This is a graded submission as part of course requirements. Please don’t plagiarise.
Prompt: For either the Amani Nature Reserve or the East Usambara mountains landscape you will need to design, conduct and write up a focused piece of desk-based research that critically analyses the relationships between context,theory and practice on a topic of choice in the environment-development field. Whilst the project report is to be written for an academic audience, a summary of the key findings targeted at a practitioner audience is expected in the project report.
Summary for practitioners
This paper analyses secondary data on two livelihood projects in the East Usambara Mountains. Using data collected from empirical studies and recorded interviews, the data is reviewed to ascertain the usefulness of livelihood diversification for women in the East Usambara region, Tanzania. Results obtained were analysed using the sustainable rural livelihoods framework by (Scoones, 1998) in a thematic approach. It was discovered that elements of time, capital and labour were significant in achieving successful livelihood programmes (Niehof, 2001). In discussing institutional barriers relating to women’s autonomy concerning livelihoods, literature evidence suggests institutions may underpin gender restrictions through policy on land ownership and marriage (Reyes, 2008). However, although cultural relevance, low levels of education and the lack of prominence of female figureheads were identified as strong factors, their enhancement by the institutions could not be confirmed. However, women are widely recognised as crucial proponents of living standards and extended supporters of livelihood programs in some cases. Hence, the significance of these findings may shape how much women can earn significantly from alternative livelihoods regarding forest management. Policymakers are encouraged to trial a women-only livelihood programme for observation as existing evidence indicates such an enabling environment may improve outcomes for rural women. However, considering the proliferation of several different livelihood frameworks, the effectiveness of such programmes cannot be holistically ascertained, they are intrinsically distinct. It is suggested that the Tanzanian government establish robust monitoring and evaluation mechanisms in assessing the impact of livelihoods on women to adequately measure outcomes.
Introduction
Women play a significant role in Tanzania’s economy. According to a World Bank report commissioned by Ellis et al. (2007) they account for 82 percent of labour force in agriculture. At the same time, rural women have been identified as agents of change, harnessing resources such as farmland and credit more productively than men (FAO, 2011). Despite these facts and the progressive milestones made on women’s rights (Badstue et al., 2020), women, particularly those in rural Tanzania are perceived to be largely economically vulnerable (Sender and Smith, 2012). Within rural Tanzania, agriculture is the mainstay where farmers must navigate fluctuating seasons, exacerbating climate change and restrictive forest management policies due to an active prioritization of biodiversity conservation by the Tanzanian government (Mpanda et al., 2014). Hence, for economic stability, rural farmers explore alternative activities to supplement their income from crop cultivation. This has led to an increasing number of alternative livelihoods to shift overreliance on natural resources (Engh, 2011; Rantala et al., 2012). This paper considers select alternative livelihoods rural women of the East Usambara Mountains have been engaged in for the past 20 years and evaluates the potential of the livelihood diversification away from farming to improve women’s livelihood.
The East Usambara Mountains located in north-eastern Tanzania, house some of the world’s speciesrich forests (Rodgers, 1998) despite housing some of the most economically poor communities (Shoo and Songorwa, 2013). With the rapid loss of natural forest cover (a rate of 499,000 hectares annually in the 1980s) (Hamilton and Bensted-Smith, 1989) and as a means to find cost effective solutions, the Tanzanian government was spurred to design conservation policies that protect the forests while improving the standard of living of its dependents (Hall et al., 2011; Ko, 2019). Hence the period after establishing East Usambara as a biosphere reserve in 2000 up until 2009 saw a surge in livelihood programmes across the East Usambara (UNESCO, 2019). However, the effectiveness of these alternative livelihood programmes has been questioned (Songorwa, 1999) even though some studies found positive outcomes (Mpanda et al., 2014; Roe et al., 2015). Moreover, with the relatively novel timelines in adopting progressive reforms such as the National Strategy for Gender Development passed in 2005, there are few studies examining the outcomes of livelihoods regarding rural women especially in a key area such as East Usambara.
