 |
| Figure 1. Theoretical Framework |
| Livestock Research for Rural Development 26 (1) 2014 | Guide for preparation of papers | LRRD Newsletter | Citation of this paper |
There are incidences of impoverishment and livelihood changes among the pastoral societies following transformation in land use and livestock ownership. This paper investigates changes in livelihood to the pastoralists who were evicted from Ihefu Basin in Mbarali District and forced to settle in new resettlement areas. Household’s questionnaires, life stories, and focused group discussions with a sample of 110 resettled agro-pastoralists were used to capture the data.
Impoverishment was mostly evident among the pastoralists who resettled after sustaining loss of their livestock, making them become less dependent on livestock as their key source of income. In order to sustain their livelihoods, agro-pastoralists were forced to adopt new livelihoods including running petty business, growing tobacco, simsim and horticultural crops as well as pig rearing. Other strategies included rebuilding their herd sizes and trading animals. To enhance these livelihoods of resettled agro-pastoralists, land use planning that will take into account the interests of pastoralists needs to be instituted and appropriate resettlement plans should be put in place prior to setting any eviction process. In addition, livestock and social services should be improved.
Keywords: impoverishment, livelihoods, new economic activities, resettlements
Pastoralism often refers to extensive husbandry of herds of different species (cattle, sheep, goats, camels, and equines) requiring periodic migration to access pasture. A commonly used definition in literature is that pastoralist households are those in which at least 50% of household gross revenue (including income and consumption) comes from livestock or livestock-related activities (OXFAM 2008: Swift 1998). Agro-pastoralism describes the coexistence of both agricultural and grazing activities, although there may be different degrees of integration of these activities, with specific consequences for land use. An economic definition is that agro-pastoralists derive more than 50% of household gross revenue from livestock and 10-50% from farming (OXFAM 2008).
Pastoralism is a symbiotic relationship between local ecology, domesticated livestock and people in resource-scarce, climatically marginal and highly variable conditions (OXFAM 2008). This symbiotic relationship represents a complex form of natural resource management, involving a continuous ecological balance between pastures, livestock and people (OXFAM 2008, IFAD 2009). In order to sustain their livelihoods, pastoralists have demonstrated a natural form of adapting to climatic and ecological change (Birch and Grain 2008). They adapt to these changes by applying principles of flexibility and opportunism in managing the environment. In Tanzania, studies show that the Maasai migrants sometimes opt for non-pastoral economic activities as one of the alternatives of earning livelihoods (Bee et al 2002; Mung’ong’o et al 2 2004; Lynn 2010).
The history of livestock keeping has long been a part of the economy in Usangu and the Ihefu wetland areas of what is now described as Mbarali District. The indigenous Sangu people were recognized for their herds of cattle and cattle-raiding culture or behavior in the mid-19th century, before losing many livestock from disease, warfare, and changing political and economic circumstances. In the mid-20th century immigrant livestock keepers were for the first time allowed to settle in Ihefu Basin in large numbers: first ethnic were II-Parakuyu Maasai (in the 1950s), then Sukuma and others (1960s) (Walsh 2007: SMUWC 2001). Land was one of the important and attractive resources to majority of pastoralists to settle in Ihefu Basin. In the basin, they had the possibility to own and utilize vast areas of the cultivatable land throughout the year and extensive use of the existing pasture resource.
Pastoralists in Ihefu Basin in Mbarali District have stayed in the area for more than thirty years from 1972. The Ihefu Basin area was gazetted as a conservation area in 1998 (SMUWC 2001). The gazettement of Ihefu Basin as a conservation area opened up processes for pastoralists’ eviction. As part of the move to safeguard the environment in Ihefu Basin, the Government issued a notice on 9th March 2006 banning all livestock keepers’ activities in Mbarali District (URT 2000). About 1,000 pastoralist households were evicted by the government from Mbarali District. During the operation, it is estimated 218,000 herds were actually relocated to various places including Chunya, Rufiji, Kilwa, Kisarawe, and Lindi Districts (Walsh 2007).
The eviction of agro-pastoralists from the Ihefu Wetlands and their definitive settlement in various areas in Mbarali and Chunya districts, Lindi, Mtwara, Pwani, and Ruvuma was incited by a series of factors. As a major policy decision, the intention of the government to safeguard the environment and seen to have deteriorated affecting not only the Usangu Plains and the Ihefu wetlands but also the Rufiji Basin Ecosystem. Livestock keeping was taken as the major cause of severe water depletion leading to drying up of Mtera and Kidatu dams. During the 2006 dry season the drying of Great Ruaha River forced Mtera Hydroelectric Plant to close and this measure reduced the Kidatu Hydroelectric Plant’s production of the electricity by almost 50% (PINGOS et al 2007; Walsh 2007; Ngailo 2011).
