Content uploaded by Nora Fagerholm
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Nora Fagerholm on Mar 06, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article was downloaded by: [Turku University]
On: 19 June 2014, At: 03:35
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Environmental Planning and
Management
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjep20
Realization of participation and
spatiality in participatory forest
management – a policy–practice
analysis from Zanzibar, Tanzania
Salla Eilolaa, Nora Fagerholma, Sanna Mäkia, Miza Khamisb & Niina
Käyhköa
a Department of Geography and Geology, University of Turku,
Finland
b Department of Forestry and Non-Renewable Natural Resources,
Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Zanzibar, Tanzania
Published online: 18 Jun 2014.
To cite this article: Salla Eilola, Nora Fagerholm, Sanna Mäki, Miza Khamis & Niina Käyhkö (2014):
Realization of participation and spatiality in participatory forest management – a policy–practice
analysis from Zanzibar, Tanzania, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, DOI:
10.1080/09640568.2014.921142
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2014.921142
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
Realization of participation and spatiality in participatory forest
management a policypractice analysis from Zanzibar, Tanzania
Salla Eilola
a
*, Nora Fagerholm
a
, Sanna M€
aki
a
, Miza Khamis
b
and Niina K€
ayhk€
o
a
a
Department of Geography and Geology, University of Turku, Finland;
b
Department of Forestry
and Non-Renewable Natural Resources, Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Zanzibar,
Tanzania
(Received 22 July 2013; final version received 23 April 2014)
The efforts in sustainable natural resource management have given rise to
decentralization of forest governance in the developing world with hopes for better
solutions and effective implementation. In this paper, we examine how spatially
sensitive participation is realized from policy to practice in the process of establishing
participatory forest management in Zanzibar, Tanzania. Our policypractice analysis
shows that the policies in Zanzibar strongly support decentralization and local level
participation has in practice been realized. However, the policy does not emphasize
participatory process design nor address the possibilities of using spatial information
and technologies to ensure wider participation. Thus, the practices fall short in
innovativeness of using site-sensitive information with available technologies.
Reflecting the Zanzibari Community Forest Management Agreements (CoFMA)
context with examples of participatory use of spatial information and technologies in
other parts of the world, we discuss ways to improve the Zanzibari CoFMA process
towards increased participation, communication, local sense of ownership and more
sustainable land management decisions, and argue for the future implementation of
CoFMA as a spatially sensitive participatory process.
Keywords: decentralization; geographical information system (GIS); local
knowledge; participation; spatial information and technologies
1. Introduction
The link between sustainable natural resource management and participation stems from
the arguments that participation ensures better quality, practical solutions and active
citizenship. It supports democracy and endorses successful implementation of
environmental decisions (e.g. Beierle 1999; Fischer 2000; Reed 2008). Following the
wide recognition of the benefits of participation, many countries have incorporated the
sustainability clause and citizens’ participation into their national policies and provision
incentives to integrate these into management procedures. In order to promote
sustainable natural resource management, many governments of the developing world
have decentralized their forestry sector and adopted the approach of participatory forest
management (PFM) (Agrawal 2001; Blaikie 2006). These countries, which are still
largely dependent on forest resources and primary production, face additional challenges
in the need of combining forest protection with economic development. The novel
efforts, such as the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation
(REDDC) mechanism of the United Nations (UNFCCC 2010), aim at this by creating
*Corresponding author. Email: salla.eilola@utu.fi
Ó2014 University of Newcastle upon Tyne
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 2014
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2014.921142
Downloaded by [Turku University] at 03:35 19 June 2014
commercial value for protected forests in order to bring economic benefits to forest
dwelling rural communities. There is a recognition that the success of these efforts as
well is dependent on the integrity of rights of the communities to actually manage and
benefit from their forest resources (Mustalahti et al. 2012).
Participation is defined as a process in which people take part in the making of
decisions that affect them (Wandersman 1981; Wilcox 2003). A participatory process has
been accredited with both normative and pragmatic benefits. While participation has been
recognized as a democratic right in an increasing number of instances (Rowe and Frewer
2000), it is claimed to reduce marginalization of disadvantaged groups, increase public
trust in the governing bodies and the civil society, and promote social learning and
respect for diverse views (Blackstock, Kelly, and Horsey 2007; Richards, Blackstock,
and Carter 2004; Stringer et al.2006). The pragmatic benefits of participation include
interventions, which better meet local interests, needs and environmental conditions
(Beierle 1999; Dougill et al.2006; Ostrom 1990;Reed2008). Participation is also able to
increase the local sense of process ownership and thus long-term support for the
decisions and their active implementation (Richards, Blackstock, and Carter 2004).
During the past decades, the benefits of participation have been further enhanced through
a wider and more transparent use of spatial technologies, site-sensitive information, and
local knowledge in planning and in the societal communication at large.
Spatial technologies and their rapid adoption in the society have made participatory
planning processes stronger in their spatial argumentation. While societies are endowed
with different social groups having varying needs and relationships, their knowledge and
preferences are dynamic in space and time (Leach, Mearns, and Scoones 1999).
Participatory use of spatial information and technologies has been recognized as a part of
the integrated landscape approach which has recently gained ground in the sustainable
natural resource management arena such as the Global Landscapes Forum, a side event of
2013 UN Climate Change conference (Kovacevic 2013). Sayer et al.(2012), in line with
this approach, state that managing multifunctional landscapes of most countries in the
world requires recognition and reconciling of the multiple land uses and value domains
of stakeholder groups, which can be achieved via participatory use of spatial techniques.
The Participatory Geographical Information System (PGIS) or Public Participation
Geographical Information System (PPGIS) methodology is a way to capture the site-
sensitive perspectives, knowledge and values of the local inhabitants during planning and
management processes. In multifunctional landscapes, PGIS has been found to be a
useful approach to mitigate and resolve land use conflicts while making resource
management decisions acceptable to a variety of stakeholders (e.g. Bourgoin et al.2012;
Kyem 2002; McCall and Minang 2005; Rambaldi 2010). PGIS methods have been used
to involve communities in mapping their landscape and land related values supporting
community empowerment and advocacy (Fagerholm et al.2012; McCall 2011). Key to
successful PGIS practice is identified as effective participation, which should be seen as a
carefully planned and demand-driven process (Corbett and Rambaldi 2009; Rambaldi
et al.2006). Production and use of spatial data, which was previously only expert driven,
has now become available to organizations and citizens worldwide. Emergence of new
devices, such as location-based mobile applications and applications like Google Maps,
Google Earth and OpenStreetMap project, and VGI (volunteered geographical
information) allow mapping and spatial knowledge collection, integration and analysis
from and by a wide range of users.
Involvement of the inhabitants in any decision-making process is realized in various
ways and at various degrees (see, e.g. Arnstein 1969; Goetz and Gaventa 2001;
2S. Eilola et al.
Downloaded by [Turku University] at 03:35 19 June 2014
Farrington 1998). At different stages of the decision-making process, the degree of
participation has been studied commonly by using the wheel of participation (Davidson
1998; Tippett, Handley, and Ravetz 2007). How spatial information, knowledge and
related technologies are explicitly used in participatory processes is less discussed
(Brown and Chin 2013; Kyem 2002; McCall and Minang 2005). It is therefore necessary
and interesting to investigate participation from the perspective of spatially sensitive
participation, namely the use of spatial information, knowledge and technologies to
support stakeholder participation, communication and decision-making in land and
resource management and planning processes. This is especially interesting in the context
of PFM, in which comprehensive resource use planning and the acknowledgement of
possibly conflicting interests over defined geographical areas and sites are of primary
importance (Kyem 2002; Mustalahti and Lund 2009; Pagdee, Kim, and Daugherty 2006).
PFM initiatives, if successful, create also a sense of local process ownership and enable
documentation of usually implicit but abundant spatial knowledge in the rural
communities.
Since the mid-1980’s PFM has become a prominent feature of forest governance in
developing countries with an estimated one-quarter and ever increasing extent of their
forest areas under PFM arrangements (Agrawal, Chhatre, and Hardin 2008; Sunderlin,
Hatcher, and Liddle 2008; White and Martin 2002). There are, however, concerns that in
many cases local participation, power devolution and sustainable resource use fall short
in their realization (Agrawal and Ribot 1999; Andersson 2003; Blaikie 2006; Mustalahti
and Lund 2009; Ribot, Lund, and Treue 2010). Among the African countries, Tanzania
has one of the most advanced policy on PFM but also a rapid deforestation rate (Blomley
and Ramadhani 2006; FAO 2010). As a response to diminishing forest resources, the
Zanzibar Islands, today a semi-autonomous part of Tanzania, has followed the Tanzania
mainland example and enacted legislation and policy for forest sector decentralization
through the development of Community Forest Management Agreements (CoFMA).
Zanzibar’s PFM efforts are strongly linked to preparing local communities for the
financial mechanism of REDDCand the international efforts in climate change
mitigation (UNFCCC 2010;URT, sine anno). Furthermore, there is previous experience
and interest in spatial information and technology use in resource management planning
in the national forest administration.
In this study, we examine how spatially sensitive participation is realized from policy
to practice in the process of attaining CoFM rights. Based on a well-established
theoretical framework listing numerous criteria of participation, spatiality and spatially
sensitive participation, we study how the CoFMA process is carried out in selected
administrative areas in Zanzibar, Tanzania, and how this process is perceived by the
stakeholders involved. Our study is based on the following research questions: How does
the Zanzibari legal and policy framework guide and stipulate the establishment of
CoFMA as a participatory and spatially sensitive process? In which ways are
participation and spatiality realized in the CoFMA process and how are these observed by
the stakeholders? Furthermore, what are the key differences between policy and practice
and what added value spatially sensitive participation brings along to participatory
processes in Zanzibar and in developing countries in general?