Hence this paper attempts to answer the following research questions, “are the lives of women farmers in East Usambara better or worse after alternative livelihood programmes were introduced?” if not, how can their lives with regard to alternative livelihoods be improved?
The most popular livelihood programmes involving women in the East Usambara Biosphere Reserve (EUBR) are the Amani Butterfly Reserve Project (ABRP), agroforestry practices and agricultural diversification practices which include spice, livestock and poultry cultivation (See figure 1) (UNDP, 2012). The added income from these alternative livelihood holds economic significance. For example, the ABRP made sales of $90,000 for its members annually before 2016 (ARFW, 2021) — a crucial addition to income during years of drought and flood (Gaworek-Michalczenia et al., 2019. Also, cardamom sales generated $850 per year for 10,600 households (Mpanda et al., 2014).
After receiving financial and technical support from UNESCO in 2013 under a Community Based Natural Resources Management Programme (CBNRM) dubbed the ‘promotion of green businesses’, 45% of initial participants were women joining in the activities of mushroom farming, butterfly farming, spice farming, fish farming, beekeeping, and alternative charcoal production (Ko, 2019). This signals the readiness of women in EUBR to participate in livelihood programs. This is exemplified in a feasibility study that indicated that women lead most livelihood activities (72.7%) implying that they lead income generation in households.
Despite these added incomes, women face more challenges while participating in alternative livelihoods. For example, a majority of decisions in households-65% of those surveyed, are led by men (Ko, 2019) and within livelihood association groups, a similar narrative takes place (Scurrah-Ehrhart, 2006). This could be explained as the distribution of sales are shared unequally by men enjoying higher social and positional standing. Further limitations also arise from the fluctuating market demand for products such as spices and butterfly, restricting association groups from expanding (200264248, 2010). These limitations shall be explored further in this study.
This paper shall first provide an overview of the Sustainable Livelihood development framework as a pertinent academic theory in relation to women’s livelihood in East Usambara. Thereafter, we will define the methodology and analysis used. Next, results from the data analysis shall be presented and discussed. Finally, this study shall conclude on the findings from this research study and suggest areas for further study.
Sustainable Livelihood Development Framework
The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF) was developed by Scoones (1998) to relate sources of capital (human, social, economic and natural) with instituitions and organisations to enable individuals develop livelihood strategies to increase resilience whilst reducing vulnerability against stress and shocks. This definition is construed as falling short regarding its inability to highlight the significance of information in achieving sustainable livelihoods (Morse et al., 2009). The significance of information and how it flows through stakeholders are presented in the framework relating to this definition (see figure 2).
Variations of this framework highlight how critical the combination of resources and actors at different scales can impact benfits from livelihood. For example, Niehof (2001) focuses on household level security and resilience while Carney (1999) considers the levels of government and even the participation of private sector. The flexibility associated with employing the SLF is that organisations such as association groups can be considered. Furthermore, the SLF recognises the interconnections of relationships within such groups with capital resources that highlight strengths and weaknesses. For example, in allanblackia cultivation, acesss to which resources would create outcome of poverty reduction with less use of natural resources ?
200264248 (2010) inteprets the types of capital as:
Natural: Access to environmental services and natural resource stocks
Economic: Access to secure income which includes basic infrastructure and equipment.
Human: Access to skills, knowledge, and ability to labour.
Social: Access to relations, associations and networks.
Sustainable livelihood is inextricably linked to economic, social and environmental elements in a multidisciplinary chain that emphasises how livelihood is perceived (Niehof, 2001). Roe et al. (2015) provide a useful categorisation of alternative livelihoods, including occupation, methods, and resources. However, Niehof (2001) ascertains that gender-related context is better understood using the occupation and resources categories. In evaluating the relevance of methods in livelihoods, linkages between time spent, labour intensiveness and startup cost were highlighted, deferring per gender. These linkages shall be explored further in the following sections.
Regarding the sustainability of women’s livelihoods in East Usambara, this paper shall focus on socio-economic barriers, availability of resources and instutional barriers.
Methodology
This section documents the methods used for this project which was a desk-based study, gathering data from three primary sources.
