Participatory Land Use Planning in Practise: Learning from

Tanzania’s Experience

Report of a study visit to Nguruka Division, Kigoma District,

Tanzania 17th to 23rd., November, 2008.

Villagers of Mumbara sub-village and Kigoma District Participatory Land use

Planning Team members explain their LUP process to the Uganda study group.
 Acknowledgements 

Our heartfelt appreciation goes to the village leaders and Village

Environment Committee members, scouts and Beach Management Unit
members of Kasisi village and Mumbara sub-village who took pains to
explain to us their planning process and the successes and challenges in
implementation of their VLUPs.

We thank the Divisional staff of Nguruka Division and the ward staff and
leaders of the Wards we visited.

We are also indebted to Kigoma District Commissioner, District

Executive Director and Participatory Land Use Management Team
(PLUM), District Wetlands Coordinator and District Lands Officer; to the
SIMMORS Wetland Coordinator and District Forester, Urambo for
hosting us.

We appreciate the logistical effort made by the PEI Project

Administrative Assistant to ensure a smooth achievement of the study
visit’s aims.

The study team gratefully acknowledges the foresight, support and

funding of PEI Africa in sponsoring this opportunity to learn from others
towards more profitable, secure and conflict free land use and
environmental management in Uganda.

2
 Contents
Acknowledgements .................................................................... 2
Contents ..................................................................................... 3
Introduction ................................................................................ 4
Objectives................................................................................... 5
Methods ...................................................................................... 5
Evaluation and ‘way-forward’ discussions as a team from the
three Ugandan districts ........................................................... 20
Benefits of land use planning identified by the study group ... 20
Key Issues Identified by the Uganda study group ................... 23
Key recommendations for the way forward in the three pilot
districts in Uganda ................................................................... 28
Critical Approaches.................................................................. 28
Next Steps ................................................................................ 29
References................................................................................ 30
Annexes .................................................................................... 31

3
 Introduction 
The Districts of Nakasongola, Masindi and Butaleja have been collaborating with PEI
Uganda and have successfully developed district environmental policies. In order to
implement their environmental policies all three districts recognise that physical
planning, not alone for urban areas but for their whole districts is one of the primary
steps required. For example Butaleja district’s Environmental Policy contains the
following policy statement and objective:
Policy Statement: To ensure improved land resource access, tenure, equity in
stewardship and appropriate land use practices in Butaleja district.
Objective
To promote improved land stewardship for all land users including a better definition
of, and strengthening, land and resource access, tenure and usufruct rights.

The Uganda National Land Use Policy, 2008 states that each district should have a
district land use plan. The district environmental action plans, many of which were
designed with the support of NEMA have weaknesses in the area of strategic,
integrated and ecosystems zonation for designated uses. There are also weaknesses in
implementing government policies and strategies regarding community participation
in decision-making and power sharing with regard to land and natural resources
management.

All three districts have very small budget allocations for environment in their MTEF’s
and all have land, environmental and natural resources degradation problems,
sometimes involving conflicts which result in human deaths. Such circumstances are
common in many districts in Uganda where few have applied physical planning
within their administrative boundaries. Budgets for physical planning are usually
inadequate to cover even the urban planning needs of the districts. Districts have not
been requesting adequate budgetary funds for environment planning in their districts
and therefore many decisions regarding land use are made on an ad hoc basis and
usually as a result of applications for land by large-scale investors. A land use plan
which outlines what activities (consumptive and non-consumptive uses, conservation
etc.) are permitted in which locations might help to serve as a clear simple guide for
responding to current investment interests and for attracting other beneficial
investments for the people of the district. It is also expected to improve management
of natural resource –based activities including agriculture, fuel and timber harvest,
fisheries, water extraction and other natural product harvest and use in the districts.
Therefore the three districts have proposed strategies to enhance land and natural
resource management through physical planning as well as other measures. For
example one of the strategies under the improved land use objective in Butaleja’s
Environment Policy is to: Develop land use plans for all land and enforce prohibition
of environmentally unacceptable land use practices.

Action plans for initiating land-use planning with a few communities in specific
geographic, administrative and ecosystem areas of their districts were developed by
District Environment Officers in collaboration with key technical staff (including
planning, physical planning, agriculture /production and community development
personnel) and senior administrators and political representatives in the three districts.
These action plans, approved by the CAOs, were submitted to NEMA PEI (please see

4
example in Annex 1.) which has approved support to them to the tune of 10,000 USD
each.

All three districts had previously requested PEI support to implement some part of
their environment strategies as stated in their environmental policies and PEI agreed
to allocate funds remaining in its Phase II for supporting the action plans for piloting
land use planning in a small area in each district. Such an intervention could, through
providing lessons from three districts, assist PEI in achieving its objective of
increasing budgets for environment at district and central government levels by
showing how investment in participatory physical planning processes can reduce
environmental/land/natural resources conflict, degradation and thus reduce economic
costs to the exchequer.

The districts recognised that, since there is very little experience in Uganda of land
use/environmental planning which integrates rural community needs with ecosystem
sustenance, capacity building at district level would be necessary. They proposed that
this capacity building work should involve land-use planning experts from the
Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development (MoHLUD) and NEMA’s
District Support Unit. The capacity building would involve on-site training in one of
the three districts, on-the-job training and support to all three districts and their
partner communities and a study tour to at least one district/community in the nearest
possible site in an adjacent country.

This report describes the study visit which took place from 17th to 22nd November,
2008 to Kigoma and Urambo districts in the Malagarasi –Muyovozi Ramsar site in
North West Tanzania.

Objectives 
The objectives for the study visit were proposed during a meeting between NEMA
PEI and the three DEOs

• Learn from the Tanzanian Experience in Participatory Land Use Planning/

Integrated Environmental Management planning.
• To internalise the process of land use planning.
• To assess the extent to which the Tanzanian experience can be applied in
Uganda.
• To replicate the experiences back in the three pilot districts

Methods 
The methods used to gain the maximum benefit from the study visit were as
follows:

5
 • Literature study and feasibility discussions with own district colleagues and
with selected community representatives. Draft action plans for developing
land use plans in a community in own district.
• Description of training needs prepared and explained to the hosts.
• Preparatory on-site briefing by hosts.
• Direct observation.
• Formal presentations by village land use planning committee members.
• Focus-group discussion with the communities.
• Interviews of district staff and some members of the community.
• Informal interaction with community members and others who did not take
part in land-use planning.
• Daily de-briefing sessions both with and without the hosts.
• Evaluation session with the hosts.
• Evaluation and way-forward discussions as a team from the three districts.