2. Participatory forest management in Zanzibar
The Zanzibar Forest Act no. 10 of 1996 and the national CoFM guideline guide the
CoFMA establishment process and its outputs, the agreement complemented with a map
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 3
Downloaded by [Turku University] at 03:35 19 June 2014
of the CoFM target areas (MANR 2011). Two main actors sharing roles in the process are
the locally elected Shehia Conservation Committee (SCC), which gains the forest
management responsibility, and the national forest administration (DFNRNR), which
facilitates the process in the communities. The CoFMA process starts by introducing the
CoFM idea and principles of equity to the community, after which the SCC is
established. Then the boundaries of the local administrative area, called shehia, and the
CoFM areas are delineated and forest resource assessment carried out. Based on the
assessment, the CoFMA including forest management bylaws is prepared and
the agreement is subject to the approval of the respective Minister. After —two to five
years of implementation, the agreement can be reviewed and refined.
We selected two shehias as case examples for the study (Figure 1). Cheju and
Kiwengwa are typical rural subsistence-based communities, in which approximately
half of the population live below the basic needs poverty line and the main livelihoods
and income sources are agriculture and small scale forestry (Sitari 2005; OCGS 2010).
Firewood constitutes the main energy source and the forest areas provide multitude of
other essential material and cultural benefits to the inhabitants (Fagerholm et al.
2012). The two communities are fairly homogenous in terms of language and culture,
with the exception of small settlements of resent immigrants, who have differing
ethnic backgrounds. There exist also stratifying attributes among the inhabitants, such
as income and social status, all of which have been identified as limiting factors for
equal participation in decentralization processes (Agrawal and Gupta 2005). Together
with other Zanzibari communities, both Cheju and Kiwengwa suffer from high
population growth (nationally 3.1% annually) and ineffective land use planning
(OCGS 2010; RGZ 2004). Furthermore, both shehias are partly located inside national
conservation areas JozaniChwaka Bay National Park covers 37% of Cheju and
KiwengwaPongwe Forest Reserve covers 65% of Kiwengwa. The conservation
status significantly restricts the local management and use of natural resources in these
forest areas.
The two study shehias provide an enticing insight into communities where the
CoFMA process is on-going, yet, where there is a long history of CoFM. Cheju, as
the first shehia in Zanzibar, signed its first CoFMA in 1997 and renewed it with some
modifications in 2002. In Kiwengwa, the CoFMA process was started in 2007 but ended
without reaching a signed agreement. However, forest use regulations are currently
followed in the shehia. During the empirical part of the study, the agreement in Cheju
was under review based on the 2011 guidelines and the first agreement for Kiwengwa
was being negotiated.
3. Material and methods
3.1. Study design and criteria identification
The conceptual and theoretical framework of our study was set around well-established
criteria of participation, spatiality and spatially sensitive participation combined with
PFM policies and processes (Figure 2). First, we conducted a literature review and
identified various criteria depicting essential aspects of participation and spatiality in
PFM processes. The chosen criteria (Table 1) are based on criteria for effective
participation (Beierle 1999; Blackstock, Kelly, and Horsey 2007; Davidson 1998; Craig
and Elwood 1998;Reed2008; Richards, Blackstock, and Carter 2004; Rowe and Frewer
2000; Tippett, Handley, and Ravetz 2007) and good practice in participatory spatial
4S. Eilola et al.
Downloaded by [Turku University] at 03:35 19 June 2014
planning (Brandt 2002; IAP2 2007; Laurian and Shaw 2009; McCall 2011; McCall and
Dunn 2012; McCall and Minang 2005; Rambaldi 2010). The criteria address the
inclusiveness, transparency and actual degree of participation in local level decision-
making, which have been shown to be challenges in many decentralized natural resource
management arrangements (Kaimowitz et al.1998; Ribot 1999; Zulu 2008) and of which
importance is increasingly recognized as communities are viewed heterogeneous, with
Figure 1. PFM initiatives in East Africa (Wily 2003) and in the two case study areas: Kiwengwa
(population: 2500) and Cheju (population: 1800). By the end of 2012 circa 40 local administrative
units in the Zanzibar Islands established CoFMA, of which 29 are also REDDCpilot study
communities.
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 5
Downloaded by [Turku University] at 03:35 19 June 2014
power struggles and different resource entitlements (Agrawal and Gibson 1999; Leach,
Mearns, and Scoones 1999;Li2002). The criteria focus either solely on participation and
spatiality or their synergy, the spatially sensitive participation. These criteria can be
applied to assess the process preconditions, the process itself or its outcomes, yet some of
the criteria are used to assess all the three process stages together (Blackstock, Kelly, and
Horsey 2007). Second, we identified the stakeholders of the CoFMA process based on the
national legislation and policies governing the process in Zanzibar, namely the Forest Act
no. 10 of 1996, Forestry Policy of Zanzibar (CNR 1999) and Community Forest
Management Guidelines (MANR 2011).
Figure 2. The methodological setting of the study, which was designed around the conceptual
framework of participation and spatiality in PFM and applied into practice through the analysis of
legislation, policy, stakeholders’ perceptions and existing management agreements.
6S. Eilola et al.
Downloaded by [Turku University] at 03:35 19 June 2014
Table 1. The literature-based criteria related to participation, spatiality and spatially sensitive participation with results of the policy and practice analysis of the
CoFMA process in Zanzibar.
Legislation and policy Practice
No. Criteria
Aspect of the
criteria
Focus of the
criteria
Assessment
score
a
Descriptive assessment
b
Assessment
score
a
Descriptive assessment Data for analysis
c
Criteria reference
1 The process is
designed in a
participatory
manner.
Participation Preconditions The CoFMA process design and
objectives are set in the policy
without room for participation.
Local level is not involved in the
CoFMA process planning, e.g.
discussing the participatory
methods to be used or the
objectives of the process.
Policy document
analysis; stakeholder
interviews (Q: 24)
IAP2 2007; McCall
2011; McCall
and Dunn 2012
2 The target area and
the objectives of
the process are
clear and shared.
Spatially
sensitive
participation
Preconditions CThere are no clear target areas for
CoFM since the land on which
CoFM areas can be established
has a very broad definition:
“CoFM areas may be
established in any area of land in
Zanzibar” (x35.1). The process
objectives are, however, clear.
CThe views on the target area of
CoFM differ and create
confusion on land use and
management allocations. The
various stakeholders share the
process objectives.
Policy document
analysis; stakeholder
interviews (Q: 16, 31,
44, 45, 54)
Blackstock, Kelly,
and Horsey 2007;
Reed 2008;
Richards,
Blackstock, and
Carter 2004;
Rowe and Frewer
2000
3 The facilitators of
the process are
skilled and
impartial.
Participation Preconditions CFacilitators are to be from national
and regional administration and
among community-based and
civil society organizations.
All facilitators are affiliated to the
national level forest
administration and national
forestry objectives. The
facilitation team has got little
training and feel they require
more skills on community
empowerment.
Policy document
analysis; stakeholder
interviews (Q: 42);
context knowledge
Reed 2008;
Richards,
Blackstock, and
Carter 2004;
Rowe and Frewer
2000
4 Relevant
stakeholders are
identified and
represented in the
process.
Spatially
sensitive
participation
Preconditions
and process
Various analyses (e.g. wealth
ranking and participatory forest
use assessment) are suggested to
identify and involve
marginalized and forest user
groups. Neighboring shehia
representatives are to be
involved in the shehia boundary
establishment. The roles of
community-based and civil
society organizations and the
private sector are to be defined.
CWide stakeholder base is
recognized but not
systematically identified and
represented (e.g. sub-villages
and neighboring villages are not
always represented). General
attendance in meetings is low:
approximately 10%20% of
inhabitants attend meetings.
Integrity of some community
representatives is also
questioned by the informants.
Policy document
analysis; stakeholder
interviews (Q: 18, 19,
21, 22, 38, 39, 47, 55,
56); SCC member
lists
McCall and Minang
2005; McCall
and Dunn 2012;
Reed 2008; Rowe
and Frewer 2000
(continued)
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 7
Downloaded by [Turku University] at 03:35 19 June 2014
Table 1. (Continued )
Legislation and policy Practice
No. Criteria
Aspect of the
criteria
Focus of the
criteria
Assessment
score
a
Descriptive assessment
b
Assessment
score
a
Descriptive assessment Data for analysis
c
Criteria reference
5 Disadvantaged
groups are
supported to
participate and
subsequently
heard.
Participation Preconditions
and process
CSCCs are to have quotas for women,
other disadvantaged groups and
geographical representation of
the whole shehia. Awareness
raising on equality issues is
required. Instructions of record
books lack gender or social
group disaggregation.
CThe quota for women is observed in
the SCC and this can be verified
by looking at the SCC member
lists. The lists do not
disaggregate other
disadvantaged groups.
Awareness raising on equality
and inclusiveness is conducted
in shehia meetings. Participation
of disadvantaged groups in
meetings and activities is not
evident.
Policy document
analysis; stakeholder
interviews (Q: 20, 39,
40, 41, 55); SCC
member lists
McCall 2011;
McCall and
Minang 2005;
Reed 2008
6 Local level
participation is
included
throughout the
process.
Participation Process C“Active involvement of local people
in the sustainable planning,
management, use and
conservation of forest
resources” is promoted (x3.2).
Local voice is to be transferred
through locally elected SCC
members, but other selected
community members can be
involved in particular activities.
CLocal level participation is included
nearly throughout the process
and the participation is almost
exclusively channeled through
SCCs. Few activities involve
other local representation.
