Content uploaded by Kepha Luvinga
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kepha Luvinga on Apr 08, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Japhet Ringo
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Japhet Ringo on Aug 12, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Copyright © 2016 by Modern Scientific Press Company, Florida, USA
International Journal of Modern Social Sciences, 2016, 5(2): 117-132
International Journal of Modern Social Sciences
Journal homepage: www.ModernScientificPress.com/Journals/IJMSS.aspx
ISSN: 2169-9917
Florida, USA
Article
Effects of Limestone Mining on Deforestation and Land
Degradation in Mbeya Region, Tanzania
Hancelem Haule¹, Japhet Ringo2*, Kepha Luvinga3, Subira Kawonga4, Gabriel Mayengo5, &
Luhanda Morsardi6
¹Ministry of Education, Science, Technology & Vocational Training, P.O. Box 1284, Bukoba,
Tanzania.
2Department of Geography & Environmental Studies, University of Dodoma P.O. Box 395, Dodoma,
Tanzania.
3&4Department of Project Planning & Management, Tengeru Institute of Community Development,
P.O. Box, 1006, Arusha, Tanzania.
5Nelson Mandela African Institute of Science and Technology, P.O. Box 447, Arusha, Tanzania.
6Disaster Awareness & Preparedness Organization in Tanzania, P.0.BOX, 2190, Dodoma, Tanzania.
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mail:japhetelis@yahoo.com;
Article history: Received 3 June 2016, Received in revised form 28 June 2016, Accepted 11 July
2016, Published 15 July 2016.
Abstract: This paper focuses on the effects of limestone mining on deforestation and land
degradation in Usongwe Division, Mbeya Region. The study involved 120 people from
three villages (Songwe, Majimoto, and Ikumbi) surrounding Mbeya Cement Company
Limited and 10 key informants. Data were collected through household’s questionnaire
survey, key informants interviews, focus group discussions, resource assessment, archive
information, and field site visits. Findings revealed that 38.3 ha of forests were cleared out
of the 1000 ha leased to Mbeya Cement Company Limited. Similarly, soil erosion, loss of
vegetation, and air pollution were the main effects exacerbated by limestone mining.
Measures to the restore ecological function in the areas surrounding limestone mining sites
included steep slope levelling, afforestation, and flood control. To mitigate deforestation
and land degradation; rehabilitation, reclamation, and restoration measures to the best land
use for future generation were suggested to be in place.
Int. J. Modern Soc. Sci., 2016, 5(2): 117-132
Copyright © 2016 by Modern Scientific Press Company, Florida, USA
118
Keywords: Deforestation, Land degradation, Limestone mining, Mbeya Cement Company
1. Introduction
Mineral resources have been used by man since time immemorial and represent an important
economic activity which has substantial contributions to the socio-economic development (Saxena, et
al., 2005). Socio-economic benefits have been generated from mining though there have been adverse
effects of mining to the ecosystem due to massive excavation and removal of soil and rock layers
(Joseph & Yeboah, 2008). Throughout the world, limestone mining activities have marked negative
environmental impacts in view of the fact that limestone mining involves extraction of limestone from
the earth’s crust by removing vegetation cover, top soil, and rocks that lie above the required limestone
hence exacerbate deforestation and land degradation (William, 2001).
The scale of operations which are involved in limestone mining processes determines the extent
of deforestation and land degradation (Aigbedion, 2007). Limestone has been mined through surface
and underground methods (Fred, 2006). Underground limestone mining is commonly used when a
specific rock layer is desired or in areas where there is thick material overlying the desired rock
(Mengistu et al., 2000). Conversely, surface limestone mining involves removal of limestone “rooms”
leaving regularly spaced “pillars” in place to support the overlying roof. These operations can be
extensive and often covers hundreds acres of land. Surface quarrying method cause or escalates
deforestation and land degradation (Kumar & Jamaluddin, 2010). Most of the surface operations are
hillside cuts or open pit type quarries (Fatusin & Fagbohunka, 2012). On the other hand, controlled
blasting at the quarry face is used to break the rocks into pieces.