Literature Review

Before the field visit some of the participants got an opportunity to study the
Tanzanian government’s land use planning system through reading land policies, laws
and manuals for implementing integrated village level land-use planning. Also by
reading reports of how integrated land use planning activities were carried out in
villages within and outside protected areas in Tanzania. One of the three District
environment Officers had studied participatory forest planning in Asia and
contributed his experiences and the lessons learned from there.

Feasibility discussions were conducted with own district superiors and colleagues and
with selected community representatives in order to assess whether exploration of
integrated land use planning might be useful in the Ugandan setting. It was found that
several new ideas and hints about pitfalls to avoid were gleaned from the literature.
Each of the three districts drafted action plans and budgets for developing land use
plans with selected communities. At a meeting in NEMA it was observed that despite
the advice from the literature, it would be difficult for district officers to begin land
use planning work without seeing for themselves exactly how it is done. Also there
was very little experience in the districts of participatory planning of natural resource
or land management together with the near-resource communities. Therefore it was
proposed that a location in a nearby country for first hand observation of land use
planning or integrated environmental management be found. It was agreed by
MoHLUD that Tanzania is the country in this region with the highest level of
legislative development, implementation activity and success in integrated land use
planning. The nearest place where extensive experience of land use planning which
integrated all land uses was found to be in Kigoma and Urambo districts of north
western Tanzania where over 40 villages had been facilitated through the process
under the SIMMORS project in the communities within the Malagarasy –Muyovozi
Ramsar site.

Although some literature is available most of it is in Swahili and although most of the
team could understand and speak Swahili reading documents in it would be tedious.
Linguistic support is needed for translation of the written documents from the village

6
planning processes including the village plans. A translator should be hired to
translate at least one of the village plan documents which the study team collected
from the SIMMORS office at Urambo.

Description of training needs prepared and explained to the hosts

On making the request to our hosts we described the status quo in Uganda and in the
three districts with regard to physical planning, explained that the three districts feel
that they would like to explore the possibility of piloting integrated land use planning
and indicated the objectives of visiting a district in which such planning processes
were implemented in order to learn from the successes and challenges experienced
there.

The objectives of the study visit were outlined and discussed with the proposed hosts ,
some of whom had, in the recent past, visited Uganda for wetland studies.
Fortunately, the Kigoma District Executive Director, District Commissioner and
District Lands, Natural Resources and Environment Officer, having examined the
learning needs, agreed to host the visit at the earliest date possible. Villages near to
Nguruka and Nguruka divisional centre were suggested as a suitable area of Kigoma
district for study. (See Maps 1-3)

7
Map 1. Tanzania.

Map 2 Malagarasi-Muyovozi Ramsar Site –(brown dotted lines) with study are
inset. Source SIMMORS project P.O. Box 250 Urambo, Tabora

8
Map 3. study area Showing Nguruka Divisional centre and Mumbara sub-village
(Source SIMMORS project P.O. Box 250 Urambo, Tabora)

Photo 2 The study team with their Hosts from Kigoma District and Nguruka Division
at Nguruka.

9
Direct observation

A team of 18 people, comprising of Chief Administrative Officers (CAOs), Physical

Planners, District Environmental Officers, Community Development Officers,
Community representatives, National lands experts and NEMA and PEI members
were identified to visit the selected study area. (See participant list in Annex 2). They
made observations in the study area of the condition of the land-use, land condition,
vegetation status particularly the forests, the wetlands and the levels of pressure on
them for tobacco agriculture; the fishery along Lake Sagara, a lake edge, fishing
equipment, and fish landing site at Mumbara and the fish sizes in the fish market of
Nguruka Divisional village.

Preparatory on-site briefing by hosts on arrival

The team was received by the Kigoma district team, comprising of the Wetlands
Coordinator and District Fisheries Officer Mr. Dastun Mockray and the District Lands
Officer at the Divisional Centre of Nguruka. Divisional Forest and Fisheries Officers,
Ward Executives, Ward Councillors and village leaders were available to provide
information and answer the queries of the Ugandan study team.

Photo 3 Briefing at Nguruka School on arrival. Ward Executive Officer speaking.

10
A schedule which included a briefing at Nguruka by the district and divisional teams
and some community representatives was followed by half-day visits to villages
which have prepared integrated land us plans in a participatory manner. At Itebula
village and Mumbara sub-village a lakeside site was the venue for a discussion about
the effectiveness of the implementation of the plan which had been prepared in a
participatory manner through the collaboration of the village communities with a
multidisciplinary team. The process had followed the government guidelines provided
in a manual issued by the Land Use Planning Commission of the United Republic of
Tanzania. (URT 2001.)

Six major participatory steps were followed:-

1. Identification and training of the Multidisciplinary District team of

natural resources (forest, fisheries, wildlife,) lands, community development
and agricultural officers and others as needed. This was called the
Participatory Land Use Management (PLUM) Team. Orientation of
communities and their leaders – explanation of the process, the legal
framework for Land Use Planning; the advantages of integrated thinking and
planning for land and resources management, the process and methodology.
Identification and training of the Village Land Use Planning Team (VLUM).

2. Identification and Mapping of all the village’s natural resources and

profiling of the village history including; population, ethnicity, demography,
cultures, religions, settlement, services, communications infrastructure,
enterprises and seasonal calendars, resource usage and projected future needs
of resources. Facilitation of village assembly discussions about the natural
resources management issues and how best to plan for their management.
Prioritising and ranking problems and solutions.