As a result of the developments, the only remedy for the problem was to pastoralists from the Ihefu wetlands and to expand the Ruaha National Park by including Usangu Game Reserve to be part of the national park. A large proportional of the area was placed under the Tanzania National Parks Authority (TANAPA), causing a large proportional of the neighbouring community become landless. As a result of this order, all pastoralists were evicted from the Ihefu wetlands and many other places in Mbarali District.
Anecdotal evidence indicates that the eviction of pastoralists from Mbarali District to other parts of Tanzania have had some socio-economic impact on the pastoralists’ livelihoods. This is likely to have imparted a significant income contribution to the economy of the country. So far, those adverse impacts on pastoralists have not been studied and documented. In addition, the exact nature and extent of those effects on the receiving or resettlement areas are not well known and documented. Since such evictions are of geographic-specific, their effects on land management and socio-economic relations in the receiving areas need to be investigated case by case.
The main objective of this study was to investigate the changes in livelihood of agro- pastoralists as a result of being evicted from Mbarali and relocated to Chunya and Kilwa districts.
The specific objectives were to:
In the current study, the theoretical framework was adopted by modifying some elements from the DFIDs Sustainable Livelihood framework (SLA). Livelihood concerns the way people shape their lives by using material and non-material assets (Kaag et al 2004). The earlier livelihood definition was provided by Chambers and Conway (1992) who stated as follows: “ A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (stores, resources, claims and access) and activities required for a means of living”. The livelihood framework is an analytical approach that puts people’s livelihoods, meaning their interaction with their environment at its centre. The framework incorporates five elements of analysis; context and policy analysis, analysis of livelihood resources, institutions and organizations, livelihood strategies and sustainable livelihood outcomes (Scoones 1998). The core livelihood approach lies in analyzing different assets and capital upon which individuals or households draw to produce.
The framework identified human Capital (H) to represent the skills; knowledge, ability to labour and good health that together enabled people pursue different livelihood strategies and achieve the livelihood objectives. Natural capital (N) is another form of capital representing natural resource stocks from which the resource flows and services useful for livelihood are derived. Another asset is a social capital (S), and in the SLA framework, it is taken to mean the social resource upon which people draw in pursuit of the livelihood objectives. The financial capital (F) is another form of assets; it entails the financial resources that people use to achieve their livelihood objectives. Lastly, the physical capital (P) is another form of assets which comprises basic infrastructure and producer goods needed to support livelihoods. In order to create livelihood people, must combine the ‘capital’ endowments that have access to and control over. For instance, human capital connects to social policies (education and health), while, natural capital connects to land use, agricultural and environmental policies.
|
| Figure 1. Theoretical Framework |
This study was conducted in Mbarali, Chunya and Kilwa districts of Tanzania mainland. Mbarali District was purposively included in this study because it was the area where agro-pastoralists were evicted from. Chunya and Kilwa are two districts where agro-pastoralists were eventually directed for resettlement after eviction from Ihefu Basin in Mbarali District. The study involved 110 respondents who mainly were affected by the eviction process.
|
|
Figure 2: The map of study wards in Chunya,Mbarali and Kilwa districts |
The sampling was done as follows: First, purposive sampling was used to sample out from three districts where agro-pastoralists were evicted and resettled during the eviction process. The second stage involved purposive sampling of wards where the evicted agro-pastoralists resettled. The third stage involved sampling of the villages where evicted agro-pastoralists were resettled. The fourth stage involved sampling of respondents in the selected villages. The respondents were sampled using snowball sampling technique. The snowball sampling is a method for populations that are not well delimited nor well enumerated, for example the resettled agro-pastoralists (Ratio 2007)
Both primary and secondary data were collected. This involved qualitative and quantitative data collection methods. Quantitative data was gathered through questionnaire while qualitative data was obtained through interviews, life histories, key informants and Focus Group Discussions (FGDs). Simple statistical parameters of descriptive statistics providing means, proportion in percentage, cross tabulation of the resettled pastoralists was performed by using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). Qualitative data were analyzed by using content analysis. The data were interpreted and organized into different themes based on the conceptual description of ideas, which were expressed by respondents during the discussion.
