Für neue Autoren:
kostenlos, einfach und schnell
Für bereits registrierte Autoren
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF ABREVIATIONS
1.1. REDD+: current state of affairs
1.1.1. Objective and evolution of REDD+
1.1.2. Readyness for REDD+
1.1.3. Current status and obstacles of REDD+ implementation
1.1.4. Tanzania REDD+ Initiatives: institutional structure and reporting
1.2. Forest management and status in Tanzania
1.2.1. Tanzania country facts
1.2.2. Forest policy, land use and management in Tanzania
1.2.3. Forest types in Tanzania
1.2.4. Problem statement and justification
2.1. General objective
2.2. Specific objectives
2.3. Research questions
3. MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1. Description of the study area
3.1.1. Geographical location
3.1.2. Climate, Soil and Geology
3.1.3. Fauna and flora
3.2. Research methodology
3.2.1. Household survey questionnaires
3.2.2. Focus group discussion
3.2.3. Interviews, field observations and literature review
3.3. Data analysis
4.1. Composition of household respondents in the study villages
4.2. Occupations and sources of income and energy of household respondents
4.3. Households’ awareness, perception and willingness (or readiness) for REDD+
4.4. Impact of REDD+ project on income, fuelwoods, charcoal and building materials of households in the study villages
4.5. Impact of REDD+ project on households’ annual crop production in the study villages .
4.6. Relationship between households’ income and crop production
5.1. Composition of household respondents in the study villages
5.2. Households’ occupation and main sources of income and energy
5.3. Households’ awareness, perception and willingness for REDD+
5.4. Impact of REDD+ project on households’ income, crop production, fuelwood, charcoal and building materials
6. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
6.2. Recommendations and Future perspectives
My appreciations are extended to individuals and organisation that offered direct or indirect assistance to this study. I would like to thank Vlaamse Interuniversitaire Raad University Development Cooperation (VLIR-OUS) of Flanders for funding my studies in Belgium. I thank all staff members in the Department of Human Ecology and the Faculty of Science and Bio-engineering Sciences at the Vrije Universteit Brussel for their assistance. I am also grateful to my research promoter, Prof. Robert De Wulf (Ghent University, Belgium) who has provided excellent instructions, guidance on data processing, comments during my research and editing of the final thesis. I thank the Mbeya University of Science and Technology (MUST), in Tanzania, for granting me a study leave.
I acknowledge the WCS staffs, especially Mr. H.J. Sauko and Miss F. Vick for their information concerning REDD+ project in Rungwe Forest Nature Reserve. I thank Mr. P.G. Chibwaye (a forest officer) and Mr. Edgar (a natural resources officer, Department of Agriculture and Livestock Development) in the Rungwe district for their sincere support. I recognize the important help of Mr. W. Matungwa for transport logistics, Mr. M. Baraka and Miss L. Leticia for assisting me during field works.
Special thanks go out to the people of Kibisi, Ilolo and Syukula villages for their participation in discussions and interviews; and for sharing with me their knowledge about REDD+ project and the Rungwe forest nature reserve. I sincerely thank all village leaders for preparing discussion groups. Last but not least, I express my gratitude to my parents and colleagues for their supports. Without your help, I would not make this thesis possible.
