Aiming at “Community Initiative Forest Management”〜 Who can save the forest of Mt.Kilimanjaro ? 〜

TANZANIA POLE POLE CLUB2011

Report from the activity scenes - Kilimanjaro Forest (3)Aiming at “Community Initiative Forest Management”
So far, in our newsletter, we have reported the actual situation and main causes of diminishingforests of Mt. Kilimanjaro, historical changes of the forest management policy and its problems, and also
how the forests have been positioned in the everyday life of the local people(=villagers who live in themountain) (1).
Mt. Kilimanjaro is said to have lost nearly 30% of its forest during past century (2). There is no
doubt about the significance of the forest of Mt. Kilimanjaro concerning the lives of 0.9 million people (3)who depend on the natural water sourcing from the forest, and its indigenous plants and animals (4) indanger of extinction by the threat of the forest degradation.
But now, the forest of Mt. Kilimanjaro faces an even more serious problem generated from a legal
execution (5), which primary objective is excluding the local residents from the forest. This, as a result,could further incur the forest destruction. It is possible to say that the actual source of problem could be
the forest protection policy (6) itself, which the government insists as an effective solution.
[Why Not the Forest Fully Protected?]

In spite of the structure of the social living of
local residents, the forest protection policy has
been strengthened step by step. In 1962, HMFS
was transferred from Chagga Council to thegovernment (District council). Eventually, with thesubsidiary legislation of National Parks Act
promulgated in 2005, the forest reserve including
HMFS has been completely merged into thenational parks. Hereby the legal restriction forutterly exclusion the local residents from theforest has been completed, and in their eyes
Kilimanjaro forests has become the fortress forreal (see Figure1).

1. The Forest Policy that Ignores the Local
Residents’ Society and Structure of Living
The history of forest protection and policy of
Mt. Kilimanjaro could be described as thereinforcement of control over the local residents(7). Since 1904, when Germany as a suzerain
nation has stated “Game reserve”, its
management style was simply duplicated fromthe Western idea of wild nature conservation
based on “Fortress Conservation” which
completely separates nature from human beings.

As recommendation by the OECD working
group, the government (or the Kilimanjaro
National Parks (KINAPA) that exercises
jurisdiction) has thrown rangers out as forest
guards, who are just like army troops equippedwith shotguns (12), and according to thetestimony of the local residents, they have started
excluding intruders from the forest using
measures including physical violence.

An exceptional measure at Mt. Kilimanjaro
was the establishment of buffer zone that is called
Half Mile Forest Strip (hereinafter HMFS) in 1941
along with the lower edge of inside the forest
reserve, where local residents are granted tocollect and use natural resources necessary for
their everyday life. This was a pioneering
measure to the world back then (9). Moreover,what deserves special mention is the fact that its
management was fully entrusted to “Chagga
Council”, a representative authority of Chagga
despite under the British colonization at that time.

However, as per mentioned in our
newsletter No. 31, no matter how they strict thelegal regulation or the forest management, solong as the local residents’ living structure isbased on the forest, excluding them is impossible.
Entering into the forest is a part of their structured
living system, which is a vital matter. In otherwords, no matter how badly treated, they have no
choice other than entering the forest. During ourfield work this summer, we came across with thevillagers in the forest. In response to our question
asking if it is okay to enter the forest and if they
are not afraid of KINAPA, they all said “We haveno choice, or what are we supposed to do? If we
get caught by KINAPA, it’s time to give up.”

The abovementioned entrustment itself,
however, shows that the existence of the friction
between the local residents and the forest reserve(10) which was established without considerationof their life. In this regard, HMFS is a very
consequence under such condition. It can be said
that it had already been suggested that thefortress conservation and the forest conservation
policy forcing unilateral exclusion of the local
residents not consist structurally at this point intime(11).
-1-

Report from the activity scenes - Kilimanjaro Forest (3)[Figure 1: Structure of forest management on Mt. Kilimanjaro and conceptual map of management
authority][Figure2: Graphic map of diminishing forest of Mt. Kilimanjaro]

As a matter of life and survivorship, eventhough restricted by the government, the local
residents had no choice from the start anyway
except entering the forest. This is the reason why
the forest cannot be protected with the logic of
one-way exclusion which is without consideration
their life components, and by the related policies
and regulations stand on that logic.

2. Inconsistent Government Laws and Policies
As described thus far, a number of legal
regulations have been enforced one after anotheron Mt. Kilimanjaro that limits the local residents’
access and the use to the forest. This is a tighter
control against them and by turning the forest intoa national park has come to a conclusion as “thecomplete exclusion of the local residents.”

Further, looking back on the past history that
had followed by a series of reinforcement ofmanagement to the forest, the fact that they could
not protect the forest evidentially demonstrates
the non-effectiveness of such political/legal
frameworks (see fig.2: those sample graphics
during the period between 1976-2000 depict theforest transformation on Mt. Kilimanjaro under thegovernment administration, as shown in fig.1,
which had resulted the sharp forest decrease).