The development of cement factories in the world has been escalating due to high demand of
limestone, sandstone, and clay stone that have created a new set of issues including soil erosion,
displacement of the people, pollution, and migration of wild animals (Fred, 2006; Nidhi & Manshi
2009). Most of the limestone sites are in or around the natural vegetation areas. A number of negative
impacts associated with limestone mining activities have been noted to include; alteration of land
structure due to excavation, interference with natural drainage, ground water depletion, stacking of
mine waste, soil infertility, degradation of forest land, and adverse effect on aquatic biodiversity and
public health.
In Tanzania, limestone mining has been restricted to areas surrounding cement factories
including Wazo Hill in Dar es Salaam (Twiga Cement Company), Pongwe in Tanga (Simba Cement
Company), and Songwe in Mbeya (Tembo Cement Company). Limestone mining in Mbeya Region
started way back in early 1930’s (URT, 1997). Currently, limestone mining in Mbeya Region is under
Int. J. Modern Soc. Sci., 2016, 5(2): 117-132
Copyright © 2016 by Modern Scientific Press Company, Florida, USA
119
the Tembo Cement Company Limited in Usongwe Division. The extent of environmental devastations
particularly deforestation and land degradation due to limestone mining is currently less known. This
paper sets to assess the current extent of deforestation due to limestone mining, examine impacts of
limestone mining on land degradation, and assess the available ecological restoration measures against
limestone mining.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. The Study Area
This research was carried in Mbeya Rural District at Usongwe Division. Mbeya Rural District
is among the districts of Mbeya Region in Tanzania. The district lies between latitude 7° and 9° South
of equator and between longitudes 33°and 35° East of Greenwich. Mbeya Rural District lies at an
altitude ranging from 1000-2400 meters above sea level. It is bordered to the north by Mbarali District
and Chunya District, to the south by the Mbeya City Council and Rungwe District, to the east by Iringa
region and to the west by Mbozi District (URT, 1997).
Three villages were involved in this study namely Songwe, Majimoto, and Ikumbi which were
proximity to the limestone mining sites under the Mbeya Cement Company Limited in Usongwe
Division. Mbeya Rural District has a tropical climate with an average temperature ranging between 6°C
in the highlands and 26°C on the lowlands. Mean annual rainfall ranges from 650 mm and 2700 mm
(URT, 1997; Barnabas, 2010). The study area is characterized by sparse, Acacia/cambretum woodland.
Dominant tree species include Acacia spp, Fairdhebia albida and Combretum spp and the local name
trees include Mpogoro, Mtangasale, Nahumba and Itonto (URT, 1997). Soils are moderate fertile,
course or medium textured and varying from sandy loams, alluvial solids to cracking rocks (URT,
1997).
Majority of the people in Mbeya Rural District are farmers cultivating maize, cabbages, carrots,
green beans, tomato, and onions, cucumber, Irish potatoes coffee, pyrethrum, sunflowers, avocado,
passions, and mangoes crops. Furthermore, some people keep livestock as their main source of
income. The common livestock kept in larger numbers include cattle, sheep, goats, and poultry
(Barnabas, 2010). Additionally, Mbeya Rural District has high potentials for minerals including gold,
granite, limestone, diamond, platinum, uranium, cobalt, and nickel (URT, 1999).
2.2. Data Collection and Analysis
Data for this research were collected through households questionnaire survey, key informants
interviews, focus group discussions, resource assessment, archive information, and field site
observation as detailed below.
Int. J. Modern Soc. Sci., 2016, 5(2): 117-132
Copyright © 2016 by Modern Scientific Press Company, Florida, USA
120
2.2.1. Household questionnaire survey
Researchers administered structured questionnaires to 120 respondents selected from 120
households in the three villages. In each of the three villages, forty (40) households were selected from
the village register using a systematic random sampling technique. Only one respondent was picked in
each household to represent the entire household’s members. Training of research assistants and
questionnaire pre-testing were done. Aspects covered in the questionnaires were socio-economic
characteristics of the respondents, plant species affected by limestone mining, effects of limestone
mining on vegetation and land degradation, and types of restoration measures and their effectiveness in
ameliorating environmental devastations caused by limestone mining. Other aspects were the presence
of the stakeholders dealing with environmental conservation practices as well as suggestions for the
measures to reduce deforestation and land degradation due to limestone mining.