3. Village boundary recognition with elders from each side of the boundary.
Boundary and main resource areas and uses survey. Preparation and
presentation of a draft map of usage zones and draft regulations, fees and
sanctions, management regime, management institutions/entities roles (e. g
Village Environment Committee, Village Game Scouts, Beach Management
Units (BMUs) for each landing site) and responsibilities and reporting systems.
Collection and incorporation of Village Assembly’s changes into draft maps
and regulations. The mapping involved the Western Regional Lands Office at
Tabora which has cartography skills and facilities.

4. Presentation of final zonation maps and plans. Drafting of short (one-year)

and medium-term action plans. Discussion for the LUP and Action Plans at
sub-village level. Approval of plans by the Village Assembly and forwarding
to the Ward Development Committee and the District Council.

5. Implementation of action plans including the processes for legal

recognition of the Village Land Use Plan at District level and sourcing funds
and investment partners.

11
 Photo 4 Formalised map of agreed Kasisi’s Village Land Use Plan showing
agreed land use zones showing Black =Wildlife Management Area (collaborative
agreement with central government and professional hunting organisation, Dark
Green=Village Forest Reserve, Pale green=pastures for ranging livestock,
Yellow=settlement areas, white=agriculture.

Of a total of 75 villages in Kigoma District, 39 have Village Land Use Plans

(VLUPs).An example of the typical contents of these VLUPs is given in Annex 5.
The processes were donor supported under a wetland management project called
Sustainable and Integrated Management of the Malagarasi –Muyovozi Ramsar Site
SIMMORS which is still part of the national wetlands strategy of Tanzania but to
which far less funds now flow. The project assisted not only in planning but in
funding the integrated environmental management training for the district teams, the
management entities (Village government committee, Village environment
Committees, Village Game Scouts, Beach Management Units) and the community
entrepreneurs whom it also facilitated to improve their fishing, agricultural, livestock
and other land use enterprises.

While the project is no longer running at the intensity of the early to mid 2000s, it
was interesting to study the long-term influences, if any which the land use planning
activity had had on the area. Village Land Use Planning is compulsory in Tanzania.
However, many villages do not have the funding or the skills and equipment to carry
them out. The VLUPs from Kigoma district are nationally recognised. This gives the
villagers and the district clearer and more specific power over the various possible
usages of their land than mere application of the Constitution and the national laws
Land Act, 1999 and Village Land Acts of 1999 and the forest, wildlife and fisheries
policies and laws which all provide for community based and collaborative natural
resource management arrangements (See Annex 4 for a summary of relevant laws).

12
See Annex 3 for the visit schedule.

Formal presentations by village land use planning committee members

In each of the two villages visited, a representative of the Village Land Use Planning
Team explained in detail how their village had done the process of land use planning
and what benefits and difficulties they had experienced. They shared their notebooks
of the process with the study team and explained the meaning of the zonation maps,
the timing and duration of each of the steps and the issues which were damaging the
ecosystem and /or controversial in their particular ecosystem. For example, in
Mumbara sub-village the difficult management issues included use of illegal fishing
gears and methods, difficulty in accessing clean water for domestic use, a trend of
reduction in land fertility because of mobile cultivators’ neglect of land care,
provision for mobility of pastoralists and illegal forest harvest.

Photo 5 Woodland near Kasisi village Photo 6 Maize and beans in former
miombo.

Photo 7Tobacco seedlings transplanted in cleared miombo woodland near Kasisi.

13
Photo 8 Village Environment Committee Chair, Kasisi village detailing the village
land use planning process.

Social service problems were also highlighted including the low levels of education,
and the lack of a dispensary for health services. They explained that every sub-village
was represented by a woman and a man on the village land use management
committee and the relationships between the management bodies: the Village
Government, the Village Land Use Management Committee, the Village Environment
Committee and the Beach Management Units.

The VLUM team made several interactions with the villagers in their sub-village and
at their neighbourhoods to explain what land use planning was all about and to allay
fears and misunderstandings that perhaps the government was trying to take the land
away or enclose it for protection and exclude the villagers from using it. They also
explained that, simultaneously with the land use planning process, entrepreneurship
for better land and natural resource use and management was being fostered and
enterprise groups were set up including fishing groups, farming groups and
beekeeping groups. Following the presentations, a question and answer session was
held in which other members of the team and of the village community gave further
information and opinions.

14
Box 1. Malagarasi-Muyovozi Ramsar Site from a villagers’ perspective –
excerpts from leaflet supported by SIMMORS Project 2004 for Ramsar
COP 9 meeting Kampala, November, 2005.

Our lives are dependent on this great big sponge which covers about 3.5 million hectares in
the west of the country. It lies on the two rivers Malagarasi and Muyovozi after which the
site is named. The water, which the sponge of soil and vegetation soaks up and releases
slowly, gives life to two magnificent lakes, Sagara and Nyamagoma, which produce close to
1,000 tonnes of fish per year, and allow us to grow rice and other crops These are the
mainstay of our starch, protein and cash supplies. Plenty of good pasture is provided for
our cattle.

We are a mixture of many peoples and have tribal music, stories and songs, which tell our
children and visitors about these wetlands and their ancestors both spiritual and real.
There are stories about the big birds who live here, especially about the Shoebill Stork
(Balaeniceps rex) and Wattled Crane (Bugeranus carnunculatus) who are rare in the world
but thankfully still residing with us.

Our wetland is under different kinds of management. Most of it is reserved as game

reserves e.g. Ugalla and Moyowosi/Kigosi Game Reserves; or as forest reserves e.g.
Mpanda Line Forest Reserve. Only about 5% is village land. For a long time, we were used
to the Government being solely in charge of the natural resources. Therefore we did not
regard them as our own and there was a lot of opportunity for exploitation. Now we are
learning that these resources are ours and we have our share of responsibility to manage
them sustainably. Government has recognised that the most effective way to manage
natural resources is by involving those people close to them in their management.

Outsiders do not feel the problems of over-fishing or forest land depletion because they
just move to another place. With the help of a new project we are now making plans for
better management of our natural heritage.

… So we are taking action

Six of the villages near the two lakes have made village land use management plans
(VLUMs) and we’ve made by-laws to support those plans.