Figure1: REDD+ evolution under UNFCCC
Figure 2: Phase approach of REDD+ implementation
Figure 3: NGOs implementing REDD+ in Tanzania
Figure 4: Location of Tanzania in Africa
Figure 5: Study villages and project area
Figure 6: Main occupations of households in the study villages
Figure 7: Main sources of households’ income in the study villages
Figure 8: Awareness of household respondents about REDD+ in the study villages
Figure 9: Willingness of household respondents to support REDD+ project and its activities in the study villages
Figure 10: Perception of household respondents on the importance of REDD+ project for conservation and management of the RFNR and its biodiversity in the study villages
Figure 11: Opinions of household respondents about the present condition of RFNR under REDD+ project in studied villages
Figure 12: Box-and-Whisker plots of households’ annual income
Figure 13. Access to and use of forest products (fuelwoods, charcoal, timber and poles) by the household after REDD+ implementation in the studied
Figure 14: Annual crop production in study villages (Mean±SE)
Figure 15: Relationship between households’ annual income and crop production
Figure 16: Some of the uses of the natural resource in the study villages
Figure 17: Collection of fuelwood for heating and cooking in the study villages
Figure 18: Areas adjacent to the RFNR cleared for subsistence agriculture in the study villages
Figure 19: Community payment preferences in the Rungwe district
Table 1 Trends of forest and carbon stock 1990-2010 in Tanzania
Table 2 Land use categories in Tanzania mainland
Table 3 Sampling size of people featuring in this study
Table 4 Composition of household respondents by sex
Table 5 Composition of household respondents by age
Table 6 Composition of household respondents by education level
Table 7 Source of energy for heating and cooking in the study villages
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Forests play a significant role in the economic life of millions of people. A climate change mitigation policy in developing countries, Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+) is anticipated to affect the forest dependent communities because the strategies to achieve its objective inhibit their livelihood activities that enhance deforestation and forest degradation. This study was conducted to establish the impact of REDD+ on livelihood of local residents in Rungwe District, Tanzania. Data were collected through focus group discussions, interviews and questionnaires from three villages; Ilolo, Kibisi and Syukula. Households’ livelihood such as income, crop production, fuelwood and charcoal production were assessed. Their willingness to support REDD+ project, awareness and perception towards REDD+ were also evaluated. The results showed that crop production is a main households’ occupation which displayed a positive relationship with households’ income (r = 0.9277). The households’ annual income (p<0.05) and crop production (p<0.05) were higher after REDD+ implementation compared to the period before implementation. The older respondents (>40 years) considered REDD+ mechanism to be very important or important for forest conservation compared to a younger generation (<40 years) (p<0.05). Likewise, the older people strongly considered that wood forest products such as fuelwood, charcoal and building materials like timber and poles to be much reduced or reduced compared to the younger people (p<0.05). The households’ awareness about REDD+ is independent of age category (p>0.05) as well as gender (p>0.05). Willingness to support REDD+ mechanism did not differ between gender, and between older and younger people. Moreover, the result showed a decrease of slush and burn agriculture in the study villages. Hence, for REDD+ mechanism to mitigate climate change, forest dependent communities should be given alternative sources of livelihood and employment opportunities to improve their income and life condition. This can help to reduce deforestation and forest degradation.
Climate change is one of the prevailing global challenges to sustainable livelihoods and economic development which is driven by human pressure on natural resources (Bolin, 2010; Fearnside, 2000; Majule et al., 2013; TFCG, 2012b). Most of these activities or livelihoods developed by local and indigenous people as strategies for coping with poverty are linked to forest loss (Van der Werf et al., 2009). These human-based activities cause deforestation and forest degradation (DD) which, amongst others, lead to emissions of high levels of greenhouse gases (GHG) (Mukama et al., 2011; Mwakisunga et al., 2012). However, without these activities indigenous and local communities may remain in poverty (Cuéllar et al., 2013; Majule et al., 2009). Furthermore, forests provide habitats for fauna and flora, conserve carbon stock, as well as supplying valuable ecosystem services and goods to people (Fox et al., 2013; Mligo et al., 2011). It is estimated that, about 1.6 billion people in the world, often from very poor communities, depend on the forests for their livelihoods, such as food, fuelwood, income and or to provide land for expanding agriculture (FAO, 2012).
