The  

importance  of  local  traditional  institutions  in  the  

management  of  natural  resources  in  the  highlands  of  
Eastern  Africa

Jeremias  Mowo,  Zenebe  Adimassu,  Kenneth  Masuki,  Charles  Lyamchai,  Joseph  

Tanui  and  Delia  Catacutan

 LIMITED CIRCULATION

Correct citation: Mowo, J., Adimassu, Z., Masuki, K., Lyamchai, C., Tanui, J. and Catacutan, D. (2011). The
Importance of Local Traditional Institutions in the Management of Natural Resources in the Highlands of Eastern
Africa. Working Paper No 134. Nairobi: World Agroforestry Centre.http://dx.doi.org/10.5716/WP11085.PDF

Titles in the Working Paper Series aim to disseminate interim results on agroforestry research and practices and
stimulate feedback from the scientific community. Other publication series from the World Agroforestry Centre
include Technical Manuals, Occasional Papers and the Trees for Change series.

Published by the World Agroforestry Centre

United Nations Avenue
PO Box 30677, GPO 00100
Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: +254(0)20 7224000, via USA +1 650 833 6645
Fax: +254(0)20 7224001, via USA +1 650 833 6646
Email: worldagroforesry@cgiar.org
Internet: www.worldagroforestry.org

© World Agroforestry Centre 2011

Working Paper nr 134

The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the World Agroforestry Centre.

Articles appearing in this publication may be quoted or reproduced without charge, provided the source is acknowledged. No use of this
publication may be made for resale or other commercial purposes.
All images remain the sole property of their source and may not be used for any purpose without written permission from the source.

The geographic designation employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of an opinion whatsoever
on the part of the World Agroforestry Centre concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or its authorities, or concerning the
delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank GRP 6 and the African Highlands Initiative (AHI) for financial
and technical support, the Directorate of Research and Development (DRD) of the Ministry of
Agriculture, Food Security, and Cooperatives (Tanzania) and the Ethiopian Institute for
Agricultural Research (EIAR) for availing staff for the AHI benchmark sites and the many
women and men farmers in the study sites of Lushoto, Tanzania, and Ginchi and Areka in
Ethiopia for their active participation and commitment.

iii
ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Jeremias Mowo holds a PhD in Soil Science from Wageningen University,

Netherlands. He has wide experience in integrated natural resource
management research for development and is currently the Regional
Coordinator in the World Agroforestry Centre’s eastern Africa Program and
Regional Coordinator for the African Highlands Initiative (AHI). Box 30677-
00100 Nairobi, Kenya. j.mowo@cgiar.org

Zenebe Adimassu is a Senior Researcher with the Ethiopian Institute of

Agricultural Research and has an MSc (Erosion and Soil and Water
Conservation) from Wageningen University, Netherlands. He is currently a
doctorate student at the same university. Box 2003, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
zenebeteferi@yahoo.com

Kenneth Masuki has a PhD in Agricultural Education and Extension from

Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania. His research
experience spans over 19 years in the areas of soil and water management,
integrated natural resource management and knowledge management for
natural resource management. He is currently based at the ICRAF – Uganda
office. Box 26416, Kampala, Uganda. k.masuki@cgiar.org

Charles Lyamchai is a Principal Agricultural Research Officer at Selian

Agricultural Research Institute, Arusha Tanzania. His work focuses on
improving natural resource governance at community level and
mainstreaming Integrated Natural Resource Management in R&D institutions
to foster sustainable management of natural resources, increased income and
alleviate poverty. He holds an MSc in Agro-meteorology.
lyamchai@yahoo.com

Joseph Tanui is an agricultural economist and coordinates work on

grassroots institutional development for sustainable management at the World
Agroforestry Centre, under the Landcare Program. Joseph has extensive
experience in smallholder collective action and grassroots institutional
development, from a research, policy and extension perspective. He is
currently doing a PhD on Institutional Economics of Sustainable Land
Management at Wageningen University, Netherlands. j.tanui@cgiar.org

Delia Catacutan (PhD) is a Social Scientist at the World Agroforestry Centre

(ICRAF) in Nairobi, Kenya, with over 10 years experience in policy and
institutional research in Integrated Natural Resource Management both in
Asia and Africa. She has been involved in inter-multidisciplinary teams in
research on smallholder incentives such as payments for ecosystems services,
linking knowledge with action; institutional innovations; collective action and
property rights, and technology adoption. She has also been involved in
Landcare International initiatives since 2004. d.c.catacutan@cgiar.org
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements.............................................................................................................................................. iii!
About the authors ................................................................................................................................................. iv!
Abstract ............................................................................................................................................................... vii!
1.0! Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 1!
2.0! Conceptual background........................................................................................................................... 2!
3.0! Methodology ........................................................................................................................................... 4!
4.0! Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 7!
4.1! Typology of local institutions........................................................................................................... 7!
4.1.1! Land based institutions .............................................................................................................. 8!
4.1.2! Livestock based institutions....................................................................................................... 8!
4.1.3! Labour sharing institutions ........................................................................................................ 8!
4.1.4! Mutual assistance institutions (financial, social)....................................................................... 9!
4.1.5! Health Institutions...................................................................................................................... 9!
4.1.6! Traditional beliefs (including rituals, spiritual leaders and sacred areas) ............................... 10!
4.1.7! Traditional Leaders.................................................................................................................. 11!
4.1.8! Recreational Institutions .......................................................................................................... 11!
4.1.9! Conflict resolution ................................................................................................................... 12!
4.2! Historical trend of importance of local institutions........................................................................ 12!
5.0! Discussions............................................................................................................................................ 14!
6.0! Conclusion............................................................................................................................................. 16!
7.0! References ............................................................................................................................................. 17!