2.2.2. Focus group discussions
Focus group discussions were held based on the fact that the method reveals in-depth
information on issues, perception, and ideas of various community groups. For a proper group
management, two sessions (morning and evening) of six people were conducted. Two sessions were
preferred because some villagers were rarely found in the morning due to farming practices. One day
was used for each village. Purposive selection was used to select various category of the respondents in
terms of age to include youths and elders; sex to include males and females, and working experience in
limestone mining to include people who worked in limestone mining and those who are not working.
These groups were included in order to diversify information on the subject matter. Topics which were
discussed involved the extent of deforestation and land degradation due to limestone mining, legal
frameworks on mining, and conservation practices used to restore the environment against impacts of
limestone mining.
2.2.3. Key informants interview
Structured interviews were organized and administered to the key informants who were the
Mbeya Cement Company Environmental and Safety Officer, District Land and Forest Officers,
District Mining Officer, Ward Executive Officer, Village Heads, and Village Executive Officers.
Checklist guide was used to guide the interviews. Topics included in the checklist were the impacts of
limestone mining on deforestation and land degradation, restoration measures attempted to overcome
environmental devastations exacerbated by limestone mining, as well as policy and legal frameworks
governing the limestone mining in the study area.
Int. J. Modern Soc. Sci., 2016, 5(2): 117-132
Copyright © 2016 by Modern Scientific Press Company, Florida, USA
121
2.2.4. Resource assessment
Resource assessment was used to collect information on the types of plant species and land
uses available in the study area. Furthermore, it involved the identification of plant species found in the
area and their relative abundance. The counting was done in the established site in the study area. A
total of 3 transects with 200 plots were established in the study site each with a radius of 12.5 meters as
described by Sharma et al., (2013). This was done so as to formulate the area similar to the quarry area
that amounts 1000 ha. In each plot tree species were identified in common names, scientific names,
and local names. Trees abundance of each plot was obtained by counting the number of each tree
species.
2.2.5. Field site visits
Field site observations were used to authenticate different activities which were practiced by
the Mbeya Cement Company Limited in extracting limestone and the way they affect vegetation and
land within the study area. Field site visits were organized in collaboration with the local leaders and
the mining officers in the study area. Camera and tape measures were used to record information and
measuring the quantitative data to include depth and width of the gullies and pits left after excavation.
2.2.6. Archive data
Secondary data were collected through review of the related documents from different sources
including books, journals, and local government documents. Archive information obtained from these
reports complemented information collected from primary data.
2.3. Data Analysis
Data were analyzed using of Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 16.0 for
windows. Statistical Analytical System (SAS) was also used to compute data into means, standard
errors by using SAS version 10.1 for Windows Statistical Package based on the following statistical
model:
Yi = μ + Ti + ei
Where Y is general response (excavated soil, tree stocking density)
μ is the general mean particular for each observation.
Ti is the treatment effect due to location.
ei is the random error terms common for all observations.
Means were separated using Least Significant difference as executed by SAS.
Int. J. Modern Soc. Sci., 2016, 5(2): 117-132
Copyright © 2016 by Modern Scientific Press Company, Florida, USA
122
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Extent of Deforestation due to Limestone Mining
The extent of deforestation due to limestone mining was explored. Results from the established
three transects with 200 plots disclosed that Usongwe Division had more than 250 different tree
species. The dominance species were Faidherbia albida (1248 stem/ha) and Mtangasale (1001 stem/ha).
The non- dominance specie was Dichrostachys spp, 14 stem/ha (Table 1 & Figure 1).
Table 1: List of some tree species found in study area
S/n
Common name
Local name in Nyiha and
Nyakyusa local languages
Stem/plot
1
Faidherbia albida
Mpogoro
1248
2
Acacia drepanolobium
399
3
Acacia gerrerdii
89
4
Acacia mearnsii
142
5
Acacia nilotica
198
6
Albizia adianthifolia
269
7
Boscia mozambiensis
25
8
Commiphora spp.
156
9
Dichrostachys spp.
14
10
Ximenia americana
80
11
Grewia similis
310
12
Isongore
711
13
Itonto
397
14
Ivumu
193
15
Litukutu
283
16
Mtangasale
1001
17
Nahumba
512
18
Senna singuaena
164
19
Zyziphus spp.