A typical VLUM contains:

1. Map of the zones for different uses including conservation;
2. List of rules and by-laws;
3. Description of the roles of organisations involved i.e. the village government,
village environment committee and the village scout team and a;
4. Description of the management methods, actions for the next three to five years and
record keeping and evaluation schedules.

We’ve got scouts trained to patrol the lakes and the woodlands. They ensure that everyone
knows which places are for harvesting and which are for rehabilitation or preservation.
They work with the Village Environment Committees to reduce harmful practices in
hunting, fishing and logging.

We educate fishers, especially offenders, about the reasons for using mesh size bigger than
2.5 inches. We want the young fish to get a chance to grow and breed.

… And we are seeing some impacts in our fishery

We are succeeding in getting bigger and more fish than in 2000 when fish were running out
completely.

We know that taking care and following simple rules makes a difference.

Footnote: Community appreciation of the value of the lakes increased when in 2005/7 Lake Sagara
almost dried up completely during a prolonged drought.

15
Focus-group discussion with the communities

One lakeside focus-group discussion was held with fishers and Mumbara sub-village
(of Itebula village) community members whose settlement had been forcibly relocated
away from the agreed lakeside buffer zone in 2006 in order to comply with the
Village Assembly’s own decision during the Land Use Planning process to relocate
this settlement to 500 m away from the lakeshore.

2003
Sketch of
Mumbara
sub-village
before
VLUP

Photo9 Mzee William who received a starter herd of goats in compensation for
demolishing his house at Mumbara.

Photo 10and 2008 photo of Mumbara wetland where the VLUP caused removal of
settlement

16
The Acting Village Chairman explained that this was the first village in the District to
prepare a land use plan. Representatives of Mumbara, the members and the
Chairperson of the Beach Management Unit were also involved in the discussions and
showed us the landing site and the way the drying out of the lake two years previously
had changed the terrestrial and aquatic landscape leaving long distance to travel
through wetland vegetation to get to the fishing grounds. There was consensus from
the village representatives that having different places for different uses is the most
important contribution of the land use planning. Once everyone has agreed and knows
where they can perform various activities including farming, beekeeping, firewood
collection, cattle watering points, house building, water collection etc. there can be
harmony amongst the people and the land and natural resources can continue to be
productive. They claimed that immature fish of illegal size were now not landed at
this site. However, the discussions also revealed that the BMU and the Village Game
Scouts are not actively patrolling the lake shores as previously because of lack of
motivation due to unmet expectations of payments by the village government. Also in
the case of some villages, including Mumbara, the village by-laws have not been
approved at district level and so the village management entities do not have faith in
the level of legal support for apprehension of offenders.

Photo11. Study team members at landing site on Lake Sagara at Mumbara sub-village.

However, the big change that has taken place is that people are aware of the zones for
different uses and that fishing immature fish is illegal and that there are by-laws in
existence about fishing, land cultivation near water bodies, forest harvest, livestock
watering and grazing and other land management regimes.

Interviews of district staff

17
Members of the Uganda study team held informal interviews with their chosen
members of the Tanzanian divisional and district teams during travel and meal times
to verify their understanding of the direct observations and discussions with villagers.

Informal interaction with community members and others who did not take part
in land-use planning

These interactions took place in the two villages visited and in Nguruka and allowed
the study team to get a feeling from the general public on how they view land use
planning and its effects on their lives in terms of enterprise regulation e.g. fishing, fish
trading, land clearance for agriculture, access to water sources, access to wildlife
management and settlement locations.

Daily de-briefing sessions both with and without the hosts

The team organised three de-briefing sessions alone and two with the hosts in order to
ensure that the understanding they had gained were true and to get government
perspectives on communities’ comments and questions.

Evaluation session with the hosts

On the final day and evaluation session was held with the host district, divisional and
ward officers. A checklist of questions and issues was made and used to record the
level to which the study team had achieved its aims. Following the evaluation the
Uganda team presented the hosts with documents regarding mainstreaming
environment and poverty issues into district planning in Uganda and a book on
wildlife in Uganda.

Photo 12 De-briefing session held at Nguruka.

Visit to Malagarasi-Muyovozi Ramsar Site Coordination Office at Urambo

District

18
Mr. Kauzeni, Malagarasi-Muyovozi Ramsar Site Coordinator from the Wetlands Unit
of the Wildlife Division in the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism gave a
description of the vast Ramsar Site which we were visiting, the second largest in
Africa (after Okavango in Namibia) and the third largest in the world at over 3 million
hectares. It straddles nine districts but most of its inhabited and highly biodiverse
areas are within Kigoma and Urambo districts in Kigoma and Tabora regions
respectively. He explained the legal provisions for participatory land use planning,
participatory wetland planning and management, collaborative and community-based
forest management, community Wildlife Management Areas and community fisheries
protection in Tanzania. A question and answer session with Mr. Kauzeni and the
Acting District Natural Resources Officer of Urambo District, Mr. Masaka followed.
Mr. Kauzeni provided electronic copies of village land use plans to the team. Papier
mache models of the two endangered species of birds, the shoebill stork and the
wattled crane, which are used for educational purposes adorned Mr. Kauzeni’s desk.

Photo 13 Mr. Kauzeni, from Tanzania’s national Wetland Unit gives a broad picture
of LUP in the Malagaragi –Muyovozi wetland at Urambo.

19
 Photo15 Mr. Kauzeni Wetlands
Coordinator MNRT , Tanzania.

Photo14Wattled Crane and Shoebill papier

mache models for awareness and education
about endangered species.

Evaluation and ‘way­forward’ discussions as a team from 
the three Ugandan districts 
An internal study team evaluation session was held to consider the learning points, the
issues for bringing forward to national and district and community levels in Uganda
and also to evaluate the study tour as a learning experience.

Benefits of land use planning identified by the study 
group 
1) Better agricultural practices leading to higher yields.

In both villages the community members mentioned that they had adopted better
agricultural practices and in some cases individuals recorded increased yields.
Some farmers testified increased yield of maize from 10 tins per ha to 24 tins
(debes).

2) Increased fish catch and fish sizes.

Because of control of the fishing methods and the enforcement of the minimum of
2.5 inch allowable catch size the villagers claim that only large fish are caught
now. Also that there are more large fish in the lake now because of this rule which
allows fish to grow for longer before they are caught.