Africa has the highest net loss of forest following South America as described by FAO (2012). Its net loss is about 3.4 million hectares per year (FRA, 2010). East Africa has the highest deforestation rates in the continent, beyond 1% per year (FAO 2010). In Tanzania, deforestation is estimated between 130,000 and 500,000 hectares per year (URT, 2012). This is due to agricultural expansion, livestock grazing, wildfires, over-exploitation and unsustainable utilization of wood resources, and other human activities, mostly in the general or common lands (Casse et al., 2004; Koyunen and Yilmaz, 2009; UNFCCC, 2011). Tanzania is facing challenges to protect and conserve its forests sustainably due to the pressure imposed by human activities (URT, 2013a). In addition to those mentioned above, others include encroachment into reserved forests, shifting cultivation, illegal logging, mining, timber extraction and large scale biofuel agriculture production (Zahabu et al., 2009).
These challenges are also associated with corruption, lack of institutional capacity and financial resources to protect and collect data about the forests (Mustalahti et al., 2012). Nevertheless, Tanzania is trying to protect its forests representing a major sink for CO2 by implementing Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+) mechanism (Fisher et al., 2011; URT, 2010).
Though the Tanzania government is implementing the REDD+ mechanism, it has to guarantee sustainable development of local people whose livelihoods depend on forest resources and agriculture practices (Odgaard and Maganga, 2009). This is because the REDD+ mechanism reduces access to forest resources, such as charcoal production, fuelwood, poles and timber extraction; and farming practices, such as shifting cultivation, which involves clearing of forest for croplands (Cerbu et al., 2009; Mwakalobo et al., 2011). Hence, even if there are funds put in REDD+ projects as incentives to support the livelihoods of local people, still there would be an impact to local communities who perceive the forests as the sole source of their income and sustainable development (Gregersen et al., 2010).
As Brown (2013) points out, the present and future livelihoods of more than a billion forest- dependent people are potentially at stake under REDD+ if proponents get it wrong. This study aims to establish the existing impact of REDD+ mechanism on local people’s livelihoods in Rungwe district, Tanzania. This was done by comparing households’ annual income and crop production before and after REDD+ implementation using three study villages; Ilolo, Kibisi and Syukula. Their current awareness, perception and readiness towards REDD+ mechanism, as well as the availability of fuelwood, charcoal and building materials before and after implementation of REDD+ mechanism were also assessed.
The REDD+ mechanism is new and many projects have only been active since a few years.
However, the study can serve as the basis for future research to validate the impact of REDD+ projects on socioeconomic activities of local people in other REDD+ projects. Angelsen et al., (2012) and Lyster et al., (2013) suggest that since REDD+ policy is a continuous process, there is a need to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the global REDD+ mechanism. Sandker et al., (2010) on the other hand underline that although REDD+ is global in scope, its implications deserve investigation at local, regional and national level.
Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) is an international mechanism of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) which targets to reduce emissions from DD, increase climate resilience and improve local communities’ livelihoods in developing countries (Awono et al., 2013; Mayers et al., 2010; Skutsch et al., 2011; Spiric, 2009). It functions by creating financial incentives to encourage developing countries to reduce carbon emissions through forest conservation, enhancement of forest carbon stocks and sustainable management of forests (Caplow et al., 2011; Dutschke, 2013b; Huettner, 2012). It is the world’s largest payment for ecosystem service which gives carbon stored in the forest a financial value (Esteve, 2012; Lotsch, 2011; TFCG, 2012).
A number of developing countries are continuing with the implementation of REDD+ activities since 2008 (Rahlao et al., 2012). Countries that are effectively protecting their forests and enhancing carbon stocks would be entitled to receive results-based compensation of carbon payments built on the measurement and reporting of emissions (Isenberg and Potvin, 2010; Mkama et al., 2011). The REDD+ concept for developing countries was first proposed by Papua New Guinea and Costa Rica, supported by eight other Parties at the COP11session in Montreal, December 2005 (UNFCCC, 2011). After submitting a reducing
of emissions from deforestation (RED) proposal document to the UNFCCC, the idea was
adopted as an agenda item by the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) and followed by further discussions as shown in Figure 1 (UNFCCC, 2007).