40
20
Mtoo
619
21
Unidentified-1
428
22
Unidentified-2
401
23
Unidentified-3
313
24
Unidentified-4
177
25
Unidentified-5
28
( Source: Field data, 2015.)
The presence of many indigenous tree species in Usongwe Division (Table 1) implies that the
area might be rich in terms of flora. Faidherbia albida being the dominant specie could be attributed
by soil fertility and the climate that favor its adaptation. However, being a dominant specie imply that
the particular specie has been affected by limestone mining since there were no any tree in the
limestone mined plot.
Int. J. Modern Soc. Sci., 2016, 5(2): 117-132
Copyright © 2016 by Modern Scientific Press Company, Florida, USA
123
Figure 1: Some of regeneration natural vegetation covers in the study area.
Photo by Hancelem, Haule 2015.
Results portray that the number of stem per ha in the study area within the three transects
ranged between 727 ±28 to 1009 ± 40 (Table 2). The three transects recorded highly variable (P< 0.05)
tree stocking ranging from 727 to 1009 stems/ha. Results indicate that “Transect Two” had the highest
stocking density (P<0.05) compared with the rest of the two transects. The plausible reason for this
variation could be that, plots for other transects (one and three) were arbitrarily positioned in the areas
rich in sand stone hence not favorable for the nurture of many tree species. Effect of limestone mining
on tree density is demonstrated by the absence of any tree stem in the mined site (Table 2).
Table 2: Number of stem per ha in three transects in non-mined area
Transect
Plot (N)
Stems/ha
1
65
727 ± 28a
2
86
1009 ± 40b
3
49
875 ± 22c
Mean
67
870 ± 30
a, b, c means with different superscript in same column differ significantly (P < 0.05).
Source: Field data, 2014.
Int. J. Modern Soc. Sci., 2016, 5(2): 117-132
Copyright © 2016 by Modern Scientific Press Company, Florida, USA
124
Distribution of tree species
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Tree species
Stem per plot
Faidherbia albida
Acacia adrepanolobium
Acacia gerrerdii
Acacia mearnsii
Acacia nolitica
Albizia adianthifolia
Boscia mozambiens
Commiphora spp
Dichrostachys spp
Ximenia americana
Grewia Semilis
Isongore
Itonto
Ivumu
Litukutu
Mtangasale
Nahumba
Senna seaguena
Syziphus spp
Mtoo
Unidentified-1
Unidentified-2
Unidentified-3
Unidentified-4
Unidentified-5
Figure 2: Distribution of tree species in the study area. (Source: Field data, 2015.)
Furthermore, results unveil that deforestation in the study area was caused by land clearing
prior drilling and blasting processes. An observation during transect walk disclosed a big open pit
pentagon in shape of about 850 m long, 450 m width, and 27 m depth which equals to 382500 m2 in
area (Figure 3). Limestone has been excavated up to 27 m depth making a volume of 1, 032, 7500 m3.
The situation, however, could be worse as more than half of the respondents (61.7%, n=120) reported
that there was an increase in cutting of vegetation due to limestone mining in the study area (Figure 4).
Figure 3: A large open pit due to limestone mining in the study area.
(Photo by Hancelm Haule, 2015.)
Int. J. Modern Soc. Sci., 2016, 5(2): 117-132
Copyright © 2016 by Modern Scientific Press Company, Florida, USA
125
Arvind & Biswajit, (2011) ascertain that deterioration in physical, chemical, and biological
quality of the environment affects both flora and fauna resources. Limestone mining in the study area
revealed to devastate natural vegetation. This was revealed by the existence of the large mining pit
found in the study area covering about 38.25 ha of the forest cleared for limestone mining. This had
also substantiated by 61.7% of the respondents who noticed an increase in deforestation in Usongwe
Division (Figure 4). The total area expected to be used for the limestone mining was 1000 ha. This
area was covered with various indigenous tree species (Table 1). Therefore, this justifies the high
deforestation in the study area. Despite that greenery bears a pivotal role in protecting the quality of all
aspects of environment, there have been reported result on effect of limestone mining concern with
other scholarly work that mining activity has been reflected through decrease in green cover or water
resource or both (Sahu & Dash, 2011; Fatusin & Fagbohunka 2012; Sharma etal., 2013).