Table 1 presents the demographic characteristics of 110 heads of households in Kilwa, Chunya and Mbarali districts. The respondents’ age ranged from 21 to 73 years with an average of 42 years. The age characteristic was categorized into three groups namely; young (19 – 29), middle (30 -55) and aged (>55). The majorities (98.2%) of respondents were married couples and 87% were polygamist, as a result, most of the households consisted of large family size .The study further shows that, 70% of the respondents had 10 to 25 household members and few of the households 2%) consisted up to 50 members per household. Paganisty represented the majority of (79.8 %) the respondents, while, 0.21% were Muslims and 20% were Christians. With regards to level of education, the study revealed that, 75.5% of the respondents were not attending any formal (education. While, 22% and 1.8% were attending primary and secondary education, respectively and only 2.7% were attending adult education. With regards to ethnicity, majority (97%) of the respondents were Sukuma.
|
Table 1 : Demographic characteristics of heads of household after the eviction process |
||||||||
|
Kilwa |
Chunya |
Mbarali |
Total |
|||||
|
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
|
|
Age in years |
||||||||
|
19 - 25 |
9 |
8.2 |
4 |
3.6 |
3 |
2.7 |
16 |
14.5 |
|
26 - 55 |
26 |
23.6 |
26 |
23.6 |
29 |
26.4 |
81 |
73.6 |
|
56 - 85 |
5 |
4.5 |
0 |
0 |
8 |
7.3 |
13 |
11.8 |
|
Marital status |
||||||||
|
Married |
39 |
35.5 |
30 |
27.3 |
39 |
35.5 |
108 |
98.2 |
|
Widow |
1 |
0.9 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0.9 |
2 |
1.8 |
|
Education level |
||||||||
|
Primary education |
7 |
6.4 |
8 |
7.3 |
7 |
6.4 |
22 |
20 |
|
Secondary education |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
1.8 |
2 |
1.8 |
|
Adult education |
1 |
0.9 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
1.8 |
2 |
2.7 |
|
No formal education |
32 |
29.1 |
22 |
20 |
29 |
26.4 |
83 |
75.5 |
|
Ethnicity |
||||||||
|
Sukuma |
34 |
30.9 |
30 |
27.3 |
33 |
30 |
97 |
88.2 |
|
Mang’ati |
3 |
2.7 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0.9 |
4 |
3.6 |
|
Masaai |
3 |
2.7 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
3.6 |
7 |
6.4 |
|
Sangu |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
1.8 |
2 |
1.8 |
|
Sex |
||||||||
|
Female |
1 |
0.9 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
1.8 |
3 |
2.7 |
|
Male |
39 |
35.5 |
30 |
27.3 |
38 |
34.5 |
107 |
97.3 |
|
Total members in a household |
||||||||
|
Below 10 |
10 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
4.5 |
15 |
13.6 |
|
10 - 25 |
28 |
25.5 |
29 |
26.4 |
20 |
18.2 |
77 |
70 |
|
26 - 40 |
2 |
1.8 |
1 |
0.9 |
12 |
11.8 |
16 |
14.5 |
|
Above 40 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
1.8 |
2 |
1.8 |
Other respondents in the order of 2%, 4% and 7% were from Sangu, Mang’ati and Maasai ethnicities; respectively (Table 1). The number of children in the respondents’ household ranged from 1 to 35 (Table 2). The average number of children per household of 14.9, 13.4 and 9.7 for Mbarali, Chunya and Kilwa districts, respectively. Moreover, the study found that the average age of school going children (5 – 15 years old) in a household was 3.5, 4.6, and 5.9 in Kilwa, Chunya and Mbarali districts, respectively. While, the average number of children attending primary school per household was 1.6 each for Kilwa and Chunya and 3 for Mbarali districts, respectively.
|
Table 2: Distribution of respondents according to number of children and number of children attending school |
||||||||||||
|
Kilwa (n=40) |
Chunya (n=30) |
Mbarali (n=40) |
||||||||||
|
Range |
Min |
Max |
Mean |
Range |
Min |
Max |
Mean |
Range |
Min |
Max |
Mean |
|
|
Total in the household |
25 |
1 |
26 |
9.7 |
15 |
6 |
21 |
13.4 |
34 |
1 |
35 |
14.9 |
|
Less than 5yrs |
9 |
1 |
10 |
4.2 |
8 |
3 |
11 |
5.7 |
10 |
1 |
11 |
5.2 |
|
5 – 15yrs |
11 |
0 |
11 |
3.5 |
7 |
1 |
8 |
4.6 |
17 |
0 |
17 |
5.9 |
|
Over 16yrs |
8 |
0 |
8 |
2.1 |
16 |
0 |
16 |
3.7 |
14 |
0 |
14 |
3.9 |
|
In primary school |
7 |
0 |
7 |
1.6 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
1.6 |
10 |
0 |
10 |
3 |
|
In secondary school |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0.0081 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
0.32 |
|
Not attending school |
5 |
0 |
5 |
1.7 |
6 |
0 |
6 |
3 |
9 |
0 |
9 |
2.7 |
Before the eviction process, the land used by majority of the respondents (>98%) was individually owned. Table 3 show that 29.1% of respondents occupied less than 15 acres of land and more than 37% occupied more than 45 acres ,some respondents owned over 100 acres of land for multiple-use but mostly for keeping livestock. Land had an economical and social impact to pastoralists as they were used for different purposes. Land water, pastures are natural capital, very crucial for wealth generation (DFID 1999). This land made pastoralists to have possible sustainable livelihoods, as it enabled them to produce ample food and utilization of pasture and water to feed large number of livestock.