However, on the other hand, Tanzania
government shows an inconsistent side of theirstandpoint as having set forth some forest
policies, which apparently opposes to the current
situation as a matter of fact. Namely, it is apolitical policy of community/residents
participatory approach (hereinafter “Participatory
Approach”). For instance, when the Local
Government Authorities Act was approved in
1982, the management authority of HMFS was-2-

Report from the activity scenes - Kilimanjaro Forest (3)returned from Tanzania government to district
council in 1987. “Promoting local management
which had lost on HMFS” is stated as a part of its
purposes (13).
Further in 1991, in order to deal with mattersrelated with the community/the local residents, a
dedicated department called CCS (Community
Conservation Service) was established under
Tanzania National Parks Service (hereinafter
TANAPA). It aimed to financially support the local
communities located around the respective
national parks with their profit: in other words, therevenue made at each national parks (14).
Subsequently in 1998, Joint Forest
Management (JFM) was announced in The
National Policies for Forestry and Beekeeping. It
expressed promoting private sectors, including
the local residents and NGOs, taking part in forest
management. Additionally, a fair distribution of
the benefit from the forest was mentioned, which
also covers a clear definition of the forest area
and the ownership of the trees (15).
The Forest Act 7/02 founded in 2002 hasclearly defined the legal framework of forest
management by such as JFM, in order to promote
the appropriate and effective forest management
operation by private sector and community base(16).
On the other hand, it was not only Tanzania
government that was aware of the necessity ofparticipatory approach on forest management in
Tanzania: Global Environment Facility (GEF)
founded within the World Bank has projected toenhance participatory forest management by
supporting extension of JFM through FCMP
(Forest Conservation and Management Project).
The major Western countries such as
Germany, Finland, Denmark, and Norway, andEU have also offered support to participatory
forest management approach in Tanzania.
3.

The Essence of “Participatory Approach”
Policies of the Government

It will be hard to possibly understand to local
residents with limited information what ishappening in the forest surrounding their village.
As a matter of fact, even the government forestry
officers are in the midst of confusion.
As per mentioned in earlier sections, because
the means called “Fortress Conservation” based
upon the thought of primeval nature protection(with an implication of extensive application ofnational park to the forest reserve, including
HMFS on Mt. Kilimanjaro) cares nothing ofresidents living system or structures, we think thatthe forest is not protected in such a means. Also,
the problem of fortress conservation is not justlimited to Mt. Kilimanjaro; such approaches
pulling nature and people away from each other isalready recognized as a part of nature protection
issues (17),The thought of “participatory approach” hascome as a lesson learnt from the past one-way
approaches of primeval nature protection and thenon-effectiveness of fortress conservation.
Having stated so, how well have aforementioned
participatory policy or its programs been taken inplace? We are afraid we cannot help taking anegative side of the view to answer this question.
Seeing is believing: the actual situation of theforests unprotected by these very policies andprograms shows everything. Far from it, most of
the programs are likely to either vanish as mist,
otherwise becoming a mere name missing its real
purpose.
Talk about “participatory approach” maysound like a panacea; why does not it work then?
The answer is found in the structural defect withregard to the current participatory policies and its
approaches common to governmental,
international, and private programs.
Prior to discussing about the core subject, let
us touch on what the “Participatory Approach” is
all about from the government point-of-view. The
legal ground of “Participatory Approach” in theforest policies of the government sits on The
Forest Act 7/02. Stated in this act as a concrete
practice framework of Participatory Approach
policy is JFM (the authority of jurisdiction on Mt.
Kilimanjaro is Kilimanjaro Catchment Forest
Office of Tanzania Government).

Thus as far as forest reserves in Tanzania areconcerned, particularly on Mt. Kilimanjaro in thiscontext, the contradictious national policy and its
management practice are simply applied andoperated in parallel without any adjustment: with
As mentioned previously, JFM aims to run theactual situation which is a complete exclusion offorest management involving private sectors
the local residents by enhanced application of the
including the local residents, NGO, etc. andNational Parks Act over the reinforced
evenly distribute the benefit from the forest
management; and the Forest Act which aims to(including the clear definition of the forest area
protect forest by Participatory Approach and otherand the ownership of trees). However, the actual
programs along the line.
-2-

Report from the activity scenes - Kilimanjaro Forest (3)procedure incorporated to its practice is mainly
limited to the restriction and fining against forest
trespassers, and support for income generate
activities (i.e. nursery management, eco tourism
introduction, etc.) to replace the direct use of theforest resource. What lies in the basis in it is the
viewpoint of putting weight in “conservation” inorder to discourage local residents from using theforest resources by offering the economic
incentive. Apparently, this is different from “thecommunity and the local residents’ participation in
the forest management.”

4.

