food poverty line were considered ‘food poor’. Many food poor households were not able to achieve the minimum expenditure required to purchase the basic foods during that time because there was no money that they was usually earned by selling animals.

On the other hand, the uncontrolled rise in food and other commodity prices in both Mbarali and in Kilwa Districts harmed the most affected and the poorest households, accelerating the decline in their already precarious food insecurity situation. Soaring food prices had contributed to the increase the problem of widespread rural poverty of evicted livestock keepers.

Changes in food varieties eaten by households

The present study has also shown that changes occurred that affected some of the types of foods that the evictees had to consume after relocation. From Table 6 it indicates that rice did not become the main staple except for maize. The change in the main food varieties also affected eating habits of the new arrivals in new areas. Majority of those in this group were those who settled in villages in Kilwa. The main food in Lindi was mainly maize and very little of rice. Rice if available proved to be very expensive and unaffordable to many evicted families. A little above 10 % did not feel any remarkable change in the same.

The main food varieties that were used before eviction in Mbarali included rice, porridge (locally called ugali) from maize. Rice and maize were produced locally by cattle keepers, and they were the most common foodstuffs available.   

Were cattle keepers solely responsible for what happened in Wetlands that resulted in eviction and hence food insecurity?

The expulsion of cattle keepers from the Wetlands and their ultimate settlement in various areas in Mbarali District itself, Lindi, Coast, Ruvuma and Mtwara regions was triggered by a series of factors.  As a major policy decision the intention by the government to safeguard environment that was seen to have deteriorated affecting not only the Usangu plains and the wetlands only but also the Rufiji Basin ecosystem (RBE). Livestock keeping was taken as the major culprit and a cause of severe water depletion leading to the drying up of the Mtera and Kidatu hydroelectric power generating dams located within RBE. During the 2006 dry season the drying of the Great Ruaha River forced the Mtera Hydroelectric plant to close and this reduced the Kidatu Hydroelectric Plant’s production of electricity by almost 50%.

As a result of the above developments the only antidotes for problem were found in the eviction of the livestock keepers from the wetlands and to expand the Ruaha National Park by including the Usangu Game Reserve part of it.  A large area was placed under the Tanzania National Parks Authority (TANAPA), which is relatively better funded and in general was regarded as more effective at enforcement against encroachment. At present with the expansion of the protected area Ruaha National Park, has become the largest park in Africa, with an area of just over 28,000 km². The boundaries of the expanded area are not yet final. The decision to expand the protected area was thought that it would allow full recharge of the HEP producing dams and maintain environmental integrity of the whole area.

However, it is still not clear whether the drastic decision taken by policy makers was backed by adequate data from research. Water levels at the two dams have never fully improved because even until todate when the livestock keepers are out, the flow of Ruaha river was still lowest and its flow has not been permanent, similarly water levels at Mtera HEP dam have continued to vary and sometimes fall to critical levels. This has not caused any relief in power rationing in the country signaling the fact that there are other factors other the activities of the livestock keepers that have a hand in the issue.

For instance the climate change dimension needs to be looked into keenly since it seems to have a great influence in the prevailing situation.  Simple analysis of the climatic data in this study indicated that the climatic variability explains a lot about the decline in the Ruaha river flows and the water levels decline in the HEP producing dams. It was the climate that was the greatest push factor that forced livestock keepers to take their animals in the Ihefu wetlands in the UGR where there was plenty of dry season pasture for the multitudes of their livestock.

Figure 4 Average annual precipitation variations in Usangu Wetlands (Mbarali station)

Figure 4 says a lot about the rainfall pattern in the Mbarali District. The great variations that have existed over the years contribute to greater proportions to the changes that are observed within the district and thus the whole Rufiji Basin Ecosystem. Mwakalila (2005) found that annual rainfall variability accounted for over 35% of the variations in water levels at Mtera dam.

Therefore expelling the cattle keepers alone will not resolve problems that have sprung up over the years but rather a need arises to effectively deal with the climatic restraints.  A critical study on climatic adaptation strategies within and outside the District was needed. It should be known that evidence from research findings from Mwakalila (2005) showed that the whole of the District including Mtera and Kidatu HEP are effectively recharged when rainfall on the Mporoto and the Livingstone mountain ranges in the upper part of the catchments was adequate.

This research was not intended to oppose the use of restrictions on environment damage per se but to challenge the effectiveness of using this approach without carrying out a thorough analysis of the issues and without taking into account of the potential devastating impacts on local peoples’ livelihoods. In the cause of such a process there was a possibility to avoid negative consequences that were likely to occur by adequately taking adequate precautions.