Data collection
Data was gathered from multiple sources to fully harness available forms of data to arrive at a conclusion that could be defined as well informed (Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2003). Firstly, data was gathered from previous submissions by students of the Environment and Development module as the COVID-19 pandemic restricted travel for in-person data collection. Secondly, data was also sourced from recorded videos of East Usambara community members where pre-set questions were asked with follow-up questions in the instance by research assistants (RA). Thirdly, data was harnessed from empirical studies of livelihood programmes where respondents could be identified as women. Finally, twenty papers were sourced from relevant databases pertaining to their usefulness of context in their quantitative and qualitative form (See appendix). The selected papers were carried out using the keywords related to “East Usambara”, “livelihood”, and “wom*” within Google Scholar (GS) with 8,000 results. The data was further reviewed in their abstract and methodologies to ascertain the inclusion of women in their study, with at least 20% of participants being female. Based on this approach, 20 papers were shortlisted from the GS search between 1990 and 2021 based on their contextual relevance in presenting data on females in their data analysis.
Analysis
A deductive and manual thematic approach to analysis was employed to identify critical themes for analysis in a six-stage process by Nowell et al. (2017) due to the use of mixed data sources and time constraints. In addition, data types analysed were statistical, such as the number of female participants in a particular study and descriptive and explanatory data sets from qualitative interviews. The subsequent themes extracted were: women’s livelihood and barriers to livelihood diversification.
Limitations
Due to the inability to travel in person to the East Usambara mountains, data collection was fully deskbased and based on secondary data collected from previous studies. Hence, the challenge observed is the inability to design context-specific questions from semi-structured interviews to conduct a more focused study for data more relevant to this study (Mason, 2007), such as questions directed at females on whether they lead in their homes and estimates on income generation over the past five years. However, by combining data from the three identified sources cross-functional approach to livelihoods may be discussed, highlighting the institutional structural barriers, socio-economic challenges, and scarce livelihood resources. In this way, data triangulation may be achieved to provide interpretation with more depth (Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2003).
Results
Results are categorised by the three sources of data mentioned earlier.
Data from recorded interviews
In an interview of a female farmer participant, she states, “In Africa culture, women are not allowed to make decisions… the men are the ones who control everything”. This comment indicates an understanding of the restriction on women, although she debunks the intensity of restriction by adding that her husband does shopping for her sometimes. Her statements, which are in English, are commendable, considering statistics indicate few community members speak English (NRCO, 2008). Moreso, due to the isolated case of interviewing her as the sole female, it is cautious not to generalise her views and knowledge as that of the entire female community.
In an interview with an officer on the Amani Butterfly Reserve Project (ABRP), it is noteworthy that 35% of participants who were engaged with the ABRP were women. Furthermore, “women have equal membership access and make the same earnings” from their sales, underscoring the absence of gender bias pay gaps. The advantage of “butterfly farming is easier when you are farming” surmises that female farmers could easily transfer their agricultural crop rearing skills into the domain of butterfly farming if they choose to participate in the ABRP. But this is one livelihood programme which has been curtailed due to a blanket ban by the government on the export of live animals since 2016.
Data from the student papers
200984505 (2021) highlights a correlation between women who own their land and their number of children. The mean (2.25) and median number (2) of 4 women who own their land is lower compared to the six other women who do not own or co-own their land (mean=4, median=3.5). However, a dataset of 10 could be expanded to include more women to confirm the influence of ethnic groups, age and land ownership relating to childbearing.
In classifying the factors affecting opportunities in achieving livelihoods for women, 201103510 (2021) admits that interviews of four women respondents could be isolated. However, the themes of marriage and education are recurrent across several studies, suggesting it may become widespread (Mascarenhas, 2000; Engh, 2011). Within the work of 201103510 (2021), it is interpreted that marriage can be used as a tool to restrict the autonomy, decision making and, by extension, choice of livelihood as “if you have a chicken and someone want to buy, you cannot say unless your husband decides to sell”.