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Figure1: REDD+ evolution under UNFCCC. Key:- AWGsLCA: Ad Hoc Working Groups on Long-term Cooperative Action, NAMA-DC: Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions for developing countries, IAER: International Assessment of Emissions and Removal, EFTCBS: Enhance Financial, Technological, and Capacity Building Support, AWGDPEA: Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action, GIREDD+: Guidance on Implementation of REDD+ activities, GFREL: Guidance on Forest Reference Emission level, CTCN: Climate Technology Centre and Network, DP: Durban Platform. Author's own work based on UNFCCCC, 2007..
Since the 1990s developing countries relied on domestic reductions of GHGs from forest activities limited only to afforestation and reforestation under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) (UNREDD+, 2012). A REDD+ was not accepted as a mechanism in the Marrakesh Accords when developing countries adopted the CDM as a mechanism of emission reductions (Mbow et al., 2012). The CDM is the mechanism to reduce emissions which was developed through the Kyoto Protocol (UNREDD+, 2012). And developing countries were voluntarily participating in efforts to reduce GHGs by getting financial support from developed countries (TFCG, 2012b). While developed countries agreed to offset emissions through energy and forest projects that mitigate CO2 from the atmosphere (Boyd, 2009; Grainger and Obsteiner, 2011). Reasons for excluding REDD+ in CDM are related to risk of leakage, non-permanence, additionality, difficulties in establishing baselines, monitoring and measurement of carbon (Brown, 2013; Peskett et al., 2008).
During the COP13 in Bali in 2007 (Bali Action Plan) for climate change negotiations, the REDD+ as a mechanism to keep global temperature rise below 20 C above pre-industrial levels was accepted (Huettner, 2012; Lyster et al., 2013). This came after realizing a large contribution of DD in GHGs, causing about one fifth of global GHGs emission (Mwakalobo et al., 2011), while global carbon emissions around 18-20% per year is caused by forest degradation alone (Dyngeland and Eriksson, 2011; URT, 2009). The REDD+ gain momentum and officially incorporated in the mechanism for reduction of emissions and replaces CDM following three negotiations, COP15 in Copenhagen, December 2009; COP16 in Cancun, December 2010; and COP17 in Durban, December 2011 (Kanninen et al., 2007).
The REDD+ formerly was conceived as Reducing Emissions from Deforestation (RED-with one D) at COP11 in Montreal (UNREDD+, 2012). The second ‘D’ was added in December 2007 (COP13 in Bali, Indonesia) to recognize the role of forest degradation, and became known as Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD) (Robinson et al., 2013). Then a ‘+’ was added to accommodate interests of developing countries and therefore became REDD+ or REDD-plus, implying that it goes beyond DD by covering the role of forests conservation, sustainable forests management and enhancement of forests carbon stocks, creating income generating opportunities for forest dependent people (Dyngeland and Eriksson, 2011), biodiversity conservation, strengthening indigenous rights, better governance, and reducing poverty in developing countries (Angelsen et al., 2012; Dutschke, 2013b). For simplicity, this thesis uses the current term REDD+ throughout.
The Bali Action Plan goal was built on emission reductions while considering policy approaches and incentives relating to issues of reducing emissions from DD, the role of conservation, including sustainable management of forests and enhancement of carbon stocks in developing countries (Cerbu et al., 2011; Lyster et al., 2013). The COP16 and COP17 progressed along the established procedures under the BAP (Figure 1). During the COP15, Copenhagen Accord, parties agreed on the need of resources and financial mobilisation from developed countries to support REDD+ initiatives (Esteve, 2012; UNFCCC, 2009). The developing countries in COP17 made a voluntary action to prepare and implement Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMA), the policies and actions that developing countries agree to take to reduce their GHG emissions under the Cancun agreements (Angelsen et al., 2012; Dahal and Banskota, 2009). The measurement of carbon, reporting and verification (MRV) is subjected to domestic and international MRV procedures with respect to guidelines developed under the Convention (Dyngeland and Eriksson, 2011; Mayers et al., 2010). COPs 16 and 17 encouraged developing countries to stop, reduce and reverse forest cover and carbon loss by reducing human pressure on forests by means of addressing the drivers of deforestation (Dutschke, 2013b) and issues related to land tenure, forest governance, gender and equal participation of stakeholders (Astri et al., 2014; Singh, 2013).