|
Table 3. Land acreage owned by respondents before the eviction process (n=110) |
||
|
Land owned (acres) |
Frequency |
% |
|
Below 15 |
32 |
29.1 |
|
15 – 30 |
21 |
19.1 |
|
31 - 45 |
20 |
18.2 |
|
More than 45 |
37 |
33.6 |
|
Total |
110 |
100 |
The eviction process had implication on strategies to keep, acquire new land and establish new crops. This is due to the reason that these people were still resettling in their initial areas. (Ngailo 2011, PINGO et al 2007) found that, the eviction process caused significant food insecurity to most of the evicted agro- pastoralists; they lost a large proportion of their food reserves during the eviction process. To most of the respondents, farming in Mbarali was part of the pastoralists’ alternative strategy for livelihood diversification. Household food security is a strategy for ensuring secure access to adequate quantity and safe, nutrition, culturally appropriate food for everyone, produced in an environmentally sustainable way, and provided in a manner that promotes human dignity (OPHA 2002)
The average number of years the respondents had lived in Mbarali District before the eviction process was 22 years. Results showed that 90% of heads of household before eviction were agro-pastoralists and only 10% were pastoralists. 88% of respondent’s gross revenues emanated from livestock or livestock related activities. It was reported during focus group discussion that this was possible in Mbarali District as they had large herds of animal and they had good market for animals and its products like milk. The animals were flourishing well in Mbarali Distrct as they had plenty pasture in wetlands all over the year. In addition, the animal health services were available. The composition of kept animals by most of households was cattle, goats, sheep, donkeys and chicken. The average number of animals kept per household before eviction was 535 cows. The main crops grown before eviction were rice, millet, simsim, maize, groundnuts and sweet potatoes (Table 4).
|
Table 4: Distribution of animals kept and crop harvested in the household before and after eviction |
||||
|
Animal owned by household in Mbarali at pre-eviction process (No.) |
Range |
Min |
Max |
Mean |
|
Cows |
4159 |
30 |
4189 |
535 |
|
Goats |
990 |
10 |
1000 |
112 |
|
Sheep |
180 |
0 |
180 |
30.3 |
|
Donkey |
17 |
0 |
17 |
2.5 |
|
Chicken |
1000 |
0 |
1000 |
78.9 |
|
Animal owned by household at post-eviction process (No.) |
||||
|
Cows |
326 |
4 |
330 |
85 |
|
Goats |
150 |
0 |
150 |
37 |
|
Sheep |
40 |
0 |
40 |
9 |
|
Donkey |
9 |
0 |
9 |
0.5 |
|
Chicken |
140 |
10 |
150 |
43 |
|
Crops harvested by household during pre-eviction process (No. of bags) |
||||
|
Millet |
80 |
0 |
80 |
13 |
|
Beans |
50 |
0 |
50 |
6.13 |
|
Maize |
220 |
0 |
220 |
69.62 |
|
Rice |
550 |
0 |
550 |
178 |
|
Groundnuts |
90 |
0 |
90 |
18.8 |
|
Sweet potatoes |
80 |
0 |
80 |
17.13 |
|
Crops harvested by household during post-eviction process |
||||
|
Millet |
130 |
0 |
130 |
20 |
|
Simsim |
45 |
0 |
45 |
5.5 |
|
Maize |
135 |
0 |
135 |
27.6 |
|
Rice |
105 |
0 |
105 |
23 |
|
Groundnuts |
68 |
0 |
68 |
13 |
|
Sweet potatoes |
85 |
0 |
85 |
10 |
The study shows that the eviction process caused serious household fragmentation; 98% of the respondents said they moved in fragmented families. A single family was forced to divide into two or more groups: women and children group was left in Mbarali District while men were on their way to new areas. 22% responded that the division of family into different parts of country, was the part of strategy in securing food security in among the households, that is, part of the household family were retained to continue farming to produce food. A small proportion of respondents (19.1%) reported that, retained family were assigned to take care for few remained animals in Mbarali District, while, 18.4% of the respondents said they left part of their families to take care for schoolchildren and 11.1% pointed out that part of the family went ahead to resettlement areas to prepare houses and farms.