Coping mechanisms used by communities to safeguard their livelihoods

Short term coping mechanisms used by communities

In this study the researchers probed further to find out short-lived solutions that were employed by cattle keepers to give themselves at least a period to run normal life. This was an open ended question and the answers given were many but most of them were synthesised to come up with a list presented in Table 7.

The main option expressed by many (40%) respondents was that of migrating to new areas but in the next category were those who seemingly had no options (24.3%). Respondents preferred to shift to other areas within or outside the District and possibly sell their animals there. This option would have allowed many of them to keep most of their animals out side Mbarali District but also use the cash to strongly address issues related to food security. It would have allowed livestock keepers to continue to have substantial annual incomes from the sales of the animals annually even though such a move was only temporary. Livestock keepers would have had the mandate to control the market as they would want to. Controlling the market would have avoided the sale many of the animals at throw away prices as it happened during eviction. Similarly, the largest proportion in this group was of those who remained in Mbarali District. Some (about 16%) among those who remained in Mbarali had the idea that after they would slaughter and sell their animals to acquire alternative land within the district and undertake agriculture.

Selling the animals and keeping the cash in the bank was a short lived reaction to the eviction problem by cattle keepers. Over 13% of the respondents chose this option, such a solution although important was not enough to sustain the households in income and food security. Even so, the money kept in bank would not be sustainable provide the cattle keeper with reliable and adequate income because the interest rates payable in the banks are low. A considerable proportion (over 24%) found it difficult to take another option to protect their livelihood.

The strategies mentioned above though not at all sustainable but were intended to maintain the livelihood of some of the households. From the responses, we learn also that it may be difficult in the short run for cattle keepers to respond to drastic economic changes unless conditions are favourable to do so. This being the case more time was required by cattle keepers to consider resettlement.

Long term coping mechanisms proposed by communities

One of the government’s solutions to mitigate environmental damage, resource competition and conflicts between livestock keepers and the conservationists was to sensibly and humbly relocate them from ecologically fragile areas of the wetlands. Probably, this was the only way out suitable for the various organisations interested in this issue e.g. the Tanzania National Parks (TANAPA), the Tanzania Electricity Supply Company (TANESCO) and the government inclusive. It was thought that the eviction would yield many environmental benefits that will be realised and also desirable to all stakeholders. Expected benefits included the availability of limitless water required to recharge rivers including the Great Ruaha and the hydro power plants downstream, protection of natural resources for the benefit of human and game in the Ruaha National Park thus promoting future tourism and also reduce land degradation that was said to be taking place in the plains due a large number of animals.

However, recapitulating past evictions that have been carried out in Tanzania (Lane, 1997; Kiwasila and Brockington.1996; Brockington, 2002; Brockington, 2005) the present unfortunate situation is a series of future similar situations that livestock keepers will face. Livestock keepers had similar views because of the groups that were interviewed in this study some of them had unwillingly travelled a long way from Mwanza, Shinyanga, Arusha to the wetlands but still found it hard to maintain their way of living i.e. grazing livestock in communal lands.

The majority over 44% (n=34) of those interviewed thought that it was worth to discuss with the government to assist them to acquiring land for other activities and livestock keeping (Table 8). After being evicted from the wetlands many seem to understand that keeping livestock in communally owned lands will never be a lasting solution.

From the responses gathered, many of or respondents indeed understood the problems facing them now and in the future but most of them are still ignorant of the procedures used to acquire land in Tanzania. During key informant discussions, the few who had some knowledge about it complained that they had faced many problems when they attempted to introduce the ideas and request to concerned authorities in the districts.

Conclusions and Recommendations

• The decision was unwarranted because it was not the number of livestock per se that solely caused the destruction of the environment but other land uses were also concerned.

• This study has shown that there was no livelihood-linked conservation of natural resources. While there were many other groups such as farmers who were responsible for the calamity, only livestock keepers were targeted. The displacement of livestock keepers was not limited to the physical dislocation of households and livestock but also accompanied land losses and this ultimate effect on food security. Eviction as form of conservation contributed directly to a worsening food security of the livestock keepers. Many negative consequences were generated that affected for livestock and other communities. There were a decline in prices of both crop and animal products and in some cases prices went high and this affected affordability by livestock keepers. This did more harm than good to the food security system of the livestock keepers. There was a possibility of assisting the victims of food insecurity by having a well prepared relocation plans that evaded possible food insecurity.

