iucn_policy brief_1_mtanza-msona integrated wetland assessment case study

8/3/2019 IUCN_Policy Brief_1_Mtanza-Msona Integrated Wetland Assessment Case Study

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/iucnpolicy-brief1mtanza-msona-integrated-wetland-assessment-case-study 1/10

A CASE STUDY IN INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT:WETLANDS BIODIVERSITY, LIVELIHOOD AND ECONOMICVALUE IN MTANZA-MSONA VILLAGE, TANZANIA

Policy BriefPrepared by Jessica Campese, adapted from Kasthala et al., (2008)

IUCN - International Union for Conservation of Nature



1

This project has been funded by the UK government through Defra’s Darwin Initiative, which draws on the wealth of biodiversity expertise within the UK to help protect and enhance biodiversity around the world.

OVERVIEW

Wetlands in Tanzania, like many places in theworld, have diverse, interrelated environmental andhuman values that are often poorly reflected inconservation and development planning. Efforts toachieve sustainable, effective and equitablewetlands conservation and management can beenhanced by a thorough understanding ofrelationships between their biodiversity, economic,and livelihoods dimensions. This, in turn, requiresthat wetlands assessments consider thesedimensions in an integrated way. While there aretechniques to assess wetland biological, economicand livelihood values and trends separately, there

is a lack of available methods to assess thedynamics between them, or to express thisinformation in a way that straightforwardlycontributes to real-world conservation anddevelopment planning.

IUCN, International Union for Conservation ofNature,

iand its partners have undertaken an

extensive, integrated assessment of thebiodiversity, livelihood and economic value ofwetlands in Mtanza-Msona Village (Rufiji District,Tanzania). The assessment aimed to inventory thesocio-economic conditions and wetland species

and habitats within the village; to investigate what,how, when, why and by whom wetland resourcesare used; and to identify the implications of this useon wetland conservation status and the status ofthe local economy and livelihoods. The assessmentwas also meant to test the overall approach, and inso doing contribute to a larger international project

– “Strengthening Pro-Poor Wetland ConservationUsing Integrated Biodiversity and LivelihoodAssessment” – which began in October 2005 andwill conclude in September 2008, funded by the UKDarwin Initiative.

ii

The assessment clearly demonstrates that wetlands support high species diversity, and make a significant contribution to livelihoods and economies in Mtanza-Msona, especially for poorer and more vulnerable groups. The forests, woodlands, lakes, swamps, river and floodplain areas, and the plant and animal species they support, yield a wide range of products important to local livelihoods. The most poor andvulnerable groups within the Mtanza-Msonacommunity rely particularly on wetlands resourcesfor basic needs and wellbeing, and for mitigatingvulnerability to seasonal or periodic shocks.

The assessment also shows that many wetlandsresources and species are threatened – mostnotably from upstream development and use – andthat active conservation and management effortsare very limited. This implies the need for, inter alia ,conservation and management plans that supportsustainable utilization of wetlands resources bylocal people, particularly the most vulnerable. Theintegrated assessment can contribute to village anddistrict level planning in line with these goals, andpotentially help villagers express and defend thevalue of their resources against external threats.More generally, this approach can contribute tosimilar pro-poor conservation and developmentplanning efforts throughout Tanzania and the world.



2

Map 1: Location of Mtanza-Msona Village in Rufiji District

Rufiji District

From Hogan and Mwambeso 2004

BACKGROUND

The Rufiji Floodplain of east-central Tanzania hosts

high species diversity, and provides ecosystemservices and products critical to local livelihoodsand economies, but also faces a myriad of threatsfrom unsustainable development and use. Whilethere is some level of trade-off between managingwetlands for conservation and for humandevelopment needs, there are also positivesynergies that should be drawn out. Understandingthe nature and magnitude of the competition andsynergies between natural and human systems inwetlands is an important step toward making plansand decisions that generate maximum benefits forboth conservation and development.