Structural Issues of “Participatory Approach”
Policy at Present

Aside from the issue of participatory
approach that excludes community’s and its
residents’ participation, then, is the participatory
approach programs (JFM/CSS) of thegovernment related to the result the same as theplan ? So far, they have made no particular effectto the speed of diminishing forest, and as
previously mentioned, many of them today are inname only. For those local residents not allowed
participating in the processes of decision-making
or the management, when they see/feel issues insuch Participatory Approach policies andprograms, or once they judged them as
unsuitable, the option of “not consuming theforest resources” set by the policies or programs
become meaningless and they are abandoned.
The below are the issues/concerns pointed out(22):

What makes this viewpoint more
conspicuously is CCS (Community Conservation
Service) by TANAPA (18). CCS is supposed tobuild cooperation between local organizations
such as local government, private company, etc.
and local residents, and enhance it forconservation (19). Nevertheless its practicemostly putting emphasize on supporting local
community with the revenue earned from nationalparks admission (i.e. constructing schools,
bridges, etc.), far from building a hand-in-handrelationship with the local residents. The CCS
approach as such is called “Protected Area
Outreach”, which is a mechanism to return therevenue (or partial revenue) of protected area forsocial development of neighboring communities.
The aim of it is to make the local residents
recognize the significance of the protected areaby that and to make their attitude positive aboutprotecting the forest or negative about using theforest resources.
According to these points, it could beinterpreted that the meaning of "Participatory
Approach" of the government is "to exclude thelocal residents from the forest by offeringsocial/economic incentives” rather than involving
them to the forest management itself (decision
making and its execution practice)..
This is not so much different from the idea of“Fortress Conservation” at the bottom; the only
difference may be whether or not with thesocial/economic incentives. Under such policy,
the local residents are simply positioned as thereceiver forced to follow the top-down policies
and programs. This cannot help but say very
doubt whether this can say “Participatory
Approach”a.

The income generation activities
supported by the programs brought very
little income for the most cases.

b.

Insufficient distribution of the profit
earned through the programs (therevenue made from national parks
admission overwhelmingly goes to thegovernment for the most part; and the
local distribution is not madeappropriately.)c.

When the profit earned through theprograms is invested to a public sector(i.e. Schools, Bridges, etc.), it becomes
non-attractive incentives to theindividual local residents.

d.

Disproportion of social/economic profit
returned between respective
communities.

It can be said that these points certainly
accord with the actual situation even if comparewith the situation of Mbokomu and Old Moshi, theareas of our activity.
Particularly for JFM that mainly offers income
generation program in exchange for excluding
residents from the forests, the issue of insufficient
income is fatal. It is not easy to offer a support
program to the majority of residents living aroundthe close area of the forest reserve, which brings
sufficient income. There will be little possibility
that can achieve the purpose to exclude residents
from the forest, as far as JFM particular sticks to
the means of income generation as a form of the“participation”..

While it is proposed the remarkable effect inparticipatory approach for the conservation of theprotected area (21), the actual situation can besaid that an old-fashioned top-down style is theessence of “community participation” policy of thegovernment.
-3-

Report from the activity scenes - Kilimanjaro Forest (3)As opposed to this situation, CCS might beable to encourage the residents showing
somewhat positive attitudes, or to restrain themfrom accessing to the forest, if it is reconsidered
the distribution ratio between the government andcommunities of the rich amount of funds earned
through national parks admission (particularly
Kilimanjaro National Park in this context), andmade to the social development of communities
with rectified disparities among communities.
Nonetheless the government’s attitude towards
these improvements is extremely negative andstrongly criticized.

[For Protecting Forests of Mt. Kilimanjaro]
1.

What to Work on as Tanzania Pole PoleClub?

Mainly there are two major parts comprising
the problem with regard to protecting the forestsof Mt. Kilimanjaro.

However, if these are improved, would those
government policies such as JFM and CCS
become effective for forest protection in the Mt.
Kilimanjaro ? Unfortunately our outlook for thisquestion is negative. It is due to the structuraldefects that these fundamentally hold. The
fundamental structure of JFM/CCS is to holddown the local residents’ use of forest resources
by offering social and economic incentives.
Notwithstanding such incentives, they cannot
replace the needs of the local residents that exist
on a day-to-day basis at all such as firewood,
charcoals and fodder for livestock, and the like.
No matter how large the amount of income being
made, or no matter what type of social
infrastructure takes place that fully benefits, thelocal residents will not stop entering to the forests.
If the government were to exclude the local
residents from using the forest resources, it must
provide alternative means for securing theirmaterials mentioned above. Unless otherwise
providing support for introducing Biogas Systemthat can completely eliminate their firewood
consumption, nothing can change their course ofaction.

First, the problem of the expansion ofnational park that goes over to HMFS. Fortifying
the forests of Mt. Kilimanjaro, andcompletely/legally excluding the local residents
do not mean their needs for firewood and the likewould disappear. As per touched in the opening
statement, those residents are aware of the legal
restriction, but have no choice other than enteringto the forest even though they may be beaten by
the rangers. Emerging from the expansion of the
National Park as a result is “a lawless area”
where rules no longer make any sense to follow.
And the reality has such situation already. In
order to resolve the problem, the borderline of the
expanded national park must be adjusted back towhere it was, at least to the position where HMFS
is not included (prior to the national park
expansion, the entire forest reserve including
HMFS were out of the sphere).
Second, restructuring the forest
management system applied within HMFS.
Simply adjusting the borderline back to its place
would only bring the past state. Even on thosedays, the forest destruction had been worsenedat both HMFS and the forest reserve: Without
restructuring the forest management system, it
would only remove the title of the national parkand cannot stop the forest destruction.
2.