List of Tables
Table 1: General Characteristics of Areka, Ginchi and Lushoto Districts............................................................ 6!
Table 2: Typology of local institutions in the watersheds .................................................................................... 7!

List of Figures
Figure 1: Map of Eastern Africa showing the study sites ..................................................................................... 4!
Figure 2: Maps of the study watersheds................................................................................................................ 5!
Figure 3: Ficus thonningii (left) one of the sacred trees in Lushoto at the base of which (Right) rituals are
performed.......................................................................................................................................... 10!
Figure 4: Sacred forest (The ‘Adbar’) in Galessa Watershed, Ginchi, Ethiopia ................................................ 11!
Figure 5: Changing importance of some of the local institutions in the Baga Watershed, Lushoto................... 13!

v
vi
ABSTRACT
Traditional local institutions were studied in the highlands of Ethiopia and Tanzania to
understand their role in natural resource management. Focus group discussions as well as
individual interviews were conducted to identify the existing local institutions and their roles.
Historical trend analyses were done to determine how the importance of local institutions has
changed over the years. Results show that several local institutions with diverse objectives and
varying levels of importance exist in the study sites. Suggestions are given on how they can
contribute to effective natural resource management for sustainable social and economic
development of highland communities in eastern Africa.

Key words: Natural resource governance, informal institutions, technologies uptake

vii
1.0 INTRODUCTION
For sustainable development, institutions, especially at local level, are important for mobilizing
resources and regulating their use with a view to maintaining a long-term base for productive
activity (Uphoff n.d). In terms of natural resource management, William (1995) adds that
sustainable use is conditioned by the strength of local institutions to involve the user of that
resource in its rational management. Rural communities live in well-organized set-ups that
structure their activities and interactions with the environment in their quest to eke a living out of
available resources. Households, kin groups, hamlets and villages are the main actors through
which local communities are organized (Singh 1994). Such structures are the local institutions
through which diverse community aspirations are fulfilled. They are highly path-dependent
(Olate 2003), dynamic and develop with society according to needs. They may last for a long
time, accomplish their objectives, fade out, or transform to capitalize on emerging opportunities.

Local institutions differ based on their functions and objectives. According to Donnelly-Roark et
al. (2001), they encompass many different types of indigenous organizations and functions such
as village-level governance, acceptable methods of community resource mobilization, security
arrangements, conflict resolution, asset management and lineage organization. In Mozambique,
traditional leaders including spiritual ones were found to be important institutions with
responsibilities such as land allocation, conflict resolution and mediation with spirits (Blom
2000; Virtanen 2000; Serra 2001); the latter being important where norms have been violated.
Elsewhere, in Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger, Hilhorst (2008) noted that informal local
governance institutions continue to play an important role in natural resources management
including defining access and management of natural resources and in sanctioning trespassers.
Ultimately, institutions encourage people to take a longer-term view by creating common
expectations and a basis for cooperation that goes beyond individual interests, and to the extent
institutions are regarded as legitimate, people comply without (or with fewer) inducements and
sanctions (Uphoff n.d).

However, it is also recognized that local institutions have weaknesses when it comes to
sustainable practices that favour sustainability. Hence, it is important to examine their roles, their
issues and challenges, as well as their potential to achieve natural resource management
outcomes. This paper summarizes findings of a study on ‘informal’ local institutions in three
benchmark sites of the African Highlands Initiative (AHI) in Ethiopia and Tanzania. The study
objectives were to identify local institutions, as well as identify opportunities with which to build
environmentally sustainable, economically viable and socially acceptable natural resource
management interventions. The study hypothesized that local institutions are important in
mobilizing rural communities towards improved management of natural resources. The paper
concludes with insights on how local institutions can be tapped for better natural resource
management, and how in their roles could complement formal institutions.

1
2.0 CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND
According to Singh (1994) institutions are formal or informal rules about who makes decisions,
according to which procedures, what actions are permitted, what information must be provided
and what payoffs will be assigned to individuals. Grace et al. (2000) emphasize this by arguing
that institutions may either include or exclude an actor group (e.g. individual, households, ethnic
groups) from access to resources. Formal institutions constitute the written or codified rules such
as the constitution, judiciary laws, organized markets and property rights. Meanwhile, informal
institutions are the rules governed by behavioural norms in society, family or community, and
include sanctions, taboos, traditions and code of conduct. Local institutions fit into this category.
They may take the shape of a formal organizational structure, but commonly consist of informal
norms and practices within a community or ethnic group. However, formal institutions also
abound and are important in the local setting.

In the study of institutions, it is important to distinguish local institutions from national

institutions. Too often, the term "local" has been a residual category, equated with whatever is
not national (Uphoff n.d). But what is "local" has its own positive characteristics, providing a
basis for collective action, for building consensus, for undertaking coordination and management
responsibilities, for collecting, analyzing and evaluating information, energized by a degree of
interpersonal solidarity (Uphoff n.d.). The fact that people at the local level know each other
better, have more rapport and sense of belonging, provides opportunities for cooperation and
collective action for managing natural resources on a self-ruling and self-sufficient basis.