3) Higher returns from fish and agriculture.

The returns are higher because of higher agricultural yields. Better prices and
different markets can be got for bigger fish.

20
4) Protection of the shoreline; buffer zone.

The lake shores are protected from cultivation and other damaging activity and so
there is less lake water pollution and soil damage. This is a buffer against siltation
of the lake. Siltation makes the lake levels shallower and thus more likely to dry
out during prolonged droughts. Reduced lake edge disturbance gives fewer
disturbances to aquatic life and secure breeding grounds for fish, terrapins,
hippopotamus and crocodiles.

5) Better knowledge of the village boundaries and resources therein.

The villagers have learnt their history, the extent of their village and can identify
the boundaries with other villages and with officially gazetted forests and wildlife
protected areas. They also know the extent and the status of the natural resources
in their village. The district staffs have also gained increased knowledge and
detailed data on the village boundaries and the resources. The raised village
capacity for data collection is an asset that can continue to be used by the village
and the district to monitor the resources.

Photo 16 Land Use Plan Map Kasisi showing locations of: Forest reserve, village
boundaries, lake protection area (500m) boundaries of use areas, rivers roads, lake
edge, settlements (168 Ha.), agricultural areas (784 ha) and livestock ranging
areas (654 ha.).

6) Better knowledge of the values and the habits of the biodiversity in one’s
village.

21
The villagers know that some of the species which they were taking for granted
are recognised as important internationally and so are more conscious of taking
care of them. They know that if they could get eco-tourism businesses going they
could make money from the fact that the shoebill stork, the wattled crane and the
sitatunga (antelope with feet adapted for living in the wetland) which are rare and
endangered species live in their wetlands.

7) Increased pride of place.

The increased awareness of the values of the natural resources shows as a pride in
their village by the villagers of Kasisi.

8) Higher level of awareness about the environment and environmental and

lands policies, laws and planning processes.

Before the process began the villagers were not aware that they themselves could
decide on the land and natural resources use and management in the village.
Because of exposure to the government policy on participatory land use planning
they and the forest, wildlife and fisheries acts through training, receiving reading
materials and through a series of radio programmes they know much more and are
more interested in enforcing the laws.

9) Sense of more secure control over land and aquatic resources is an

incentive for hard work and better care of the land, the lakes and the
natural resources on it.

The land use plan has a vision, objectives and goal which the villagers decided
upon themselves. The by-laws were created in a participatory manner, therefore
the villagers ‘own’ them eventhough they sometimes realised that their by-laws
were too strict and compliance has hurt. Knowing the village assets and knowing
that you have a role in deciding what happens to them -who can use them for
what- and that you can benefit both individually and collectively from protecting
them makes one feel greater commitment to take care of them. Knowing that it is
not a free-for-all but a communally managed system with rules means that you
are less likely to be a free rider – the other members of the community will frown
on your breaking the rules and you might get caught by the Village Game Scouts.

10) Conflict resolution mechanisms put in place.

The community knows to whom they should go when a conflict arises.

11) Improved leadership skills.

The Uganda team noted a strong sense of democracy and cooperation form both
village communities and appreciated the democratic way in which the village
governance seems to be carried out. The villagers attribute an improvement in
governance to the skills, knowledge and attitudes they learned during the land use
planning process. They know that they can demand accountability from the village
government because they now know the laws and regulations.

22
 12) Land use plans can be used to mobilise profitable community natural
resource based enterprises.

The group learned that land use plans can be used to mobilise profitable
community natural resource based enterprises. For example in Kasisi village
where benefits are accrued from Songati Wildlife Area for which private
professional hunters buy hunting licences from central government. Also the
process and the enthusiasm of the villagers has attracted the central government
wildlife division to fund the construction of a community ecotourism centre in the
village. There are hopes also of attracting further private enterprises eventhough
this is a remote area far from services.

13) Improved and closer relationships between villages and higher level
government

For example the trust built between the village and the district and the Director of
Wildlife has paved the way for a Wildlife Management Area arrangement in
which the village of Kasisi hosts professional hunters and gets 25% of the revenue
earned via the District Council.

Key Issues Identified by the Uganda study group 
Although there are several advantages in having an integrated land and natural
resource use plan and the managerial mechanisms to implement it, it is a very big
challenge to enforce the by-laws and rules and make the plan work to the maximum
benefit. The study team identified the following as the major issues to prepare for
when attempting to apply the land use planning model.

1) Sustainability of the plans, the institutions and their functionality,

resource/budget implications.

An initial investment needs to be made in order to fund the planning process,

make the plans and have them legally recognised. This investment needs to be
sustained until the plans are being implemented sustainably. Most projects are tied
to short timescales (3-4 years on the ground). When a project’s funding ends, what
next? Can the implementation of the rules and by-laws be made to pay for itself
e.g. using fees and fines to collects village revenue and pay the scouts and other
management expenses of the environmental committees? If no system of reward is
in place then can the scouts, BMUs , and environmental committee of the village
be expected to continue regular patrols, reporting , meetings etc.?

2) Enforcement of the by-laws to facilitate plan implementation

In the case of the two villages visited, there were two different experiences of by-
law approval at District level. One village’s by-laws had been approved and the
other’s not. This seemed to be making a big difference in the village management
committees ‘attitudes to enforcing the by-laws. Where the bylaws are approved by

23
the district (Ugandan equivalent of LG5) the villagers are more confident in
enforcing them.