Having discussed thus far, the methodology
of “the forest protection” conducted by “theexclusion of the local residents” does not workwithout providing replacement that complements
their needs. Further, in the light of reality, we mustsay that providing such replacement is extremely
unrealistic.
This type of methodology, which holds down
the local residents’ behavior using the forest
resources by offering/supporting social andeconomic incentives, has been commonly
practiced not only by the Tanzania government
but also the other international organizations andother countries in the various kinds of projects(23). And many of those are run in the name of“Participatory Approach”.

Push Back the National Park Borderline

Regarding our further activities on Mt.
Kilimanjaro, the objective that becomes the mostimportant is realizing the aforementioned twoparts. As for the former, regarding the nationalpark borderline, our repeated negotiation with theregional and district governments have been
continued since 2007. Although, our effort has
succeeded little by little to convince them of thesignificance of the problem.
As a result at Tema village, the regional
government had granted the local residents
entering to the forest reserve and planting trees
as a special case (24).
But the conclusion of Tanzania governmentthat has regarded them as destroyer of the forestand deprived HMFS by including it as a part of thenational park, furthermore, KINAPA’s harassment-4-

Report from the activity scenes - Kilimanjaro Forest (3)the sustainable forest use and its
management by the Community
Initiative in the past on Mt. Kilimanjaro(26).

against them has completely destructed tree
planting activity of the community lasting for 20
years, and minds of the villagers who haveworked on it.
On the other hand, the expanded applicationof the national park to the forest reserve wasmade to other areas from Mt. Kilimanjaro and had
caused problems at various areas.

e.

Pointing out the inefficiencies of the
traditional ways of thegovernment-driven Participatory
Approach policies until now.

Happened was an unbelievable state ofserious conflict within the same government
between TANAPA and the Ministry of Natural
Resources and Tourism, when Olmotonyi
Forestry Training Institute in Arusha region (which
is located next to Kilimanjaro region administeredby the Ministry of Natural Resources andTourism), was included to the national park. As amatter of course, the local residents’ complaints
had become serious, and we were informed by
TEACA that there is a movement inside thegovernment for the adjustment of the nationalpark borderline.

f.

Proposals for pushing back the national
park’s borderline, and the necessity of
establishing new framework of theCommunity Initiative forest management
system.

In order to ascertain these movements, wehave held a conference in Moshi this summer todiscuss about the issue with the government’s
respective forestry related departments
altogether. Attended from the government werethe South Kilimanjaro Catchment Forest Office,the Zonal Publicity Office-Northern Zone, theKilimanjaro Regional Forest Department, theMoshi District Forestry and Bee-keeping
Department, and from the government-affiliatedorganization was Tanzania Association ofForestry (25).

[Photo：Discussion with the directors of related
forest departments.]
As far as these points and proposals areconcerned, we are convinced that all the related
departments who have attended the conference
had shown high interest (special recognition). As
to the reconsideration for the national park’sborderline, the funding issue for surveillance
stands as the bottleneck for progressing its
redefinition and resettlement, however ouroutlook towards the government’s movement is
optimistic. Further, in order to ascertain theseactions, we have also held another discussion
with the head office of Forestry and Beekeeping
Department under the Ministry of Natural
Resources and Tourism at Dar es Salaam. It wasof our regret that we could not get a hold of thedirector of the department face-to-face sinceduring the business trip, but we have managed to
exchange our opinions with his aide and drawn
her high attention. After the event, we gained anagreement from the department head himself tohold a meeting on the subsequent opportunity,
which encouraged us to make it happen for real
upon our next visit.

The principal objective was to push back thenational park borderline above HMFS; for that
purpose, TEACA and we presented the following
explanations and proposals:a.

Presentation about the status and its
data related to the strengthened historyof the forest management up to thepresent, and the reality of deforestation
linked and worsened to it.

b.

Expression of concern and the actual
situation against uncontrollable forest
use which is expected to be worsened
as the result of expanding the nationalpark borderline.

c.

Providing various and available research
results proposing the effectiveness ofthe community initiative for forest
management of Mt. Kilimanjaro.

d.

Presenting the successful practices of-5-

Report from the activity scenes - Kilimanjaro Forest (3)3.

Necessity of “Community Initiative” Forestry
Management System

simply as the ignorant forest destroyer. Also,
posture of listening to the idea and thought of theforest management that local residents oneself
thinks about, and supporting its practice will benecessary for the government, instead of forcing
them to follow the participatory approachconcepts that various developed countries,
international organizations, and NGOs bring infrom the outside.

Next, as the second challenge, we haveworked on building the framework of new forest
management at HMFS. Its focus is on how theeffective forest management system should servefor protecting forests after pushing back thenational park’s borderline. The base of it is on the“Community Initiative” learned from theexperience of the Chagga Council and the local
people as successful practice, which had
managed the forest by their own hands andenabled its sustainable use.
HMFS jurisdiction prior to incorporation to thenational park, used to belong to the district.
However the district was able hardly to manage
HMFS though they were having jurisdiction, andthe realities that were not able to stop thedeforestation have already been described.
Under the insufficient financial affairs, it was hard
to secure enough numbers of staff: in addition, as
to those laws applied to HMFS and the forest
reserve one after another, as well as thoseprojects implying various and different directions
done by various organizations, even the forest
officers could not clearly answer what is right andwhat not. How could the district possibly manage
HMFS properly?
Moreover, it is completely out of thequestion in the eye of local residents to renounce
using the forest resources according to thegovernment’s new policy line that declared“Participatory Approach” which follows the
traditional top-down approach and ignoring the
local peoples’ opinions or intentions.
To solve such issue, the following are
required as prerequisite: preparing the united
management system of use of the forest
resources based upon the mutual agreement of
the local residents; the management system
functions substantially and effective;
cost-effective; the sufficient number of humanresources can be secured.
It is exactly the local communities that havepossibility to realize it, especially “the villages” as
the closest administrative organ for the local
residents that put them together. This can bealmost overlapped with what had once beenrealized by Chagga Council and the local
residents, plus their ability for execution havealready been proven to be evidential with theirown hands.