In Mtanza-Msona Village in Rufiji Distrct, IUCN hasbeen collaborating with the Ministry of NaturalResources and Tourism, the District Council, theVillage Government and local people, theEconomic Research Bureau, the Institute ofResource Assessment and Department ofGeography of the University of Dar es Salaam, andother partners to undertake an integrated, village-wide wetlands assessment. By linking biodiversity,

livelihood, and economic considerations, it aims,inter alia , to provide practical information forplanning and decision making for sustainable,

effective, and equitable wetland conservation. It isalso one of two test cases in an internationalproject - “Strengthening Pro-Poor WetlandConservation Using Integrated Biodiversity andLivelihood Assessment” – which began in October2005 and will conclude in September 2008 withfunding from the UK Darwin Initiative.

MTANZA-MSONA VILLAGE

Mtanza-Msona Village, located in the RufijiFloodplain, was chosen as a pilot field site due toits rich wetland resources which yield a range of

products which support local people’s subsistence,income, and livelihoods. The estimated village areais between 550-600 km

2, though its population is

relatively compactly settled in five sub-villages,leaving a large area of forest to the northwest(Hogan et al. 2000). The assessment focused onall the wetlands within the village boundaries(permanent and seasonal rivers, streams, lakes,swamps and floodplains), including associatedforest and grassland areas.



3

The natural and human environments

The Rufiji Floodplain has a tropical climate.Seasonality is mainly determined by rainfall andassociated flooding, which play important roles inagricultural cycles. The village area natural habitatsinclude forests, grasslands, bushlands, wetlands,sand dunes, farmland and areas of humansettlement, which support high species diversity.

The village population of 1,830 people (428households) is spread across four sub-villages. Thelargest tribe is Ndengereko (also known asWaruhingo). Others include Matumbi, Pogoro,Hehe, Ngindo and Zaramo. Local livelihoods arebased around crop farming, with rice and maize asstaples. While cultivation remains mainly at thesubsistence level, food trading is a common way ofgenerating cash income. Crop cultivation is also

risky, and most households employ a range ofadditional livelihood and economic strategies tomitigate this risk. These include wild-food andmedicinal plant collection, small-scale trade,charcoal production, fishing and handicraftproduction. The main energy source is fuelwood.

Environmental governance and management

The integrated assessment complements severalongoing wetland management processes. Thewetlands and associated resources in Mtanza-Msona are in a mix of formally gazetted reserves,

communal lands, and privately held lands, whichare in turn managed by a mix of line ministries,local authorities (most notably the Village Counciland Village Environment Committee), informalgroups, and individuals. The local administration isultimately responsible for land allocation andplanning within the village. The Village Council alsoplays an important role in forest management,particularly in a village-gazetted forest reservenorth of the Rufiji River. A village planning teamprepared the Mtanza-Msona Village EnvironmentManagement Plan (VEMP) in 2000. The VEMP isbeing implemented by the Village Government, with

the primary objective of protecting and ensuringsustainable utilization of the village area naturalresources and environment. The VillageEnvironment Committee drafted new rules fornatural areas and resources use which becameoperational in August 2003; some rules mirrorexisting national laws, and others were enacted asVillage Government by-laws.

THE PROCESS:SETTING OBJECTIVES, CONDUCTING THEASSESSMENT, SHARING ANALYSIS

The integrated wetlands assessment method inMtanza-Msona was refined and adapted from theassociated toolkit being produced as part of thelarger project (Darwall et al. 2007), which sets thefollowing guiding principles:

• Be integrated across disciplines and themes;• Be geared to address a particular management

issue or question;• Generate information that can be used to

support and improve the planning of on-the-ground wetland management, and provideinformation to make better decisions about howto use and allocate investment funds, land andresources in and around wetlands;

• Work to strengthen existing wetlandmanagement process;

• Serve to sustain wetland values, with a focuson ensuring the continued generation andequitable access to wetland goods andservices, particularly for poorer and morevulnerable human groups.