• Future policy decisions need to have detailed information on the causes of environmental destruction. The current step taken is not sustainable either because where the livestock keepers have been forced to settle in areas where there were no elaborate land use plans in place.

The following are some suggestions

• The use of previous results from research data would have assisted to make a proper decision. This would have been followed by a careful scrutiny of areas earmarked for resettlements before resettlement was carried out and since those who were affected did not receive any immediate food assistance in the receiving villages; this seriously affected many evictees.

• There should be clear policies from parties who benefit from the eviction on fair and just way to pay the full costs of the relocation process, including the assurance that no food insecurity will result thereof.

• Since land is the greatest asset that livestock keepers needed but lost, there could have been a way in which those affected would be provided with assurances for title deeds to allow them legally acquire it from the new locations. This would have assisted in quelling future conflicts between authorities and livestock keepers or with other communities and assist them to secure food security.

Acknowledgements

I wish to acknowledge the Research for Poverty Alleviation (REPOA) for funding this research and the Tanzania government for granting me a permission to be absent from my work station while conducting this study. I wish to sincerely thank our livestock keepers in Mbarali and Kilwa Districts who were willing to take part in this important study.

References

Brockington  D 2005.The costs of conservation: monitoring economic change as a consequence of conservation policy at Mkomazi Game Reserve, Tanzania', in K.Homewood (ed.) Rural resources and local livelihoods in Africa, James Currey, Oxford.

Brockington, D.2002. Fortress Conservation: The Preservation of the Mkomazi Game Reserve Tanzania.Oxford: The International African Institute.pp245.

Curran B.and Tshombe T 2001. Integrating local Communities into amangement of protected areas: Lesson from D.R Congo and Cameroon. In African rain forest: Ecology and Conservation An interdisciplinary perspective Editors: White, L.J; W.Weber; A.Vedder; and L.Naughton-Treves. Pp 321-345. New Haven USA Yale University Press

Carney D 2002 “Sustainable Livelihood Approaches: Progress and Possibilities for Change”.United Kingdom Department for International Development. London pp45.

DFID 1999 Sustainable livelihood Approaches. Field Sheets. Department for International Development. Brighton. pp56.  

FAO  2003 Focus on Food Insecurity and Vulnerability – A review of the UN System Common Country Assessments and World Bank Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers.

Harrison G G 2004. Impact of poverty and household food security on the use of Preventive Medical Services in the California Health Interview Survey. California Center for Population Research. CCPR 002-06. On-Line Working Paper Series.

KDP 2008  Kilwa District Profile. Kilwa District Council pp150.

Kiwasila H and Brockington D 1996  Combining conservation with community development around Mkomazi Game Reserve.Miombo Technical Supplement. Pp 45.

Ngailo,  J.A; A.Kaswamila; C.J. Senkoro 2007. Rice in the Sukumaland and its importance in poverty alleviation. Research on Poverty Alleviation Papers.Mkuki Publishers pp 45.

Lane, A. 1997 Ngorongoro Voices:Indigenous Maasai residents of Ngorongoro Conservation Area in Tanzania give their Views on the Proposed General Management Plan. Swedish University Uppsalla pp75.

MoLD. 2008. Ministry of Livestock Development.Taarifa ya Katibu Mkuu Kutembelea Mikoa ya Lindi Mtwara, Ruvuma, na Iringa pp 45.

MDG. 2000. Millennium Development Goals. United Nations New York pp 148

Mwakalila, S. 2005 Water resources management guidelines in Ruaha Basin in Tanzania. In: Lankford, B.A., Mahoo, H.F. (Eds.),Proceedings of the East Africa Integrated River Basin Management Conference, 7^th–9^th, March 2005.ICE Hall, Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania, pp. 195–208.

Ngailo, J.A; P.A.A. Mwakilembe and J.T. Kaijage. 2009. A study on socioeconomic consequences of resettlement of livestock keepers from the Ihefu Wetlands. Research on Poverty alleviation. 15^th Annual Meeting White Sands Hotel Final Report pp 49.

Ngailo J.A and M.E.Samiji. 2008. The effects of power supply fluctuations on small and medium scale enterprises (SMES) in Dar-es-Salaam Tanzania. Research on Poverty alleviation (REPOA 2007)-13^th Annual Meeting White Sands Hotel Dar-es-salaam. .Annual Report White Sands Hotel pp 52.

SPSS. 2000. Scientific Package for Social Scientists

SWMUC.2005 Soil and Water Management Unit Report. Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania, pp234.

Received 10 October 2010; Accepted 26 October 2010; Published 6 March 2011

Go to top