Figure 4: Respondents views on the extent of deforestation due to limestone mining.
(Source: Field data, 2015.)
3.2. Impacts of Limestone Mining on Land Degradation
Impacts of limestone mining on land degradation were assessed in the study area. Results
revealed that limestone mining in the study area had exerted impacts on the landscape and eco-system
at large. Limestone mining extraction activities (Figure 5 and 6) influenced negative impacts of
limestone mining on land degradation. These mining extraction practices were land clearing, blasting,
drilling, storage of the overburden dump materials, and the movement of heavy trucks.
Int. J. Modern Soc. Sci., 2016, 5(2): 117-132
Copyright © 2016 by Modern Scientific Press Company, Florida, USA
126
Figure 5: Limestone materials collected by a digger. Figure 6: Eroded land due to limestone mining.
Photo by Hancelem Haule, 2015. Photo by Hancelem Haule, 2015.
Table 3 pinpoints that respondents had mentioned soil erosion as a major negative effect
exacerbated by limestone mining in the study area. Other impacts include loss of vegetation cover, air
pollution, drainage/hydrological interference, and disturbance of soil micro-organisms.
Table 3: Impacts of limestone mining on land degradation
Villages
Impacts
Songwe
Maji Moto
Ikumbi
Total
Average
(%)
Soil erosion
21
22
11
54
45
Loss of vegetation/ground cover
12
9
18
39
32.5
Disturbance of soil micro-organism
3
1
0
4
3.3
Air pollution
6
3
5
14
11.6
Drainage & hydrological interference
3
2
4
9
7.5
Source: Field data, 2015.
Results in Table 3 disclose that 45% of the respondents cited soil erosion as a major negative
effect on land. Soil erosion was caused by the excavation of limestone practices (land clearing,
blasting, and drilling) as well as the frequent movement of heavy trucks in the mining sites. Discussion
with Mbeya Cement Company Environmental and Safety Officer revealed that the ratio of the
overburden excavated to the amount of mineral removed (stripping ratio) estimated in the study area
was 8:1. This means that for every tone of limestone ore being produced, eight tones of waste are
generated. The direct impacts of mining disturbance to the soil are usually severe with the destruction
of natural ecosystems, either through the removal of all previous soils, plants, and animals or their
burial beneath waste disposal facilities.
The overburden removal from the mining area was also reported by 32.5% of the respondents
to cause the loss of vegetation in the study area (Table 3). In the study area, the overburden removal
Int. J. Modern Soc. Sci., 2016, 5(2): 117-132
Copyright © 2016 by Modern Scientific Press Company, Florida, USA
127
was normally done by the process of blasting or using excavators, which produced large volume of
waste (soil, debris, and other material). The removed overburden was useless to the mining industry
hence was stored in big heaps within the mine lease area and to the public land. Saxena et al,. (2005)
argue that the bigger the scale of the mining, the greater is the quantum of the wastes generated.
It is estimated that open-pit mines produce 8 to 10 times as much waste compared to
underground mines. The noted high ratio of overburden excavated to the amount of mineral removed
(stripping ratio) in the study area (8:1) could be associated with the low mining technology applied in
the study area. This ratio is almost as twice as ratio of 4:1 reported by Mengistu & Fentaw (2000) in
Ethiopia. Results indicated that Mbeya Cement Company was producing twice as much amount of the
wastes compared to Chronicle Cement Company in Ethiopia. The higher stripping ratio noted for
Mbeya Cement Company could be associated with high extent of land degradation. Stripping ratio
varies with the area under mining and the generation of overburden varies from mine to mine (Anon,
2006). According to the Indian Bureau of Mines, average stripping ratio for limestone mines in India is
1:1.05. For large-scale cement sector with captive mines, the average stripping ratio is only 1:05. This
is quite good to be adopted by Mbeya Cement Company to ensure sustainability of the land resources.