In rural areas, local institutions usually include councils of elders, traditional midwives,
rainmakers, and sacred forests and trees. Sacredness bestowed on some trees or forests has been
found to reflect important ecological functions and to protect public goods and environmental
services (Meliyo et al. 2006; Ramakrishnan 2004). Such trees or forests are therefore
traditionally protected through norms and regulations and breaking the rules might attract severe
punishment from the spirits (Laurrel and Nyberg 2000). Apart from being the warehouse for
indigenous knowledge and beliefs, local institutions have the potential to effectively link service
providers and the local communities. Working in Burkina Faso, Donnelly-Roark et al. (2001)
observed that local institutions surround and connect communities and interact with other
institutional systems such as the local government, to articulate community needs. Dixon and
Wood (2007) argues that because they are dynamic, flexible, and responsive to societal and
environmental change, local institutions are more efficient in promoting sustainability.

Local institutions could be effective in engaging the energies and social relations of ordinary
citizens and in increasing the willingness of the citizenry to invest in public goods. However,
successful engagement with rural communities should start with recognizing that they have
institutions through which they can practise or organize collective action (Heltberg 2001). In the
past, local institutions were seldom considered as an important factor in sustainability. Rather,
land management practices were emphasized. Gupta (1992) argues that the two, institutions and
management practices, are organically related. Whereas technologies and land management
practices enable the transformation of resources and determine the pace, cost and effectiveness of
change, institutions determine whether and how the relationship between technologies,
environment and people would be viewed now and in the future. Uphoff (n.d) argues that local
2
institutions are more likely to be successful in natural resource management where the resource
is "bounded", that is, known and predictable rather than shifting and variable, and where the
users themselves are an identifiable group or community with its own authority structure. To
exploit the potential of local institutions in natural resource management (NRM), an in-depth
understanding of their evolution, goals, operations, objectives, strengths and weaknesses is
essential.

3
3.0 METHODOLOGY
The watersheds studied were Gununo in Areka and Galessa in Ginchi districts (Southern and
Central Ethiopia respectively), and Baga in Lushoto District (Northeastern Tanzania). Figure 1
shows the location of the sites in the highlands of eastern Africa and Figure 2 shows the maps of
the watersheds studied. The general characteristics of Areka, Ginchi and Lushoto districts are
summarized in Table 1. Areka is highly populated (more than 400 people/km2) with small farm
sizes averaging 0.25 hectares, and is intensively cultivated. Poverty levels are high and cash
opportunities are few. Ginchi has a population density of 100-200 people/km2, has long dry-
spells and has high livestock population relative to its carrying capacity. Erosion and forest
encroachment are major problems on the hillsides. Lushoto is one of the most populated districts
in Tanzania with a population density of 100 people/km2. Land degradation, deforestation and
land fragmentation are major problems in the district. Farm sizes range from 0.2 to 0.9 hectares
for an average household of eight members.

Figure 1: Map of Eastern Africa showing the study sites

4
 Gununo Watershed, Areka - Ethiopia Galessa Watershed, Ginchi - Ethiopia

Baga Watershed, Lushoto - Tanzania

Figure 2: Maps of the study watersheds

5
Table 1: General characteristics of Areka, Ginchi and Lushoto districts

Site attributes Areka, Ethiopia Ginchi, Ethiopia Lushoto, Tanzania

Altitude (metres 1800-2600 >2200 1100-1450
above sea level)
Population 400-600 100-200 200-300
density (/km2)
Enterprises Enset, wheat, pea, Barley, pulses, Irish Maize, banana, tea, coffee,
maize, barley, potato, wheat, horticulture in valley
sorghum, sweet oilseeds, seasonal bottoms, high-value trees,
potato, faba bean rotation from zero grazed livestock
horticulture, individual cropland
communal to communal
grazing grazing
Irrigation None None Seasonal
Livestock trends Low numbers and High numbers yet Low numbers and
decreasing; decreasing; access to decreasing; zero grazing
intensive grazing land good mostly
management
Forest/woodlot Medium (tree Limited (planting Medium to high (mostly
access planting limited; remnant cultivated; natural forests
common) forest is distant) are protected)
Market Limited; some Medium Medium to good (tea,
integration off-farm vegetables)
employment

Key informants were identified in consideration of gender balance, resource endowment and
location in the landscape. Key informants were necessary to obtain information from an
informed audience familiar with the organization of their communities. Local leaders were
purposely selected as key informants because they were more informed on community affairs,
were relatively better trained, and they use local institutions in their leadership roles. The roles,
strengths and weaknesses of local institutions were discussed in focus groups.

Historical trend analysis was used to understand how the importance of local institutions has
changed overtime. For all sites, three time periods were considered. In Lushoto these were before
1930s (during the colonial period), 1960s (after independence) and after 1990 (liberalization
period) while in Areka and Ginchi local institutions were assessed during the feudal period
(before 1974), during the Derg regime (1974–1991) and after 1991. The three time periods were
characterized by major changes that affected the performance of most of the local institutions.
This is important given the dynamic nature of institutions, if one were to understand the reasons
for their change in importance. Information generated was synthesized and cross-checked with
available secondary data.

6
4.0 RESULTS
4.1 Typology of local institutions

The diversity of local traditional institutions in the studied watersheds was found to be similar
across sites when contrasted on the basis of their function, with slightly greater divergence in the
institutions found in Gununo (Areka) and Baga (Lushoto) (Table 2). Nine types of local
institutions were identified with some having more than one function.