[Above photo: HEM Trust Fund, one of the NGOs
acting at the foot of Mt. Kilimanjaro][Bottom photo: Meeting with Mr. Sekiete, themanagement head of HEM, and Mr. Rauo incharge of Marangu district.

The government ought to correct its
prejudice (stereotype) against the local residents-6-

Report from the activity scenes - Kilimanjaro Forest (3)4.

Villages, The Key Player of Community
Initiative

residents.

To realize forest management by“Community Initiative”, substantial right ofmanagement over the forest (HMFS) needs to be
returned to the hand of the residents (=villages)(28). They have the necessity to depend on theforest in order to sustain their daily lives; therefore
they are fully aware of the significance. Moreover,the villagers of Tema village, at least, have pride
that it is them but not other who have protected
the forest by the effort of tree planting activity for
20 years till now.
However, when seeing as Mt. Kilimanjaro
whole, the forest management of the government
does not function, and as a whole, the fact that
deforestation advanced to is as having describedso far. And, as a result, the mountain got pressure
from the world countries because it was a world
heritage, and the forest of HMFS was taken away
at last as a national park.
The forest will just continue decreasing as
before only by returning to a former"management" state even if a national park wasremoved. It is obvious that internal and externalpressure to return the forest to national park risingagain (29). Once it is decided so again, the forest
will never return to a hand of villagers. This iswhat we exactly afraid of.

In order to avoid such situation to happen
again, and to realize holistic and practical forest
management across Mt. Kilimanjaro, suchorganization that can form the opinion andthought of local residents in bottom-up, and cantake the initiative to practice is necessary. The
main constituent that can play the role across all
the communities is the “village” after all.
5.

Community Initiative Forest Management;
Aiming at its achievement

Under the recognition mentioned above, theaction for the community initiative forest
management had already launched at twovillages of Tema and Kidia, As per discussed
earlier, in order to concrete the practicalmanagement system, it is the best involving theresidents who understands necessity of the forest
closest to them to hold discussion, and establish
consensus which is necessary to place as a partof the formal rules of the villages. Because it is no
meaning if the rule was like former government(unfeasible) management that residents could not
follow, hardly practiced, or like those various
other projects by other organizations that had
dispersed like mist.
The process structuring the bottom-up
system start, first of all, the village council (30) to
decide significant agendas to be discussed at thevillage assembly. In other words, the importanceand necessity of the forest management
conducted by the villages and residents are to be
asked in the village council..

After all, it is villagers that cornered to themost embarrassed standpoint even if the forests
decrease or it is taken up. In order to avoid suchsituation, the only option left for them is toestablish the sustainable management rules forforest resources and its usage, and structure
them as a system, then negotiate/persuade thegovernment to grant them. This is the conclusion
we have arrived as a result of the meeting withleaders of TEACA.

Those agendas recognized with highimportance are then discussed at the village
assembly, which is the highest decision-making
body of the village comprising all member
villagers both male and female over the age 18.
Further those agreed agendas passed by majority
are to be the formal decision of the village.

However, for doing so, the way ofafforestation activities led by TEACA would notwork anymore, even at Tema village. This isbecause the “village” is the only entity that is in
the appropriate position for representing thevillagers for the government, though TEACA has
played a key role of tree planting activity in thecommunity until now. Further, no such local NGO
as practicable as TEACA hardly exists in villages
that are scattered along with the vast field of
HMFS, which total area is nearly 9,000 ha. As aresult, various organizations like government,international organizations and NGOs carried out
many projects by a different thought and different
policy until now. And it confused villages and local

During Tema village council, raised by one of
Kitongojis located apart from HMFS was theconcern whether “community residents canhandle the management of this vast forest bythemselves”. But the final consistent view of theall participants was “users stand to reason forowing management responsibility”. Hence thedecision was made that the village assembly is tohold a discussion with the residents.
In Kidia village council, the desire to theforest management by themselves was shown insequence. The discussion went very
enthusiastically that the room temperature of the-7-

Report from the activity scenes - Kilimanjaro Forest (3)[Implementation flow after the transfer to the community initiative forest management]
patrol groups in cooperation with thevillage environment committee.

small village office felt even hotter. Some topics
like “what kinds of rule are good to be establishedat the village” were discussed. Many evencommented “nothing like this council meeting withsuch fruitful discussions has ever been madebefore”.
As a result of the council, the village
assembly was held at the both villages. Involving
the local residents, once again the pros and consof the forest management and its means andmethod were discussed. Unexpectedly, the waythat HMFS got merged as a part of National Park
has taught a lesson to the local residents torealize how much the forest means to them.
There is no objection as to managing the forest bythemselves. Although the concrete rules like thatonce conducted by Chagga council will take time
to be fully-equipped with further discussion
among the villagers, their vision towards HMFS
management and direction in the bigger picture
were made clear. The below is the list of theirdecisions (based upon the assumption HMFS is
detached from the national park):a.