Policy document
analysis; stakeholder
interviews (Q: 24)
McCall and Minang
2005; Reed 2008;
Rowe and Frewer
2000
7 The degree of
participation is
appropriate in
relation to the
degree set in
policy.
Participation Process CThe local participation in crucial
decision-making is set at the
highest degree in all but the
CoFMA monitory indicator
selection, in which the forest
administrator’s expertise is
necessary (see Figure 4). The
community and SCC members
are not, however, scheduled to
be provided with capacity
building until in the
implementation stage and may
lack skills to participate in the
preceding stages of CoFMA
planning.
CThe perceived degree of local
participation is not quite as high
as the policy expects (see
Figure 4). Local level capacity
building for more effective local
participation is limited.
Policy document
analysis; stakeholder
interviews (Q: 24)
Davidson 1998;
Reed 2008;
Tippett, Handley,
and Ravetz 2007
(continued)
8S. Eilola et al.
Downloaded by [Turku University] at 03:35 19 June 2014
Table 1. (Continued )
Legislation and policy Practice
No. Criteria
Aspect of the
criteria
Focus of the
criteria
Assessment
score
a
Descriptive assessment
b
Assessment
score
a
Descriptive assessment Data for analysis
c
Criteria reference
8 Devolution of
decision power
and management
rights realized
during the
process.
Participation Process CThe highest degree of participation
requires devolution of decision
power. CoFMA provides local
community “clear and secure
rights to plan, manage and
benefit from local forest
resources” (x34). National and
regional forest administration
has only a facilitation and
supervision role in the process.
CMostly the participation of the SCC
is conducted as a form of
making shared decisions
together with the national
administration through
discussions. Some devolution of
power from national to local
level has been realized but on
local level concentration of
power to the SCC is evident.
Policy document
analysis; stakeholder
interviews (Q: 24, 48,
49, 55)
Reed 2008; Rowe
and Frewer 2000
9 Information sources,
including spatial
information
sources, are
accessible to all.
Spatially
sensitive
participation
Process CLittle practical guidance on making
the information, which is
collected during the CoFMA
process by the facilitators,
accessible to all. CoFMA and
CoFM maps are to be made
accessible in local language.
The information collected and used
in the process is controlled by
the national forest
administration and information
sharing is not systematic. The
regional and local levels do not
have access especially to spatial
information such as maps; thus,
the CoFMA planning is less
transparent and information
sharing and knowledge building
excludes community members.
Policy document
analysis; stakeholder
interviews (Q: 36, 55)
McCall and Minang
2005; Rambaldi
2010;Roweand
Frewer 2000
10 Spatial information
(e.g. maps, aerial
photographs) is
used in the
various stages for
different
purposes during
the process.
Spatially
sensitive
participation
Process Area description with place-name
referencing and a map are to be
in the CoFM agreement (x39).
Satellite imagery is suggested to
be used for forest condition
monitoring.
A sketch map for documenting the
suggested CoFM areas is made
and satellite images used in the
planning process by the national
level administration (see
Figure 5). The spatial
information in produced data
sets is limited. Local level uses
place-name referencing instead
of maps. During CoFMA
implementation and monitoring,
spatial information is not used.
Policy document
analysis; stakeholder
interviews (Q: 25, 27,
28, 29, 30, 34);
CoFM agreement and
map
Craig and Elwood
1998; McCall
and Minang
2005; Rambaldi
2010
(continued)
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 9
Downloaded by [Turku University] at 03:35 19 June 2014
Table 1. (Continued )
Legislation and policy Practice
No. Criteria
Aspect of the
criteria
Focus of the
criteria
Assessment
score
a
Descriptive assessment
b
Assessment
score
a
Descriptive assessment Data for analysis
c
Criteria reference
11 Spatial technologies
(e.g. GPS,
cartography, GIS,
mobile GIS) are
used in the
various stages for
different
purposes in the
process.
Spatiality Process CStrong use of ground truthing with
GPS is emphasized for spatial
referencing and CoFM map
making. The CoFM areas are to
be marked on the landscape in a
suitable way (e.g. paint on
trees).
Spatial technology use is common
by the skilled national level GIS
team. Spatial technologies are
used in tracking, field
validations and CoFMA map
production (see Figure 5). The
regional and local levels do not
use the technology. CoFM areas
are not yet marked on the
landscape.
Policy document
analysis; stakeholder
interviews (Q: 24, 27,
28, 30)
Craig and Elwood
1998; McCall
and Minang 2005
12 Participatory
methods (e.g.
workshops,
meetings, field
visits, mapping)
are clearly
instructed,
flexible and
inclusively
accessible in the
process.
Spatially
sensitive
participation
Process The guideline gives detailed
instructions on few participatory
methods and a certain level of
flexibility to permit innovations
and adaptation to varying
situations. The guideline is only
in English. The use of most
participatory methods relies on
the facilitator’s experience.
There is no recognition of the
importance of making
participatory methods and
spatial technology facilities
accessible to all.
The facilitators have been given
only little training on
participatory methods; thus,
their skills may limit flexibility
and innovations. The local level
has not had any training on the
use of participatory methods and
the methods have a small
number of participants, mainly
the SCC.
Policy document
analysis; stakeholder
interviews (Q: 20, 24,
30, 40, 55)
McCall 2011;
McCall and Dunn
2012; Reed 2008;
Rowe and Frewer
2000
13 Spatial information
and technologies
are used to
support
participation in
the process.
Spatially
sensitive
participation
Process The documents do not recognize
this possibility.
CThe use of spatial information and
technology is not exploited in
meetings, etc. However, field
validation visits are
participatory and allow the
participants to express their
knowledge and opinions using
the landscape as a visual aid.
Policy document
analysis; stakeholder
interviews (Q: 24, 27,
30, 36)
McCall and Dunn
2012; Rambaldi
2010
(continued)
10 S. Eilola et al.
Downloaded by [Turku University] at 03:35 19 June 2014
Table 1. (Continued )
Legislation and policy Practice
No. Criteria
Aspect of the
criteria
Focus of the
criteria
Assessment
score
a
Descriptive assessment
b
Assessment
score
a
Descriptive assessment Data for analysis
c
Criteria reference
14 Local knowledge is
gathered and
used inclusively
and equitably
(i.e. from all
stakeholder
groups).
Spatially
sensitive
participation
Process CInclusion of local women and all
social groups is emphasized in
discussions and other activities,
during which local knowledge is
collected. Knowledge on land
uses and economical,
sociocultural and ecological
services of forest resources is to
be collected.
Knowledge is gathered only from a
small number of local people,
such as the SCC, local experts
and shehia leader, who are to
represent the community.
Knowledge collection process
focuses on shehia and forest
boundaries, forest condition,
economical land and forest
resource uses (e.g. settlement
and agriculture), sustainable
management alternatives, water
sources, flora and fauna habitats
and sites of religious
importance.
Policy document
analysis; stakeholder
interviews (Q: 25, 27,
29, 30.7, 33, 34)
Beierle 1999;
McCall 2011;
Reed 2008
15 Local knowledge is
made spatially
explicit and
respected in the
process.
Spatially
sensitive
participation
Process No instructions for georeferencing
local spatial knowledge to make
it explicit apart from shehia and
forest boundaries. No
participatory planning of
mapping exercises.
Only knowledge on shehia and
forest boundaries is made
explicit. The local level does not
decide which knowledge is to be
added and which omitted from
spatial data sets.
Policy document
analysis; stakeholder
interviews (Q: 28, 29,
30)
Brandt 2002; McCall
2011; McCall
and Minang
2005; Rambaldi
2010
16 Individual and
collective
learning is
supported in the
process.
Participation Process and
outputs
CMeetings between different
stakeholders are emphasized.
Community awareness raising is
to be done on equality,
environment and REDD issues,
e.g. using drama and music.
Locals are to be involved in
defining monitory indicators and
monitoring of forest condition
and livelihood development.
CCollective learning is supported
through general meetings within
shehia and regional
collaboration. Only few people
are trained during the process
and awareness raising reaches to
a limited number of people.
Monitoring of forest condition is
not systematic, locals are not
able to conduct systematic
monitoring and thus this
collective learning opportunity
is not seized.
Policy document
analysis; stakeholder
interviews (Q: 24, 36,
41, 42, 47, 55)
Beierle 1999;
Blackstock,
Kelly, and
Horsey 2007;
Laurian and
Shaw 2009; Reed
2008
(continued)
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 11
Downloaded by [Turku University] at 03:35 19 June 2014
Table 1. (Continued )
Legislation and policy Practice
No. Criteria
Aspect of the
criteria
Focus of the
criteria
Assessment
score
a
Descriptive assessment
b
Assessment
score
a
Descriptive assessment Data for analysis
c
Criteria reference
17 Individual and
collective
learning is
supported in the
process with
spatial
information and
technologies.
Spatially
sensitive
participation
Process and
outputs
The documents do not recognize
this possibility.
Local level learning is not
supported with spatial
information or technology,
while local level has little access
to the spatial information and
technology.
Policy document
analysis; stakeholder
interviews (Q: 24, 36,
41, 42, 47, 55)
McCall and Minang
2005; Rambaldi
2010
18 The process is
transparent and
builds trust
among
stakeholders.
Participation Preconditions,
process and
outputs
CEmphasis and instructions on
various record books, public
hearing and public auditing
meetings and public notice
boards are given for the SCC.
Transparency of the decision-
making during the process itself
is not emphasized. The
procedure to complain during
the process is not described in
detail.
Transparency is limited to annual
financial disclosures.
Documentation of the decision-
making process, e.g. minutes are
not publically available and
information sharing is stated to
be poor. The public notice
boards do not exist. Trust
between national and local level
is fairly good but amongst
communities and between
shehias, resentment and conflicts
exist.