During the focused group discussions, it was reported that to minimize the risk of losing their livestock, some of the households opted to divide the livestock among household members of respective families and assigned each group to different resettlement areas. For instance, from one family, a decision was made whereby one group was directed to Lindi Region; while, another to Chunya District and Ruvuma Region. Some household members decided to keep few livestock in the range of 20 to 30 in their former areas. The household families that were assigned to stay in Mbarali District with few animals, this was a strategy to keep animals to handle operations such as land preparation, production of milk for domestic use and for income generation.
|
Table 5. Distribution of respondents according to number of children and children attending school. |
||||
|
Category of persons in household |
Range |
Minimum |
Maximum |
Mean |
|
Pre-eviction process (No.) |
No. |
No. |
No. |
No. |
|
Household members |
57 |
8 |
65 |
29 |
|
Children in the household |
36 |
2 |
38 |
18 |
|
Children in primary school |
17 |
0 |
17 |
5 |
|
Children in secondary school |
4 |
0 |
4 |
0.74 |
|
Children beyond secondary school |
2 |
0 |
2 |
0.55 |
|
Children not attending school |
14 |
0 |
14 |
3 |
|
Post-eviction process (No.) |
||||
|
Household members |
45 |
5 |
50 |
19 |
|
Children in the household |
34 |
1 |
35 |
13 |
|
Children in primary school |
10 |
0 |
10 |
3 |
|
Children in secondary school |
2 |
0 |
2 |
0.13 |
|
Children beyond secondary school |
2 |
0 |
2 |
0.18 |
|
Children not attending school |
9 |
0 |
9 |
2.4 |
Education was another area affected by the eviction and resettlement processes. A number of agro pastoralists interviewed indicated that their children have drop out of school from the time the eviction started. Table 5 shows the distribution of respondents according to number of children and children attending school during pre- and post-eviction process. Before the eviction process, the average size of households was 29. After the eviction process, the number of households went down to 19 (a reduction of 34.5%). Among the households the number of children was reduced; before and after the eviction process to the averaged of 18 and 13, respectively. Moreover, the study found that, the average age of school going children (5 – 15 years old) in a household was 3.5, 4.6, and 5.9 in Kilwa, Chunya and Mbarali districts, respectively. While, the average number of children attending primary school per household was 1.6 each for Kilwa and Chunya and 3 for Mbarali districts, respectively.
The findings further indicated that, more than half of the children at age of going to school were not attending primary school. The underscored reasons for children at age of attending school not but doing were as follows; 52.7% was because of disruption of the eviction process whereby most of the children abandoned school. Thirty percent of the respondents’ reported that long distance to school discourages children from attending school. Other reasons included, instead of going to school, they spend time on grazing animals (59.1%) and early marriages (5.5%) caused children at age of attending school not attending the school.
The study noted that, during the eviction process, agro pastoralists sustained high mortality rate of animals on transit to resettlement areas. The findings further revealed that animals were left from Mbarali District without any pre-departure vaccination and other important on-transit preparations. The sustained loss stood as follows: 94.5 % of the respondents reported higher animal mortality on transit, while, 55.5% of the respondents mentioned, high cost in animal transportation from Mbarali to new areas. In addition, 73.3% of the respondents suffered loss from unbearable high penalty fee (10,000 Tshs per animal) imposed either for late eviction or during recovery of confiscated livestock. Most of the pastoralists paid their penalty without the provision of official receipts. This resulted into high livestock mortality mainly due to stress, starvation and diseases. The distribution of dead cattle while on transit is shown in Table 6. The number of cattle sustained death per household ranged from none to 960 with an average of 189 cows for most respondents.
It was evident that, the average crop production per household (Number of bags each 100kg) were reduced after the eviction process (Table 4). 50% of the respondents mentioned food shortage among households was another part of sustained loss during the eviction process. Similar reasoning has been reported by Ngailo (2011). The findings showed that, 56% of the respondents narrated that suffered the worst food insecurity. Majority (89%) of the agro pastoralists lost their food during the unplanned evacuations.
|
Table 6: Number of cattle dying on transit during the eviction process (n=110) |
||
|
Category (No.) |
Frequency |
% |
|
Below 50 |
19 |
17.3 |
|
50 – 200 |
52 |
47.3 |
|
201 – 400 |
30 |
27.3 |
|
401 – 600 |
5 |
4.5 |
|
601 – 800 |
3 |
2.7 |
|
801 – 1000 |
1 |
0.9 |
Results on possession of assets before and after eviction process by respondents are shown in Table 7. There is a slight reduction in possession of assets that were noted after the eviction process. 80% of the respondents possessing oxen and 11.8% were possessing power-tillers before the eviction process, while after eviction 87% and 3% were possessing oxen and power tillers respectively. The possession of asset such as ploughs, mobile phones, bicycles and radios were owned by the majority of the respondents before and after eviction. The ability to maintain possession of assets by resettled pastoralists indicated that, apart from disturbance caused by the eviction process, they still had purchasing power to afford some assets.