Table 2: Typology of local institutions in the watersheds

Function-based local Gununo Watershed Galessa Watershed Baga Watershed

institution (Areka, Ethiopia) (Ginchi, Ethiopia) (Lushoto, Tanzania)
Land institutions Sharecropping Sharecropping (yekul), -
(yekul), contracting contracting and renting
and renting
Livestock institutions Kota, Missa–kotta, Ribi (Horsisa) Rotational livestock
Ulo – kottaa, Hara groups (kopa ng’ombe,
and Gatuwa lipa ng’ombe)
Labour institution Debo and Zaye Debo (Jige) Kiwili, Ngemo
Mutual assistance Iddir, (sub – Iddir, Ekub, Kibati
institutions institutions:
Amba Iddir, Hera
Iddir, Dabua Iddir
and Church Iddir),
Iqube, and Meskel
Banking
Health institutions Traditional midwives Traditional midwives Traditional healers,
Traditional healers Traditional midwives
Hunguza,
Devil cleansing
(Mbungwa)
Traditional beliefs Mahiber, Senbete Mahiber, Senbete Sacred trees/sacred forests,
Qaalluu (Holy man), Wakilindi
Qaallitti (Holy woman)
Traditional leaders - Jabir, Gadu, Zumbe
Qaalluu, Qaallitti Council of elders
Recreation - - Traditional dances,
Kidembwa (kitchen
parties (women only)),
sports
Conflict resolution Council of elders Jabir, Gada, Qaalluu, Zumbe, council of elders
council of elders

7
4.1.1 Land-based institutions
These types of institutions are more prominent in Gununo (Areka) and Galessa
(Ginchi)Watersheds, where the government owns the land and farmers have the right to use and
bequeath to their sons once they get married. In Gununo, land can be accessed through three
types of institutional arrangements namely, sharecropping, contracting and renting (Table 2).
Under sharecropping, one farmer provides land while the other brings the oxen, but both provide
all other inputs including labour, seeds and fertilizers. Contracting involves a person transferring
land use rights to another person through cash payments covering a period of 5-10 years. Few
households are involved in annual land renting arrangements. Similar institutions exist in
Galessa where the sharecropping institution is referred to as Yekul.In some contract
arrangements, the contractor is allowed to remove the cost of seeds and fertilizer before sharing
the rest of the produce equally. In both watersheds, renting is time bound and is not transferable.
Similar arrangements did not come out strongly in the Baga Watershed (Lushoto) although it is
known that farmers do rent land.

4.1.2 Livestock based institutions

In Gununo, livestock is an important farm enterprise. Five institutions related to livestock
ownership and management exist. These include Kota, Missa-kota, Ulo-kottaa, Hara and
Gatuwa (Table 2) all of which come under different benefit-sharing arrangements. For example,
under Kota, the arrangement is half-sharing of livestock ownership between two individuals or
households. The aim is to pool limited resources and own the animals together. The offspring,
milk, manure and use for traction are shared on an equal basis between the parties. During
lactation, cows are moved from one house to the other to share the milk. Missa-kota is similar to
Kota, but one of the partners shares only a quarter of the benefits. Hara is a share rearing
arrangement and is practised by those with no livestock. The offspring remain the property of the
livestock owner while the one managing the animal benefits from milk, draught power and
manure. Gatuwais the pairing of oxen owned by different individuals when each person owns
only one ox.

In Ginchi, Ribi (Horsisa) is the only livestock-based institution in which partnersshare the
offspring while other benefits (milk and manure) belongs to the livestock keeper. In Baga, there
are rotational livestock groups introduced by the Department of Livestock Development in a
project called kopa ng‘ombe lipa ng’ombe where a farmer is given a pregnant cow on condition
that (s)he passes on the offspring if it is a heifer, to the next farmer in the group. The process
goes on until all farmers in the group have cows. To belong to a group, the farmer must provide
good livestock shelter and established pasture.

4.1.3 Labour-sharing institutions

Labour-sharing institutions are more prominent in Gununo and Baga. In Gununo, two labour
institutions, Debo and Zaye were identified. Debo (Jige) is collective action consisting of 70-80
people who work together in return for a large feast of food and drink. It is also practised in
Galessa, especially during periods of heavy workloads. Debo is mainly used in agricultural
activities and house construction. This is similar to the collective action in Baga under the name
8
Ngemo where community members contribute their labour during land preparation, manure
transport, harvesting and house construction, and feast after the task. An additional labour-
sharing institution, Kiwili, which has diverse roles, was identified in Baga. Under Kiwili,
members share farm labour and assist each other financially in times of difficulties. Debo and
Zaye in Gununo and Ngemo and Kiwili in Baga are what Olate (2003) refers to as linking social
capital—a type of social capital, which draws members from the family, close friends and
neighbours.

4.1.4 Mutual assistance institutions (financial, social)

Mutual assistance institutions are Kibati in Baga Watershed and Iddir and Ekub in Galessa
Watershed. Several others specialized in providing social insurance such as mortuary services,
and financial aid to cover religious and cultural ceremonies. In Gununo, two institutions Iqub or
Shufuw, and Meskel provide banking services. The former is essentially a rotating fund scheme
where members contribute some money for a certain period (usually a week). Under Meskel
banking, members contribute a specific amount (about 0.5 birr per week) to be used during
Meskel celebrations. The Iddir in Gununo and Galessa is a social unit formed through voluntary
membership of between 20 to 100 individuals to provide social insurance. In Gununo, four types
of Iddir were identified. These are Amba Iddir, Hera Iddir, Dabua Iddir and Church Iddir. Amba
Iddir is concerned with assistance related to deaths such as meeting funeral expenses. Hera Iddir
is similar to Amba Iddir but is confined to the youth and apart from assistance for funeral
expenses, they also exchange labour for house construction. Dabua Iddir is based on kinship
with the main purpose of helping relatives during crises and ceremonies while Church Iddir is
church-mediated (the Orthodox Church) where members support each other by contributing
labour or money. The system is similar to labour-sharing institutions. Similar to the Iddir,
Senbete in Galessa assists members in times of funeral. However, it is a men’s group whose sole
purpose is to strengthen ties amongst men. Similarly in Baga, a mutual assistance institution
called Kibati assists members in meeting expenses related to funeral and other crises.