Policy document
analysis; stakeholder
interviews (Q: 22, 24,
30, 36, 37, 47, 48)
Beierle 1999;
Blackstock,
Kelly, and
Horsey 2007;
Laurian and
Shaw 2009;
Rowe and Frewer
2000
19 The process outputs
are participatory,
owned and
controlled (e.g.
map legend
making is
participatory).
Spatially
sensitive
participation
Outputs The documents do not describe the
ownership arrangement or
require participatory design of
the process outputs.
The process outputs, namely
CoFMA and CoFM maps, are
not displayed publically at any
administrative level and are
mainly available at the national
forest administration. Local
ownership is nonexistent since
the design and use of the outputs
are controlled at national level.
Policy document
analysis; stakeholder
interviews (Q: 24, 30,
36)
Blackstock, Kelly,
and Horsey 2007;
McCall 2011;
McCall and
Minang 2005;
Rambaldi 2010
(continued)
12 S. Eilola et al.
Downloaded by [Turku University] at 03:35 19 June 2014
Table 1. (Continued )
Legislation and policy Practice
No. Criteria
Aspect of the
criteria
Focus of the
criteria
Assessment
score
a
Descriptive assessment
b
Assessment
score
a
Descriptive assessment Data for analysis
c
Criteria reference
20 There are detailed
instructions for
the content,
spatial accuracy
and precision of
process outputs.
Spatiality Outputs Guideline has instructions only on
the map content and not on the
scale and precision. Maps are to
show land use areas in a general
way and there is no
standardization of the land use
categories used in the maps.
The maps are in line with the
guidelines and hence very
generalized, containing a limited
amount of information.
Comparability of maps from
different shehias is low since
land use categories are not
standardized. The CoFM
agreement texts and maps are
not consistent.
Policy document
analysis; CoFM
agreement and map
Brandt 2002; McCall
2011
a
Assessment score: CDgood, CDvarying, i.e. partly good and partly poor, Dpoor.
b
Article numbers refer to the Forest Act no. 10 of 1996. Other statements refer to the Forest Policy and the CoFM guideline (CNR 1999; MANR 2011).
c
Q refers to the questions in the questionnaire (see Appendix 1 in the online Supplementary Material).
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 13
Downloaded by [Turku University] at 03:35 19 June 2014
3.2. Analysis of the legislation and policy
The legislation and policies were analyzed to elucidate how they guide the CoFMA
process as a spatially sensitive participatory process. The analysis was conducted in a
collaboration and interaction of the authors, thus combining the academic perspective
and contextual knowledge and interpretation within the research team members. Those
sections of the documents, which discourse on stakeholder participation and use of
spatial information, knowledge and technologies, were identified and reflected against the
literature-based assessment criteria to pinpoint the strengths and weaknesses related to
the criteria. The degree of stakeholder participation in each process stage stipulated in the
legislation and policy documents was defined using the wheel of participation typology
(Davidson 1998;Reed2008), which was adapted into a participation matrix tool
(Appendix 2 in the online Supplementary Material).
3.3. Analysis of the practice and stakeholder perspectives
The assessment of the realization of participation and spatiality in the CoFMA process
consisted of individual and group interviews and examination of existing CoFMA. We
conducted semi-structured individual interviews with a sample of the identified CoFMA
process stakeholders at national, regional and local levels. We used the literature-based
assessment criteria as a basis for the questionnaire with open-ended and closed questions.
Interviews aimed to capture ex-post the practice in agreement establishment and the
stakeholder groups involved in order to compare them to the criteria (Appendix 1 in the
online Supplementary Material). Via the interviews we also studied the perceptions of the
different level stakeholders on the CoFMA goals, challenges and effects. In addition to the
individual interviews, we conducted one focus group interview in each of the two study
communities. We adapted the semi-structured questionnaire to suit a group interview, in
which consensus but also conflicting opinions were encouraged and documented. Topics of
interest, which had risen in the individual interview campaign, were clarified. For
documentation, the group interviews were recorded and later transliterated.
The answers to the closed questions were analyzed quantitatively in MS Excel for
their frequency distribution and central tendency, and reported qualitatively. We used
conventional content analysis to qualitatively analyze the answers to open-ended
questions in the individual interviews (Flowerdew and Martin 2005; Tuomi and Saraj€
arvi
2002). The unit of analysis was a theme, i.e. an expression of an idea with relevance to
the research questions (Minichiello et al.1990), all of which we first coded in the
transcripts. Then we inductively categorized and in some cases recategorized the themes
via constant comparison deriving the categories directly from the data and then
descriptively labelled the subsequent categories. We analyzed the group interview data
also with content analysis using a directed approach. The categories derived from the
individual interview data were used as a model in order to facilitate comparison of the
two interview data sets. We compared the answers to closed questions in the group
interviews to the mean value of individual interview answers. These we considered as a
collective answer of the group, if the answer was based on consensus. We especially
focused on new insights into a particular research question raised during the group
interviews and reported some of them as quotations.
The interviews were accompanied with a participation matrix exercise, in which the
informants were asked to indicate on a matrix the entry points of local participation and
the perceived degree of local participation in six selected CoFMA process stages, which
14 S. Eilola et al.
Downloaded by [Turku University] at 03:35 19 June 2014
we identified as the most crucial stages of decision-making in the process (Appendix 2 in
the online Supplementary Material). The official CoFM area maps of the study
communities were used to examine the awareness of stakeholders on regulated areas and
their relative relevance to the communities. We asked the effects of CoFM on the forests
and the community on a scale of one to five (1 Dvery little, 5 Dvery much). During the
interview campaign, we examined lists of SCC members in each shehia to validate the
informants’ statements. In addition, we examined the existing CoFMA, including the
CoFM area maps, to assess the criteria on the instructions and use of spatial information.
Our interview campaign was conducted in October 2012 by two researchers with no
affiliation to the CoFMA stakeholder groups in order to ensure neutrality. We informed
the informants of the scientific objective of the interviews and ascertained that their
answers were handled confidentially and with anonymity. We conducted the interviews
in English at national and regional levels and in Swahili at local level. In total, 28
informants (19 male, 9 female) were interviewed individually and 9 informants (5 male,
4 female) were interviewed in group interviews. The informant sample covered the
policy stipulated CoFMA stakeholders except for regional level sectoral officers, which
in practice had not participated in the CoFMA process (see CoFMA stakeholders in
Figure 2). We interviewed all national level CoFMA facilitation team members in
responsible roles. This small team consists of officers from national forest administration
and staff members of two internationally funded projects, HIMA (Hifadhi ya Misitu ya
Asili) led by CARE Tanzania and Coastal Forest Project. The shehia level informants, 10
from Cheju and 7 from Kiwengwa, consisted of SCC members, other local administrators
and representatives of the disadvantaged groups, which had been identified during the
actual CoFMA process in the shehias. The informants in the group interviews were SCC
members, other local administrators, NGO members and representatives of
disadvantaged groups. The informants included those who had participated in the process
and those who had not.
In August 2013, we conducted another workshop in Zanzibar, in which the results of
our policypractice analysis were presented and discussed with CoFMA stakeholders.
The workshop had 40 participants, including most of the informants of the interview
campaign and representatives from two other CoFMA villages in Zanzibar which are
locally regarded as successful CoFM examples, members of previously not interviewed
regional NGOs and a researcher from a Zanzibari university. Some of the comments are
discussed in Section 5.
4. Results
4.1. CoFMA process considered as general land use planning
According to our interviews, the process for establishing a CoFMA in Zanzibar is
designed by the national forest administration based on the forest legislation and policy
(namely the Forest Act no. 10 of 1996; CNR 1999; MANR 2011) and previous
experiences with community collaboration. The CoFM guideline (MANR 2011) does not
suggest that local level stakeholders should be involved in designing the process, but
instead it unilaterally lays out the stages and methods in the process, which are then
adapted into practice in a more straightforward manner with the facilitation and
supervision of the national forest administrators (Figure 3 and Table 1). The informants
stated that communities may initiate CoFMA establishment through their request, but the
decision to start the process is officially made in the national forest administration.
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 15
Downloaded by [Turku University] at 03:35 19 June 2014
The national, regional and local level stakeholders all share the understanding that
CoFM concerns forests, which are locally managed and which can be of any forest type.
The stakeholder groups view that CoFMA applies also to other land use areas, such as
agricultural and potentially afforested areas. The Zanzibar Forest Act no. 10 of 1996
stipulates that CoFMA can be established on any land area in Zanzibar. Hitherto there are
no local level land use plans; thus, CoFMA is viewed as an interim plan for the whole
shehia land use:
It [agreement] has to govern other areas also, because development of these other areas lacks
behind. (Regional forest officer)
Not only forest but also agriculture and settlement [are included in the CoFMA plan],
because of the problems caused by population growth; there is need for cooperation between
sectors for designing the village land uses and for considering whether there is real need of
using the land. (A representative of the disadvantaged group)
However, because the national forest administration has a mandate to manage solely
forest resources, the above legislative statement of CoFM has created confusion between
sectoral departments in the public administration. In policy, CoFMA has been limited
only to govern forest resources, though the agreement delineates agriculture and
settlement areas in the shehias as well. The stakeholders, regardless of their
organizational level, nevertheless, share the objectives of CoFMA: empowering the
locals in decision-making, protecting the forests and enhancing economic development,
which are regarded interlinked since livelihood development decreases the pressure on
forest resources. The national level stakeholders view reduction of government
expenditure in forest protection also as a goal, while the forest management
responsibilities are increasingly decentralized to local authorities.