3) Level of awareness and knowledge required before implementation

All parties embarking on the planning process need to be well informed of the
details of the laws and policies of the country (including the international
agreements to which the country is signed up) on land, forests, wildlife, fisheries,
wetlands, environment, indigenous peoples rights, biodiversity conservation, local
government and settlement amongst other issues depending on the particular
issues relevant to the area in which the plan is to be made. For example, some of
Uganda’s villages border Protected Areas, oil exploration sites and will need to
get specific information about the legal arrangements for such areas and the
relationships and partnerships possible between those areas’ management
institutions and the village. (LC1). They also need to understand the current
administration and management regimes for all these

4) Empowerment of communities to take charge of the planning process;

including implementation

Communities that have not formerly been included in decision making about the
uses of land and natural resources will not initially trust the new participatory
processes. The district team will need to learn participatory processes and adapt
their own attitudes to facilitate community members to take on the active roles
required by a truly participatory planning process. This means that the district
team needs to give the communities time (through frequent meaningful contact)
and some of their own power (over the GPS, over ownership of maps, reports,
information about their own village and about laws and policies). It requires
attention to detail (and the stepwise systems developed in Tanzania and elsewhere
for Participatory Forest Management (PFM), Participatory Wildlife Management
and the PLUM which we visited can help the district team together with the
community to outline the schedule they wish to follow together.

5) Relationships between the new environmental and land management

entities created and the original village government.

A rush to form committees, groups, teams and other entities can be a feature of
land use planning projects. Please see Figure 1. for an outline of the organisational
structure in the villages visited. The extra entities are shown in green. The
hierarchy of power needs to be clearly outlined from the start in order to avoid
conflicts. The conflicts usually get to a crescendo when money has been earned
and decisions need to be made about how it might be spent.

24
 Photo 17

Learning from
Mumbara
community
experiences in
the new school
building ,
Mumbara.

Fig. 1. Statutory Village Government institutions in Tanzania showing the additional

entities created by the land use planning process.

Village Assembly
(all adult residents)

Village Land
Tribunal –
deals with
land disputes

Village Government (25 members elected by the Village Assembly and representing all sub-villages).
Village Chairperson and Village Executive Officer

Village Game Scouts Village Land

–officially trained Use
and recognised, Management
armed. Commanded Team (VLUM)
by Village executive
Officer
Statutory Standing Statutory Standing Statutory Standing Extra standing
committee Committee Committee committee e.g Village
Environment
Committee

25
6) The optimum number of land and natural resources management entities
to create.

The study team thinks it advisable to form as few new entities as necessary as,
apart from conflicts due to unclear roles, it costs peoples’ time, energy and money
to maintain active institutions. Formation of entities which are not legally
recognised is useful for specific tasks, but such teams or groups should be
disbanded when their work is done.

7) Linkage of the village plans with the district plan and national plans

In Tanzania, the PRSP (MKUKUTA in Swahili) contains three pillars (Social

services, economics and governance) none of which directly and explicitly
accommodates environmental or land use planning or land management issues.
The PRSP was translated to Village level through a rapid planning process
(O&OD Opportunities and Obstacles to Development) which did not provide for
easy recognition of a category into which land stewardship would fit. Most land
related issues are treated under the economic pillar and relate to increased
production and extraction. Therefore it was not easy for the district and village
teams to find entry points for inserting environmental planning into the planning
system. However, they have fitted action plans on environmental management
into their village plans and taken them upwards into the district system.
Unfortunately funding has not been generous from district or central government
towards these plans.

8) Ownership of land

Land ownership arrangements in Tanzania are different from that in Uganda. Please
see Annex 4 for a summary of land laws in Tanzania. This means that what works
in terms of community planning in Tanzania may not be feasible in Uganda.
Tanzania gives us an example of how communal agreements even over privately
controlled land can work and need to work for commonly shared resources such
as water, fish, river banks, lakes edges, rangelands, hazard land, and others.
Common property management regimes (e.g. for wild animals as in Kasisi) do
not have to mean ‘free-for-all” regimes and can work for the benefit of the
community. Private management is not the only means to protect the environment
and natural resources.

9) Timing required for each activity; is 2 weeks enough?

Our respondents were somewhat vague on the actual time taken to prepare the
plans, partly because the situation was different in different villages. The study
team gathered from this that as long as you have a good framework with clear
steps to follow you can be flexible about how long it takes from start to the final
legalised plan. The Mnazi Bay (see Hogan and Bashagi, 2006) experience shows
that if you already have a relationship with an environmentally literate community
and a well prepared district team, it is possible to make a draft plan within a few
weeks. But correct mapping, detailed discussions with all settlement members and

26
 users and verification and approval of the plan with the Village Assembly, having
explained thoroughly what it means, is the most important part of the process and
cannot be skipped if one wants to avoid difficulties in enforcement at a later date.

Therefore up to one and half years may be necessary to develop an agreed and
legalised plan. However, this does not mean that parts of the plan cannot be
implemented as the slower details are being dealt with. For example if there is full
agreement to close a communally owned area for natural regeneration of a forest,
or every farmer has agreed to grow their own fuelwood but one boundary point is
still in dispute with a neighbouring Protected Area the two former activities can be
put in the village action plan while an action to resolve the boundary dispute also
goes on.

10) Working out the power balance between the district and the village
especially with regard to preventing illegal activities.

When the village fails, for various reasons e.g. capacity limitations in the face of
armed poachers or because of corruption of the village authority, how should the
District government act to support the enforcement of the law? The land use
planning agreements provide for the village to take the lead in enforcement but it
takes time for the village to raise its governing capacity and for the district to pass
over power, skills and equipment to the village management entities.

Photo 18 Sub-village Chairman, Mumbara welcomes the visiting study team.

27
 Key recommendations for the way forward in the three 
pilot districts in Uganda 
Workability in Uganda; required modifications

1) Given the nature of land ownership in Uganda and the need in some cases to
undertake village planning process while taking into consideration the
individual ownership.
a. For apparently underutilised land there is need to convince the
landlords to accept communal or public uses of their land e.g. animal
parks
b. Need to convince people to accept the zoning process agreed upon on
their land by highlighting the fertility, security and economic benefits.
c. Need for higher level of sensitisation
2) Implementation process of land use planning has been only in the urban areas
3) Staffing levels and political structure that can support this planning structure.
How can we use the existing institutional arrangements?
i. Use the village council as an opportunity
ii. Use the Parish chief who is already on the government pay roll,
with some facilitation from the project or the district
4) Districts with shared resources need to be actively collaborative throughout
the planning and implementation processes.