4.1.5 Health institutions

Health institutions promoting traditional medicine, purification from evil spirits, and invoking
supernatural powers of traditional spiritual leaders were found in all three sites. In Baga
Watershed, cleansing from evil spirits (Mbungwa) is done in a small hut constructed by men at
the base of a sacred tree such as Ficus thonningii (Figure 3). Many people fear going near such
places. Traditional midwives are an important health institution in all the three sites especially
for the poor and those far from health services. Their role is recognized by the government in
Tanzania, which provides support for training in integrating modern medicine. Fortune-telling
and calamity prevention against diseases are also considered health-related institutions in Baga
Watershed, Lushoto. One such belief is Hunguza, mainly practised against human diseases such
as measles.

9
Figure 3: Ficus thonningii (left) one of the sacred trees in Lushoto at the base of which
(right) rituals are performed

4.1.6 Traditional beliefs (including rituals, spiritual leaders and sacred areas)
Institutions in this sector came out strongly in Galessa (Ginchi) and Baga (Lushoto). In Galessa,
the Mehiber is mainly an elders’ club of mixed gender, strong in expressing traditional religious
beliefs. Membership is voluntary, and members prepare food and drinks during sessions. The
Qaalluu (holy man) and Qaallitti (holy woman) among the Oromos in Ethiopia were believed to
be the media through which their god (Waaqaa) made contact with his people. People would go
to these institutions to fulfill religious obligations, meet friends and kinsmen, witness a spectacle,
sing, dance and be fed. The Qaalluu were also known as councillors. In Galessa and Baga
Watersheds, traditional rituals are performed in sacred areas at the base of sacred trees such as
Ficus thonningii (Figure 3) or in sacred forests (Figure 4). Trees considered sacred in the Baga
Watershed are predominant in the agricultural landscape as giant trees, and unauthorized people
are not allowed to approach or cut such trees.

10
Figure 4: Sacred forest (The ‘Adbar’) in Galessa Watershed, Ginchi, Ethiopia

In Baga, hande is practised as part of crop protection against pests. This is a belief based on the
application of a botanical pesticide derived from Tephrosia spp. According to this practice, no-
one is allowed to go to the field after application for the next seven days, believing that doing so,
will render the treatment ineffective. Based on this belief, farmers are required to apply the
pesticide at the same time and severe punishment befalls those who break the rules. In Baga,
there are also rain-makers (Wakilindi), believed to have powers to plead for and predict the
rainfall pattern.

4.1.7 Traditional leaders

This institution is found in Galessa and Baga —they are called Jabir, Gadu, Qaalluu (Men)in
Galessa and Zumbe in Baga. The Jabirs are persons with high status in the traditional belief
system and serve as the ultimate authority in traditional beliefs. Among the Oromos, Gadu and
Qaalluu were the primary means through which economic, political and legal systems were
controlled and governed. Individuals as well as groups would therefore go to these institutions to
settle disputes.

4.1.8 Recreational institutions

In Baga Watershed, several recreational groups were identified, including traditional dance and
sports groups, mainly football. Kidemwa is a special traditional dance group for women only and
is used to enlighten young prospective brides on what they should expect, should do and should
not do in marriage. Meanwhile, Mdumange is a popular dancing group in Lushoto commonly
11
hired to create awareness and support political campaigns. Share drinking is a prominent
recreation institution in Gununo Watershed where it is more common during harvest. The local
institution, Mahber, involves households sharing the same religion organizing parties every
month in rotation, particularly in memory of the Christian Saints.

4.1.9 Conflict resolution

Several local institutions responsible for conflict resolution exist in the study areas but their
importance is fading (see below). Conflicts over management and use of resources and
household disputes were generally resolved by traditional leaders and the council of elders. In
Baga, the Zumbe and in Galessa, Jabir, Gada, Qaalluu, Qaallitti were frequently contacted to
settle disputes. Some of these institutions of leadership are no longer in place. An example is the
Zumbe in Lushoto, which ceased to exist when all the chiefdoms were abolished after
independence. Others have been weakened by different factors including civil unrest in Ethiopia
and colonialism in Tanzania.

4.2 Historical trend of importance of local institutions

Changes in importance for some local institutions were assessed over three time periods. These
were before the 1930s, 1960s and after the 1990s for Tanzania, and the feudal period (before
1974), during the Derg regime (1974-1991) and after 1991 in Ethiopia. In Baga Watershed, most
institutions have existed for a long time except for mutual assistance institutions (especially for
fundraising) which came into existence only in the 1970s. Sports institutions started in the 1960s.
Most of the local institutions dealing with traditional beliefs and rituals are fading in importance
(Figure 5). According to the informants interviewed, this is due to modern education, exposure to
new religions and changes in administrative governance. In-migration of other tribal groups into
the community and commercialization of services by outside institutions have also downplayed
their importance. For example, Hande, rain-makers, devil cleansing, fortune tellers and sacred
areas for rituals are all becoming less important due to modern religion (Christianity and Islam),
influx of outside cultures and policies. Some spiritual undertakings like cleansing from evil
spirits are at best seen as devil worshipping; both practitioners and those seeking their assistance
do so secretly (Mama Asha Kassim and Zainab Zuberi; pers. comm.).