The REDD+ mechanism has a three phase approach of implementation (Decision 1/CP.16, paragraph 73) as summarised in Figure 2 (UNFCCC, 2011). However, at present no country is yet in phase III of results based actions, where verification is needed (Dutschke, 2013b). The REDD+ funds come from private, public, bilateral, and multilateral sources, including Big International NGOs (BINGOs) (Singh, 2013). REDD+ payment is either market-based or non-market based. Under the market-based system, a developing country trades its generated carbon credits from REDD+ on the international market, whereas a non-market based approach involves payments by developed to developing countries under a REDD+ project (UNFCCC, 2007)
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Figure 2: Phase approach of REDD+ implementation. Author's own work.
REDD+ readyness refers to preparation to get ready for REDD+ or prerequisites for being able to reduce DD (Mayers et al., 2010; Vatn and Vedeld, 2011). It includes activities and initiatives, accompanying capacity building to undertake and implement REDD+ projects. These activities comprise drafting national strategies for REDD+ in the form of Readyness Preparation Proposals (RPPs), experimental initiatives to test the mechanisms by which forest carbon payments can be made, national REDD+ management preparations (review and assessment of forest and land policy, land tenure issues), design and preparation of monitoring system (MRV); develop carbon reference scenario and REDD+ implementation framework (Dahal et al., 2011; Joseph et al., 2013). These activities are supported by the World Bank, UN-REDD+ and donor countries. The World Bank provides funds for REDD+ readyness and carbon, while the UN-REDD+ supports quick start activities (Bolin, 2010; Dkamela et al., 2009).
Currently, the REDD+ activities are in the second phase of implementation (Skutsch et al., 2011). The UNFCCC continues seeking funds from developed countries and BINGOs to make REDD+ work (Alexander, 2011). It is estimated that in order to halve the current tropical deforestation rate and support global efforts aimed to retain global temperature rise below 20 C by 2050 an annual investment ranging from US$17-33 billion, or US$22-38 billion is needed (Brown, 2013). Though the REDD+ projects are ongoing, there is no clear global agreement that promises significant long-term funding because developed countries have not agreed to create complementary domestic policies and international architecture to support and finance the forests in developing countries (Dutschke, 2013b; Goldfarb, 2012).
The REDD+ implementation in developing countries faces practically similar obstacles (Kilawe, 2010) including, inadequate technical capacity for forest assessments and implementation of the National Forest Inventory (NFI) programmes, management and MRV (Mayers et al., 2010; Singh, 2013). Weak law enforcement, undefined tenure of forest lands and general lands, and inadequate human resources in REDD+ countries are obstacles to implement REDD+ effectively (Astri et al., 2014; Joseph et al., 2013).
REDD+ activities require monitoring tools (remote sensing and GIS) for tracking of unlawful activities such as illegal charcoal production and logging. Absence of these tools makes REDD+ countries to rely on unreliable data for planning that would increase DD on the residual forest resources (Merger et al., 2012). For instance, Mbow et al., (2012) describe that, in Africa the technical and informational challenges are constraints to the success of REDD+ mechanism due to inadequate technical capacity to carry out the MRV systems and tools for measuring and monitoring vegetation cover changes.