The assessment followed three broad phases,described in turn below.

(1) Defining management objectives thatrecognise and balance conservation and

development goals, and promote a pro-poorapproach to wetland management.

This phase ensures that the assessment addressesa particular management or policy need. Wetlandassessment is a means to an end — better andmore informed conservation and developmentdecision-making. The Mtanza-Msona assessmentaimed to assist in wetland conservation planningand management by helping to address a lack ofinformation about wetland status and values in thevillage. The study also aimed to identify the specificneeds and status of the poor in Mtanza-Msona, and

their links to wetland ecology and biology withinbroader livelihood and economic processes. The noverall management objective was to generateinformation to inform planning and implementationof on-the-ground wetland management activities inthe village, including the VEMP, and moregenerally to advocate for broader support ofintegrated assessment from the government anddonors.



4

(2) Conducting the assessment to document thestate of wetland biodiversity, identifydevelopment and conservation pressures andthreats, and understand management andpolicy responses.

An interdisciplinary field team of biologists,ecologists, rural sociologists and economists

carried out the main field assessment in twostages: during the dry season (September-October2006) and the wet season (February-March 2007).Six wetland sites were surveyed and 3 focus groupdiscussions were held for the biodiversityassessment (flora and fauna); 112 householdswere interviewed and 12 focus group discussionswere held for both livelihood and economicvaluation exercises. Detail was collected onspecies diversity and resource harvest andutilization, including when, at what levels, how, and

by whom these activities are carried out, and whattheir economic value is at household and villagelevels. To promote integration, each of the inter-

disciplinary experts was involved in collecting anddiscussing information relating to all three thematicareas. There was also ongoing interaction withlocal government authorities and villagers to ensurea continuous stakeholder feedback loop.

(3) Carrying out analysis and presentation toemphasise the connectivity betweenbiodiversity, economic and livelihood factors,and to ensure that information is presented in apractical and policy-relevant form.

Extensive data analysis and report drafting followedassessment completion, and several correspondingactivities were used to present findings and solicitfeedback from local and national partners, includingtrainings on integrated wetland assessment andanalysis, awareness and information briefs, andnational policy roundtables and local dialogues. A

final series of national and local dialogues will beheld to disseminate and share the technical reportwith stakeholders by September 2008.

(Above) From left, a Village Forest Officer, the Village Game Scout, and the Integrated Assessment Biodiversity Fieldworker working together on the assessment. (© David Allen 2007



5

KEY FINDINGS

All households in Mtanza-Msona use avariety of wetland resources to supporttheir day-to-day livelihoods. Every household

engages in at least one wetland activity, and anaverage of 7 activities. Wetland resources forma major source of domestic energy, shelter,medicines and food for most people.

Wetland resources are of substantialeconomic value to households and thevillage as a whole. The majority of wetlandsharvest and use activities are worth at leastTSh 25,000 a year for each person engaging inthem, with timber harvesting for sale, fishing,honey collection, building poles and firewoodbeing the most lucrative (average annual

values exceeding TSh 100,000). The totalannual value of wetland resource use is TSh226 million (528,353 per household, 123,571per capita) though this estimate increasessubstantially when considering real values,including broader linkages and multipliereffects.

iii

Differentiation in the type and level ofwetland activities across richer and poorerhouseholds demonstrate that, inter alia , thepoorest households carry out a wider rangeof wetland activities, in part to spread risk

and maximise available opportunities. Theparticipation of the poorest in wetland activities

is however most often focused on meetingbasic needs, and on relatively lower-valueactivities. Richer households tend to engage inboth subsistence activities and activities forincome-generation (e.g., pottery, wild honeyharvesting, fishing, timber felling, and charcoalproduction), because they can afford thelabour, time and equipment to do so.