All Kitongojis are to organize a forest-8-b.

The patrol group is to conduct daily
HMFS patrol, and enforce an order allout to the residents to follow the forest
management rules.

c.

The villages and the patrol groups are to
conduct their activities following theappropriate instruction and advice by the
district.

d.

In order to keep the sustainable use of
the forest, the villages and theenvironment committee are to make andsubmit the annual afforestation/tree
planting plan to the district..

e.

The villages are to report the result oftree planting annually.

f.

Under the instruction by the village andthe committee, the local residents are towork on afforestation/tree planting
activity, and to take care of planted trees
and planting sites each year.

Report from the activity scenes - Kilimanjaro Forest (3)g.

TEACA is responsible for supplying
seedlings.

h.

With regard to the forest management,
the village and the district are to makeagreements.

i.

In case of failure in forest management,
the village agrees that the district to takeover the forest.

[Summary and Further Challenges]
Explained above is the status to date.
Therefore, Tanzania Pole Pole Club is to work on
the following actions on the Mt. Kilimanjaro as the
top priorities. Further challenges are also
summarized in conclusion.

The catchy part that makes these decisions boldly
is item i. It comes from the idea of give and take:by simply listing the wants for removing HMFS
from the national park would not fully convince
the government without showing theircommitment how serious they are. And eventhough it happened for real, it is unlikely to believethat the district would transfer the management
right to them freely with 100% trust. The villagers
drive oneself into the all out effort, and it may besaid that they showed own resolution ofprotecting forest by their own hands. And thisdecision was submitted to the district.

1.

Further Actions

I.

Cancellation of National Park from HMFS

A case assuming the existence of local
residents as a precondition, this is the major
prerequisite as well as the absolute condition inorder to carry on the sustainable forest
management on Mt. Kilimanjaro. There is amovement for re-consideration about this within
the government, nevertheless we will further
continue our advocacy activities against the
government to make it ascertain. Particularly
significant is the appeal to the director of the head
office of the Forestry and Beekeeping under the
Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism.
II.

Transfer the Forest Management Right to the
Local Villages

We will continue the cross-organizational
conference with the forest-related departments ofthe government and further expand therecognition for the Community Initiative forest
management. Through this we intend to gain
them more idea about community initiative
approach as alternative policy against the forest
management with the traditional top-down
approaches so that they could propose it bythemselves in the case of the national park
cancellation. ,III. Shaping the Means of Community Initiative
Forest Management[Photo: Mr. Mcharo of a vice-chairperson TEACA
speaking in a village council]

The current plan of the village is yet in aframework on the whole. So the detailed
regulations with regard to the forest use, thesettlement on the management plan, organizing
the forest patrol groups and the committee, thedefinition of the duty etc., need to be discussedwith villagers and take concrete shape in future.
However, it is pointless that to put activity weighton speed than quality, especially at this stage
where no promise is given whether HMFS isreturned. Rather we aim to offer support to help
tree planting activity by the community Initiative
within the village area where is outside of the
HMFS, in order to empower ability of the village.

[Photo:Discussion with Tema villagers concerning
community initiative forest management]-9-

Report from the activity scenes - Kilimanjaro Forest (3)IV. Restoring the Villagers’ Pride andSelf-Confidence
The villagers have stood up for taking action
to realize the Community Initiative management.
However, the past two decades of their effort has
not received the slightest attention in the light ofglobal forest protection: the government labeled
them as destroyers of the forests and the fact it
had forced the strict regulation against them had
hurt their feelings very deeply, and had driven
them into despair. The scar has not healed as ofyet, and their distrust against the government is
deep-rooted
From now on, the above items I to III are ourmost important focuses. However, at the sametime, such program also need to be provided for
those villagers who have been through deep
disappointment and about to loose the sense of
purpose, that is to find the valuable meaning intheir activities, and to regain their pride andconfidence. It is because no rules or measureswould hold any practical effect nor sustainability
without their spontaneous intention.
In this regard, we intend to start the program
incorporating historical and cultural aspects which
villagers and children can learn and understandeasily the significance of existence of the forest,and how it is included and linked with their living
systems.
Although the program does not take effectquickly, it will lead them to more deeply
understanding about the impact and the meaningof their activity, and also to work with
self-confidence, through providing an opportunity
to look back and appreciate the familiar forest andtheir history of life.
2.