12
Figure 5: Changing importance of some of the local institutions in the Baga Watershed,
Lushoto

Traditional healers are becoming more important although some have over-commercialized their
services. The importance of institutions for labour-sharing (Kiwili, Ngemo), mutual assistance
(financial) (Kibati) and traditional dances are increasing while sacred forests and cleansing from
evil spirits has decreased overtime. The importance and power balance of local institutions in
Ethiopia have been evolving together with the political evolution of the country. During the
feudal times (before the 1974 revolution), most of the rural people were dependent on local
institutions for conflict resolution, social coherence and local education using religious
establishments. However, the importance of these institutions declined during the Derg regime
(1974-91) and from 1991 onwards for example, tenure arrangements in relation to land and other
natural resources. Changes in the political landscape saw the coming of different institutions like
the Baito system, which has a significant role in relation to natural resource issues. Civil unrest
in Ethiopia has also contributed to erosion of the roles of some of the local institutions in natural
resource management (Chisholm 1998).

Changes in importance of local institutions do not differ appreciably between the different sites.
Some institutions have disappeared from the scene. Traditional leadership structures have been
replaced by a formal system under the local government structures where leaders are
democratically elected. Under the current leadership system the enforcement of bylaws is weak,
as leaders tend to protect their relationship with the rest of the community members. In Lushoto,
respondents observed that village leaders were weak, corrupt and often favour offenders who are
their close relatives.

13
5.0 DISCUSSIONS
Sustainable management of natural resources in the highlands of eastern Africa is a major
concern because of the diversity of products emanating from these highlands and the impending
threats to natural resources due to increasing human population. It is recognized that in order to
balance livelihood and conservation objectives, it is essential to engage local communities in the
management of natural resources. For successful engagement of local communities, project
implementers need to recognize and work with local institutions. This is because of their role as
custodians of local knowledge (Donnelly-Roarck 2001), in mobilizing collective action (Gupta
1992; Olate 2003) and connecting members of different communities (Donnelly-Roarck 2001)–
all of which are fundamental to effective NRM.

A variety of local institutions directly involved in NRM exist in the watersheds. Local
institutions whose major function is NRM include land, livestock, and labour-sharing
institutions. Traditional leaders, traditional beliefs and rituals, and mutual assistance institutions
play an indirect but essential role in NRM through conflict resolution, natural resource
governance and risk reduction. Health and recreational institutions can be sensitized to include
NRM in their activities given the reliance of traditional healers on local biodiversity and the
reliance of recreational institutions on the natural resource base for fundraising.

In Ethiopia, prominent land institutions have greatly influenced land management. Where long
lease is practised, the renter is motivated to make long-term investments in NRM such as soil
conservation and agroforestry. On the contrary, short-term leases discourage farmers from taking
long-term land improvements, thus greatly contributing to land degradation. Farmers and
government policymakers should therefore be encouraged to consider leasehold terms in relation
to the long-term productivity of the land. Livestock-based institutions in Ethiopia represent an
important social capital with respect to NRM. These institutions enable farmers with no livestock
to access manure, which is an important ingredient in soil fertility improvement in the highlands
where soil nutrient levels are very low. Meanwhile, labour-sharing institutions common in the
three sites, are a form of social capital that enable members to accomplish difficult tasks that
would otherwise be impossible to do by one individual.

Mutual assistance institutions in Gununo (Areka), Galessa (Ginchi) and Baga (Lushoto) are
effective in raising financial capital within the communities, and enabling members to acquire
goods and services that are highly priced. Given the tough official bank lending regulations,
institutions like Iddir and Kube in Gununo and Galessa (Ginchi) can contribute to NRM. With
the increased capital made possible through these institutions, farmers can hire labour for land
preparation and soil conservation, buy food and drinks to support traditional collective action
activities, or invest in new enterprises.

Traditional beliefs and rituals as well as traditional leaders have strong linkages with NRM.
Comparing current NRM practices in the presence of state-backed bylaws with those of the past
when traditional beliefs played an important role in preserving common pool resources,
noticeable differences may be seen. Since NRM practices were reinforced through spirituality,
sacred forests and trees were highly respected (Laurrel and Nyberg 2000). The association of
sacred tree species with important water conservation functions suggests that scientific
14
explanations may be found for some of these traditional practices. Delineation of sacred forests
in critical parts of the landscape (hilltops, catchments) was likely to have had a positive influence
on water conservation and watershed functions (Gerden and Mtallo 1990). Using ‘indigenous
knowledge’ encoded in traditional beliefs, and through experience, local communities were
aware of which forests contributed to their wellbeing; so they would impose restrictions and
ensure that they were adhered to, by invoking spiritual powers.

Traditional leaders are also considered spiritual leaders, integrating spirituality with natural
resource governance. Because they had legitimate powers bestowed on them by the community,
social harmony and the spirit of unity was ensured and this could be exploited to include aspects
of NRM in their activities. In both countries, the imposition of a new system of administration
saw the emergence of new titles (Fetawavari in Ethiopia and Mwenyekiti wa Kijiji or Village
Chairperson in Tanzania). Although legitimate according to the formal system, their performance
leaves much to be desired. In the first place, the new leaders do not necessarily come from the
original ruling clans who were traditionally believed to be God’s appointees to look after the
spiritual and material welfare of their people. One of the major setbacks resulting from the
weakening of the institutions of traditional beliefs and traditional leaders is the enforcement of
NRM bylaws. In Lushoto, taking an offender to the official courts might attract wrath and could
result in the breakdown of community relations, especially if the offender is a relative or friend.
In the past, the traditional legal system worked without the members harbouring grudges. One
might argue that it is primitive to adhere to traditional beliefs, but good aspects of the tradition
should be upheld.