• The village area wetlands support a highlevel of species diversity, with very limitedconservation and active management.There are, to local people’s credit, village-implemented fisheries controls (closed seasonson Lake Mtanza and Makoge, and limits onfishing gear and practices allowed) and forest

conservation zoning.

• Village area wetland habitats and speciesface ‘off-site’ and ‘on-site’ threats. The main‘off-site’ threats include upstream alteration ofwater flow cycles, such as through constructionof dams and water extraction for irrigationpurposes, and the potential arrival of invasivealien species. The main on-site threats includedegradation/modification of wetlands forcultivation, over-exploitation of species (e.g.use of small-mesh size nets for lake/riverfishing) and pollution.

Table 1: The contribution of wetland products to fulfilling basic human needs.

Wetland activity or product Energy Medicine Shelter FoodEquipment

& toolsCash

incomeFishing Woodfuel Timber Grasses, reeds & palms

Medicinal & aromatic plants Wild food plants Hunting & animal-based foods Wild honey & beeswax Clay



6

CONCLUSIONS AND MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

From the findings above, we can conclude that,inter alia :

• Wetlands underpin the quality and security ofpeople’s livelihoods and improve their livingcircumstances, especially for the poor.

• The vast majority of village economic activitiesdepend directly or indirectly on wetland goodsand services.

• Several critical species require greaterconservation measures to ensure theircontinued existence, and sustainableavailability in support of local livelihoods.

Management implications include the following:

• More and stronger conservation managementplans are needed for key species, together witheffective community education and speciesprotection implementation policies that seekthe participation of villagers.

• These management plans need to be coupledwith policies and activities that directly benefitlocal people for conservation efforts, and thatotherwise off-set the opportunity costs ofrestricted and modified resources use withinthe village area.

• Conservation measures need to ensureequitable impacts, including through carefulconsideration of impacts on the poorest ormost vulnerable groups in the village (who arealso the most directly dependent on wetlandsresources for basic needs and wellbeing).

• Conservation plans also need to operate atmultiple levels to address both ‘off-site’ and on-site threats, e.g., by using an EnvironmentalFlows framework where the ecosystemapproach is followed and the needs of peopleand the environment are equally considered.

• More information should be collected on theenvironmental requirements of the wetlandspecies, and their importance to villagelivelihoods and economies, to ensure thatimpacts of use and external actions can be fullyassessed and considered in the evaluation offuture developments.

A fisherman in Mtanza-Msona selling his catch from

the Rufiji River to the village campground kitchen.(©Jessica Campese 2008)



7

POSSIBLE BENEFITS FROM THE ASSESSMENT PROCESS AND OUTCOMES

Information provided by the assessment, and theprocess itself, can benefit Mtanza-Msona, andTanzania more generally, in several ways going

forward.

• Contribution to local conservation anddevelopment planning, including VEMPimplementation: The VEMP aims to secureand enhance wetland benefits for the localpopulation, and to support pro-poor sustainabledevelopment processes through wetlandconservation. Assessment outcomes furtherdemonstrate the importance of the VEMP, andcan contribute to it’s implementation byproviding information about the nature andmagnitude of the trade-offs and synergiesbetween wetlands-linked biodiversity,livelihoods and economies.

• Increased capacity to defend localresources, and thus livelihoods, fromupstream development threats: The VillageGovernment and people of Mtanza-Msonahave had limited capacity to express anddefend the value of their local resourcesagainst harmful upstream developments, e.g.,a proposed hydroelectric dam at Stiegler’sGorge. The information from the assessment – showing high, tangible, and diverse wetlandsvalues – can contribute to local capacity to

advocate against such upstream activities, andfor continued rights to sustainable use ofcritical local resources.