Furthermore, results revealed that 11.6% of the respondents unveiled that limestone mining
exacerbated air pollution (Table 3). Air pollution was caused by the excavators, movements of diggers,
bulldozers, and other trucks in the mining sites. In addition, discussion with the Village Heads and
Village Executive Officers revealed that watering was not done to avoid dusts. Similarly, trucks which
were carrying debris/soils were not covered hence escalate the spreading of air pollution. Furthermore,
discussion with Mbeya Cement Company Environmental and Safety officer disclosed that air pollution
was principally caused by the use of open cast mining method. This is in line by the argument by
Sharma et al., (2013) that open cast mining cause excessive air pollution as they generate huge
quantities of wastes than underground mining.
3.3. Measures for Ecological Restoration Against Limestone Mining
Measures to control the adverse effects of limestone mining on the environment in the study
area were probed. Results in Table 4 portray that 55% of the respondents reported an absence of the
measures to restore the degraded environment in the study area. However, few of the respondents
mentioned the existence of restoration measures on the degraded land due to limestone mining. The
reported measures to be in place include reforestation, flood control, and steep slope control (Table 4).
Results in Table 4 indicate that respondents traced the presence of reforestation in the areas
surrounding limestone mining sites. Respondent’s views concurred by the views aired out by the
Village Heads and the Village Executive Officers during discussion that Mbeya Cement Company
Int. J. Modern Soc. Sci., 2016, 5(2): 117-132
Copyright © 2016 by Modern Scientific Press Company, Florida, USA
128
have been providing seedlings to the villagers to be planted in their surroundings. Nonetheless, Focus
Group Discussions disclosed that local people were planting the provided trees but no follow-up from
the Mbeya Cement Company was been made to assess the nurture of the planted trees. Consequently,
most of the planted trees left without care hence died. However, discussion with District Land Officer
revealed that most of the trees were also dying because they were not indigenous to the area. In
practice, Mbeya Cement Company is the polluter and it should have been made responsible to
ameliorate the impacts of the limestone mining. They should have paid for all the negative impacts on
the environment.
Table 4: Applied ecological restoration measures
Villages
Measures
Songwe
Maji Moto
Ikumbi
Total
Average (%)
Steep slope control
3
1
0
4
3.3
Flood control
2
3
1
6
5
Reforestation
11
6
8
25
20.8
No measure at all
23
18
25
66
55
Do not know
7
3
9
19
15.8
(Source: Field data, 2015.)
Similarly, topographic leveling was also done to control the steep slope in the mining sites.
Steep slopes were due to slope cuts and pilling of soil/debris heaps. Steep slope leveling was done by
the Mbeya Cement Company so as to reduce soil erosion, soil creeps, and mud flows during rainfall.
Meanwhile, steep slope control was also done so as to enhance visibility within limestone quarrying
sites due to high heights of the soil/debris heaps. An observation during field site visits disclosed that
topographic leveling was decisive to control sloping in the mining sites, but was not effective at the
boundaries between the mining sites and to the villagers partly because efforts were made to level
inside the mining sites than outside where there was huge accumulation of soil/debris heaps.
Respondent’s responses on the existence of the measures to enhance ecological restoration
against the impacts of limestone mining on the environment revealed the existence of the little efforts.
However, for the sustainability of the environment in the study area, 53% of the respondents had
suggested rehabilitation as an ecological restoration measure to be in place (Figure 7). Rehabilitation
involves returning the land to the original form and allows productivity in conformity with a prior
land-use plan including a stable ecological state that does not contribute substantially to the
environmental deterioration and is consistent with surrounding aesthetic values (Oral & Rohan, 2008).
The study revealed that even Mbeya Cement Company favors rehabilitation as it was unveiled
by the company Environmental and Safety Officer that they expect to develop designs for appropriate
landforms for the mining site according to the design principles established and establishing
appropriate sustainable ecosystems. Therefore, in order to encourage environmental sustainability and
Int. J. Modern Soc. Sci., 2016, 5(2): 117-132
Copyright © 2016 by Modern Scientific Press Company, Florida, USA
129
maintain current levels of natural assets including land, rehabilitation of environment normally through
tree planting is necessary to be included in the planning and decision making as an important tool.
Cooney & Dickson, (2006) put forward that rehabilitation mechanisms aims at preventing adverse
impacts from happening and keeping those that do occur within acceptable levels.