Recreational institutions offer an opportunity to bring individuals with similar interests together.
As a means of raising funds to meet costs related to their groups, members of these institutions
are involved in various production activities including cultivation of high-value crops. NRM
issues such as soil conservation and managing irrigation water can be done through such groups
if sensitized and backed up by appropriate technological, policy and institutional innovations.
One way of backing up traditional institutions is to encourage interaction between them and
formal institutions involved in NRM. In Tanzania for example, each village has an
Environmental Management Committee under the Village Government. Such committees make
use of institutions like traditional dance groups in creating awareness on management of natural
resources including water sources, forests and soil conservation.

The decreasing importance of traditional beliefs, rituals, sacred forests and trees is
disadvantageous to the management of natural resources. But guardians of these institutions
failed to provide scientific explanations on their belief system, so they were deemed primitive.
Systematic studies directed towards decoding the ‘indigenous knowledge’ embedded in some
useful traditional beliefs are therefore necessary to provide the guardians of local institutions
with necessary information which they could use to defend some of these beliefs in a more
scientific way. Furthermore, the study revealed that some local institutions discriminate against
some genders or other groups (e.g. for men only or for youth only) and effective use of such
institutions in NRM should take this into consideration.

15
6.0 CONCLUSION
Many local institutions exist in the study area, most of them with diverse functions, but all seem
to relate directly or indirectly to natural resource management. Clearly, local institutions are
important structures that guide the lives of local communities. Some of them are directly
engaged in, and have been successful in natural resource management. Some institutions have
faded away while others remained relevant overtime; others discriminated against certain
genders, admitting only certain types of members. The historical trend analysis shows a decline
in importance of institutions on traditional beliefs and sacredness and an increase in importance
of labour-sharing, mutual assistance and traditional dance institutions due to influences from new
or modern religion, exposure to other cultures and practices, as well as to new technologies.
However, it is evident in the sites that despite the advent of modernity, local traditional
institutions remain important and their relevance to natural resource management provides a
basis for harnessing their potential to complement modern and formal institutions. It is clear that
local leadership from these institutions remain strong, and can influence key decisions that could
help enforce formal institutions. There is therefore a need, to better understand how informal
legal systems have worked well in the past, and how strategies can be fostered to integrate
aspects of traditional governance system into the formal system. It would be interesting to
understand which local institutions could be harnessed for natural resource management, given
their sphere of influence in the area. Finally, judicious management of natural resources in the
mountains of eastern Africa depends on recognition of local institutions and working with them
directly, in conjunction with modern formal institutions. Without their willing participation
through incorporation of traditional rules into modern and formal systems of natural resource
governance, local institutions will just be a thing of the past.

16
7.0 REFERENCES
Blom, A. (2000) Ambiguous political space: Chiefs, land and the poor in rural Mozambique.
Researcher School at International Development Studies. Roskilde University, Copenhagen.

Chisholm, N. (1998) Community-based natural resource management in Tigray, Northern

Ethiopia. The World Bank/WBI’s CBNRM Initiative

Dixon, A.B. and Wood, A.P. (2007) Local institutions for management of wetlands in Ethiopia:
Sustainability and state intervention. In: Barbara van Koppen, Mark Giordano and John
Butterworth (Eds.) Community-based water law and water resource management reforms in
developing countries. CAB International.

Donnelly-Roark, P., Ouedraogo, K. and Ye, X. (2001) Can local institutions reduce poverty?
Rural decentralization in Burkina Faso. Environmental and Social Development Unit. Africa
region.

Gerdén, C. Å. and Mtallo, S. (1990) Traditional TPF reserves in Babati District, Tanzania:
Case study in human ecology. FTP: Ministry of Land, Natural Resources and Tourism and
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Int. Dev. Centre. Working Paper 128, Uppsala,
51p.

Grace, C., de Heana, A., Den, D., Konde, A., Seba, H., Shankland, A. and Sinclair, A.
(2000) Sustainable livelihoods in Ethiopia. Institute of Development Studies, England. Research
Report 44.

Gupta, A. (1992) Saga of a starfish. Participative design of sustainable institutions for NRM.
Centre for Management in Agriculture. Indian Institute of Management, 56 pp. Working Paper
No. 1077, Ahmedabad380015.

Heltberg, R. (2001) Property rights and natural resource management in the developing
countries. Institute of Economics, University of Copenhagen. Denmark.

Hilhorst, T. (2008) Local governance institutions for natural resource management in Mali,
Burkina Faso and Niger. KIT Working Papers Series G1. Amsterdam: KIT

Laurrell, Å. and Nyberg, Å. (2000) Plant species composition and plant uses in traditionally
protected forests in Tanzania. A minor field study No. 119. Department of Systematic Botany,
University of Uppsala, Sweden.

Meliyo, J., Mansoor, H. and Mowo, J.G. (2006) The Baga Watershed characterization: A step
for scaling out technologies. In: Tilahun Amede, Laura German, Sheila Rao, Chris Opondo, and
Ann Stroud (Eds.) Integrated natural resources management in practice: Enabling communities
to improve mountain livelihoods and landscapes. Proceedings of the African Highlands Initiative
Conference, Nairobi, Kenya, October 12-15 2004, Kampala, Uganda: African Highlands
Initiative.

17
Olate, R. (2003) Local institutions, social capital and capabilities. Challenges for development
and social intervention in Latin America. Washington University in St. Louis. Oct. 2003.