Owning assets such as plough has improved the ability to produce more crops especially where relatively bigger acreage were allocated especially in Kilwa and Mbarali districts. The DFID’s sustainable livelihood framework identifies assets as one of the three components of a livelihood. Others include capabilities and activities required for means of living. Based on this, loss or gain of assets represents the form in livelihood. This is the reason for possession of assets by resettled pastoralists was considered important.
|
Table 7 : Possession of assets before and after eviction |
||||
|
Frequency |
Percent |
Frequency |
Percent |
|
|
Do you own a plough |
|
|||
|
Yes |
103 |
93.6 |
87 |
79.1 |
|
No |
7 |
6.4 |
23 |
20.9 |
|
Do you own an Oxen-cart |
||||
|
Yes |
87 |
79.1 |
50 |
45.5 |
|
No |
23 |
20.9 |
60 |
54.5 |
|
Do you own an mobile phone |
||||
|
Yes |
108 |
98.2 |
109 |
99.1 |
|
No |
2 |
1.8 |
1 |
0.9 |
|
Do you own a bicycle |
||||
|
Yes |
107 |
97.3 |
60 |
54.5 |
|
No |
3 |
2.7 |
50 |
45.5 |
|
Do you own a motorcycle |
||||
|
Yes |
23 |
20.9 |
21 |
19.1 |
|
No |
87 |
79.1 |
89 |
80.9 |
|
Do you own a power-tiller |
||||
|
Yes |
13 |
11.8 |
3 |
2.7 |
|
No |
97 |
88.2 |
107 |
97.3 |
|
Do you own a radio |
||||
|
Yes |
108 |
98.2 |
105 |
95.5 |
|
No |
2 |
1.8 |
5 |
4.5 |
The approximate monthly incomes among the respondents after eviction process are presented in table 8. The registered average income was Tshs 100, 887, 153,000 and 287,500/= in Mbarali, Chunya and Kilwa districts respectively. This income was below the average of Tshs 487,000/= before the eviction process. During the study, it was found that, the source of income varied among the districts when compared to before the eviction process. Most of the respondents confessed that due to sustained animal loss the head size have been reduced leading to less dependence on livestock as source of their income.
|
Table 8: Monthly household income in the new resettlement areas in Kilwa, Chunya and Mbarali districts in Tanzania |
||||||||||||
|
Kilwa (n=40) |
Chunya (n=30) |
Mbarali (n=40) |
||||||||||
|
Range |
Min |
Max |
Mean |
Range |
Min |
Max |
Mean |
Range |
Min |
Max |
Mean |
|
|
640000 |
60000 |
700000 |
287500 |
170000 |
800000 |
250000 |
153330 |
412000 |
37500 |
450000 |
100877 |
|
|
1 Dollar = 1,580 Tanzania shillings (Bank of Tanzania 3/2/2012 ) |
||||||||||||
More income from crop than animal sales were recorded from 52.7% of the respondents (Table 9). Higher income of 22.7% were registered from agro-pastoralists in Kilwa District; while, 19.1% of the income were obtained from agro-pastoralists in Chunya District. This was probably due to reason that the agro-pastoralists in this area owned relatively bigger land acreage for crop cultivation than in Mbarali District. On the other hand, low change in livelihood outcome in Chunya District was due to low price for animal and crop products and allocation of agro-pastoralists far way from townships. This limits accessibility to viable livelihoods activities.
|
Table 9: Type of change in Livelihoods among agro pastoralists’ households after resettlements |
||||||||
|
Kilwa |
Chunya |
Mbarali |
Total |
|||||
|
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
|
|
More income from crop cultivation than from animals |
25 |
22.7 |
21 |
19.1 |
12 |
10.9 |
58 |
52.7 |
|
Animal and crop products are fetching lower price |
3 |
2.7 |
30 |
27.3 |
0 |
0 |
33 |
30 |
|
Animal and crop products are fetching higher price |
24 |
21.9 |
1 |
0.9 |
20 |
18.2 |
20 |
18.2 |
|
Few animals sold to recover loss encountered during eviction |
28 |
25.5 |
30 |
27.3 |
39 |
35.5 |
97 |
88.2 |
|
Lower income from crop due to land scarcity |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
29 |
26.4 |
29 |
26.4 |
Sixty-five percent of the respondents reported the life status had gone down, only 29.1% of the respondents argued that, their life status in terms of income hence financial per capita was improved after the eviction process (Table 10). This improvement was mostly evident among respondents in Kilwa District, 29.1% of the respondents pointed out that after high loss during the eviction process, and the life standard after resettled in Kilwa District had improved. This can be explained by the fact that, most of the allocated villages for resettlements are located nearly (2-15km) along Dar-es-Salaam – Mtwara Highway. Thus, are exposed to reliable and stable market for their animal, crops and by-products assuring stable income generation throughout the year.