Data from online empirical studies
In the analysed twenty GS papers on East Usambara livelihood projects that include women, their categorisation by themes of livelihoods, several or mixed livelihoods, which has more than one major livelihood was studied by the papers as seen in Figure 3. This reaffirms the earlier notion that more than one livelihood is usually undertaken by every household (Gaworek-Michalczenia et al., 2022).
Figure 4 depicts data on the twenty GS papers, a survey was conducted using the keyword “distribution” in the context of resource distribution being mentioned to determine how resources for livelihood projects are disbursed. It was discovered that four papers made no mention, but the other fourteen did (two were excluded as they were more non-applicable contexts).
Similarly, “time” was keyed as a search to determine any discussions on time-consuming livelihood projects. Figure 5 shows that fifteen papers acknowledged in one way or another the significance of time relating to livelihood projects, most especially concerning women.
Discussion
Socio-economic Barriers
Across several livelihood frameworks, education and awareness regarding livelihood methods are significant in ensuring participation and increased income (Scoones, 1998; Niehof, 2001). 201103510 (2021) notes that although younger females attended formal education up to secondary school, the connection between progressive careers and higher education levels is yet to be connected amongst the female community. It remains to confirm whether formal education significantly contributes to increased income as there was inconclusive evidence to support this.
Alternative livelihoods practised in East Usambara do not require formal education but usually, a transferability of skills and some training, suggesting ease for women participating (Mpanda et al., 2014). There is corroborative evidence as 47% of women farmers participated in the Allanblackia project across 27 villages, and 55% of female farmers were involved in the ABRP (Mpanda et al., 2014). Cramer et al. argue that a limitation to increased income from livelihoods for women is the lack of an enabling environment, citing examples of improved participation outcomes and income when women worked with female agricultural extension officers in exclusive women-only groups (Rantala et al., 2012).
The relevance of Cramer’s argument is underscored by Engh’s (2011) study in East Usambara, which noted that some women participants refused to speak or reduced their engagement when were males present, establishing the idea that the limitations may exist. Engh (2011) also discovers that livelihoods facilitating socialisation amongst women may determine their participation or not. For example, several participants mentioned their reason for engaging in the butterfly and dairy farming livelihood was an opportunity to catch up on conversations with other women from the community and receive financial support from other women. This translates that women will support other women, performing better in their livelihood programme, mainly when a prominent female leader such as a female agricultural extension officer (Reyes, 2008; Gaworek-Michalczenia et al., 2022). However, a review of the livelihood programmes from the data collected could not shed much light on the operating conditions of separate women groups such as the informal groups of women making craft and jewellery to sell to tourists.
Availability of resources
Mascarenhas (2000, p.13) highlights the heterogeneity of resources within East Usambara. He stated that “ … Usambara is not a homogenous area, its environment and natural resources are diversified, and these differences can be critical even in small ways.”
He further implies that poverty is not homogenously distributed in the region. This was confirmed in a study by Reyes (2008) analysing the poorest communities in East Usambara. Hence, the availability of natural resources in supporting a livelihood programme may thrive in one place more than another. This may also influence the engagement of females who may not have necessary resources readily available within their immediate surroundings (Cramer et al., 2017).
Roe et al. (2015) discuss this phenomenon whereby time-consuming activities such as ecotourism warrant less time for other activities such as shifting cultivation and hunting. Although the discussion by Roe et al. (2015) is not gender-specific, Shoo and Songorwa’s (2013) analysis of a participatory engagement with female participants on household chores sheds light on how daily household chores consume much time and restricts women’s participation in certain activities. Stocking and Perkin (1992) also confirm this narrative with an example of several livelihood programs that failed due to their time consuming nature and a lack of technical know-how. Schmidt et al. (2019) also conclude that one of the constraints of farmers cultivating Allanblackia is the long wait of between 10 to 20 years.
Institutional barriers
Reyes (2008) highlights that the practice of dividing the land for children has contributed significantly to land fragmentation. However, this tradition enables women to own land passed on through inheritance. Nevertheless, the connection between female income and land ownership is one really of control — which can be inhibited through local policy and marriage (Rantala et al., 2012).