Challenges

As you can see in our past achievements,
the forest management of Mt. Kilimanjaro (HMFS)
by Community Initiative had been more effective
than by the government.
For instance, during the past two decades
from 1941 when the right of HMFS management
was left to Chagga Council, untill 1961 when theright was deprived, the total area afforested bythem was 450.4ha (about 23ha/year). On theother hand, it is 116ha (about 13ha/year) that it
was afforested by the district in nine years from1962 to 1971 when the management right was
moved to district council.. What it was worse, thedeforested area during the same period is said tohave been larger than that of afforested.
Management was returned to the district again in- 10 -

1987 after the management right had been
moved from 1972 afterwards to 1986 to thecentral government. And, for the following 3 years
until 1990, the district carried out planting of
129.1ha (about 43ha/year). However, the cut oftimber had exceeded the afforestation area again
because it had valued earnings as thecommercial forest. Since then, afforestation was
hardly practiced.
During the Community Initiative forest
management led by Chagga Council, they puted
the person in charge for management bythemselves and local residents supported theafforestation activity. Eventually they had become
to employ the forest workers of the working fulltime by paying their own expenses.
The fund supported their forest management
as such was sourced from the sales profit offorest resources, but three fourth of which hadgone to the government. Aside of this, they had
also collected use fee from the forest users. Thus,
all of the costs of the forest management werecovered by these limited earnings by themselves.
However, when it comes to the future forest
management by community initiative in the
future, ,it seems difficult to secure even such
limited original source of income that chagga
council once earned. It is because the forest of
HMFS was utterly devastated while it was underthe management of the district, and earningincome from the forest resources is extremely
difficult.
Meanwhile, in order for tree planting activity,
the cost is required just for growing the seedlings,
and how to cover the cost for sustainable forest
management including caring for trees after theplanting and patrolling planting sites, etc.
becomes bottleneck, (though still it seems far
better cost than the government management
and cost-effectiveness is also higher).
In order to solve this issue, we will need topropose the following. In other words, thetraditional Participatory Approach policies (i.e.
JFM) had provided funds as economic incentives
mostly focused on pulling the local residents
away from the forest as an alternative solution (itdid not work as expected though). We proposethat this fund to be allocated as the fund tosupport Community Initiative Forest Managementby the respective villages, so that secure its
budget continuously. Further, by removing HMFS
from the national park, the social development
program (CCS) implemented by TANAPA(KINAPA) would become no longer be offered inReport from the activity scenes - Kilimanjaro Forest (3)theory. But the part of the national park revenue
should be returned to the adjacent communities
for the purpose of protecting the national park in
the long run.
The government, therefore, is responsible totransform JFM into not “participatory”, but the true
meaning of the residents-owned forest
management, namely the program to support
forest management by “Community Initiative”;
meanwhile CCS is to be positioned and continued
as the program for supporting the social
development in the local community. By doing so,
those existing programs and policies, which
positioning and functions are vague andduplicated for similar purposes, executed here
and there up to now by deferent organizations
within the same government, should be
fine-tuned and the confusion of residents will beable to be avoided.
Also, we suggest that the various
international organizations and NGOs should pay
closer attention to the local people’s opinions andviewpoints and help them promoting theirspontaneous activities as a supporter, instead ofbringing their own Participatory Approach project
independently like a social experiment,(Reported by S. Fujisawa)[Photo: Trees planted by villagers growing at
HMFS on Mt. Kilimanjaro (both short and tall onesby Tema)]- 11 -

Report from the activity scenes - Kilimanjaro Forest (3)REFERENCES(1) Tanzania Pole Pole Club Newsletter. No.
30-32.
(2) Hemp, A. (2005). Climate change-driven
forest fires marginalize the impact of icecap
wasting on Kilimanjaro: Global Change
Biology, vol. 11.
(3) Population and housing census - Village andstreet statistics. Vol. VII. Total population of
three districts: Moshi rural; Hai; Rombo.
(2002). National Bureau of Statistics,
Tanzania.
(4) About 900 kinds of plants are found in theforest reserve, comprising 41% of the entire
plants (nearly 2200 kinds) across Mt.
Kilimanjaro. 87 out of more less 140
mammals (62%) also live in the forest
reserve.
(5) The subsidiary legislation of National Parks
Act. (2005).
(6) The subject policy in this context is with theapplication of subsidiary legislation of
National Parks Act 2005 that aimed to
exclude residents from forest reserve
particularly on Mt. Kilimanjaro.
(7) For more details of the historical transition of
the forest policies and control reinforcement ,see our Newsletter No. 31.
(8) Limits the local residents’ access to theforest.
(9) The buffer zone issue was taken up for
discussion at the 16th UNESCO general
assembly for Man and Biosphere (MAB)
program in 1971.
(10) The concepts of “Game reserve” and “forest
reserve” introduced to Africa by Westerners
are originated not by the true protection ofsuch lives, but by the purpose for creating arecreational sanctuary for the few wealthyprivileged Westerners (by Mackenzie 1988,
Wanitzek and Spippel 1998, and Grove1990).
(11) Especially at those villages located along theforest reserve, lifestyle of villagers havetraditionally and largely depended on theforest resources for collecting firewood,
fodder, building materials, etc. This makes
contrast with that of those who live at thelower foot and the mid part of the mountainfar away from the forest reserve as they holdthe common land in their area for getting
those resources. Likewise, the social andliving structure of the neighbor villages along
the forest reserve is critically dependent on
the forest, and on the assumption that
depending on the forest, they had been able
to secure their farmland in village area.
- 12 -