4.2. Participation is better recognized than spatial aspects both in policy
and in practice
The results of the legislation and policy analysis and the interviews show that the criteria
of participation, spatiality and spatially sensitive participation are not present in their full
Figure 3. The stages of the Community Forest Management Agreement i.e. CoFMA process (top
row) as laid out in the CoFM guideline (MANR 2011) and the stages conducted in practice (bottom
row). Hashed arrows and braces indicate the rearrangements or differences in the activities in
practice compared to the guideline.
16 S. Eilola et al.
Downloaded by [Turku University] at 03:35 19 June 2014
extent in the policy or in practice of the CoFMA process (Table 1). Most of the criteria are
met at rather an inadequate level. Out of the 20 criteria, 14 are met poorly in the policy,
but some of the criteria, especially those related to the participation, are well recognized
in the current policy. Spatiality has little reference in the policy framework and, thus, the
framework does not guide the process as a spatially sensitive process. Subsequently,
according to the interviews, the practice reflects the defects of the framework. The
process outputs, namely the produced CoFMA and the CoFM maps, lack consistency as
there are no instructions in policy on the informative content, spatial accuracy and
precision of the maps.
4.3. Policy supports participation but communities call for enhanced participation
opportunities
The policypractice analysis also reveals that those criteria, which are relatively well
identified at the policy level, are less effectively put into practice in the actual CoFMA
process. Policy emphasizes local participation in all stages of the process and sets the
degree of participation at the highest degree, namely as independent local decision-making,
in the most crucial decision-making stages (Figure 4). Policy clearly supports the
decentralization of forest management and decision-making and emphasizes inclusive
CoFMA stakeholder representation, including geographical representation of communities.
Furthermore, the need of awareness raising, information sharing and transparency is
recognized in the policy and several suggestions to achieve these are provided.
The results derived from the participation matrix exercise show that local
participation is realized through the SCC as the community representative body in almost
all CoFMA process stages. However, the stakeholders’ perceived degree of participation
in the crucial stages of the process is not as high as the policy expects (Figure 4).
According to the informants on all stakeholder levels, the participation of the SCC is
Figure 4. The degree of local level participation set in the CoFM guideline (MANR 2011) and as
perceived in practice by the stakeholders during the six crucial stages of CoFMA process decision-
making (see also the assessment criteria numbers 7 and 8 in Table 1). The degrees of participation
(adapted from Davidson 1998): I = inhabitants are informed of the decision; II = inhabitants are
asked their opinions; III = decisions are made together by national forest administration and
community; and IV = community makes the decision.
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 17
Downloaded by [Turku University] at 03:35 19 June 2014
realized, in practice, in a form of making decisions together with the national
administration and not as an independent decision-making at the local level. The
geographically inclusive representation is not rigorously taken into consideration, while
the sub-village and neighboring shehia representation is often lacking during the process
activities. Even though, according to the participation matrix exercise, some
decentralization of decision-making has been well achieved, the interviewed local level
informants in both study communities are less optimistic (average scale card score 3.3)
than the national and regional level stakeholders (average scale card score 4.2) on the
extent of how much additional decision-making power communities will be given
through the CoFMA process.
The local level informants call for more transparency and opportunities to participate
in the process. Documentation of the decision-making process, such as meeting minutes,
is not publically available and information sharing is criticized for being poor. The
interview results reveal that the attendance in shehia meetings is also low and the average
inhabitants hardly participate in any activities during the CoFMA process. Undesirable
outcomes of this are the conflicts and resentment within the communities, which exist
and have increased due to the enforcement of forest use regulations by the SCC:
Conflicts between stakeholders especially between SCC and the villagers [are a problem];
also mistrust while some people associate SCC with money, that SCC is given money to stop
them from harvesting forest products. (Local forest administrator)
Some people get angry at the committee when they catch them [doing illegal activities in the
forest] and start a fight with the committee. (A representative of the disadvantaged group)
Nevertheless, awareness raising on CoFM and equity issues has been conducted in
communities and informants on all stakeholder levels believe that most (average scale
card score 4.2) community members are aware of the existence of the agreements.
4.4. Stakeholder collaboration is well identified but so far an unexploited resource
The results of the CoFMA stakeholder interviews depict that human networks for the
CoFMA process have been relatively well identified and established. However, their full
potential is not utilized in the policypractice interface. Social networks supporting the
legitimate, transparent and spatially sensitive CoFMA process are potentially in place.
The SCCs with quotas for women, poor and disadvantaged are established in the shehias
during the process by general elections for a five-year term (Table 1). The SCCs are
active and well functional. The informants at all organizational levels recognized a large
number of stakeholder groups ranging from disadvantaged to out-of-town business
owners, but their involvement is not systematically ensured, and most informants stated
that many of these groups were not involved in the CoFMA process. Collaboration
between shehias is common during the CoFM implementation and forest protection via
joint shehia patrolling and meetings as well as regional SCC umbrella organizations.
These existing community-based networks are, nevertheless, unexploited in the CoFMA
planning phase. According to the interviewed forest administrators, the collaboration and
trust between the national, regional and local level forest administration has been
experienced to have strengthened through CoFM, which is promising for successful
decentralization and enforcement of the forest management regulations.
18 S. Eilola et al.
Downloaded by [Turku University] at 03:35 19 June 2014
4.5. Spatial information, knowledge and related technologies are weakly supported
both in policy and in practice
The weakest policy and practical implementation of the criteria is met in the use of local
spatial knowledge and spatially explicit information and the technologies currently
available. The policy does not recognize spatial information and technologies in support
of participation and learning, nor does it instruct the local landscape related knowledge to
be documented in a spatially explicit way (Table 1). The national forest administration
has a GIS laboratory and a wealth of remotely sensed and vector based environmental
data sets of Zanzibar. The interviews depict that the GIS officers have strong desire to
enhance the use of spatial information and technologies in land use planning processes on
the Islands. However, during the CoFMA process little spatial data is used and collected;
existing forest and shehia boundary data sets and satellite images are used for facilitation
team support, not for CoFM planning, and the collected georeferenced data concerns only
the shehia and forest boundaries (Table 1 and Figure 5). The informants stated that the
sketch maps drawn during the process were mainly used for documenting suggested
CoFM areas, not as a participatory discussion aid tool, and the local knowledge was
collected only from few individuals and not made spatially explicit through, e.g.
participatory mapping.
The use of spatial information and technologies is practically controlled by the
national forest administration, while the regional and local level stakeholders note that
they do not have access to them. The produced CoFMA documents and the CoFMA
maps are not displayed in public at any organizational level and the CoFMA maps are not
present in the shehias (Table 1 and Figure 5). Thus, the communities lack access to
spatial data for decision-making, argumentation and collective learning as well as
Figure 5. The spatial information, knowledge and technologies and their practical uses in the
different stages of the CoFMA process. The typology of spatial information uses (A1-O3) has been
adapted from McCall and Minang (2005) and Craig and Elwood (1998). The information use in
brackets indicates that the use is dependent on the existence of the spatial information.
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 19
Downloaded by [Turku University] at 03:35 19 June 2014
implementing and monitoring CoFMA. The benefits of maps for community land use
planning are, nevertheless, recognized:
I have not heard about the map but maps can be very important for villagers to know about
the forest and forest uses and to use it in our meetings. (A representative of the
disadvantaged group)
5. Discussion
5.1. Realization of participation and spatiality in the CoFMA process of Zanzibar
The contradiction between the legislation based spatial jurisdiction of CoFMA, namely
all land in Zanzibar, the DFNRNR mandate on forest resources alone and the realization
of the whole shehia level land use planning in the produced CoFMA may undermine the
legitimacy of CoFMA in the eyes of national agricultural administration, settlement
planning and other sectors alike. Though the decision to conduct CoFMA as a general
land use plan for the shehias is valid, given the lack of spatial planning at local level, it
also highlights the importance of collaboration between administrative sectors and the
need for more inclusive participation of stakeholders in the CoFMA process. Zanzibar is
not a special case in that community based and PFM arrangements are generally forest
sector reforms. However, in Zanzibar the forest sector reform has in practice adopted a
land use planning component. Forest sector decentralization is in many African countries,
including Tanzania and Zanzibar, accompanied by the decentralization of land and other
resources (Wily 2003). In many developing countries, for example, Laos and Nepal, local
level land use planning is endorsed in the national legislation; however, the resources for
local governments to carry out the planning are limited. In Nepal, there is encouraging
evidence that although local development planning is usually carried out under separate
sectors, the already well-established forest user groups can collaborate with other actors
to coordinate comprehensive planning (Springate-Baginski et al.2003).
As our study results show, the legislative and policy framework in Zanzibar,
Tanzania, supports local participation and devolution of decision-making power in the
various stages of the CoFMA process. However, lack of participatory process design and
goal setting undermines the recognition of local priorities and institutional capacity
building, which have been identified important for successful participatory arrangements
where local process ownership is realized (Jordan 2002; Reed 2008). The
underrepresentation of many stakeholder groups, including neighboring villages, regional
community organizations and business operators in the decision-making, is a further
obstacle to reduce conflicts and leakage of deforestation and ensure awareness on
sustainable forest management. A study by Andersson (2004) found that frequent
interactions between the forest sector actors are likely to facilitate effective provision of
governance services and crucial trust building among the actors. While in Zanzibar the
local committees, SCCs, have received management powers, a sense of diminished
control has risen amongst the average inhabitants, who rarely participate in the CoFMA
process. In the workshop discussion of the study findings, participants highlighted better
information sharing and venue selection for meetings as well as financial support to
participants as remedies for low participation. Devolution of power to forest users, and
not simply to local committees, and benefit sharing have been shown to increase
participation in PFM arrangements elsewhere as well (Coulibaly-Lingani et al.2011).