|
Table 10: Perception of change in livelihood outcomes |
||||||||
|
Perception |
District |
|
||||||
|
Kilwa |
Chunya |
Mbarali |
Total |
|||||
|
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
|
|
Life has improved |
31 |
28.2 |
1 |
0.9 |
0 |
0 |
32 |
29.1 |
|
Life has gone down |
7 |
6.4 |
27 |
24.5 |
38 |
34.5 |
72 |
65.5 |
|
Life has unchanged |
2 |
1.8 |
2 |
1.8 |
2 |
1.8 |
6 |
5.5 |
The other way of looking changes among livelihoods to resettled areas was to trace changes in livelihood activities that were necessary for living. The process of resettlement after the eviction forced the evicted pastoralists to adopt new livelihoods activities. Nearly 95% the entire resettled agro-pastoralists admitted that there were changes in their livelihood activities. There had been either new activities or expansion of some activities that were practiced before the eviction process. The adoption of petty business, tobacco and simsim growing, land clearing and scaring wild animals were among the significant changes among livelihoods activities after the eviction process (Table 11).
|
Table 11: Change livelihood Activities in the resettlement area |
||||||||
|
Type of change |
Kilwa |
Chunya |
Mbarali |
Total |
||||
|
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
|
|
More crop cultivation |
25 |
22.7 |
21 |
19.1 |
12 |
10.9 |
58 |
52.7 |
|
Gardening |
23 |
20.9 |
4 |
3.6 |
1 |
0.9 |
28 |
25.5 |
|
Growing simsim |
33 |
30 |
17 |
15.5 |
0 |
0 |
50 |
45.5 |
|
Growing tobacco |
0 |
0 |
20 |
18.2 |
0 |
0 |
20 |
18.2 |
|
Petty business |
25 |
22.7 |
8 |
7.3 |
18 |
16.4 |
51 |
46.4 |
|
Crop production |
7 |
6.4 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
3.6 |
11 |
10 |
|
Clearing heavy bushes |
3 |
2.7 |
30 |
27.3 |
0 |
0 |
33 |
30 |
|
Keeping pigs |
0 |
0 |
17 |
15.5 |
1 |
0.9 |
18 |
16.5 |
Petty business was prominent in Kilwa (22.7%) and Mbarali (16.4%) districts. These probably because all resettled pastoralists were as located near the highways and small towns. The majority of people are involved in retail and wholesale business such as roasting meat, selling livestock and livestock products, selling veterinary drugs and transportation services, by using motorbikes which commonly known as “bodaboda”, this featured mainly in Mbarali District. Selling local chicken and eggs became a common business especially in Mbarali and Kilwa districts. Among the groups, young men were prominently practicing petty business. After interviewing this group, they reported that livestock keeping was no longer a sustainable occupation. The reason given was that the government was not taking enough attention on land tenure agenda.
Tobacco growing 18.2% and pig keeping 15.5% were marked as one of the prominent economic activities in Chunya District. The study found that, resettled pastoralists joined Tobacco Association where they access inputs such as improved tobacco seeds and tobacco extension based services. Growing simsim was more common in Kilwa 29.1% and Chunya 15.5% districts. In Kilwa District resettled pastoralists considered simsim as important cash crop as it fetches premium price. Horticultural gardening was noted to be a new economic activity especially in Kilwa District. 20.9% of the respondents said they purposely assigned some of their wives to settle in agriculture-based areas where they are practicing gardening such as vegetables. These vegetables are mainly for household consumption.
Few respondents (10%), especially the Maasai and Mang’ati ethnic groups who were pure pastoralists before the eviction process, growing crops have become a new activity. About 53% of the respondents mentioned the inclusion of crop production in the livelihood activities had improved their income. This partly supplemented their income due to decreased herd size during the eviction process. Despite of these new livelihood activities, livestock keeping remained their livelihoods main stay. 69% of the respondents revealed that, soon after resettlement, pastoralists began to rebuild their herds of cattle.
It was noted that for resettled pastoralists the right to own economic resources had been violated because of forced eviction. It was found that a number of livestock owners incurred high loss of their animals as a result of starvation related to death and lower prices offered by livestock buyers .The study found that there was a decrease in animals kept and harvested crops among house which was due the effect of the eviction process. There was evident that, the average crop production per household was reduced after the eviction process, this is because to some of agro pastoralists, the shifting to other areas caused them to become landless. The study also found that some of the evicted pastoralists especially from Ihefu Basin were compensated few assets like house, but not land and other assets. This situation had curtained enough purchasing power to most resettled pastoralists which could enable to rebuild their life.