Namely, newly developing the common land
within a village cannot work without
depending on those forests in the forest
reserve. And what’s more, at Chagga
villages where land productivity supporting
their people have already saturated with its
maximum capability. Scarcely there is any
more common land available in the village
area that is vast enough to cover thegrassland for fooder.
(12) Development and Climate Change Project.
(2003). OECD.:“Among the more immediate adaptation
responses identified by this report are
institutional measures such as the inclusionof the forest belt into the Kilimanjaro National
Park and the creation of a paramilitary ranger
group to deter logging, as well as better
investments in early warning systems,
particularly the purchase of one or two
aircraft for aerial surveillance.”(13) However, the purpose of the law was not
informed to the residents, and HMFS
management which had already confused
the situation bad enough made the outcome
even worse than ever before.
(14) Durrant, M. B. (2004). Communities, place,and conservation on Mt. Kilimanjaro.
(15) Despite these policies, on the other hand,
local residents were still prohibited to use theforest resources within the forest reserve.
Also as to JFM, as well as CCS, local
residents were not informed either. Hencethe subject policy could not effectively arriveat the goal as expected.
(16) Countries forest facts by country. (2004).
FAO, Forestry institutions and major
programmes, Tanzania.
(17) Supplemental sources:*Adams,W.& D. Hulme. (2001).Conservation& Community: Changing narratives, policies& practices in African conservation. African
Wildlife & Livelihoods.
*Western, D., & R. M. Write. (1994). The
background to community-based conservation: Natural connections: Perspectives incommunity-based conservation.
(18) The jurisdictional authority at Mt. Kilimanjaro
is KINAPA (Kilimanjaro National Park).
(19) Meramari, L. (1995). The need for acommunity-based conservation policy in
Tanzania: TANAPA's perspective:
Community-based conservation in Tanzania(20) Barrow, E., & Murphree, M. (2001).
Community conservation: From concept topractice": African Wildlife & Livelihoods

Report from the activity scenes - Kilimanjaro Forest (3)(21) Supplemental sources:
United Nations Development Program(UNDP). (2004). GEF Small Grants
Programme (GEF SGP). Partnerships forconservation: Lessons from the “COMPACT
approach” for co-managing protected areas
and landscapes(22) NORAD. (2007). Management of natural
resources programme, Tanzania TAN-0092.
(23) Supplemental sources:*Community Management of Protected
Areas Conservation Project (COMPACT) by
UNDP / United Nations Foundation (UNF) /Global Environment Facility (GEF)*Management of Natural Resources
Programme (MNRP), Catchment Forestry
Project in Kilimanjaro by the Norwegian /Tanzanian governments.
(24) Nevertheless the use of the forest resources
remained as completely prohibited.
(25) Tanzania Association of Forestry (TAF) ,mainly organized by the retired forest officers.
During the period 2002-2004, they took over
Small Grant COMPACT Project from UNDP,
and redefined the borderline of the forest
reserve and HMFS at Tema’s neighbor
villages: Mowo, Kidia, and Tella, respectively.
Based upon Kenya’s forest conservation
practice at Mt. Kenya, TAF’s viewpoint
supports Mt.Kilimanjaro’s forest protection byturning it to the national park. Hence
therefore, their work of redefining theborderline could be regarded as an outpostof the national park expansion.
(26) Between 1941 and 1961, the present area of
HMFS used to be called “Chagga Local
Authority Strip” and its sustainable use andmanagement was well controlled by Chagga
people. It is known that the scale ofafforestation during the period was larger
than that of the government (the subject area
was put under the government administrationin 1962 and renamed as HMFS. The
government’s focus was on commercial
logging rather than afforestation)(27) The jurisdictional authority is District Forestry
and Bee-keeping Department.
(28) Even in such case, the jurisdiction right isdesired to remain under the government
control as the function to perform
management audit and evaluation.
(29) Mt. Kilimanjaro draws the world’s attention
not only as the world heritage, but also as
facing the crisis of losing its mountaintop
glacier related to the global warming. The
cause of such phenomena carries several
views besides the global warming, and its
major cause has not been identified as of yet.
- 13 -

One of the well-grounded arguments
touches on the diminishing amount of vapor
due to deforestation of the mountain. It
reduces the formation of clouds over themountaintop, which in theory increases theglacial sublimate phenomena (i.e. glacial
disappearance) by sun radiation, as well as
the diminishing amount of snowfall (i.e.
hindered glacial formation).
Likewise the concerns for the deforestation
at Mt. Kilimanjaro and the external pressurefor its protection from other countries andinternational organizations will continue
throwing warning against Tanzanian
government. At present, majority of such
criticisms supports the idea of “Fortress
Conservation” (as a national park). Further,Dr. James Wakibara, the senior ecologicalresearcher of TANAPA, who visited Japan
recently has commented “the best possible
solution for protecting Mt. Kilimanjaro forests
is to turn them entirely into the national park.”(30) The village council is an administrative organ
responsible for settling plans on participatory
development as well as protecting theresidents’ lives. Determined at this council
also is the list of agenda being discussed atvillage assembly. Generally, the council
consists of about 25 members including thevillage chairman as the chairperson, thevillage secretary who belonging to the district,the leaders of respective “Kitngojis”, and theelected members through the village
assembly. A Kitongoji is a sub unit of avillage comprising about 100 households,
taking the bottom part of an organization
forming the village. Moreover, a quarter ofthe entire council is composed of female
members.