• Resources required

o Topographic Maps
o District planning team needs to be funded
o Training for the district team and village team
o GPS, Cameras
o Surveying the village boundaries
o IEC materials in local languages

• Potential opportunities and sources of Resources

o The fact that the Government (MLHUD) has declared that the whole
country is now a ‘planning area’, which means that all lands must have
a land use plan means that the government must allocate more
generous funds for land use planning.
o NEMA writing project proposals and selling them to potential donors
o District budgets beginning with this financial year
o Source support from the CSOs and the development partners
o Agencies such as UWA, NFA
o Community contributions in form of land, time
o Selling the planning initiative to the highest level of policy and
decision making.

Critical Approaches 

28
• Emphasise the need for the project to take off soon when the Tanzanian
memories are still fresh.
• Give adequate allowance of flexibility within each pilot district to exploit
wider chances of success in the different scenarios.
• Regular meeting and communications between the three districts to share
experiences gained.

Next Steps 

• Hold an inception meeting of the district and Sub county leadership for a
feedback on the planning proposal from them.
• Formation of planning teams (District and village level).

29
 References 
URT., 2001. Land Use Planning commission Participatory Land Use Planning
Training Manual (English version).

Hogan R.,and Bashagi, W. (2005)“VEMPing for Partnerships” Facilitating

Community Contribution to the General Management Planning Process
for Mnazi Bay Ruvuma Estuary Marine Park. IUCN Eastern Africa
Programme

Hogan, Rose and Mwambeso, Pili. A. (eds. and translators) (2004).Mtanza-Msona

Village. Our Village Environmental Management Plan-An account of how
we drew it up and are implementing it. IUCN Eastern Africa Regional
Programme. One of a set of four books.

Wildlife Working Group, 2004. “Land and Natural Resources Law and Policy
Syllabus- a plain language guide to United Republic of Tanzania’s Land,
Forest and Wildlife laws and policies. Arusha..

         

30
  
Annexes 

31
 Annex 1. Example of Land use Action Plan submitted by DEO before the study tour.

INTENDED ACTVITIES FOR PILOTING LAND USE PLANNING IN KAHEMBE PARISH, BWIJANGA SUB-COUNTY

ACTIVITY Target Oct Nov Dec Responsible Cost

Person
1.Land use planning Sensitization and About X DEO & DAO • Lump sum
planning meetings with key stakeholders 45 participants(For 1.500.000
from District, Sub county, parish and all the meetings)
community levels

2.Develop data collection tools DEO • 2x70,000x2officers

X District 280.000
Statistician • Stationery & secretarial
services
500.000
3.Pretest the tool 4 Officers • 4x70.000x2
560.000
Fuel for motorbikes(40L)
120.000

4.Selection of research assistants (data DEO • Radio announcements

collectors) District Statician • Notice boards
100,000
• Interview candidates
2personsx70,000x2
280.000
5.Collecting data on current situation on : the X
vegetation cover, social economic activities
e.g. wetland related activities such as brick
making, charcoal burning ,timber harvesting,
stone quarrying ,encroachment on wetlands
for cultivation, alcohol distillation, settlement,
urbanization, raw materials for construction,
occupation of the household heads, education
levels, no of the households, sources of
income , availability of health services, trend
in the productivity over time, population
characteristics including sex ratio, household
size, gender issues in agriculture,

6.Field Supervision

7.Data analysis

8. Document a report which should include a

sketch Resource map of the current situation. Field data collected x X

9.Procure maps which have been drawn to DEO , PEI • Lump sum
scale, Digital Camera & GPS Officer& NEMA 2.000.000

10. Consultative workshop to fill gaps in the x

field finding
11.Draft final copy of the land use plan DEO,DAO, • Lump sum
DS,DLO,DPO,D 1.500.000
NRO, DFO
12.Develop and discuss technical proposals,
develop Proposed Land use maps to presented
to the Sub county and District Councils for
approval
13.Development a five (5) year
implementation plan

33
Annex 2. Participant list

List of participants in the Uganda study team

Nakasongola district

1. Mr. Philemon Mubiru, Chief Administrative Officer(CAO)

2. Mr. Mukoza Henry, Community Development Officer
3. Mr. Seruzzi Matte, Community Representative
4. Ms Nampera Teo, Community Representative-Women
5. Mr. Jim Kunobere, District Environment Officer (DEO) Nakasongola District

Masindi District

6. Mr. William Nsimire,DEO Masindi District

7. Mr. Kato K.Milton,CAO
8. Mr.Katwereme Cedrak,Community Member
9. Ms Joyce Sabiti, Community Member
10. Mr. Mugoya James, Senior Land Management Officer

Butaleja District

11. Mr. Francis Oluka, CAO

12. Mr. Francis Mairu, District Land Management Officer
13. Mr. Tom Wandera, District Environment Officer.
14. Ms Lamla Were, District Wetlands Officer
15. Mr.Hibombo Apollo, Community Development Officer

NEMA

16. Ms Rose Hogan, Poverty Environment Officer, PEI.

17. Mr. Ronald Kaggwa, National Project Focal Point
18. Ms Margaret Lwanga, District Support Coordinator

MoLHUD

19. Ms Fridah Mutuzo, Geographer/Physical Planner, Ministry of Lands, Housing

and Urban Development

34
 Annex 3. Visit schedule.

Day /Date- Place Activity

November
Monday 17th Leave Kampala Travel Air and car.
travel to Mwanza
and Shinyanga. Meet host district officer of Kigoma, Mr.
Mockray. Finalise schedule.
Tuesday18th Shinyanga to Courtesy call to divisional and Ward
morning Nguruka centre/offices.
Tuesday18th
Afternoon Briefing on the LUP process in Tanzania and in
ring Kigoma district by district and divisional staff.
Wednesday Village 1 Visit to one village with district and ward
19th morning officers.
Meet environment committee, village
government, village environment scouts and other
appropriate people. Visit sites of important issues
dealt with in the plan e.g. lake margin protection
by moving settlement.
Wednesday Village 2 Visit to one village with district and ward
19th officers.
Afternoon Meet environment committee, village
government, village environment scouts and other
appropriate people. Visit two to three sites of
important issues dealt with in the plan e.g. forest
boundary agreements with District Forest
Office/Protected Area Authority, fisheries
manage changes, BMU locations. Etc.
Thursday 20 Nguruka. Evaluation meeting, Feedback from Uganda
th Morning team. Round-up discussions with district officer
and divisional and other representatives about the
whole process, our learnings and their advice.
Farewell.