Achieving inclusive local level participation is an underlining challenge in several other
PFM arrangements (Nygren 2005; Zulu 2008; Ribot 1999; Bouda et al.2011).
20 S. Eilola et al.
Downloaded by [Turku University] at 03:35 19 June 2014
The Zanzibari national forest administration’s capacity and interest offers potential
for richer utilization of local knowledge in participatory land use and forest management
planning. The possibilities of using spatial information, knowledge and related
technologies to support participation and informed decision-making in the Zanzibar
CoFMA process are, however, less addressed. The practices during the CoFMA process
fall short in innovativeness of using site-sensitive information, even though many of the
spatial technologies and a wealth of spatial data and information on sociocultural and
biophysical site conditions are available for use at the national forest administration. The
slow adoption of rapidly increasing GIS innovations into spatial planning practices of
public administrations is commonplace. In the context of Zanzibar, the use of GPS has
been embraced, but there is room for more diversified application of the technologies,
such as mobile phones, in citizens’ participation (INTEGRA 2011). As some proponents
of PGIS (Jordan 2002; McCall and Minang 2005) note, despite the many benefits of
spatial technology use in forest management, there is the downside that the technology is
often accessible only to the national level authorities. This is evident also in Zanzibar,
where the national forest administration has the sole facilities for and access to the
technology. Making the technology accessible to the communities is a challenge, which
the Zanzibar administration ought to take up in order to democratize knowledge systems.
Another challenge is the integration of local spatial knowledge into the planning process,
which requires specific abilities from the GIS and spatial technology. The fuzziness,
sacredness, dynamism and richness of local knowledge require technological tools to
depict and handle them in GIS (McCall and Dunn 2012; Rambaldi 2010). New demands
are made for the whole CoFMA process as well, while effective participation requires a
wealth of time for meetings, reflection and information collection and does not suit
quick-fix planning procedures with little facilitation resources.
The transparency of the process and accessibility of information seem to be a crucial
part of a participatory decision-making process, since they were highlighted by the
informants of the study as means to secure local support and recognition of the forest
protection efforts in CoFM. Their significance among the literature-based criteria of
participation, spatiality and spatially sensitive participation should not, therefore, be
overlooked. There is recognition that the assessments of participation need to integrate
literature-based criteria with stakeholder identified criteria, for the assessment to be
relevant to the stakeholders whose participation is studied (Lestrelin et al.2011;Reed
2008). The literature-based formation of assessment criteria, which we have outlined,
could be coupled with a participatory investigation on the success factors in participatory
processes in order to support stakeholder input in defining what a spatially sensitive
participatory process in practice stands for. Moreover, the assessment of the degree of
participation in the present study is contextual and subjective since we examined it by
interviewing a limited number of informants, gaining their perceptual degree of
participation. The selection of informants by the researcher further adds to the
subjectivity (Sandker et al.2010). Nonetheless, examination of the diverging subjective
stakeholder perceptions of their participation is of interest in a participatory assessment.
5.2. Added values from combining participation with spatial information and
technologies
The Zanzibar CoFMA process has potential but few concrete measures taken towards the
spatially sensitive participatory process integrating local knowledge and perceptions into
planning using spatial information and technologies. In the following sections, we reflect
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 21
Downloaded by [Turku University] at 03:35 19 June 2014
on the burgeoning number of examples from participatory landscape planning processes
to illustrate the benefits and possibilities offered by spatial information and technologies
in achieving greater participation and sustainable land management. These examples and
the gained understanding of the Zanzibari CoFMA context pave a way for us to give
suggestions for enhancing spatiality and participation in the CoFMA process.
A participatory mapping exercise of current land uses, including also neighboring village
representatives, is an important step to minimize conflicts and retain an accurate depiction of
the land use in a village as was experienced in a participatory agricultural zoning in the
Democratic Republic of Congo (Nackoney et al.2013). Participatory mapping is effective
in explicating needs and interests, which in reality do not meet in the same location, as well
as pinpointing those that do so and potentially conflict. In the Zanzibar CoFMA process, a
participatory mapping session could be organized, where all stakeholder groups are
represented and where land uses, resource areas, cultural and aesthetic values and other
issues the stakeholders themselves consider relevant in the landscape are captured. There
exist several techniques for participatory mapping, some examples of which are sketch
mapping on sand or paper (Flintan 2012; Kyem 2002), participatory GPS tracking of
specified landscape features or land uses (Livengood and Kunte 2012), mapping of
landscape values and land uses on satellite or aerial images (Fagerholm et al.2012; Jordan
2002) and participatory 3D modeling of the landscape (Rambaldi 2010) (for further
examples, see Corbett et al.2006). After transforming the maps into digital form, these
techniques also enable spatial analysis of the land and forest resources in relation to
complex value domains that thrive and sustain the resources, and support sustainable land
allocation solutions through negotiations between stakeholders (Fagerholm, K€
ayhk€
o, and
Van Eetvelde 2013;K
€
ayhk€
o, Fagerholm, and Mzee 2013;Flintan2012;Jordan2002;Kyem
2002). In the Zanzibar context, a variety of spatial data sets, such as the digital elevation
model, population density and land cover maps, can be used to further facilitate discussions
on future land management and related CoFM regulations.
Participatory spatial planning has been able to enhance the local sense of
empowerment and ownership compared to the conventional expert-driven planning
processes. Participants of participatory simulation of different land use scenarios in Lao
PDR felt empowered by being part of the planning simulation, which allowed increased
participation of local inhabitants, while they learned skills to assess different scenarios
and understand implications of different land use alternatives (Bourgoin and Castella
2011; Cormier 2012). Engaging into participatory planning and decision-making, even
when supported by an experimental project, builds the community capacity to carry out
planning in their villages and strengthens the governmental capacity to act as facilitators
of the planning (Nackoney et al.2013). Use of maps, aerial imagery and 3D models with
the various stakeholder groups enhances collective learning and the participants’
understanding of the environment and its dynamics by seeing them from bird’s-eye view
(Bourgoin et al.2012; Fagerholm, K€
ayhk€
o and Van Eetvelde 2013; McCall and Minang
2005). When there is time taken to properly familiarize the landscape, such as in the
example from Lao PRD, community members are able to express their views and
negotiate better the future land and resource management (Bourgoin et al.2012).
Map visualizations of stakeholder perceptions and preferences and the implications of
current land uses in the landscape enhance transparency in the decision-making (McCall
and Minang 2005). Furthermore, it is possible to document the decision-making steps and
the final decisions and display them in public as maps. In Zanzibar the CoFMA, map and
management regulations could be displayed in public, for example, on public notice
boards, preferably in all the sub-villages. This would increase the transparency of the
22 S. Eilola et al.
Downloaded by [Turku University] at 03:35 19 June 2014
planning process and regulations as well as enhance public trust on the forest
administration. Transparency would also alleviate the risks of mismanagement and power
concentration in the local forest governance, which are evidenced in many PFM
arrangements (Blaikie 2006; Brockington 2008; Zulu 2008).
Shared, transparent and equitable management of the outputs of a participatory
planning process is as crucial to the process as the process itself. Nackoney et al.(2013)
emphasize, based on their community mapping process, the importance of local
ownership of the produced maps. Ownership enhanced internalization of the possibilities
offered by maps to independent village land management and will enable future planning
decisions with maps as informed decision-making tools in the villages. Locally available
and produced spatial information, such as the so-called counter maps (McCall and Dunn
2012), is also an important tool for community empowerment in land use allocations and
for the recognition of land use rights (Alcorn 2000; Rambaldi 2010). That said, the
participatory control of the maps and their production is a prerequisite for the
empowerment and usefulness of the information, which our results denote together with
another similar study (McCall and Minang 2005). Locally relevant maps provide a
medium to store and depict information on resource location and condition as well as a
practical means to design and coordinate the patrolling and monitory activities (Kyem
2002). In addition to the CoFMA process, these benefits of the participatory produced
data could especially be recognized for the carbon accounting and carbon stock
monitoring required in the REDDCframework (Bond et al.2009), which Zanzibar is
nationally pursuing to operationalize.
6. Conclusions
In this article, we have examined the policy and practice of a PFM arrangement in
Zanzibar, Tanzania, from the perspective of spatially sensitive participation using
literature-based criteria for participation, spatiality and spatially sensitive participation.