Policy regulations such as The National Forest Policy (1998), which activated the ‘Joint Forest Management’ (taking place on reserved land) and ‘Community Based Forest Management’ (taking place on village land where the village or individual farmers own the trees) have been criticised for its inadequate structure resulting in unclear, unequal and short term tenures and gender inequality through the establishment of male-dominated village committees (Rantala et al., 2012; Ng’ondya Rehema, 2015). As it stands, non-participating groups in landmark decisions like land tenure and management arrangements, such as women, have most often been penalised by the set laws through the exclusion of benefits (Gaworek-Michalczenia et al., 2022).
A study by Rehema (year) emphasises marriage and its affirmation as a means of respect for females. Married participants were 97.1 %, and 2.9% were divorced. The reference to the significance of marriage is upheld in the perceptions of women’s behaviour and thereby their ability to ineffective management by male counterparts.
Although women have been discovered to channel their incomes into their households, there is a perceived ceiling to how much a woman should be allowed to earn (Engh, 2011). Nevertheless, women with high income do exist (Gaworek-Michalczenia et al., 2019), and Mascarenhas (2000) discovers that women-led households where the matriarch earns more may be better off. This is indicative that in households where males led with women earning a high income, conflict may arise due to male counterparts perceiving females as a threat because of their higher-income according to traditional roles. Several papers corroborate this trend, although there are admittedly few women overall earning high incomes in the East Usambara area (Cramer et al., 2017; Powell et al., 2011; Rantala et al., 2012). However, the evidence of high-income female earners establishing livelihoods that enable their households to live above poverty lines indicates women’s potential if they are less restricted (Mascarenhas, 2000). This is despite facing more barriers than males with regards to land access, restricted autonomy and income (Ellis et al., 2007). The relevance of this potential to lift more households above poverty lines is Kiondo’s (1998) study which discovered that 30% rural women head their households in the Tanga region where EUBR is located.
Wider implications
The emphasis by Cramer et al. (2017), Engh (2011) and Reyes (2008) on the need to create womenspecific education and support services regarding alternative livelihoods highlight critical evidence of increasing income for women (World Bank, 1995). Cramer et al. (2017) explain that women’s exclusion occurs through their participation in local programmes that marginalise female participants through their lack of focus on representation.
Customising women’s needs in livelihood programmes can lead to increased household incomes. For example, livestock farming may be appealing to women because it requires less time, as noted by Engh (2011). However, high startup cost (the cost of a cow, for example) prevents many women from engaging in a livelihood. Even so, women may engage in a relatively time-consuming activity if the benefits include higher income and other advantages such as bonding time with other women. Based on data on women engaged in livelihood programmes versus those who had not, it was apparent that additional income was necessary for situations of economic stresses arising from droughts, such as poor produce and lower revenue (Gaworek-Michalczenia et al., 2022). The extent to this, however, should be explored.
This is because Brocklesby and Fisher (2003) highlight the problematic nature of the inability of community development to reflect the desired impact from livelihood diversification programmes. Roe et al. (2015) indicate that 70 out of 97 livelihood programmes were not measured at all, a matter they describe as the lack of or minimal post-project reporting. Gaworek-Michalczenia et al. (2022) also assert short time frames for monitoring as a possible reason why livelihoods are not closely assessed for their impact results.
Engh (2011) highlights that the women of East Usamabra propagate livelihood diversification programmes more effectively than men. Her findings reveal that, among 121 villagers, more women were willing to participate than men. In addition, OECD (2010) indicate that with an increase in income, 90% of women invest their increased income in their households than 35% income of men, indicating more distribution in income across household members. However, empirical studies on livelihood programmes suggest that women are sidelined or included as an afterthought (Mascarenhas, 2000). This could be the reason behind the struggle with achieving the desired impact after implementing livelihood programmes as the propagators, the women, are usually not focused on (Reyes, 2008).
Limitations
With all the above factors explored, the extent to which they impact or affect women’s livelihoods cannot be truly quantified.
First, it is recognised that for the empirical data, different frameworks were used. Even though all selected papers focused on communities within East Usambara, varying indicators and benchmarks were being used. Hence a comparison of specific metrics cannot be fully established.