Figure 7: Suggested restoration measures against limestone mining.
(Source: Field data, 2015.)
Reclamation was also suggested by 30% of the respondents to ameliorate negative
environmental impacts exacerbated by limestone mining (Figure 7). Reclamation in the context of the
study area involves top-soil that be removed with a dozer prior to blasting. It can be mixed with other
materials, even in small quantities, to provide organic matter, beneficial micro-organisms, fungi, and
nutrient pools. Thus, reclamation considerations should be incorporated into the mining planning such
that it becomes a major governing factor in the mining operations, waste disposal, and site closure. In
this scenario, reclamation in the study area should not be confined necessarily towards the
decommissioning phase of the mining activities. Rather site reclamation should be progressive such
that the rate of restoration is more or less similar to the rate of mining. In the study area, site
reclamation can be achieved through rehabilitation to blend the mined area to the surrounding area.
Large bulldozers can shape the mining pits to a slope that is similar to the surrounding terrain so as to
encourage water infiltration as quickly as possible to prepare the land for replanting. Thereafter, tree
planting at a density of 625 trees per ha-1 can be done after 3 and 9 weeks (Hangi, 1996; Seiser, 2001;
Mihayo, 2003). All tree species to be planted can be native to the area and selected based on several
characteristics such as tree form, growth rate, wood quality, and resistance to diseases.
Int. J. Modern Soc. Sci., 2016, 5(2): 117-132
Copyright © 2016 by Modern Scientific Press Company, Florida, USA
130
Restoration on the other hand was also recommended to enhance environmental conservation
around limestone mining sites (Figure 7). Restoration operation allows no land use flexibility and
incurs the greatest cost (Cooke & Johnson, 2002; EBI, 2007). In restoration, the central issue often is
future land use requirements and whether returning to the pre-disturbance use constitutes the best use
of land. To extract better results on restoration, Kitula (2005) stresses that ecological variables must be
considered while selecting plant species for restoration. These include their capacity to stabilize soil,
soil organic matter and available soil nutrients, and under storey development. Therefore, restoration
of land to the best land use for future generation by using modern technologies is decisive in the study
area.
4. Conclusions
Results unveiled that limestone mining had exacerbated negative effects on the landscape and
ecosystem at large in the study area. In conservation and development trade-offs, there are winers and
losers. Similarly, striking a win-win balance between conservation and development has never been an
easy endeavor. A way forward is to balance conservation and development. The study recommends
rehabilitation, reclamation, and restoration measures to be in place to mitigate deforestation and land
degradation that have been exacerbated by open cast limestone mining method and the frequent
movement of heavy trucks in the limestone mining sites.
Potential Conflicts of Interest
"The authors declare no conflict of interest."
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank local people from the three study villages who willingly shared
their views in this research. Meanwhile, authors are gratefully to the Mbeya Cement Company Limited
Staffs, Mbeya Rural District Land, Forest, and Mining Officers, and Usongwe Division Officers (Ward
Executive Officer, Village Executive Officers, and Village Heads) for their support in this venture.
References
Aigbedion, I. & Iyayi, S. (2007). Environmental effect of mineral exploitation in Nigeria: Ambrose
Alli University, Ekpoma-Nigeria. International Journal of Physical Sciences, 2(2): 33-38.
Anon, M. (2006). Dirty Metal, Mining Communities and Environment, Earthworks: Oxfam America,
Washington.
Int. J. Modern Soc. Sci., 2016, 5(2): 117-132
Copyright © 2016 by Modern Scientific Press Company, Florida, USA
131
Arvind, K. & Biswajit, P. (2011). Degradation of soil quality parameters due to coal mining operations
in Jharia coalfield, Jharkhand India, Journal of Advance Laboratory Research Bio, 2.
Barnabas, D. (2010). District Investment Profile, Mbeya District Council.
Cooke, J. & Johnson, M. (2002). Ecological restoration of land with particular reference to the mining
of metals and industrial minerals: A review of theory and practice. Environ Review, 10: 41-71.
Cooney, R. & Dickson, B. (ed) (2006). Biodiversity and Precautionary Principle: Risk and
Uncertainty in Conservation and Sustainable Use, Earthscan, London.