We were especially interested in the extent to which the national policy stipulates the
establishment of the PFM as a spatially sensitive participatory process, the stakeholder
perspectives on the degree of local level participation and the use of spatial information,
knowledge and technology in supporting the planning and participation throughout the
process. Effective realization of participation and the use of various spatial information,
knowledge and related technologies are important aspects to study in participatory
decision-making processes while they offer ways to ensure sustainable solutions
acceptable to the multiple stakeholder groups in natural resource management and to
understand the naturehuman relationships in order to support informed decisions (Reed
2008; McCall and Dunn 2012; Rambaldi 2010). In the context of pervasive land tenure
insecurity confronted by individual citizens and communities in many of the developing
countries, among which Zanzibar is no exception (T€
orh€
onen 2004), secure property
rights have been evidenced to be a crucial factor to the success of PFM arrangements
(Pagdee, Kim, and Daugherty 2006). The deficit in land use planning and poor land
policy coherence create further obstacles for sustainable natural resource management. A
spatially sensitive participatory process can be used to support administrative
collaboration and inclusive information sharing, spatial argumentation and informed
decision-making with respect to local land uses, all of which are essential in
comprehensive land use planning. It has been evidenced in many cases of PFM that the
objectives of decentralization, sustainable forest management and local livelihood
development rarely fulfill while decision-making concentrates to the hands of few at
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 23
Downloaded by [Turku University] at 03:35 19 June 2014
local, regional or national levels and the rural communities face diminished access to the
forest resources due to widespread resource regulations (Mustalahti and Lund 2009;
Pagdee, Kim, and Daugherty 2006; Ribot, Lund, and Treue 2010). Our policy and
practice analysis shows that stakeholder participation has been realized in the Zanzibari
PFM arrangement and the local authorities represent relatively well the local population,
but scope for wider participation, information sharing and transparency exists. Better
recognition of the opportunities offered by spatial information, spatial technologies and
participatory mapping in spatial planning is also needed. There exist an increasing
number of examples from different parts of the world of cases where participatory
decision-making processes have benefited from spatial information, knowledge and
technologies. These enhance increased participation, communication, local sense of
ownership and more sustainable land and resource management decisions. From these
experiences and from our analysis, we were able to identify ways to improve the
Zanzibari CoFMA process. Consequently, we strongly argue for the future
implementation of CoFM as a spatially sensitive participatory process.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank all the individuals who participated in the study in Zanzibar for their
collaboration and time, and the communities of Cheju and Kiwengwa for their hospitality during
the research campaign. The authors would also like to thank all the Finnish and Tanzanian
members of the research project “Changing land use and forest management practices and
multidimensional adaptation strategies in Zanzibar, Tanzania” (20102013), for their commitment
and interest in the research and the Department of Forestry and Non-Renewable Natural Resources
of Zanzibar for their support and for allowing the use of spatial data. The research was funded by
the Academy of Finland (project 132819), the University of Turku, Department of Geography and
Geology and the Laboratory of Computer Cartography (UTU-LCC), the Department of Forestry
and Non-Renewable Natural Resources, Zanzibar, and the University of Dar es Salaam,
Department of Geography.
Supplemental data
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.
References
Agrawal, A. 2001. “Common Property Institutions and Sustainable Governance of Resources.”
World Development 29 (10): 16491672.
Agrawal, A., A. Chhatre, and R. Hardin. 2008. “Changing Governance of the World’s Forests.”
Science 320: 14601462.
Agrawal, A., and C. Gibson. 1999. “Enchantment and Disenchantment: The Role of Community in
Natural Resource Management.” World Development 27: 629649.
Agrawal, A., and K. Gupta. 2005. “Decentralization and Participation: The Governance of Common
Pool Resources in Nepal’s Terai.” World Development 33 (7): 11011114.
Agrawal, A., and J.C. Ribot. 1999. “Accountability in Decentralization: A Framework with South
Asian and African Cases.” Journal of Developing Areas 33: 473502.
Alcorn, J. 2000. Borders, Rules and Governance: Mapping to Catalyse Changes in Policy and
Management. London: IIED International Institute for Environment and Development.
Andersson, K. 2003. “What Motivates Municipal Governments? Uncovering the Institutional
Incentives for Municipal Governance of Forest Resources in Bolivia.” Journal of Environment
& Development 12 (1): 527.
Andersson, K. 2004. “Who Talks with Whom? The Role of Repeated Interactions in Decentralized
Forest Governance.” World Development 32 (2): 233249.
24 S. Eilola et al.
Downloaded by [Turku University] at 03:35 19 June 2014
Arnstein, S.R. 1969. “A Ladder of Citizen Participation.” Journal of the American Planning
Association 35 (4): 216224.
Beierle, T.C. 1999. “Using Social Goals to Evaluate Public Participation in Environmental
Decisions.” Policy Studies Reviews 16: 75103.
Blackstock, K.L., G.J. Kelly, and B.L. Horsey. 2007. “Developing and Applying a Framework to
Evaluate Participatory Research for Sustainability.” Ecological Economics 60: 726742.
Blaikie, P. 2006. “Is Small Really Beautiful? Community-Based Natural Resource Management in
Malawi and Botswana.” World Development 34 (11): 19421957.
Blomley, T., and H. Ramadhani. 2006. “Going to Scale with Participatory Forest Management:
Early Lessons from Tanzania.” International Forest Review 8 (1): 93100.
Bond, I., M. Grieg-Gran, S. Wertz-Kanounnikoff, P. Hazlewood, S. Wunder, and A. Angelsen.
2009. Incentives to Sustain Forest Ecosystem Services: A Review and Lessons for REDD.
London: International Institute for Environment and Development; Bogor: CIFOR;
Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.
Bouda, H.-N., P. Savadogo, D. Tiveau, and B. Ouedraogo. 2011. “State, Forest and Community:
Challenges of Democratically Decentralizing Forest Management in the Centre-West Region
of Burkina Faso.” Sustainable Development 19: 275288.
Bourgoin, J., and J.-C. Castella. 2011. ““PLUP FICTION”: Landscape Simulation for Participatory
Land Use Planning in Northern Lao PDR.” Mountain Research and Development 31 (2): 7888.
Bourgoin, J., J.-C. Castella, D. Pullar, and G. Lestrelin. 2012. “Toward a Land Zoning Negotiation
Support Platform: “Tips and Tricks” for Participatory Land Use Planning in Laos.” Landscape
and Urban Planning 104: 270278.
Brandt, M. 2002. “A Model for Evaluating Public Participation in GIS.” In Community
Participation and Geographic Information Systems, edited by W.J. Craig, T.M. Harris, and D.
Weiner, 346356. London: Taylor & Francis.
Brockington, D. 2008. “Corruption, Taxation and Natural Resource Management in Tanzania.”
Journal of Development Studies 44 (1): 103126.
Brown, G., and S.Y.W. Chin. 2013. “Assessing the Effectiveness of Public Participation in
Neighborhood Planning.” Planning Practice & Research 28 (5): 563588.
CNR (Commission for Natural Resources) 1999. National Forestry Policy for Zanzibar. Zanzibar:
CNR.
Corbett, J., and G. Rambaldi. 2009. “Geographic Information Technologies, Local Knowledge, and
Change.” In Qualitative GIS: A Mixed Methods Approach, edited by M. Cope and S. Elwood,
7591. London: Sage.
Corbett, J., G. Rambaldi, P. Kyem, D. Weiner, R. Olson, J. Muchemi, M. McCall, and R. Chambers.
2006. “Overview: Mapping for Change The Emergence of a New Practice.” Participatory
Learning and Action 54: 1319.
Cormier, Z. 2012. “With 3D Maps, Villagers Able to See Benefits of Good Land Use Planning.”
Forests News, CIFOR. http://blog.cifor.org/11443/with-3d-maps-villagers-able-to-see-benefits-
of-good-land-use-planning#.UvCj17Tm5_9
Coulibaly-Lingani, P., P. Savadogo, M. Tigabu, and P.-C. Oden. 2011. “Factors Influencing
People’s Participation in the Forest Management Program in Burkina Faso, West Africa.”
Forest Policy and Economics 13: 292302.
Craig, W.J., and S.A. Elwood. 1998. “How and Why Community Groups Use Maps and Geographic
Information.” Cartography & Geographic Information Systems 25 (2): 95104.
Davidson, S. 1998. “Spinning the Wheel of Empowerment.” Planning 1262: 1415.
Dougill, A.J., E.D.G. Fraser, J. Holden, K. Hubacek, C. Prell, M.S. Reed, S.T. Stagl, and L.C.
Stringer. 2006. “Learning from Doing Participatory Rural Research: Lessons from the Peak
District National Park.” Journal of Agricultural Economics 57: 259275.
Fagerholm, N., N. K€
ayhk€
o, F. Ndumbaro, and M. Khamis. 2012. “Community Stakeholders’
Knowledge in Landscape Assessments Mapping Indicators for Landscape Services.”
Ecological Indicators 18: 421433.
Fagerholm, N., N. K€
ayhk€
o, and V. Van Eetvelde. 2013. “Landscape Characterization as a Spatial
Approach Integrating Expert and Local Knowledge about Land and Forest Resources.”
Environmental Management 52: 660682.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) 2010. “Global Forest Resources
Assessment 2010 Main Report.” FAO Forestry Paper 163. Rome: FAO.
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 25
Downloaded by [Turku University] at 03:35 19 June 2014
Farrington, J. 1998. “Organisational Roles in Farmer Participatory Research and Extension: Lessons
from the Last Decade.” Natural Resource Perspectives Number 27. London: Overseas
Development Institute.
Fischer, F. 2000. Citizens, Experts and the Environment. The Politics of Local Knowledge. London:
Duke University Press.
Flintan, F. 2012. Participatory Rangeland Resource Mapping as a Valuable Tool for Village Land
use Planning in Tanzania. Rome: IFAD.
Flowerdew, R., and D.L. Martin. 2005. Methods in Human Geography: A Guide for Students Doing
a Research Project. Essex: Pearson Education.
Goetz, A.M., and J. Gaventa. 2001. “Bringing Citizen Voice and Client Focus into Service
Delivery.” IDS Working Paper 138. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies.
IAP2 (International Association for Public Participation) 2007. IAP2 Core Values of Public
Participation. Thornton, CO: IAP2. http://www.iap2.org/associations/4748/files/CoreValues.pdf
INTEGRA. 2011. “Tanzania’s Bold ICT for Irrigation Strategy.” Integra.com, GBI Portal. http://
www.integrallc.com/2011/06/15/tanzanias-bold-ict-for-irrigation-strategy/
Jordan, G. 2002. “GIS for Community Forestry User Groups in Nepal: Putting People Before the
Technology.” In Community Participation and Geographic Information Systems, edited by W.
J. Craig, T.M. Harris, and D. Weiner, 232245. London: Taylor & Francis.
Kaimowitz, D., C. Vallejos, P. Pacheco, and R. L
opez. 1998. “Municipal Governments and Forest
Management in Lowland Bolivia.” Journal of Environment & Development 7 (1): 4559.