• Enhanced capacity to capitalize on villageresources: For a number of reasons, includinglack of market access, villagers in Mtanza-

Msona also lack adequate means tosustainably develop and fully capitalize onvillage area resources. In discussing theassessment findings about the value of localresources, villagers generated several ideasabout how these resources might becapitalized upon in more effective andsustainable ways (e.g., expanded ecotourismdevelopment). Some of these village-generatedsuggestions may now be taken up by otherlocal and partner-supported activities.

• Opportunity to utilize integratedassessment tools in other wetlands:Drawing on the lessons learned and interestgenerated by pilot activities in Mtanza-Msona,there are several developing opportunities tofurther adapt the assessment approach to theTanzanian context, and to use the resultingadapted tools in local wetlands managementand environmental planning activities in otherlocations in Tanzania. IUCN is collaboratingwith local, national, and international partners,including the Wetlands Unit, Wildlife Division ofthe Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism;and the National Wetlands Working Group(NWWG) to actively pursue these

opportunities. Institutionalizing integratedassessment across Tanzanian wetlands cancontribute to broader effortsundertaken through the Sustainable WetlandsManagement Programme (SWMP), whichemphasizes decentralized natural resourcesmanagement, and can serve as a model forsimilar approaches elsewhere in the world.



8

REFERENCES

Darwall, W., Emerton, L., Allison, E., Mclvor, A., and C. Bambaradeniya, C., (2007). A Draft Toolkit for Integrated Wetland Assessment . Freshwater Biodiversity Assessment Programme, World Conservation

Union (IUCN), Cambridge.

Hogan, R. and Mwambeso, P.A., (2004). Mtanza-Msona Village: Our Village Environmental Management Plan – An Account of How We Drew it Up and Are Implementing It. Rufiji Environmental ManagementProject, IUCN Tanzania Country Office, Dar es Salaam.

Hogan, R., Mwambeso, P., Chirwa, E., Chande, M., Nandi R. and Mmbaga, N. (2000). “We are all poor here”: Some Socio-economic Observations on Rufiji Floodplain and Delta . Technical Report No. 3. RufijiEnvironmental Management Project, IUCN Tanzania Country Office, Dar es Salaam.

Kasthala, G., Hepelwa, A., Hamiss, H., Kwayu, E., Emerton L., Springate-Baginski, O., Allen, D., andDarwall, W., (2008). An integrated assessment of the biodiversity, livelihood, and economic value of wetlands in Mtanza-Msona Village, Tanzania , International Union for the Conservation of Nature, in print.

COVER PHOTO: © Gita Kasthala

NOTES

iThe project is led by the IUCN Species Programme’s Freshwater Biodiversity Unit, with project partners from the Overseas

Development Group (University of East Anglia, UK), IUCN Tanzania, the IUCN Eastern Africa Regional Office, IUCN Sri Lanka,IUCN Cambodia, and IUCN Vietnam,. See: http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/our_work/freshwater/darwin_index.htmiiFor more on the UK government Darwin Initiative, see: http://www.darwin.gov.uk/

iiiMany more people than harvesters alone use, consume and depend on wetland products which may be made or collected by

others to generate or support their sources of subsistence, income and employment. On average, wetland products are worthalmost as much again as all other sources of farm production and off-farm income for user households.



IUCN - International Union for Conservation of Nature

For more information on the Mtanza-Msona integrated assessment or the Darwin

Initiative project please contact:

Ms. Jessica CampeseNational Project CoordinatorIUCN Tanzania Office63/1 Galu StreetAda Estate, KinondoniPO Box 13513Dar es SalaamTanzania

Tel: +255 (0)266 9084 / 9085E-mail: [email protected]

Dr William DarwallCoordinator, Freshwater Biodiversity UnitIUCN Species Programme219c Huntington RoadCambridge CB3 0DL. UK

Tel: +44 1223 277966Fax +44 1223 277845E-mail: [email protected]

Integrated wetland assessment project website:http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/our_work/freshwater/darwin_index.htm

iucn_policy brief_1_mtanza-msona integrated wetland assessment case study

Documents