The study noted that the income of pastoralists after sustaining loss of their herd sizes, they have less dependence on livestock as a source of their income. Impoverishment was mostly evident among resettled pastoralists. The study findings showed that in the process of resettlement, the resettled pastoralists were forced to adopt new economic activities in order to sustain their livelihood. Based on the current study, the new adopted economic activities were petty business, tobacco and simsim growing, gardening and pig rearing. For few Maasai and Mang’ati ethnic groups growing crops have become new activity. Regarding study findings to enhance livelihoods of resettled pastoralists the following were recommended: establishing clear boundaries for grazing lands, improve formal education among resettled pastoralist communities, effective resettlement plans for future evictions should be in place, improvement of necessary livestock and community based services and provision of compensation to pastoralists who might incur due high loss of animal and other properties during the eviction process.
We express our sincere gratitude to Tumaini University- Iringa University College for financial support throughout the course of study. We also, wish to acknowledge the invaluable contributions, guidance and comments accorded to me by the Dr. Adam Mwakalobo. Thanks are also to M. Mwankeja, R. Konga and Ngilangwa and DALDO’s officers in Kilwa, Chunya and Mbarali districts who helped in the data collection process
Bee F, Diyament M and Towo N 2002 Challenge to traditional Livelihoods and Newly emerging employment patterns of pastoralists in Tanzania. ILO _ INDISCO study collaboration with Jobs for Africa (JFA). 54pp.
Birch I and Grain R 2008 Pastoralism- managing Multiple Stressors and the Threat of Climate Variability and Change. Human Development Report 2007/2008 .12pp.
Conway G R and Chambers R 1992 ‘Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical Concepts for the 21st Century’, Discussion Paper 296. Brighton, UK: Institute of Development studies. 42pp
DFID 1999- 2005 Sustainable Livelihood guidance sheet. http://www.efls.ca/webresources/DFID_Sustainable_livelihoods_guidance_sheet.pdf site visited on 3/9/2022
IFAD 2009 Livestock and Pastoralists. Community of Practice for pro-poor livestock and fisheries/Aquaculture development. CoP for Pro-poor Livestock Development. Need Assessment, Report on findings .Rome, IFAD Headquarter. 55pp
Kaag M, van Berkel R, Brons J, de Bruijn M, van Dijk H, de Haan .,Nooteboom G and Zoomers 2004 “Ways Forward in Livelihood Research” in Globalization and Development. Themes and Concepts in CurrentResearch. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2004, pp.49-74.
Lynn S J 2010 the Pastoral to Agro- Pastoral Transition in Tanzania: Human Adaptation in an Ecosystem Context. Graduate Degree Program in Ecology. Fort Collins,Colorado, Colorado State University. 26 pp
Mung’ong’o C and Mwamfupe D 2003 Poverty and Changing Livelihoods of Migrant Maasai Pastoralist in Morogoro and Kilosa Districts, Tanzania. Research report No.03.5, REPOA (2003).pp 40
Ngailo J A 2011 Assessing the effects of eviction on household food security of livestock keepers from Usangu wetland in SW Tanzania. Livestock Research for Rural Development.Volume 23, article 65, retrieved m2011. http://www.Irrd23/3/ngai23065.htm
Ontario Public Health Association (OPHA) 2002 Chapter 1: Definition of food security.28pp . http://www.toronto.ca health/children/pdf/fsbp_ch_1.pdf site visited on 5/3/2010
Oxfam 2008 ‘Survival of the Fittest: Pastoralism and climate change in East Africa,’ pp 13-14 http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/bp116-pastoralism-climate-change-eafrica-0808.pdf . site visited on 5/3/2010
PINGOs-Forum, Hakiardhi, HIMWA 2007 A Report on Eviction and
Resettlement of Pastoralists
from Ihefu and Usangu-Mbarali District to Kilwa and Lindi Districts.
Paper presented to the Parliamentary Committee for Natural Resources and
Environment Seminar, Dodoma, April 15.
Ratio P 2007
Sampling
http://www2.uiah.fi/projects/metodi
site visited on 22/9/2012
Scoones I 1998 Sustainable Rural Livelihoods. A Framework for Analysis.IDS Working Paper 72 Site visited on 3/1/2010
SMUWC 2001 Final Project Reports. Directorate of Water Resources. Ministry of Water, Government of Tanzania,Dar es salaam. The SMUWC(Sustainable Management of the Usangu Wetlands and Its Catchment Project, Mbeya Region Tanzania.107pp
Swift J 1998 ‘Major Issues in Pastoral development with special emphasis on selected African Countries’, Rome: FAO.83pp.
United Republic of Tanzania 2000 Kilwa district.http://www.lindi.go.tz/kilwa.html 12/9/2012
Walsh M 2007 Pastoralism and Policy Processes in Tanzania: Case Study and Recommendations September. Filling in the Knowledge Gaps to Better UnderstandPolicy Options for Pastoralism and Rangeland Management. A Report to the Tanzanian Natural Resources Forum, Contribution to the collaborative study, Arusha.
Received 19 November 2013; Accepted 18 December 2013; Published 1 January 2014