Second, there are few studies specifically targeted at women, a phenomenon Shoo and Songorwa (2013) connect to using household registers for formal interviews. Household registers are usually registered in the name of males. However, Gaworek-Michalczenia et al. (2022) resolve this challenge by designing focus groups with at least 50% women exemplifying their focus on including women in their study.
This study is by no means an exhaustive analysis of the impact of livelihood programs on women. As Scoones’s (1998) framework shows, policy, history, climate, and agroecology are interconnected and influencing factors that were not considered as much as demography and social differentiation were. However, this analysis confirms the complexity and intersectional nature of themes such as time spent on livelihood programmes and the influence of gender on income and land ownership.
Conclusion
In sum, this paper reviews the available data to discern whether livelihood impacts are affecting women of East Usambara positively. Existing results indicate that there is an influence of existing barriers hindering income. However, to completely confirm the inhibitions and to what extent, it suggested a female-focused study be implemented and if expansion is to occur, the adherence to a singular framework for monitoring and evaluation to develop a more robust means of understanding how livelihoods can be used to uplift communities through their women.
References
200264248. 2010. A research paper aiming to understand how the Amani Butterfly Project affects the livelihoods of women in Amani. SOEE5495 Field Course Submission.
200984505. 2021. A gendered study of vulnerability in rural Tanzania: mothers’ perceptions of present and future vulnerabilities. SOE5499M Module submission.
201103510. 2021. The role of gender in influencing female livelihoods in Amani Nature Reserve. SOEE5499 Module submission.
Badstue, L., Farnworth, C.R., Umantseva, A., Kamanzi, A. and Roeven, L. 2020. Continuity and Change: Performing Gender in Rural Tanzania. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2020.1790534. 57(2), pp.1–16.
Brocklesby, M.A. and Fisher, E. 2003. Community development in sustainable livelihoods approaches-an introduction The rise of sustainable livelihoods approaches. Community Development Journal. 38, pp.185–198.
Carney, D. 1999. Approaches to Sustainable Livelihoods for the Rural Poor. ODI Poverty Briefing.
Cramer, L., Förch, W., Mutie, I. and Thornton, P.K. 2017. Connecting Women, Connecting Men: How Communities and Organizations Interact to Strengthen Adaptive Capacity and Food Security in the Face of Climate Change. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971852416639771. 20(2), pp.169–199.
Ellis, A., Blackden, M. and Cutura, J. 2007. Gender and Economic Growth in Tanzania Creating Opportunities for Women.
Engh, V. 2011. Integrated conservation and development projects and efforts around Amani Nature Reserve, Tanzania and their effects on livelihoods and forest conservation.[Online] Masters, Norwegian University of Life Sciences. Available from: http://www.umb.no/noragric.
FAO. 2011. The State of Food and Agriculture 2010–2011. Women in Agriculture: Closing the gender gap for development [Online]. [Accessed 18 April 2022]. Available from: https://www.fao.org/3/i2050e/i2050e01.pdf.
Gaworek-Michalczenia, M.F., Sallu, S.M., di Gregorio, M., Doggart, N. and Mbogo, J. 2022. Evaluating the impact of adaptation interventions on vulnerability and livelihood resilience. Climate and Development.
Hall, J.M., Gillespie, T.W. and Mwangoka, M. 2011. Comparison of agroforests and protected forests in the East Usambara Mountains, Tanzania. Environmental Management. 48(2), pp.237–247.
Hamilton, A.C. and Bensted-Smith, R. 1989. Forest conservation in the East Usambara mountains [Online]. ICUN. [Accessed 11 May 2022]. Available from: https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/FR-TF-016.pdf
Kiondo, E. 1998. Access to gender and development information by rural women in the Tanga region, Tanzania.[Online] University of Kwazulu-Natal. [Accessed 18 May 2022]. Available from: https://ukzn-dspace.ukzn.ac.za/handle/10413/4485.
Ko, M.S. 2019. Green Forest Businesses as a method to improve communities on UNESCO’s East Usambara biosphere Reserve in Tanzania. University of South Carolina.