Increased drought as a result of climate change has raised food demands in many developing countries and therefore induced a struggle for the natural resources. This situation has forced people to expand their land for agriculture, which in turn impose obstacles towards REDD+ projects (Richard et al., 2011). Moreover, Patel et al., (2013) claims that conflict over land and natural resources is pressing challenges to forest management and therefore REDD+ projects can trigger new conflicts or increase old ones. There are reports of conflicts between indigenous people and UN-REDD+ programmes in different REDD+ countries. For example, Cuéllar et al., (2013) describe a conflict in Panama, which has led to the postponement of REDD+ activities in the country as of March 2013.
Ensuring permanence and additionality of carbon stocks, preventing leakages, and setting appropriate baseline scenarios for assessment of DD are other obstacles (Peskett et al., 2008). Permanence refers to the length of time that carbon is stored in a carbon sink (forest) or the longevity of a carbon sink and its stocks stability (Lyster et al., 2013). Additionality is a determination or proof of whether a REDD+ would produce some extra good in the future relative to a reference scenario or baseline (Angelsen, 2008). The REDD+ projects need to define what its emissions would have been if the project was not implemented. These are baselines or reference emissions, and are used for calculating emission reductions (Lotsch, 2011). The REDD+ projects in one area should not displace the problem to other areas. For instance, while deforestation can be avoided in one place, the forest destroyers may change to other areas of forests or a country thereby reducing carbon stock. This incidence is called leakage (Murray, 2007).
Lack of transparency, equitable and corruption free benefit sharing, promoting community involvement in REDD+ projects, and managing incentives are obstacles to ensure REDD+ sustainability (Vatn and Vedeld, 2011). Skutsch et al., (2009) argue that developing countries are weak to enforce laws, ensuring transparency and avoiding corruption. For example, it was reported by Campese (2012) that in Tanzania an enormous amount of money was used in developing a national REDD+ strategy while the country’s indigenous communities had neither been informed nor invited to participate in the decision making process.
The market price of carbon being too low is regarded by Goldfarb (2012) as the main hindrance facing REDD+. And therefore REDD+ payments are often too small compared with the money local people could obtain from clearing forests and land to encourage them to conserve. The most critical part of REDD+ scheme is the compensation for the foregone opportunities and ensures REDD+ funds reach intended communities (Alexander, 2011; Ngendakumana et al., 2013). If the REDD+ funds end up in the wrong hands, these communities will neither receive compensations nor benefits from the REDD+ projects.
According to Mwakalobo et al., (2011), Tanzania is ranked the 12th among the countries with high rate of DD which produces a high amount of CO2 emissions per year through deforestation (77,903,442 tonnes) and forest degradation (48,492,402 tonnes). Together with other developing countries the Tanzania government is implementing international climate change regime (REDD+) that would reduce emissions from DD (Robinson et al., 2013). In Tanzania, this was initiated in April 2008 when Norway and Tanzania signed a Letter of Intent on a Climate Change Partnership to support REDD+ activities (Bofin et al., 2011).
The official launch of national REDD+ strategy in Tanzania was in November 2009 after signing the contract on 12 March 2009 between Norway and the Institute of Resources Assessment (IRA) at the University of Dar es Salaam (URT, 2009). The contract carried a grant of US$ 2 million over five years (Odgaard and Maganga, 2009). The initiative is also supported by the UN-REDD+ programme for capacity building and methodological development through MRVs (Bolin, 2010). The Tanzania REDD+ initiative aims to reduce human pressure and GHG emissions from the forestry sector and improve sustainable management of its forests (Fisher et al., 2011; Mwakalobo et al., 2011).
The National REDD+ Framework delineates the institutional, policy, legal, financial and cooperative arrangements required for REDD+ actions. It outlines the objectives of reducing emissions and poverty of forest dependent communities (URT, 2013a). The REDD+ activities in Tanzania are administered by nine NGOs (Figure 3). In Tanzania, environmental management issues such as climate change are coordinated by the Vice President’s Office in accordance with the Environmental Management Act, 2004 Section 15 and 75 (URT, 2013b). The Division of Environment coordinates all climate change issues, including adaptation, mitigation and REDD+ mechanism.
