Abstract:
Forests and water are important Common Pool Resources (CPRs) in the Uluguru
Mountains (UMs). Water connects socio-economic groups of different altitudinal
zonation namely upstream and downstream with multiple uses and conflicting interests.
Researches have been done on ecosystem value, CPRs depletions and the role of socio-
economic incentives in biodiversity conservation but little is known about power
relations underlying upstream and downstream CPRs users. This study therefore, was
conducted with the objective of assessing power relations between upstream and
downstream CPR users and mapping winners and losers under prevailing management
regimes. The study was carried out in four villages, two in upstream (Ruvuma and Peko
Misegese) and the other two in the downstream (Mafisa and Mlali). Qualitative and
quantitative data were collected. Qualitative data were analyzed by means of content
analysis technique. Descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were employed to
analyze quantitative data. Social Network Analysis was used to analyse interactions of
stakeholders. Forty four stakeholders were identified that are involved in the management
and utilization of forest and water. The identified stakeholders fall into three categories
namely regulators, facilitators and users. The study further identified three types of
power: strategic, institutional and structural embedded in peoples’ livelihood in both
upstream and downstream. Strategic power was found to be dominant in the upstream
while institutional power was dominant in the downstream. The study revealed
conflictive power relation which created winners and losers, whereby upstream dwellers
were the winners. Also the study revealed the existence of resource use conflicts that
centred on power relations between upstream and downstream. Furthermore, the study
identified existing formal and informal conflict resolution mechanisms. The study
concludes that resource use conflicts in the Uluguru Mountains are consequence of poweriii
imbalance between upstream and downstream communities. The study recommends the
need of forming stakeholders’ platforms and improving institutional arrangements.