David, K. (2002). A Report of the Civil Society Review of the Implementation of Agenda 21 in Kenya:
Natural Resources-minerals. Kenya NGO Earth Summit Forum.
EBI (2004). Integrating Biodiversity into Environmental Management Systems: The Energy and
Biodiversity, Initiative Conservation International. UK.
EBI (2007). Energy and Biodiversity Indicators for Monitoring Impacts and Conservation Actions:
Washington, DC, USA. The Energy and Biodiversity. www.theebi.org/pdfs/indicators.pdf.
Accessed on 28 June, 2013.
Ellis, H. (2003). Mining and Quarrying. State of the Environment Report.
Fatusin, A. & Fagbohunka, A. (2012). Assessment of Health and Environmental Challenges of Cement
Factory on Ewekoro Community Residents: Ogun State, Nigeria. American Journal of Human
Ecology, 1(2): 51-57.
Fred, W. (2006). The Geological Column of Missouri: Winter. 1. North Quarry, Maryland Height.
Hangi, A. (1996). Environmental impacts of small-scale mining: A case of Merelani, Kahama, Nzega,
Geita and Musoma. Dar es Salaam: The Centre for Energy, Environment, Science and
Technology.
Joseph, Y. & Yeboah, B. A. (2008). Environmental and health impact of mining on surrounding
communities: A case study of Anglogold Ashanti in Obuasi. Master Thesis, Kwame Nkrumah
University of Science and Technology.
Kitula, A. (2006). The environmental and socio-economic impacts of mining on local livelihoods in
Tanzania: A case study of Geita District, Journal of Cleaner Production, 14: 405-414.
Kumar, A. & Jamaluddin. (2010). Role of Microbial Inoculants on Growth and Establishment of
Plantation and Natural Regeneration in Limestone Mined Spoils: World Journal of Agriculture
Science. 6(6): 707.
Mengistu, T. & Fentaw, H. (2000). The industrial mineral and rock resource potential of Ethiopia,
Chronicle of Mineral Research and Exploration.
Mihayo, R. (2003). Mining should benefit more Tanzanians. Business Times, 11 pp.
Int. J. Modern Soc. Sci., 2016, 5(2): 117-132
Copyright © 2016 by Modern Scientific Press Company, Florida, USA
132
Mwandosya, M., Makweba, M. & Ndonde, P. (1996). The Mineral Sector and the National
Environmental Policy, Proceedings of the workshop on the national environmental policy for
Tanzania (Dar es Salaam, Tanzania).
Nidhi, A. & Manshi, A. (2009). A report on Lafarge’s proposed Greenfield project. Himachal Mandi
Pradesh, India.
Nyeho, G.M.H. (2000). The Impact of Changes in the Government Policies on the Development of
Mineral Resources in Tanzania, http:// www.dundee.ac/cepmlp.html.
Oral, B. & Rohan, A. (2008). Sustainable Development and the Industrial Minerals sector, Integrating
the Principles of Sustainable Development within Jamaica’s Industrial Minerals Sector. Business,
Finance & Economics in Emerging Economies, 3(1).
Sahu, H. & Dash, E. (2011). Land Degradation due to Mining in India and its Mitigation Measures.
Proceedings of Second International Conference on Environmental Science and Technology:
Singapore.
Saxena, N., Singh, G., Pathak, P., Sarkar, B. & Pal, A. (2005). Mining Environment Management
Manual, Scientific Publishers, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India.
Seiser, A. (2001). Restoration and reclamation Review: Restoring jarrah forest in southwestern
Australia after bauxite mining. Student On-line Journal, 7 (1).
Sharma, R., Madhuri, S. & Renu, L. (2013). Monitoring and Assessment of Soil Quality near Kashlog
limestone mine at Darlaghat District Solan. Journal of Environment and Earth Science, 3(2): 34-
42.
United Republic of Tanzania (1997). The Planning Commission Dar es Salaam and Regional
Commissioner's Office Mbeya, Joint Publication.
United Republic of Tanzania (1999). Tanzania Mineral Policy, Ministry of Mineral and Energy.
William, H. (2001). Potential Environmental Impacts of Quarrying Stone in Karsts. A Literature
Review, U.S. Geological Survey.