K€
ayhk€
o, N., N. Fagerholm, and A.J. Mzee. 2013. “Local Farmers’ Place-Based Forest Benefits and
Government Interventions Behind Land Cover and Forest Transitions in Zanzibar, Tanzania.”
Journal of Land Use Science. doi:10.108061747423X.2013.858784.
Kovacevic, M. 2013. “Drawing, Role-Playing and 3D Maps Improve Land Use Planning.” Forests
News. http://blog.cifor.org/18914/drawing-role-playing-and-3d-maps-improve-land-use-
planning
Kyem, P.A.K. 2002. “Promoting Local Community Participation in Forest Management Through
PPGIS Application in Southern Ghana.” In Community Participation and Geographic
Information Systems, edited by W.J. Craig, T.M. Harris, and D. Weiner, 218231. London:
Taylor & Francis.
Laurian, L., and M. Shaw. 2009. “Evaluation of Public Participation: The Practices of Certified
Planners.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 28: 293309.
Leach, M., R. Mearns, and I. Scoones. 1999. “Environmental Entitlements: Dynamics and
Institutions in Community-Based Natural Resource Management.” World Development 27 (2):
225247.
Lestrelin, G., J. Bourgoin, B. Bouahom, and J.-C. Castella. 2011. “Measuring Participation: Case
Studies on Village Land Use Planning in Northern Lao PDR.” Applied Geography 31:
950958.
Li, T.M. 2002. “Engaging Simplifications: Community-Based Resource Management, Market
Process and State Agendas in Upland Southeast Asia.” World Development 30 (2): 265283.
Livengood, A., and K. Kunte. 2012. “Enabling Participatory Planning with GIS: A Case Study of
Settlement Mapping in Cuttack, India.” Environment and Urbanization 24 (1): 7797.
MANR. 2011. Community Forest Management Guidelines for the Development of Community
Forest Management Agreements. Zanzibar: Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources
Zanzibar.
McCall, M.K. 2011. “Can Neogeography and GIS62 Satisfy PGIS?” In Participatory Geographic
Information Systems and Land Planning: Life Experiences for People Empowerment and
Community Transformation, edited by F. Orban-Ferauge, 79108. Namur: Presses
Universitaires de Namur.
McCall, M.K., and C.E. Dunn. 2012. “Geo-Information Tools for Participatory Spatial Planning:
Fulfilling the Criteria for ‘Good’ Governance?” Geoforum 43 (1): 8194.
McCall, M.K., and P. Minang. 2005. “Assessing Participatory GIS for Community-Based Natural
Resource Management: Claiming Community Forests in Cameroon.” Geographical Journal
171: 340356.
Minichiello, V., R. Aroni, E. Timewel, and L. Alexander. 1990. In-Depth Interviewing:
Researching People. Hong Kong: Longman Cheshire.
26 S. Eilola et al.
Downloaded by [Turku University] at 03:35 19 June 2014
Mustalahti, I., A. Bolin, E. Boyd, and J. Paavola. 2012. “Can REDDCReconcile Local Priorities
and Needs with Global Mitigation Benefits? Lessons from Angai Forest, Tanzania.” Ecology
and Society 17 (1): 16. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04498-170116
Mustalahti, I., and J.F. Lund. 2009. “Where and How Can Participatory Forest Management
Succeed? Learning From Tanzania, Mozambique, and Laos.” Society & Natural Resources: An
International Journal 23 (1): 3144.
Nackoney, J., D. Rybock, J. Dupain, and C. Facheux. 2013. “Coupling Participatory Mapping and
GIS to Uniform Village-Level Agricultural Zoning in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.”
Landscape and Urban Planning 110: 164174.
Nygren, A. 2005. “Community-Based Forest Management Within the Context of Institutional
Decentralization in Honduras.” World Development 33 (4): 639655.
OCGS. 2010. Zanzibar Statistical Abstract 2009. Zanzibar: Office of Chief Government Statistician.
Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the Commons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pagdee, A., Y.-S. Kim, and P.J. Daugherty. 2006. “What Makes Community Forest Management
Successful: A Meta-Study from Community Forests Throughout the World.” Society & Natural
Resources: An International Journal 19 (1): 3352.
Rambaldi, G. 2010. Participatory Three-Dimensional Modelling: Guiding Principles and
Applications. 2010 ed. Wageningen: CTA.
Rambaldi, G., P.A.K. Kyem, M. McCall, and D. Weiner. 2006. “Participatory Spatial Information
Management and Communication in Developing Countries.” The Electronic Journal of
Information Systems in Developing Countries 25: 19.
Reed, M.S. 2008. “Stakeholder Participation for Environmental Management: A Literature
Review.” Biological Conservation 141: 24172431.
RGZ. 2004. State of the Environment Report for Zanzibar 200462005. Zanzibar: Revolutionary
Government of Zanzibar.
Ribot, J.C. 1999. “Decentralisation, Participation and Accountability in Sahelian Forestry: Legal
Instruments of Political-Administrative Control.” Africa 69 (1): 2365.
Ribot, J.C., J.F. Lund, and T. Treue. 2010. “Democratic Decentralization in Sub-Saharan Africa: Its
Contribution to Forest Management, Livelihoods, and Enfranchisement.” Environmental
Conservation 37 (1): 3544.
Richards, C., K.L. Blackstock, and C.E. Carter. 2004. “Practical Approaches to Participation.”
SERG Policy Brief No. 1. Aberdeen: Macaulay Institute.
Rowe, G., and L.J. Frewer. 2000. “Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation.”
Science, Technology, & Human Values 25 (1): 329.
Sandker, M., B.M. Campbell, M. Ruiz-P
erez, J.A. Sayer, R. Cowling, and H. Kassa. 2010. “The
Role of Participatory Modeling in Landscape Approaches to Reconcile Conservation and
Development.” Ecology and Society 15 (2): 13.
Sayer, J., T. Sunderland, J. Ghazoul, J.-L. Pfund, D. Sheil, E. Meijaard, M. Venter, et al. 2012. “Ten
Principles for a Landscape Approach to Reconciling Agriculture, Conservation, and Other
Competing Land Uses.” PNAS 110 (21): 18.
Sitari, T. 2005. “Forestry in the Community Lifeworld in Unguja, Zanzibar.” In Forestry,
Community and Biodiversity in Zanzibar: Interaction Between Forest Plantation and
Community and Its Impact on Biodiversity, edited by T. Sitari, 3758. Turku University
Department of Geography Publications B 3.
Springate-Baginski, O., O.P. Nagendra, P. Yadav, and J. Soussan. 2003. “Community Forest
Management in the Middle Hills of Nepal: The Changing Context.” Journal of Forest and
Livelihood 3 (1): 520.
Stringer, L.C., C. Prell, M.S. Reed, K. Hubacek, E.D.G. Fraser, and A.J. Dougill. 2006. “Unpacking
‘Participation’ in the Adaptive Management of Socio-Ecological Systems: A Critical Review.”
Ecology and Society 11 (2): 39. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art39/
Sunderlin, W.D., J. Hatcher, and M. Liddle. 2008. From Exclusion to Ownership? Challenges and
Opportunities in Advancing Forest Tenure Reform. Washington, DC: Rights and Resources Initiative.
Tippett, J., J.F. Handley, and J. Ravetz. 2007. “Meeting the Challenges of Sustainable
Development: A Conceptual Appraisal of a New Methodology for Participatory Ecological
Planning.” Progress in Planning 67: 998.
T€
orh€
onen, M. 2004. “Sustainable Land Tenure and Land Registration in Developing Countries,
Including a Historical Comparison with an Industrialised Country.” Computers, Environment
and Urban Systems 28: 545586.
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 27
Downloaded by [Turku University] at 03:35 19 June 2014
Tuomi, J., and A. Saraj€
arvi. 2002. Qualitative research and content analysis [Laadullinen tutkimus
ja sis€
all€
onanalyysi]. Helsinki: Tammi.
UNFCCC. 2010. “Decisions adopted by COP 16 and CMP 6.” In Proceedings of the Cancun
Climate Change Conference, UNFCCC, Bonn, Germany. http://unfccc.int/meetings/
cancun_nov_2010/meeting/6266.php
URT, sine anno. “Piloting REDD in Tanzania. United Republic of Tanzania.” Accessed July 9.
http://www.theredddesk.org/sites/default/files/redd_pilot_projects_in_tanzania-
advancing_redd_in_the_kolo_hills_forests_arkfor_in_central_tanzania_1.pdf
Wandersman, A. 1981. “A Framework of Participation in Community Organisations.” Journal of
Applied Behavioural Science 17: 2758.
White, A., and A. Martin. 2002. Who Owns the World’s Forests? Forest Tenure and Public Forests
in Transition. Washington, DC: Forest Trends & Centre for International Environmental Law.
Wilcox, D. 2003. “The Guide to Effective Participation.” Partnerships Online. http://www.
partnerships.org.uk/guide
Wily, L. 2003. “Participatory Forest Management in Africa: An Overview of Progress and Issues.”
In Second International Workshop on Participatory Forestry in Africa Defining the Way
Forward: Sustainable Livelihoods and Sustainable Forest Management through Participatory
Forestry 18-22 February 2002 Arusha, United Republic of Tanzania, edited by S. Iddi, K.
Sarrazin, and D. Reeb, 3158. Rome: FAO.
Zulu, L.C. 2008. “Community Forest Management in Southern Malawi: Solution or Part of the
Problem?” Society and Natural Resources: An International Journal 21 (8): 687703.
28 S. Eilola et al.
Downloaded by [Turku University] at 03:35 19 June 2014