Ramakrishnan, R.S. (2004) Sustainable cultures to sustainable development. Paper presented at

the IRMMA Conference (Interdisciplinary Research and Management in Mountain Areas) Banff,
Canada. 23-26 September 2004).

Serra, A. (2001) Legitimacy of local institutions for natural resource management: The case of
M’punga, Mozambique. School of African and Asian Studies, University of Sussex and Centro
de Experimentaç!o Florestal, Sussundenga, Mozambique.

Singh, K. (1994) Managing common pool resources. Principles and case studies. Oxford
University Press, Delhi.

Uphoff, N. (n.d). Local institutions and participation for development. IIED Gatekeeper series
31. Ithaca, NY. USA.

Virtanen, P. (2000) Community based natural resources management: Defining the community
in Mozambique. In: Pekka Virtanen and Nummelin Matti (Eds.) Forests, chiefs and peasants in
Africa: Land management of natural resources in Tanzania, Zimbabwe and Mozambique. Silva
Carelica 34, 116-137, 2000, University of Joensuu. Faculty of Forestry.

William, A.1995. Communities and sustainable forestry in developing countries. Institute for
Contemporary Studies. San Francisco, California. USA.

18
WORKING PAPER SERIES 2010/2011
97. Economic viability of Jatropha curcas L. plantations in Northern Tanzania- assessing farmers’ prospects via
cost-benefit analysis.
98. Hot spot of emission and confusion: land tenure insecurity, contested policies and competing claims in the
central Kalimantan Ex-Mega Rice Project area
99. Agroforestry competences and human resources needs in the Philippines
100. CES/COS/CIS paradigms for compensation and rewards to enhance environmental services
101. Case study approach to region-wide curriculum and teaching materials development in agroforestry education
in Southeast Asia
102. Stewardship agreement to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD): Lubuk Beringin’s
Hutan Desa as the first village forest in Indonesia
107. Tree domestication by ICRAF and partners in the Peruvian Amazon: lessons learned and future prospects in
the domain of the Amazon Initiative eco-regional program
108. Memorias del Taller Nacional: “Iniciativas para Reducir la Deforestación en la region Andino - Amazónica”,
09 de Abril del 2010. Proyecto REALU Peru
109. Percepciones sobre la Equidad y Eficiencia en la cadena de valor de REDD en Perú –Reporte de Talleres en
Ucayali, San Martín y Loreto, 2009. Proyecto REALU-Perú.
110. Reducción de emisiones de todos los Usos del Suelo. Reporte del Proyecto REALU
Perú Fase 1
111. Programa Alternativas a la Tumba-y-Quema (ASB) en el Perú. Informe Resumen y
Síntesis de la Fase II. 2da. versión revisada
112. Estudio de las cadenas de abastecimiento de germoplasma forestal en la amazonía Boliviana
113. Biodiesel in the Amazon
114. Estudio de mercado de semillas forestales en la amazonía Colombiana
115. Estudio de las cadenas de abastecimiento de germoplasma forestal en Ecuador
116. How can systems thinking, social capital and social network analysis help programs achieve impact at scale?
117. Energy policies, forests and local communities in the Ucayali Region, Peruvian Amazon
118. NTFPs as a source of livelihood diversification for local communities in the Batang Toru Orangutan
Conservation Program
119. Studi Biodiversitas: Apakah agroforestry mampu mengkonservasi keanekaragaman hayati di DAS Konto?
120. Estimasi Karbon Tersimpan di Lahan-lahan Pertanian di DAS Konto, Jawa Timur
121. Implementasi Kaji Cepat Hidrologi (RHA) di Hulu DAS Brantas, Jawa Timur
122. Kaji Cepat Hidrologi di Daerah Aliran Sungai Krueng Peusangan, NAD,Sumatra
123. A study of rapid hydrological appraisal in the Krueng Peusangan Watershed, NAD, Sumatra
124. An assessment of farm timber value chains in Mt Kenya area, Kenya
125. A comparative financial analysis of current land use systems and implications for the adoption of improved
agroforestry in the East Usambaras, Tanzania
126. Agricultural monitoring and evaluation systems
127. Challenges and opportunities for collaborative landscape governance in the East Usambara Mountains,
Tanzania
128. Transforming Knowledge to Enhance Integrated Natural Resource Management Research, Development and
Advocacy in the Highlands of Eastern Africa
129. Carbon-forestry projects in the Philippines: potential and challenges The Mt Kitanglad Range forest-carbon
development
130. Carbon forestry projects in the Philippines: potential and challenges. The ArakanForest Corridor forest-
carbon project
131. Carbon-forestry projects in the Philippines: potential and challenges. The LagunaLake Development
Authority’s forest-carbon development project
132. Carbon-forestry projects in the Philippines: potential and challenges. The Quirinoforest-carbon development
project in Sierra Madre Biodiversity Corridor
133. Carbon-forestry projects in the Philippines: potential and challenges. The Ikalahan Ancestral Domain forest-
carbon development

19
7KH:RUOG$JURIRUHVWU\&HQWUHLVDQDXWRQRPRXVQRQSUR¿W
research  organization  whose  vision  is  a  rural  transformation  
in   the   developing   world   where   smallholder   households  
strategically   increase   their   use   of   trees   in   agricultural  
landscapes  to  improve  their  food  security,  nutrition,  income,  
health,   shelter,   energy   resources   and   environmental  
sustainability.   The   Centre   generates   science-­base  
knowledge  about  the  diverse  role  that  trees  play  in  agricultural  
landscapes,  and  uses  its  research  to  advance  policies  and  
SUDFWLFHVWKDWEHQH¿WWKHSRRUDQGWKHHQYLURQPHQW