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Figure 3: NGOs implementing REDD+ in Tanzania (WCS, 2012). 11
The formed committees to oversee and guide the implementation of REDD+ projects include the National Climate Change Steering Committee (NCCSC) and the National Climate Change Technical Committee (NCCTC). Other organs are the National Carbon Monitoring Centre (NCMC) and the REDD+ Task Force (URT, 2012). The NCCSC contains Permanent Secretaries from the following Ministries, Prime Minister‘s Office (PMO), Ministry of Energy and Minerals (MEM), Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs (MFEA), Ministry of Industry, Trade and Cooperatives (MITC), Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism ( MNRT), Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs (MJC), Ministry of Lands, Housing and Settlements ( MLHS), Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security (MAFS), Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock Development (MFLD), Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation (MFIC), Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Environment Zanzibar (MALE) and society organizations and the private sector (URT, 2012).
The NCCSC handles all climate change activities and makes a decision for the national REDD+ scheme, it reports to the Vice President‘s Office. The NCCTC comprises Directors from several Ministries in the National Steering Committee (UTR, 2013a). Its main role is to administer all technical issues allied to the implementation of climate change activities including REDD+. The technical committee reports to the steering committee (URT, 2012).
The NCMC provides technical services on MRV of REDD+ across the country, and reports to NCCTC. All data and information concerning REDD+ are deposited here (URT, 2013b). A REDD+ Task Force oversees REDD+ implementation, operational issues as well as recognising challenges and opportunities, and addressing them at national and sub-national level. The National REDD+ Fund is responsible for distributing funds to different stakeholders (Robinson et al., 2013). It observes issues of transparency and accountability, the performance of past forest revenue management systems, benefit sharing and assess incentive schemes to provide lessons for REDD+ (Mustalahti et al., 2012; TFCG, 2011).
The United Republic of Tanzania (URT) comprises Tanzania Mainland and Zanzibar, and is located in the south of the Equator between 10 and 110 S and 290 and 400 E (NBS, 2011) (Figure 4). It is found in East Africa along the Indian Ocean neighbouring eight countries: Democratic Republic of Congo, Zambia, Burundi, Mozambique, Kenya, Uganda, Malawi and Rwanda (URT 2009a, and 2012). The country has a total area of 947,303 km², of which 61,500 km² is inland water (Dyngeland and Eriksson, 2011). The country’s highest point is Mt. Kilimanjaro at 5,895 meters, which is also the highest point in Africa while the lowest point in elevation is the Indian Ocean at sea level (URT, 2010). Based on 2012 population and housing census counts available at http://www.nbs.go.tz/, the population of Tanzania is about 44.8 million people.
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Figure 4: Location of Tanzania in Africa (Mligo et al., 2011).
Bachelorarbeit, 67 Seiten
Bachelorarbeit, 27 Seiten
Masterarbeit, 88 Seiten
Diplomarbeit, 150 Seiten
Masterarbeit, 105 Seiten
Magisterarbeit, 80 Seiten
Magisterarbeit, 80 Seiten
Der GRIN Verlag hat sich seit 1998 auf die Veröffentlichung akademischer eBooks und Bücher spezialisiert. Der GRIN Verlag steht damit als erstes Unternehmen für User Generated Quality Content. Die Verlagsseiten GRIN.com, Hausarbeiten.de und Diplomarbeiten24 bieten für Hochschullehrer, Absolventen und Studenten die ideale Plattform, wissenschaftliche Texte wie Hausarbeiten, Referate, Bachelorarbeiten, Masterarbeiten, Diplomarbeiten, Dissertationen und wissenschaftliche Aufsätze einem breiten Publikum zu präsentieren.
Kostenfreie Veröffentlichung: Hausarbeit, Bachelorarbeit, Diplomarbeit, Dissertation, Masterarbeit, Interpretation oder Referat jetzt veröffentlichen!