Mascarenhas, A. 2000. Poverty, environment and livlihood along the gradients of the Usambaras in Tanzania. Mason, J. 2007. Qualitative Researching 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Morse, S.,
Mcnamara, N. and Acholo, M. 2009. Sustainable Livelihood Approach: A critical analysis of theory and practice. Sustainable Livelihood Approach: A critical analysis of theory and practice.
Mpanda, M., Munjuga, M., Reyes, T., Said, A., Rutatina, F., Kimaro, A. and van Noordwijk, M. 2014. Allanblackia, butterflies and cardamom: sustaining livelihoods alongside biodiversity conservation on the forest–agroforestry interface in the East Usambara Mountains, Tanzania. https://doi.org/10.1080/14728028.2014.895215. 23(1–2), pp.127–142.
Ng’ondya Rehema 2015. The role of butterfly farming as an economic incentive to forest conservation in the East Usambara mountain forests. Master, Morogoro: Sokoine University of Agriculture.
Niehof, A. 2001. Rural livelihood systems. Nowell, L.S., Norris, J.M., Deborah, E.W. and Moules, N.J. 2017. Thematic Analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. The International Journal of Qualitative Methods. 16(1).
Rantala, S., Bullock, R., Mbegu, M.A. and German, L.A. 2012. Community-Based Forest Management: What Scope for Conservation and Livelihood Co-Benefits? Experience from the East Usambara Mountains, Tanzania. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10549811.2012.725155. 31(8), pp.777–797.
Reyes, T. 2008. Agroforestry systems for sustainable livelihoods and improved land management in the East Usambara Mountains, Tanzania. [Online] Masters, University of Helsinki. [Accessed 12 May 2022]. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/47932140.
Rodgers, W.A. 1998. An introduction to the conservation of the Eastern Arc Mountains. . Journal of East African Natural History. 87, pp.7–18.
Roe, D., Booker, F., Day, M., Zhou, W., Allebone-Webb, S., Hill, N.A.O., Kumpel, N., Petrokofsky, G., Redford, K., Russell, D., Shepherd, G., Wright, J. and Sunderland, T.C.H. 2015. Are alternative livelihood projects effective at reducing local threats to specified elements of biodiversity and/or improving or maintaining the conservation status of those elements? Environmental Evidence. 4(1), pp.1–22.
Scoones, I. 1998. Sustainable rural livelihoods: a framework for analysis. Brighton. Scurrah-Ehrhart, C. and B.T. 2006. Amani Butterfly Forest-based Enterprise, Tanga, Tanzania
Sender, J. and Smith, S. 2012. Poverty, class, and gender in rural Africa: A Tanzanian case study. Poverty, Class, and Gender in Rural Africa: A Tanzanian Case Study. 96, pp.1–194.
Shoo, R.A. and Songorwa, A.N. 2013. Contribution of eco-tourism to nature conservation and improvement of livelihoods around Amani nature reserve, Tanzania. Journal of Ecotourism. 12(2), pp.75–89.
Songorwa, A.N. 1999. Community-Based Wildlife Management (CWM) in Tanzania: Are the Communities Interested? World Development. 27(12), pp.2061–2079.
Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. 2003. Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. London: Sage.
UNDP. 2012. Amani Nature Reserve, Tanzania. Equator Initiative Case Studies. New York. UNESCO. 2019. East Usambara Biosphere Reserve, Tanzania. [Accessed 18 May 2022]. Available from: https://en.unesco.org/biosphere/africa/east-usambara.
World Bank. 1995. Towards Gender Equality: The role of Public Policy.
Grade: 54
Word count: 4008
I cannot access or recall the lecturer’s exact comments but I believe she commented that I did not answer the question prompt. I agree that I did not pull my weight on this submission simply because I did not understand the question, thoroughly search for understanding and procrastinated on it. It was months after the paper submission that I sat down to reflect on how to analyse a framework against a practice. I admit I am not completely perfect in this at the moment but I have learnt some things now and strive to improve continously.