Thursday 20st Urambo MMRS Mr. Kauzeni MMRS/Tanzania Wetland Unit

Afternoon Wetland Office presentation Q & A.
on the route back
to Mwanza
Friday 21nd Depart for Travel
Mwanza

Mwanza Roundup meeting, way forward and drafting of

report.
Saturday 22nd Fly Kampala Travel

Annex 4. Summary of Land laws in Tanzania

35
An excerpt from “Land and Natural Resources Law and Policy Syllabus-
a plain language guide to United Republic of Tanzania’s Land, Forest and
Wildlife laws and policies. Wildlife Working Group, Arusha. 2004.

36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Annex 5. Contents of a typical Village Land Use Plan

Land Use Planning Commission

Land Use Plan of the village of

Imalampaka

Igagala Ward
Kaliua Division

Urambo district
Tabora Region
Tanzania

Facilitated by;
NLUPC SIMMORS
S.L.P 76550. S.L.P. 250
DSM. URAMBO.
SIMU: +255-022-211573 SIMU: +255-026-
2604247
FAX:2128057 FAX:+255-026-2604879
Email:[email protected]
Email:[email protected]

Agosti/Septemba 2007
Contents…………………………………………………………………………
Executive Summary
Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………...
Introduction

Chapter One…………………………………………………………………

1.0 Village History……………………………………………………………..

Chapter Two……………………………………………………………………
2.1 Village Location……………………………………………………………
2.2Description of the landscape…………………………………………………
2.3 Vegetation……………………………………………………………………
2.4 Hydrology and weather…………………………………………………...

46
2.5 Geology and soils…………………………………………………………
2.6 Resources and energy ……………………………………………………

Chapter Three…………………………………………………………………

3.0 Population and Demography………………………………………………

3.1 Total population………………………………………………………
3.2 Population by gender……………………………………………….
3.3 Immigration, emigration and internal migration…………………………
3.4 Estimates of population size in ten years time……………………...

Chapter Four………………………………………………………………………

4.0 Current land use…………………………………………………

4.1 Agriculture…………………………………………………………

4.1.1 Crops grown………………………………………………………...

4.1.2 Crop production…………………………………………………………….
4.1.3 System of cropping and use of crop products…………………………..
4.1.4 Calendar of agricultural activities…………………………………
4.1.5 Gaps, limitations and problems………………………………..

4.2 Livestock keeping…………………………………………..

4.2.1 Types of livestock…………………………………...

4.2.2 Numbers of livestock………………………………...
4.2.3 Systems of livestock keeping………………………..
4,2.4 Veterinary and inputs services……………………..
4.2.5 Estimates of livestock in ten years time…………………………………….
4.2.6 Limitations, gaps and problems…………………………………..

4.3.Water resources status and management……………………………………..

4.3.1 Rainwater…………………………………………………..
4.3.2 Surface water………………………………
4.3.3 Sub-surface/ground water…………………………………………..
4.3.4 Management of resources……………………………………………..
4.3.5 Resource use……………………………………….....
4.3.6 Limitations, gaps and problems ………………..

4.4 Forest and woodland resource status and development………………

4.4.1 Status of the village's forests………………………………………………

4.4.2 Sustainable development of the forests……………………………
4.4.3 Forest harvest system…………………………………
4.4.4 Uses of forest products…………………………………..
4.4.5 Limitations, gaps and problems ………………………

4.5 Fishery status and development………………………………………………

47
 4.5.1 Fishing areas………………………………………………………………
4.5.2 Fish species fished in Igombe River……………..
4.5.3 Gear used for fishing………………………...
4.5.4 Uses of fish and fish products…………….
4.5.5 Limitations, gaps and problems ……………...

4.6. Economic and social Infrastructure ………………

4.6.1. Roads infrastructure ……

4.6.2. Telephone equipment and communications….
4.6.3. Social services ….
4.6.4. Limitations, gaps and problems

4.7. Settlements…………………………

4.7.1. Settlement areas……

4.7.2. Types of houses…….
4.7.3. Building materials we use…..
4.7.4. Availability of building materials…
4.7.5. Limitations, gaps and problems

4.8. Quarrying of stones and soil………………

4.8.1. Quarrying areas….

4.8.2. Uses of stones and soils…
4.8.3. Limitations, gaps and problems

4.9. Wildlife status and development

4.9.1. Short history of wild animals and birds in the village

4.9.2 Wild animal and bird species
4.9.3 Limitations, gaps and problems

4.10 Summary of current land uses……………………….

4.11 Map of current land uses………………………

Chapter Five ………………………………………………

5.0. Land tenure types and access ……….

5.1. Land management

5.1.1. Tenure types…….

5.1.2. Access to land for use…..

5.2. State of the village office
5.3 Limitations, gaps and problems…………………………..

Chapter Six……………………………………………………………….

48
6.0. Analysis of the major problems of in Imalampaka village….
.
Chapter Seven………………………………….

7.0. Recommendations for land use to solve the problems identified………

Chapter Eight ……………………………………………………….

8.0 Evaluation of land and other natural resources capacities to supply the needs of
the village in the future............................................
.
8.1 Food crop requirements ……….
8.2 Cash crop requirements…………………………………………

8.3 Fuelwood requirements…………………………………………...

8.4 Rangeland requirements for livestock…………………………

8.5. Water requirements

Map of future uses of the land and

resources……………………………………………

Chapter Nine

Plan for implementation of the participatory land use plan of the village
community…….

9.1. Community Action Plan

Chapter Ten……………………………………………

Bye laws for management and implementation of the land use

plan………………………………………………….

List of Maps……………………………………...
List of tables ………………………………….
Appendices…………………………………
Copies of meeting minutes,
lists of committee members,
roles and functions of committees and institutions,
GPS readings of village boundaries and zonation maps,
Agreements for collaborative management, for business deals etc.
END.

49